Leica M 10

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

zlatkob, I don't want to side-track this thread too much so this will be my last post on the X-Pro 2.

 

Bottom line is that for autofocus, TTL (DSLR or EVF) is better suited than a rangefinder window. For manual focus, a rangefinder (a true mechanical one) is faster and an EVF is more accurate. (for critical focus) So where does that leave the OVF of a X-Pro 2, which by all accounts is more of an autofocus camera than a manual focus one? Useless, really. I own a X-T2 now and owned a X-T1, X-E2, and X-Pro1 in the past. I'm on Fuji forums quite regularly and I've read countless posts confirming that most users end up using the EVF only. (admittedly, there are a few, like yourself perhaps, that also use the OVF regularly) While the hybrid VF is a brilliant idea, it's really a poor implementation as a system. Fuji should make all their lenses with linear focus throws if they're serious about the rangefinder experience. Well that's my opinion. You're free to have your's.

 

 

Well, most photographers choose not to use rangefinder cameras but that really doesn't mean there's no place for them.

 

Perhaps it's not surprising that Leica users like zlattkob and I do use the Fuji's OVF as well as the EVF.  And I would expect a camera at 1/4 the cost of the Leica M , and with many extra features, and which combines an EVF with it's OVF, to be less effective than the Leica in the one area the Leica specialises in, and sacrifices almost everything else for.  If the Fuji wasn't slightly inferior (it certainly doesn't suck) in the viewfinder department, there'd be something dramatically wrong wouldn't there? 

 

But concentrating on Leica, any perceived deficiencies in Fuji's implementation of a hybrid viewfinder shouldn't be used as an argument against the idea of one in a Leica should it?

[LocalHero1953]

That already happens in the M240 doesn't it?

 

Otherwise how would the EVF know to automatically magnify the focus area (if set to do so) as soon as I adjust the focussing on the lens?

Yes, but I assume that in the M240 it is a electro-mechanical detection of movement of the rangefinder mechanism in the body. In a hypothetical EVF-L, there would be nothing to be moved in the body, so the magnification would have to be triggered by something else that detected movement of the lens focusing barrel. It doesn't need to be calibrated, just something that detected focusing activity. I wasn't trying to design an EVF-L, just point out that it wouldn't be difficult for an M lens to trigger focus magnification in  an EVF-L!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jpattison]

Time to close this thread.

 

Really.

 

John

[wattsy]

Why?

[imants]

Why?

 He's probably not interested in the thread

[ramarren]

...

The M10 is a rangefinder camera with that very expensive opto-mechanical range- and view-finder assembly taking priority in the camera design and manufacturing cost picture. The EVF is an addition to handle edge case needs, not the primary system, so the camera is simply not optimized for the kind of video performance that the SL is.

 

 

So one second blackout time after each shot is normal on a Leica M camera if i understand well. Is this what you mean? If so, the M240 will be definitely my last digital M.

 

 

If you're buying a Leica M with EVF performance as a priority specification, you're choosing the wrong camera. Go for the Leica SL if you want an EVF as your primary finder, and get much faster performance everywhere. 

 

A one second blackout time after each shot when using the EVF is normal on a Leica M/M-P typ 240 and MM typ 246. Those are the ONLY Leica M cameras that support an EVF prior to the new Leica M10. According to Jono's report (never mind a couple others that have surfaced), the M10 blackout is about a third of what it is on the M typ 240/246 series cameras. In other words, it has been observed by credible reporters with access to the camera that the M10 performs substantially faster than the M typ 240 when used with the EVF. 

 

I can't verify that since I don't have access to an M10. But if you prefer to stick with the M240 despite the M10 being faster, go right ahead and stick with the M240.

Edited January 22, 2017 by ramarren

[Bill Livingston]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but I assume that in the M240 it is a electro-mechanical detection of movement of the rangefinder mechanism in the body. In a hypothetical EVF-L, there would be nothing to be moved in the body, so the magnification would have to be triggered by something else that detected movement of the lens focusing barrel. It doesn't need to be calibrated, just something that detected focusing activity. I wasn't trying to design an EVF-L, just point out that it wouldn't be difficult for an M lens to trigger focus magnification in  an EVF-L!

 

 

 

In other words... it needs to work in exactly the same way as it does on the Leica SL... I presume when the SL is used with M lenses, it works as expected?

[Bill Livingston]

If you're buying a Leica M with EVF performance as a priority specification, you're choosing the wrong camera. Go for the Leica SL if you want an EVF as your primary finder, and get much faster performance everywhere. 

 

A one second blackout time after each shot when using the EVF is normal on a Leica M/M-P typ 240 and MM typ 246. Those are the ONLY Leica M cameras that support an EVF prior to the new Leica M10. According to Jono's report (never mind a couple others that have surfaced), the M10 blackout is about a third of what it is on the M typ 240/246 series cameras. In other words, it has been observed by credible reporters with access to the camera that the M10 performs substantially faster than the M typ 240 when used with the EVF. 

 

I can't verify that since I don't have access to an M10. But if you prefer to stick with the M240 despite the M10 being faster, go right ahead and stick with the M240.

 

 

 

I understand what you are saying... but don't think of Leica M when thinking of an M-EVF, and worrying about blackout and so on...think of it working precisely the same way as an SL when its being used with M lenses. 

 

The only difference should be the body shape and control layout... 

[Mr.Q]

With all this EVF talk sometimes I wonder if I'm in the wrong forum. Like mentioned already, if the EVF is a priority get a different camera.

[Bill Livingston]

There already is an EVF for the Leica M... and who mentioned 'priority'?

[ramarren]

I understand what you are saying... but don't think of Leica M when thinking of an M-EVF, and worrying about blackout and so on...think of it working precisely the same way as an SL when its being used with M lenses. 

 

The only difference should be the body shape and control layout...

 

That would imply a completely different design and electronics ... it would have to have both cameras integrated together. Certainly possible, but likely not in the M form factor and at a much higher price. It would take more electronics and, as far as I can see, both the M and the SL have extremely little wasted space in them as it is.

[Mr.Q]

There already is an EVF for the Leica M... and who mentioned 'priority'?

Well it certainly seems like it, given how much reference there is regarding the EVF. Improvements to the rangefinder should be the priority to a Leica M user, not some blackout of a clip-on accessory.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Mr.Q

[digitalfx]

Well it certainly seems like it, given how much reference there is regarding the EVF. Improvements to the rangefinder should be the priority to a Leica M user, not some blackout of a clip-on accessory.

 

 

Why do we all have to have the same priorities?

The EVF is a a great option, that adds significant value to the M system...it allows us to use lenses that would otherwise not function on the M, and gives us an option for situations that are difficult or impossible to focus in without the EVF. Personally I use the M for its RF...but for those times when a RF isn't the best solution, an EVF is priceless.

 

If you have no need for it, then just ignore the comments. 

Edited January 23, 2017 by digitalfx

[otto.f]

Why?

Because people are repeating themselves again and again

[Mr.Q]

Why do we all have to have the same priorities?

 

We don't but.... 

 

Because people are repeating themselves again and again

The camera and accessories are on sale already. They aren't going to change so it's like beating a dead horse at this point. People are going to have to deal with it or get a different camera.

[scott kirkpatrick]

There already is an EVF for the Leica M... and who mentioned 'priority'?

 

It's still a factor for those of us who have almost moved to the SL but want something handier for unobtrusive shooting with exotic lenses that require focus with peaking or magnification.  The 240 can only use the VF2 level of viewfinder, and its blackout is indeed endless.  But I have gotten it to work for me.  The VF4 level of viewer (seen on Olympus M1, M5, etc) is much better, but I recently got my M5.2 out for a video job and realized how much inferior to the SL its live view system is.  So if the refresh rate and viewfinder quality of the T-generation viewer approaches the SL, that is a strong argument in favor of the M10, at least for me.  However, the primary reason to move up would be the stronger sensor and fuller optical view -- supporting the main purpose of an M.

 

scott

[Bill Livingston]

That would imply a completely different design and electronics ... it would have to have both cameras integrated together. Certainly possible, but likely not in the M form factor and at a much higher price. It would take more electronics and, as far as I can see, both the M and the SL have extremely little wasted space in them as it is.

No it wouldn't... without the mechanical/optical rangefinder there is a massive amount of space that can be used, far more than is necessary... which is why I have always thought of two M bodies... an EVF M and an OVF M... as I have said before, some customers would by one, some the other and some, like me, would buy both.

[Bill Livingston]

We don't but....

 

 

 

The camera and accessories are on sale already. They aren't going to change so it's like beating a dead horse at this point. People are going to have to deal with it or get a different camera.

We are no longer discussing the M10... the subject has moved on. And the only reason some of us are repeating ourselves is to correct the incorrect or inaccurate assumptions that people are making who have clearly not been following the conversation particularly closely and are only now joining in.

 

Those of us who are clear in what we have been discussing as a potential future option are not, and never have, seen an EVF M option as a replacement for the current OVF M... but as an additional option to the M range of camera bodies... If people 'got' that point alone, there would be close to 90% less repetition

Edited January 23, 2017 by Bill Livingston

[Distagon]

With all this EVF talk sometimes I wonder if I'm in the wrong forum. Like mentioned already, if the EVF is a priority get a different camera.

If it isn't a priority, why bother designing it into the M system at all?

Clearly, it is a priority.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Distagon]

The camera and accessories are on sale already. They aren't going to change so it's like beating a dead horse at this point. People are going to have to deal with it or get a different camera.

Or perhaps fix in firmware.

Don't know how much could be achieved there.