mujk Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2401 Posted January 20, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) OK, it seems a lot of people are banking on technology that does not exist --- a mechanical hybrid viewfinder. I'm still puzzled as to why some keep referring to the "limitations" of a rangefinder while disregarding it's "strengths." Would I like a hybrid viewfinder? Sure, as long as it does not hamper the size and weight of the camera, while maintaining the visibility of the current OVF. In other words, would I give up the M10's weight/size, it's 0.73 magnification and excellent eye relief for a half-hearted attempt at a hybrid EVF? Hell no. I've shot with a Fuji X-Pro2 before and the viewfinder was tiny with horrible eye relief. Both the OVF and EVF were subpar. A product of compromise. You can never have the best of both world's. I shoot 95% of my photos using a 28-90mm lens. I would not sacrifice the "strengths" of a rangefinder for the remaining 5% that I'd maybe prefer a digital representation of my subject. In fact, I'd probably be on a tripod or be shooting from the hip, so I'd prefer a swivel LCD over an EVF for those instances. I think it could be quite complicated to combine an optical/mechanical rangefinder with an EVF. It would be quite different from combining the EVF with just the optical viewfinder and also maybe hard to fit the combonation into an M body. But if the rangefinder would be electronic, e.g. putting a small sensor in the rangefinder window and projecting the rangefinder patch into the viewfinder using an LCD? Of course the cam follower has to be mechanical and the rangefinder sensor may need to be rotated when focusing (if not wide-angled enough), but otherwise the rangefinder part could be fully electronic. Maybe someone already patented this? markus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 Hi mujk, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2402 Posted January 20, 2017 ... Maybe someone already patented this?... Leica did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2403 Posted January 20, 2017 Currently i'm swinging from "I'm selling all my M lenses" to "I'm buying an M10 now" What made you swing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2404 Posted January 20, 2017 I'm no fundamentalist I just take photographs and and hybrid OVF would allow for classic rangefinder photography while the EVF would make a lot of sense for all lenses wider than 28mm and over 75mm. I really can't see the problem and it would only make for a better more compact camera. When I had my early M's I used the frankenfinder and with the M240 and I had the Olympus EVF and both were a pain having to take on and off and just added to the size Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2405 Posted January 20, 2017 What made you swing? I believe he's unhappy with the omission of USB connectivity and tethering for his studio work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
matlep Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2406 Posted January 20, 2017 I believe he's unhappy with the omission of USB connectivity and tethering for his studio work. Yes. I got the impression of that that was the reason he was going to sell all his M lenses. But now he has swinged to that is buying the M10. Curious of why the swing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2407 Posted January 20, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm no fundamentalist I just take photographs and and hybrid OVF would allow for classic rangefinder photography while the EVF would make a lot of sense for all lenses wider than 28mm and over 75mm. I really can't see the problem and it would only make for a better more compact camera. When I had my early M's I used the frankenfinder and with the M240 and I had the Olympus EVF and both were a pain having to take on and off and just added to the size The problem is that the technology does not exist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2408 Posted January 20, 2017 Best of both worlds. I liked this Leica's idea. Best rangefinder, the M240 did it and the M10 does it again. Best EVF will be for the M11 or when the cows come home... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2409 Posted January 20, 2017 The problem is that the technology does not exist. I never said it did but once upon a time Leica said a FF sensor Leica M wasn't possible and now look where we are Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2410 Posted January 20, 2017 I'm no fundamentalist I just take photographs and and hybrid OVF would allow for classic rangefinder photography while the EVF would make a lot of sense for all lenses wider than 28mm and over 75mm. I really can't see the problem and it would only make for a better more compact camera. When I had my early M's I used the frankenfinder and with the M240 and I had the Olympus EVF and both were a pain having to take on and off and just added to the size I never said it did but once upon a time Leica said a FF sensor Leica M wasn't possible and now look where we are As I understand it a lot of work went into the concept of a hybrid with a proper mechanical rangefinder and as far as I remember it there were two main problems 1. that it was impossible to get the EVF there without compromising the OVF 2. that any sort of overlay (like the Fuji has) relies very strongly on accurate focusing distance analysis together with aperture etc which the lens sends to the camera . . . . . but M lenses can't send this information meaning that it would be impossible to get things like focus confirmation to work well. The implication being that spending a huge amount on R&D for something which was going to compromise the Rangefinder and produce a result not as good as the Fuji wasn't a grand idea! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2411 Posted January 20, 2017 I think it could be quite complicated to combine an optical/mechanical rangefinder with an EVF. I think that you are right. Its like a 'head up display' - simple enough to imagine/design roughly/possibly even patent, but rather more difficult to put into practice. And then there's the size factor ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2412 Posted January 20, 2017 You can not deliver a 24MP raw file over wifi. You can not use a damn iPhone on a shoot! Of course not. You use an iPad Pro to display images on, not that little phone screen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eujin Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2413 Posted January 20, 2017 As I understand it a lot of work went into the concept of a hybrid with a proper mechanical rangefinder and as far as I remember it there were two main problems 1. that it was impossible to get the EVF there without compromising the OVF 2. that any sort of overlay (like the Fuji has) relies very strongly on accurate focusing distance analysis together with aperture etc which the lens sends to the camera . . . . . but M lenses can't send this information meaning that it would be impossible to get things like focus confirmation to work well. The implication being that spending a huge amount on R&D for something which was going to compromise the Rangefinder and produce a result not as good as the Fuji wasn't a grand idea! This. Jono, thanks for contributing this nugget. It's the best explanation I've seen yet for why a hybrid OVF/EVF couldn't be done for the camera. I don't even think the Fuji implementation is that good. The hybrid is undoubtedly cool and I'm a huge fan of Fuji in general, but the OVF in the X-Pro bodies can be quite inaccurate (to the extent that I found myself using EVF most of the time). And that's with native Fuji glass that transmits lens info. I can just imagine the debacle that would ensue if Leica gave us a hybrid EVF/OVF worse than that. Yikes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2414 Posted January 20, 2017 As I understand it a lot of work went into the concept of a hybrid with a proper mechanical rangefinder and as far as I remember it there were two main problems 1. that it was impossible to get the EVF there without compromising the OVF 2. that any sort of overlay (like the Fuji has) relies very strongly on accurate focusing distance analysis together with aperture etc which the lens sends to the camera . . . . . but M lenses can't send this information meaning that it would be impossible to get things like focus confirmation to work well. The implication being that spending a huge amount on R&D for something which was going to compromise the Rangefinder and produce a result not as good as the Fuji wasn't a grand idea! Thanks for this helpful explanation Jono. Theoretically, then, it might be possible to have a hybrid viewfinder in a Q or SL-based body. There may not be the demand, and there may be any number of technical and economic drawbacks, but it's interesting to ponder on the possibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2415 Posted January 20, 2017 My M10 just arrived and I have to say, the build quality is outstanding. Leica has really succeeded in making the best digital M ever. It looks like they have addressed every single issue I had with the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2416 Posted January 20, 2017 As I understand it a lot of work went into the concept of a hybrid with a proper mechanical rangefinder and as far as I remember it there were two main problems 1. that it was impossible to get the EVF there without compromising the OVF 2. that any sort of overlay (like the Fuji has) relies very strongly on accurate focusing distance analysis together with aperture etc which the lens sends to the camera . . . . . but M lenses can't send this information meaning that it would be impossible to get things like focus confirmation to work well. The implication being that spending a huge amount on R&D for something which was going to compromise the Rangefinder and produce a result not as good as the Fuji wasn't a grand idea! Thanks Jono for the insight Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2417 Posted January 20, 2017 ... I'm right up for Leica making a camera with a shape like an M which has a hybrid viewfinder - or indeed an EVF, but I won't buy one (because I don't want one - I'll use the SL). I simply don't understand why people want to take away the rangefinder from those of us who truly like shooting with one - fortunately I trust Leica not to do this. . . I guess in your terms I'm a fundamentalist - I'd love to see your camera . . . but it won't be an M, so why should it be called one? Added to which they'd be completely bonkers to give it an M mount when it could have an L mount (and double as an AF camera). I suspect I'm a fundamentalist too - I like the SL, and I only use my M cameras between 28-90, and I don't have an M camera capable of taking any EVF. But the logic of this (and other statements) baffles me. We love the OVF, but let's be honest - it's a long way from perfect. When using it, we have to accept: - calibration inaccuracy that goes with the focussing mechanism being separate from what comes through the lens. I've only been using M cameras for the last 8 years, but have had to have a surprising number of cameras and lenses recalibrated - seeing outside the frame lines on 50mm and longer lenses is nice (not realistic on 35 & 28 mm), but the inaccuracy of the frame lines at those mid and longer focal lengths becomes an issue - the ratio of the size of the focal patch to focal length is inversely proportional to its importance! With wides, a relatively small part of the image is taken with the patch, yet wides have inherently greater depth of field. Conversely, with the 90, focus is way more critical, depth of field shallower yet the patch occupies a far greater proportion of the image; hopeless on the 135 if focus is critical - fixed patch and meter in the centre of the image These are inherent in the coupled rangefinder, and we accept them for the benefits the system brings. I'd say on film, most of these didn't matter quite so much, provided you didn't want long telephotos, zooms or macros. But, in the digital age, things are quite different. The lenses have finer tolerances and pixel peeping the norm. Imagine a 50MP sensor on an M10 without an EVF with suitable resolution. It think it would be more than a bit hit and miss. So, for me, the M camera is limited. I think this is a shame, considering the quality of the lenses, and quality of the system and its size and usability. I can use my SL (and I do), but it's bigger and it's an AF camera (primarily). Not huge drawbacks, but it isn't an M. Turning to Jono's other points: - I agree on a hybrid - I think it would be a mess and would potentially spoil the OVF - I don't understand at all why offering an M variant with a built in EVF would "take away" the OVF. Why is that? The M-D and Monochrom didnt take away the LCD or colour from the M10. An EVF only version of the M10 need have no impact on the standard M10; if anything it might draw more people to the M system - I'd hazard that having 8 variants of the M camera has increased sales over the days when there were less options - why "call such a camera an M"? Because it has an M mount and is therefore for M lenses only. Leica understands limiting its cameras - it has made a market all for itself with a less is more approach. Sure, technically an L mount might make more sense, but then it opens the door to AF, and video ... taking us back in a circle. There is a good reason the M10 offers less than the M(240), rather than better video, more MP, tethering, a better processor etc etc Why bother? The OVF based M10 looks fantastic, and for the occasional need we have the EVF or the SL. This is true, and it's where I've come to. I'm seriously looking at selling all my M cameras, but for the Monochrom and using that with the SL. A perfect pair. Why? Well, as much as I like the M10 (I think it's close to perfect), it's a dead end. Future M's will "just" be iterative improvements. I just think an EVF version of the M mount would be faithful to the M concept (provided the EVF was built in and at least of the quality of that in the SL), could have the clarity of conception of the M10, and would remove the limitations listed above. Those limitations do hold the camera back - in a nice way, but I don't see virtue in most of them. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skanga Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2418 Posted January 20, 2017 I simply don't understand why people want to take away the rangefinder from those of us who truly like shooting with one - fortunately I trust Leica not to do this. . . I completely agree with Jono, and would like to add, there are so many great cameras available that do amazing things. Leave the Leica M alone, and try to maintain it's minimalism/simplicity or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't have to have all the latest features just because they are are available (see above: "there are so many great cameras..."). There are few things I know about well: shooting in different situations and with different cameras, and what it's like to shoot with Leica M cameras (and their limitations) since 1980. As we all know: they're small, fast, discreet and best suited for shorter focal lengths. One can be blazing fast with a Leica M, and as I have said before, I've only missed a shot when I have not been prepared (and this is with 2 cameras, one with K64 and the other with 400b/w film, now we can have one camera and high iso's!). However, there are photographers who do require video, electronic viewfinders, autofocus etc. Get one of the fantastic cameras out there that can give you what you need. Leica has even given it a shot with their other products. My advice and hope for Leica is that they keep improving the important things on the M: 1) reliability 2) the quality of the images produced by the sensor, and only increase mp if that won't affect image quality & speed, 3) speed (startup, and writing to card). Not much else I can think of - just keep improving the important things and don't make it a frankencamera. Over 10 years ago, in the early days of consumer digital cameras, I thought of my M2, and said "Just do that as a digital camera" It looks like they have more or less done it. My 2 cents. Thanks, Sam Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2419 Posted January 20, 2017 Maybe - I have never used a Fuji hybrid, but I suspect a hybrid would lose some of the simplicity/clarity of the simple OVF/RF. I haven't used one either. My understanding is that the Fuji cameras are not rangefinders, but are "rangefinder-style" cameras: they offer a similar form factor, and provide a simulated electronic rangefinder-like focusing method where that option is selected. So a true, OVF-EVF-rangefinder does not yet exist in any camera that I am aware. The Leica patent was for such a true hybrid: an optical viewfinder with electronically displayed true rangefinder patch, plus a mode to switch to EVF-TTL. As an aside, such a hybrid would also allow for live parallax correction for the specific focal length fitted, so the frame lines in tradition OVF mode would probably also be more accurate. Like all changes to the M, the challenging aspect of implementation would be how to offer the change without disturbing the camera's elegant simplicity. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 20, 2017 Share #2420 Posted January 20, 2017 But if the rangefinder would be electronic, e.g. putting a small sensor in the rangefinder window and projecting the rangefinder patch into the viewfinder using an LCD? Of course the cam follower has to be mechanical and the rangefinder sensor may need to be rotated when focusing (if not wide-angled enough), but otherwise the rangefinder part could be fully electronic. Maybe someone already patented this? markus Yes, Leica patented that concept in 2015. (But perhaps your question was rhetorical!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.