cirke Posted January 2, 2017 Share #701 Posted January 2, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I find always virtual better because you see already an image a transformation and it is even better if you like black and white iPhone with Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 2, 2017 Posted January 2, 2017 Hi cirke, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LocalHero1953 Posted January 2, 2017 Share #702 Posted January 2, 2017 OVFs are just optical. Nothing to do with mini TV sets like EVFs. Real vs virtual, matter of tastes as usual. When I bought the SEM 21 recently, I also researched, looked for and bought a used copy of the supposedly optically best add-on Leica 21 mm viewfinder (I can't remember the model no. offhand). It has far more distortion, tunnel vision and lack of clarity than even the current add-on EVF. I continue to use the OVF because the EVF can't handle movement or low light, and because of the delay and noise of shooting with LV. For me it's a poor experience either way - it's almost better to use the built in OVF and make a guess at framing. Give me a mini TV set over a Christmas cracker telescope any day . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 2, 2017 Share #703 Posted January 2, 2017 You should get a Zeiss one. Far better than any Leica one, and any EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 2, 2017 Share #704 Posted January 2, 2017 I take your point about growing to enjoy the use, but they really are a clunky solution to work around the inherent limitations of the viewfinder-rangefinder. Given time (I first used one in 1980) you learn to appreciate their qualities . From my point of view they allow viable seeing beyond the frame - which nothing else does - and no, a the screen on the back of a camera doesn't work for this at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distagon Posted January 2, 2017 Share #705 Posted January 2, 2017 ... and no, a the screen on the back of a camera doesn't work for this at all. I must be doing something wrong then when I use it for that purpose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 2, 2017 Share #706 Posted January 2, 2017 You just like TTL cameras. Nothing to be ashamed of but the M w/o Visoflex is perhaps not for you. Did you try Fuji cameras? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #707 Posted January 2, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) You just like TTL cameras. Nothing to be ashamed of but the M w/o Visoflex is perhaps not for you. Did you try Fuji cameras? What a lot of people want is an SL in an M body shell to complement the rest of their M system. That seems perfectly reasonable to me and doesn't deserve any sneering comments or suggestions to use another manufacturers products. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 2, 2017 Share #708 Posted January 2, 2017 Frankly i struggle to recognize what is reasonable or not in this thread, nothing personal Bill. I would be interested in a compact SL personally. It could replace my Sony A7s mod eventually. But this product does not exist at Leica's so far so my best advice to people preferring TTL cameras is to wait for such a camera, to try an SL, to try my Sony or my even smaller Fuji but M cameras they are not and they will never be hopefully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #709 Posted January 2, 2017 I think people need to let go of the fact the M is a 'rangefinder' if Leica are going to develop that body shape and add flexibility while maintaining the utter simplicity and control that the M body layout gives. If you just let go of that outdated notion, then your Fuji or Sony or whatever COULD have been a Leica in an M style body... which I sure you would have owned by now had it been available. Same haptics, same look, same familiarity... why deny yourself that with some outdated loyalty to a supposed original meaning... which could be disputed anyway. The Leica rangefinder camera appeared some twenty years before the first M. The M range heralded the M mount and the first bayonet mounted lens range from Leica... The 'M' had nothing to do with rangefinder... just marketing crap picked up since that everyone seems to believe. Its not as if it would mean the end of the optical rangefinder anyway... the two could very happily sit side by side in the range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted January 2, 2017 Share #710 Posted January 2, 2017 When I see the spec of the rumored M10 I have the feeling that M is no longer a priority for Leica Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted January 2, 2017 Share #711 Posted January 2, 2017 ... The 'M' had nothing to do with rangefinder... No, but it had everything to do with the Messucher, hence the name they gave to the system, "M". It does not derive from the movie "M - eine Stadt sucht einen Mörder". A Messsucher is more than just a rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 2, 2017 Share #712 Posted January 2, 2017 ... suggestions to use another manufacturers products. It seems perfectly reasonable and honest as the product you all crave for does not exist ! ... fo now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #713 Posted January 2, 2017 No, but it had everything to do with the Messucher, hence the name they gave to the system, "M". It does not derive from the movie "M - eine Stadt sucht einen Mörder". A Messsucher is more than just a rangefinder. No it didn't Pop... otherwise the Leica II or Leica III would have been referred to as Messsucher. And if it means more than simply the direct translation... what does it mean and where did you reference it? They gave the mount name M because it was going on a rangefinder camera... and even that is just conjecture... Unfortunately, if enough people re-write history, enough people believe it... a case of repetition being the thief of truth. And if 'Messsucher is more than just a rangefinder'... Does that mean an M can be more than just a rangefinder too? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 2, 2017 Share #714 Posted January 2, 2017 I think people need to let go of the fact the M is a 'rangefinder'.... Sorry but this is just silly ! Bill, we all know and understand what you want... so ask Leica to make a new line (I think it should be called the Leica BL ) if you like but, why do you feel the need to turn the M into this ?? Why should your — perfectly reasonable — requests ruin the M for those who like and enjoy the camera as it is ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #715 Posted January 2, 2017 It seems perfectly reasonable and honest as the product you all crave for does not exist ! ... fo now The whole thread started off discussing a camera that doesn't exist, for now. Its now 36 pages later and it is still talking about M cameras that don't exist. Thats unusually consistent as far as these threads normally go... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 2, 2017 Share #716 Posted January 2, 2017 Messsucher is not translatable in one word: it means" Viewfinder with integrated rangefinder" The only Leica with a Messsucher before the M3 was the Leica IV prototype, so the twenty years before remark is nonsense. Secondly, Leica did not call the M3 mount an M mount. It was the "Leica Bajonett" The M only appeared to differentiate it from the later "Leica R Bajonett" (surprise -another viewfinder system allusion ) Thus LCT's post can only be classified under another untranslatable German word: "hineininterpretieren", I fear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 2, 2017 Share #717 Posted January 2, 2017 No it didn't Pop... otherwise the Leica II or Leica III would have been referred to as Messsucher. And if it means more than simply the direct translation... what does it mean and where did you reference it? They gave the mount name M because it was going on a rangefinder camera... and even that is just conjecture... Unfortunately, if enough people re-write history, enough people believe it... a case of repetition being the thief of truth. And if 'Messsucher is more than just a rangefinder'... Does that mean an M can be more than just a rangefinder too? Sorry, Bill, as I posted, Messsucher does not mean " Rangefinder". It is perfectly possible to make a Messsucher with for instance a laser distance meter. So the answer is yes. The Barnacks did not have a Messsucher, they had a separate rangefinder. Except the IIIg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 2, 2017 Share #718 Posted January 2, 2017 Sorry but this is just silly ! Bill, we all know and understand what you want... so ask Leica to make a new line (I think it should be called the Leica BL ) if you like but, why do you feel the need to turn the M into this ?? Why should your — perfectly reasonable — requests ruin the M for those who like and enjoy the camera as it is ? Clearly you didn't understand the point... although I have made it clear enough I would have thought. How is adding an EVF version of the M ruining the OVF version of the M???? They are not mutually exclusive... And I am not the only one who would like Leica to make an electronic M as an option... so please don't be so patronising by suggest it should be called a 'BL' As far as I can see, you don't want to have an SL type EVF version of the M, not because you don't want one... but because you don't want anyone else to have one. Is that a fair assessment of what you are saying to me? No? No, of course it isn't. But that is what your last post actually said... We both are entitled to our opinion and we are both entitled to defend our reasoning... and to change you mind or modify our view if something someone says puts a different perspective on things and causes us to reassess our original position. I am always prepared to do that. Some people aren't. And some people just skim posts and come to inaccurate conclusions which they don't check before responding... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 2, 2017 Share #719 Posted January 2, 2017 The whole thread started off discussing a camera that doesn't exist, for now. The reasonable and good suggestions made are for cameras that do exist and have been around for a while now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted January 2, 2017 Share #720 Posted January 2, 2017 .... And if it means more than simply the direct translation... what does it mean and where did you reference it?.... As Jaap already mentioned, "Messsucher" is not the correct translation for "Rangefinder". A "viewfinder" translates as "Sucher". A "rangefinder" will be an "Entfernungsmesser", i.e. a distance measuring device. The "Messsucher" (or "Messucher" in older texts) would be a viewfinder with an integrated rangefinder. The Messucher is a marvel of ingenuity, incorporating not only the rangefinder but "variable" frame lines and a parallax correction as well. Hence, it assists the photographer not only in focusing but in framing. Please forgive for repeating things you've known for some time, as I presume. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.