harmen Posted January 3, 2017 Share #781 Posted January 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here's hoping that some day an EVF would be as enjoyable to look at as 6x6cm groundglass. In the meantime the M is superb for optical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 3, 2017 Posted January 3, 2017 Hi harmen, Take a look here Leica M 10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mmradman Posted January 3, 2017 Share #782 Posted January 3, 2017 So don't fit one on yours. Why the desire to stop other people doing what they'd like to do? It won't affect you will it? 1+ Not so long ago we had big debate about the merits of Auto ISO on M cameras. LUF purists were disgusted by the mere thought of having such modern contraption, thankfully Auto prevailed, i would say for the better to many and definitely to my benefit. Other aspect of digital M that improved my photography is rear LCD. Main reason i invested in Leica M is superior image quality small size optics, RF is good to a point but i can live with its limitations. I love OVF most days but, big but, high refresh rate and high dot count EVF, like in current Leica SL601 or better, either as add on or built in (digital equivalent of Leica MD, MD2, M1) would definitely make pocketable M camera more attractive proposition to a wider user base. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 3, 2017 Share #783 Posted January 3, 2017 Exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 3, 2017 Share #784 Posted January 3, 2017 Which is why an RF camera dos not need an evf. What could be more straightforward? Very few SLRs have ever featured a rangefinder (Alpa made one I think) because they don't need both. They are different tools. Just because you can fit something onto an existent piece of equipment doesn't mean that you should. Why is it that nobody is campaigning for a rangefinder to be fitted onto an SL or T/TL I wonder? However, the M is basically a travel and reportage camera. Having an EVF saves the carrying of an SLR/EVIL type supplementary body, which can be essential when travelling light. Exactly this kind of thing can enhance the concept. I would be sorry to see the system pushed into a small nostalgic niche, just as it was moving out of it. By all means make the optical viewfinder superb; it is the main raison d'être. But do not curtail it for the sake of nostalgia. There is always room for "pure" edition for the affectionados. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 3, 2017 Share #785 Posted January 3, 2017 Yes, I think that in the long term it certainly could. Try to make a camera all things to all men and you risk diminishing its uniqueness by allowing it to compete against other equipment which will eventually prove to be more effective in many ways (sorry M lens aficionados). Keep it as an iconic camera highly capable within its own niche and one which does not adopt irrelevant solutions and it will continue IMO to be appreciated and bought because it offers a truly alternative approach. Leica have already shown that they can make cameras capable of competing with other current offerings. Why the desire to mutate a perfectly good camera by fundamentally changing its emphasis. An evf means more to go wrong and more to go out of date. Only reason i never bought into Sony A7 family of cameras has nothing to do with EVF and everything to do with all other poorly designed aspects of the system; over complicated menus designed by programmers with no idea what good camera is about, equally poor user interface, lossy RAW, non existent battery life, lack of compatibility with many M lenses etc. Many ardent LUF members played with A7 cameras to walk away for reasons listed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 3, 2017 Share #786 Posted January 3, 2017 Exactly again (about Jaap's post above) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailwagger Posted January 3, 2017 Share #787 Posted January 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Which is why an RF camera dos not need an evf.... Just because you can fit something onto an existent piece of equipment doesn't mean that you should. For many, many years M photographers have been forced to add optional viewfinders or magnifiers to more effectively use lenses produced for the same. They are undeniably a part of the system architecture. So supplying alternative VFs isn't a function of 'just because you can' as its already acknowledged as a long standing and fundamental necessity. The answer turns on whether or not an OVF add on is in anyway superior to an EVF based one. Even if you prefer glass, given the lack of precision, the need to potentially carry multiple devices given the variety of focal lengths requiring support and the higher cost, I think that's a very difficult case to make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 3, 2017 Share #788 Posted January 3, 2017 However, the M is basically a travel and reportage camera. Having an EVF saves the carrying of an SLR/EVIL type supplementary body, which can be essential when travelling light. Exactly this kind of thing can enhance the concept. I would be sorry to see the system pushed into a small nostalgic niche, just as it was moving out of it. By all means make the optical viewfinder superb it is the main raison d'être. But do not curtail it for the sake of nostalgia. There is always room for "pure" edition for the affectionados. Wait until another manufacturer produces as small and light a camera as the Leica M with only an evf and astoundingly good image quality of 30MPixels + due to the integration of optical design with software adjustment. At a substantially lower price than the Leica. Such a camera is probably very possible now. And the M will have to compete against it unfairly because it will be seen as a evf competitor. On the other hand an OVF only RF M of something around 25MPixels relying on optical excellence only will be a fundamentally different way of working. Its not nostalgia, simply that I enjoy shooting RF and don't want to see it dfinally pushed out because its design is compromised. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 3, 2017 Share #789 Posted January 3, 2017 Wait until another manufacturer produces as small and light a camera as the Leica M with only an evf and astoundingly good image quality of 30MPixels + due to the integration of optical design with software adjustment. At a substantially lower price than the Leica. Such a camera is probably very possible now. And the M will have to compete against it unfairly because it will be seen as a evf competitor. On the other hand an OVF only RF M of something around 25MPixels relying on optical excellence only will be a fundamentally different way of working. Its not nostalgia, simply that I enjoy shooting RF and don't want to see it dfinally pushed out because its design is compromised. Lets assume company "A" makes "cheap" compact full frame camera with built in first rate EVF and good compatibility with M lenses. I would imagine it would not diminish sale of M cameras but it would increase sale of M lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 3, 2017 Share #790 Posted January 3, 2017 Lets assume company "A" makes "cheap" compact full frame camera with built in first rate EVF and good compatibility with M lenses. I would imagine it would not diminish sale of M cameras but it would increase sale of M lenses. Well that would be a competitor to the SL not the M wouldn't it? If you read my post I did not say anything about the M mount. The point I have repeatedly tried to make is that the M is unique. Rob it of its uniqueness and it will have to compete on unequal terms. Keep it as it was and it remains iconic and unique and valued as such. Depends whether you see change as being valid or simply for change's sake. I see changing the M as the latter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 3, 2017 Share #791 Posted January 3, 2017 Well that would be a competitor to the SL not the M wouldn't it? If you read my post I did not say anything about the M mount. The point I have repeatedly tried to make is that the M is unique. Rob it of its uniqueness and it will have to compete on unequal terms. Keep it as it was and it remains iconic and unique and valued as such. Depends whether you see change as being valid or simply for change's sake. I see changing the M as the latter. I was not fully clear in my earlier post, lets assume company "A" makes digital full frame EVF camera with M mount or with a different mount but allows use of M lenses via adaptor, sensor is good for all or most M lenses (maybe exclude some early 21mm or Hologons).. Competitor or not it doesn't matter, unique or not it doesn't matter, very few people buy Leica M camera for its uniqueness, that is special edition territory. Besides, our opinions want sway Leica one way or other, sale figures, profit and future sale projections will. Change is valid and that is what drove M development since 1954. Every new M from first M3 to latest M240 was designed with some improvement, some may argue it was cost cutting exercise, over the predecessor. Here is a quick reminder:- M3 - first bayonet mount RF camera by Leica M2 choice of frame lines on wider end M6 - built in meter M7 Auto Exposure M8 - first digital M M9 -first full frame digital M M240 - first full frame digital M with add on EVF Future M - it can be anything as long as buyers in the future find it worth buying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 3, 2017 Share #792 Posted January 3, 2017 Leica accessory EVFs are nothing but modern Visoflexes. The (presumably) Visoflex 020 won't change the nature of the 'M10' any more than the Visoflex 2 has changed that of the M3. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/266426-leica-m-10/?do=findComment&comment=3178146'>More sharing options...
mmradman Posted January 3, 2017 Share #793 Posted January 3, 2017 Leica accessory EVFs are nothing but modern Visoflexes. The (presumably) Visoflex 020 won't change the nature of the 'M10' any more than the Visoflex 2 has changed that of the M3. Untitled-3.gif 1+, in addition modern Visoflex has benefit of not requiring dedicated lenses with extra long registry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 3, 2017 Share #794 Posted January 3, 2017 In an interview, Stefan Daniel even said the EVF for the M240 meant an 'Electronic Viso-Flex". Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted January 3, 2017 Share #795 Posted January 3, 2017 ...very few people buy Leica M camera for its uniqueness... And there was I thinking that was exactly the reason people buy it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 3, 2017 Share #796 Posted January 3, 2017 .Such a small EVF camera with M mount could never be a real M competitor, as it will lack the OVF/rangefinder on the M. That is the primary reason for its existence. The EVF and Video are auxiliary, but should be as good as possible to expand the usability, but can never be seen as being in competition with EVIL camera. To suggest that leaving such functions off will make the M more attractive for potential buyers that want the features and keep them from buying small M-mount EVILs is rather self-contradictory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted January 3, 2017 Share #797 Posted January 3, 2017 40 pages of I want or I don't want, including my own. The reality is I'll buy if it meets my needs, if it doesn't I'll stick or look elsewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted January 3, 2017 Share #798 Posted January 3, 2017 I'm still digesting Tailwagger's post from a page or two back. Obviously, from my previous posts, I entirely agree... I just wish I could be as precise and as clear. Exceptional post. Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted January 3, 2017 Share #799 Posted January 3, 2017 Yes, I think that in the long term it certainly could. Try to make a camera all things to all men and you risk diminishing its uniqueness by allowing it to compete against other equipment which will eventually prove to be more effective in many ways (sorry M lens aficionados). Keep it as an iconic camera highly capable within its own niche and one which does not adopt irrelevant solutions and it will continue IMO to be appreciated and bought because it offers a truly alternative approach. Leica have already shown that they can make cameras capable of competing with other current offerings. Why the desire to mutate a perfectly good camera by fundamentally changing its emphasis. An evf means more to go wrong and more to go out of date. If the M's survival is ever in doubt, it is unlikely to be the result of having kept one of its optional accessories up to date. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 3, 2017 Share #800 Posted January 3, 2017 40 pages of I want or I don't want, including my own. The reality is I'll buy if it meets my needs, if it doesn't I'll stick or look elsewhere. I might stick - I've never been unhappy with the M240 and don't like the alternatives, the next M must be something very special to upgrade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.