Bill Livingston Posted December 21, 2016 Share #81 Posted December 21, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) What is the emoticon for serious? No idea... I have always assumed it was NO emoticon! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 Hi Bill Livingston, Take a look here Sell M to get M10?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
vladik Posted December 21, 2016 Author Share #82 Posted December 21, 2016 What's wrong with your camera? Jeff Absolutely nothing with my camera Jeff, it has been very reliable and enjoyable camera to own, thanks you for asking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted December 21, 2016 Author Share #83 Posted December 21, 2016 Just a silly post. Send me your 240 if you don't want it. Dear rsolomon, I want my Leica M 240 and I like it very much. I will not be sending it to you, as I do not know you and it cost me lots of money, silly suggestion on your part I am sorry to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted December 21, 2016 Author Share #84 Posted December 21, 2016 If I were You, I'd wait for M11! Thomas Dear duckrider, thank you for your suggestion to wait for M11 (M11 designation looks very nice do you agree?), but it might take a while to materialise and I do not want to wait that long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted December 21, 2016 Share #85 Posted December 21, 2016 But if you are 'capturing moments' then you will really only have one main subject and to focus on that one main point is really fast. If you have several focus points to consider, by it's very definition, you are looking at a slower capture... When working fast, you make the choice of subject instantly. That's what you do in real life... If you have more time to view the scene in front of you, then you change your focus point as you look round the scene. I don't see photographing something is all that much different from looking at it in real time... Closer subjects naturally have a narrow depth of field... such as a face in the crowd, maybe in a riot or demonstration. What caught your eye, should be what should catch your eye when viewing the photo later. What is available in the frame after the capture is determined by the depth of field you have selected... which sometimes can benefit the final image, sometimes it distracts. On the other hand, if you are capturing an 'art' image or a landscape, you have far more time to choose the point of focus and select an appropriate aperture... I don't think either cause an EVF focus method a problem. But then maybe I'm weird No, it is a good discussion. If I may, let me give an example where the "intent" is different than "actual mechanism". In ABS (as in Car's braking system), one simply supplies "intent". You just stomp on the brake paddle and hope for the car to stop in quickest distance. Without ABS, you participate in the braking mechanism and adjust braking forces yourself for optimal results. This is "participating in the actual mechanism". If properly implemented, "intent" based implementation is always better. Now lets go back to focusing. RF based focusing (or AF) is simply "intent" based. You simply say, "I want to focus here" (by aligning patch in RF or pushing a button in AF). This is very different than participating in actual focusing mechanism by looking at the image. If properly implemented, "intent" based mechanism will always be faster and beat the other one. edit: too many typos fixed.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted December 22, 2016 Share #86 Posted December 22, 2016 .... In ABS (as in Car's braking system), one simply supplies "intent". You just stomp on the brake paddle and hope for the car to stop in quickest distance. Without ABS, you participate in the braking mechanism and adjust braking forces yourself for optimal results. This is "participating in the actual mechanism". If properly implemented, "intent" based implementation is always better. ..... Is intent based braking still better if the car behind you crashes into yours? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted December 22, 2016 Share #87 Posted December 22, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is intent based braking still better if the car behind you crashes into yours? Now we have to talk about definition of "better". For a mechanism to be better, it has to meet it's objective. ABS's objective doesn't include not getting hit from behind therefore it has met it's objective and is still "better". Now if you want to change the objective and include "not getting hit from behind" as additional objective then it also can be implemented by using extra sensors and appropriate algorithm change. Welcome to autonomous driving. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 22, 2016 Share #88 Posted December 22, 2016 I agree... but I would argue that any manual focussing is 'intent based'. AF should be, but you may have to override the cameras choice, which is slower if it gets it wrong or is 'searching'. So AF starts out trying to be 'intent based', but with poor implementation, can fail. (I've just realised I have exchanged your definitions, but you know what I mean!). Whenever I have been talking about focussing in this discussion, I have always meant manual focusing... where the photographer is making the choices and actively engaged in the manual manipulation of the focussing ring. When working quickly with a narrow depth of field, focussing instinctively on the main point of interest should always take precedent over composition, or even exposure. You can crop later... or alter exposure in post... but you can't do an awful lot with focus unless you use depth of field to cover any errors... So an EVF isn't a slower process, it's just different. As it happens, I'm pretty sure I can focus quicker manually with a rangefinder in a fast moving scene... but that wasn't the point I was making. What I was trying to say is that an EVF gets round many of the issues people complain about with an M... and having the option for an EVF version of an M camera would appeal to many... especially those who love the ergonomics and handling of an M, but want to use very short or longer focal lengths outside the 28-75, or maybe 90mm focal lengths, without silly additions or having to go from a focussing viewfinder to a composition viewfinder. Now THATS slow.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted December 22, 2016 Author Share #89 Posted December 22, 2016 Nope! What do you dislike about your current camera that you think the next model is going to address? I dislike EVF function, it is awkward to use and if the sensor is upgraded it would be a bonus. I recently purchased Fujifilm X-Pro2 and if Leica could come out with in camera EVF / Mechanical Rangefinder it would be nice. Lots of users complain about the thickness of this camera, but it does not bother me, I am using it with Artisan and Artist leather half case making it about 5mm thicker and it is very nice to hold in my not too big hands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted December 22, 2016 Share #90 Posted December 22, 2016 I agree... but I would argue that any manual focussing is 'intent based'. ..... Not if you are evaluating the sharpness of the picture yourself. You are doing what a properly implemented AF should do. You are going way beyond intent. RF focusing is pure intent. The way you convey your intent to the camera is by aligning patch. In theory it is no different than pointing and pressing AF button and waiting for beep (or green light). Edit: In fact when Leica coupled the RF mechanism to the lens, it called it... wait for it... "auto focus". Many many years ago. Link below: http://www.overgaard.dk/thorstenovergaardcom_copyrighted_graphics/Leica-III-Auto-Focus-ad-640w.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 22, 2016 Share #91 Posted December 22, 2016 I dislike EVF function, it is awkward to use and if the sensor is upgraded it would be a bonus. I recently purchased Fujifilm X-Pro2 and if Leica could come out with in camera EVF / Mechanical Rangefinder it would be nice. Lots of users complain about the thickness of this camera, but it does not bother me, I am using it with Artisan and Artist leather half case making it about 5mm thicker and it is very nice to hold in my not too big hands. So if I've got this right, what I was suggesting is what you would want in the new M10? A built in EVF/rangefinder hybrid? I'm not sure you are going to get it, but that enlarged viewfinder window perhaps means that you are??? Wow! Now THAT would put the 'cat amongst the pigeons'! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 22, 2016 Share #92 Posted December 22, 2016 Not if you are evaluating the sharpness of the picture yourself. You are doing what a properly implemented AF should do. You are going way beyond intent. RF focusing is pure intent. The way you convey your intent to the camera is by aligning patch. In theory it is no different than pointing and pressing AF button and waiting for beep (or green light). Edit: In fact when Leica coupled the RF mechanism to the lens, it called it... wait for it... "auto focus". Many many years ago. I will have to search for any link though. Not easy. I'm confused now... I think we are in complete agreement, but using the language of disagreement! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 22, 2016 Share #93 Posted December 22, 2016 Just saw your edit... yes, Leica referred to auto focus on the first M3 advertising if I recall correctly... Nope.. it was earlier... 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/267577-sell-m-to-get-m10/?do=findComment&comment=3171534'>More sharing options...
jmahto Posted December 22, 2016 Share #94 Posted December 22, 2016 Just saw your edit... yes, Leica referred to auto focus on the first M3 advertising if I recall correctly... Yes, we are in agreement. I just wanted to clarify that EVF focusing is not intent based. Ideally for "any control mechanism" (be in planes, cars, machinery), the best way is to supply the intent and let the "mechanism" be implemented independently. In digital world this mechanism is often a computer code working with sensors (as in SL AF), but in older times we had mechanical implementations (as in Leica RF). Focusing by zoom and peaking is just doing dirty work yourself without complete knowledge of image distance and DOF (that in turn depends on the final output!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted December 22, 2016 Author Share #95 Posted December 22, 2016 Yes but only if it includes an EVF as good as on the SL. [emoji57] How about a new non-rangefinder camera with EVF like SL alongside of pure M? It could be named a QM or what ever. How about Leica Q with M mount? An additional line of Leica cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 22, 2016 Share #96 Posted December 22, 2016 [...] So an EVF isn't a slower process, it's just different [...] An EVF is a slower process each time it forces us to do things we don't need with a rangefinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted December 22, 2016 Share #97 Posted December 22, 2016 An EVF is a slower process each time it forces us to do things we don't need with a rangefinder. +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 22, 2016 Share #98 Posted December 22, 2016 Focusing by zoom and peaking is just doing dirty work yourself without complete knowledge of image distance and DOF (that in turn depends on the final output!). I would argue the same applies to the rangefinder too... but we are in agreement nonetheless... Anyway, an interesting discussion. Thank you PS. Seems we found the same advert, but from different sources... edits, huh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 22, 2016 Share #99 Posted December 22, 2016 How about a new non-rangefinder camera with EVF like SL alongside of pure M? It could be named a QM or what ever. How about Leica Q with M mount? An additional line of Leica cameras. This has been discussed elsewhere in this forum. The idea would be to use an SL mount on a compact SL, called "QL" by some of us. This would cannibalize SL sales though i suspect so i would not hold my breath. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted December 22, 2016 Share #100 Posted December 22, 2016 It's even been discussed in this very thread! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.