Rangefinder Improvements on M10 - Reason to Buy?

[carlmuck]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm also a left-eye shooter, and this tidbit from the viewfinder description has me intrigued:

 

"For the Leica M10, several important aspects of this legendary combined viewfinder and rangefinder system have now been further improved. To improve the view of the subject, the field of view has been enlarged by 30% and the magnification factor has been increased 0.73. In addition to this, the eye-relief distance has also been significantly increased. **Thanks to a 50% increase in this distance, the viewfinder is much more convenient to use, particularly for photographers who wear glasses.**"

 

For us it ought to make it a bit easier to see the entire VF, particularly when wearing glasses AND shooting left-eyed.

Edited February 5, 2017 by carlmuck

[Peter H]

Something here goes wrong: This should not be about which is better (EVF or OVF/RF). Only the question how much the 0.73 factor has improved the rangefinder. The difference is small, earlier cameras (M3) had already bigger differences. (and were not extremely popular despite the special viewfinder).

 

For different occasions I simply use different cameras - this is much more natural than thinking about which is "better".

(M246 for black and white, 28 to 90 mm. SL for UWA (WATE), sports, family, macro, long tele, Nocti, etc.)

To an event where I use the M246 I would never choose the SL. To a trip where I choose the SL, the M would never be an equivalent option.

 

Which is better ? For me: It depends.

Perhaps, ideally, you are right. Perhaps everyone would have a variety of cameras to choose from and only ever use the one that is best fit the shot at hand.

 

But you don't need me to tell you why this doesn't always work, and never can work for many people.

[Advertisement]

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

[edw]

The way you describe the Q is probably not typical for EVF usage. On the SL I can see exactly (WYSIWYG) what to expect. If I want I can play around and look at all possible combinations of aperture and speed.

I always assumed that with the Q preview is also possible, as with any other camera with EVF. (Any that I tried at least).

 

For me this is actually very important - for macro and tele photos seeing the actual depth of field is a big advantage.

Also shooting WO is just a tiny percentage of my photos. I wonder if this is not typical for most of us ?

The Q does not offer DoF preview. Note that I'm not hypothesizing, as I own a Q. The X-Pro2 works the same way. (Owned it.) If you want DoF preview on a Q, take a picture and (p)review it.

 

I don't know if the SL can automate the aperture on non-M-mount lenses, but logic and physics dictate that you cannot get anything but the physically dialed in aperture while looking through an M-mount lens on an SL.

 

There was is no typical with respect to how cameras treat this. I've read threads where people have been surprised by both sorts of behavior. It took me by surprise when I first used the Q but quickly acclimated. I think EVF refresh rate and brightness along with auto-focus(and manual focus) facilitation were the driving engineering/design factors for the Q. The live view design of any camera that takes completely manual lenses is going to be influenced by that.

 

Also, there's no typical Q usage with respect to shooting wide open or not. Some people worship at the altar of paper thin DoF (that's me many days, though I'm recovering) while others are using their Qs as pinhole cameras.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ramarren]

I'll see how different it is from my M-D tomorrow when I visit the Leica Store in San Francisco. I expect I'll be pleased by the viewfinder change.

 

 

Okey-dokey: I went to the store yesterday and handled the M10 thoroughly, right next to my M-D.

 

The new viewfinder is excellent and the M10 improvements over my M-P are outstanding. But next to the M-D, I prefer the handling feel of the M-D over the M10 due to the lack of LCD and buttons to get in the way on the back. The M10 viewfinder makes me happy, it is a significant improvement, and I want one for that. But I'll wait for an M-D version of the M10 to appear. 

[steppenw0lf]

A camera without DoF preview would be quite useless in many situations (for me). So I am quite surprised that this is the case. (That cameras exist without.) By coincidence all the cameras I use offer this feature (in one way or another, better or worse) - even the M246 (with LV).

I could not go on more than a few hours without it. Amazing!  

Edited February 6, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[ramarren]

A camera without DoF preview would be quite useless in many situations (for me). So I am quite surprised that this is the case. (That cameras exist without.) By coincidence all the cameras I use offer this feature (in one way or another, better or worse) - even the M246 (with LV).

I could not go on more than a few hours without it. Amazing!  

 

 

That just means that your predilection is for a TTL camera ... an SLR or 'mirrorless' (aka "Live View", "electronic TTL"). Nothing wrong with that. 

 

M users pre-visualize DoF once they get to know their lenses' behavior, that's all. I can 'see' the DoF change as I turn the aperture ring with my M. I've been doing it for 50+ years, so perhaps it takes a little practice. 

Edited February 6, 2017 by ramarren

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Using focus peaking, on any camera that has it, will give an approximation of depth of field for those that want it. I prefer to use the marked distances on the lenses, just as was the case with the older generations of Leicas. 

 

William

Edited February 6, 2017 by willeica

[edw]

A camera without DoF preview would be quite useless in many situations (for me). So I am quite surprised that this is the case. (That cameras exist without.) By coincidence all the cameras I use offer this feature (in one way or another, better or worse) - even the M246 (with LV).

I could not go on more than a few hours without it. Amazing!  

 

Some of the scenarios that have been invoked around DoF preview are relaxed enough that I imagine the shooter taking time to swirl his wine glass, perhaps take a drag on his cigarette and exhale contemplatively. In situations like that, it seems completely reasonable to take photos and review them in-camera. This is indeed close to what I do with much of my macro shooting with my Q. "Hmm, not enough DoF, let me adjust the lighting and stop down the lens.… Ah, yes, there we go."

 

DoF preview, the more I think about it, seems like one more Japanese camera complication that adds buttons and menus and modes but doesn't provide significant value, especially considering that previewing at f11 or whatever could easily give you an abysmal, single frame per second view though the EVF. Saying that is unfair, as not all Japanese brands offer DoF preview. If I recall correctly Sony does in its mirrorless cameras whereas in my limited experience Fuji does not.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Something here goes wrong: This should not be about which is better (EVF or OVF/RF). Only the question how much the 0.73 factor has improved the rangefinder. The difference is small, earlier cameras (M3) had already bigger differences. (and were not extremely popular despite the special viewfinder).

 

For different occasions I simply use different cameras - this is much more natural than thinking about which is "better".

(M246 for black and white, 28 to 90 mm. SL for UWA (WATE), sports, family, macro, long tele, Nocti, etc.) 

To an event where I use the M246 I would never choose the SL. To a trip where I choose the SL, the M would never be an equivalent option.

 

Which is better ? For me: It depends.

 

Hello Steppenw0lf,

 

Actually, at 259,959 cameras manufactured: The M3 is by far the most popular "M" camera ever manufactured. The M6, which is the second most popular, had a production of around 150,000. 

 

1 of the reasons for Leitz to base future "M" models on the M2 range/viewfinder was that the difference in price between the M3 & the M2 range/viewfinder was the majority of the difference in retail price between the M2 & the M3. The 0.91 X range/viewfinder cost significantly more to build than its 0.72 X companion.

 

Another was, most likely, that Leitz did not want to be in competition with is its own reflex camera. Reflex cameras (In 35mm photography) having advantages in the 50mm & longer focal lengths & rangefinder cameras having advantages in the 50mm & shorter distances. 0.72 X magification is perfectly usable with 50mm lenses.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[steppenw0lf]

Yes, if you read the numbers like that, but if you take all M cameras with a factor close to 0.72/0.73, then the M3 with 0.91 is only a small fraction.

And even if the cameras "exist", they are only rarely used. (They are history).

Let's not argue in this way. I believe only the statistics that I "faked" myself. 

 

Stephan

[ramarren]

Some of the scenarios that have been invoked around DoF preview are relaxed enough that I imagine the shooter taking time to swirl his wine glass, perhaps take a drag on his cigarette and exhale contemplatively. In situations like that, it seems completely reasonable to take photos and review them in-camera. This is indeed close to what I do with much of my macro shooting with my Q. "Hmm, not enough DoF, let me adjust the lighting and stop down the lens.… Ah, yes, there we go."

 

DoF preview, the more I think about it, seems like one more Japanese camera complication that adds buttons and menus and modes but doesn't provide significant value, especially considering that previewing at f11 or whatever could easily give you an abysmal, single frame per second view though the EVF. Saying that is unfair, as not all Japanese brands offer DoF preview. If I recall correctly Sony does in its mirrorless cameras whereas in my limited experience Fuji does not.

 

 

Huh? "one more Japanese camera complication" ?? 

 

DoF preview was put in place in SLR cameras as soon as the auto-diaphragm mechanism was invented because SLR users wanted to be able to see what the DoF was at the taking aperture. It was an integral part of TTL metering operation for years until the norm became open aperture metering with all the new lens couplings that implied. That was in the 1950s to 1970s ... the first practical 35mm SLRs were made by Zeiss, Exakta, Asahi, and Nikon. 

 

A DoF preview mode has been a function on nearly every digital camera I've owned starting in 2002, certainly on every FourThirds and larger sensor'ed camera. Leicas included... 

[pop]

....DoF preview was put in place in SLR cameras as soon as the auto-diaphragm mechanism was invented ....

before, not "as soon". Exactas had it. You pressed the release button to shut the diaphragm, then pressed further to release the shutter.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Yes, if you read the numbers like that, but if you take all M cameras with a factor close to 0.72/0.73, then the M3 with 0.91 is only a small fraction.

And even if the cameras "exist", they are only rarely used. (They are history).

Let's not argue in this way. I believe only the statistics that I "faked" myself. 

 

Stephan

 

Hello Stephan,

 

It should be noted that during the time period when the significantly lower priced M2 & the M3 were both available that the M3 outsold the M2 by a significant margin.

 

It not appropriate to compare the sales of later 0.72 X range/viewfinder cameras against the sales of a no longer manufactured 0.91X range/viewfinder model which was not there.

 

The stopping of the production of the M3 range/viewfinder was most likely due to production costs. Not demand. This is probably also the reason for stopping the production of the purely mechanical Leicaflex series: High cost of producing the mechanical shutter.

 

The evolution of the Leica "M", from an all purpose camera to more of a wide angle camera, most likely came about as a result of various manufacturing decisions made at the Leitz Factory. The Leitz plan was most likely to phase out the range/viewfinder line of cameras completely & replace them with a Single Lens Reflex line.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited February 11, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht

[JonPB]

Seeing as how this thread has dispensed with the OP's question and moved along, I will not feel guilty about further digression, to wit:

 

...I imagine the shooter taking time to swirl his wine glass, perhaps take a drag on his cigarette and exhale contemplatively...

 

 

I will go on record as being not entirely opposed to joining a wine drinking, contemplatively smoking, left-eye dominant, spectacles wearing, beard-optional, rangefinder shooting photographer's club. Rather in favor, actually, so long as each characteristic were more of a guideline than requirement.

 

Speaking of the M10's rangefinder, however, does anyone care to comment on how it compares with the M9? I've heard that the M 240 was an upgrade in this regard, and the M10 moreso, but I don't think I've seen any direct comparisons. Living in a modest city with no direct Leica presence, I am at a loss for experiencing this first-hand.

 

Cheers,

Jon

[digitalfx]

Jon,

The M240 was a very slight improvement and the m10 yet again. As I haven't owned all three at the same time but rather upgraded from each I cant compare them...but both improvements were small, yet evident. So going from the M9 to M10 should be a noticeable improvement...just don't expect a miracle, its still a rangefinder.