Jump to content

EVF for the M

klytz

By klytz
in Leica M10

 Share

Recommended Posts

lct

lct

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Curious one may expect the M to not be an M i.e. a rangefinder whereas the size of the SL is not considered an issue. It is an issue for me, the main reason why i liked R4 to R7 cameras as opposed to bulky Leicaflex, R3, R8 and R9 cameras. Size is the main reason why i chose a modded Sony instead of the SL for my TTL pictures. If the current SL were as compact as my old R4s i would not wait for a compact FF Leica because it would exist already. But the M has nothing to do with all that although the accessory EVF of the M10 is the culprit as well. Why is it so slow compared to the CL's and other decent EVFs is a mystery to me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Alistairm
Alistairm

For those who don’t care about or enjoy using rangefinders, and all the peccadillos they involve, it is bizarre beyond belief that the M would be your camera of choice.   But to each their own and

erl
erl

Yes, it is a big clumsy wart, but in the interest of keeping the M compact, I don't want to see it  built in, which would still enlarge the  top.

jkcampbell2
jkcampbell2

Sorry but this is really harsh and is just the kind of stupid response that drives people away from participating in the forum. Just because someone may prefer an EVF over a rangefinder doesn't mean t

Posted Images

jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted

The EVF is so slow because the M cameras have limited processing power; the body design does not allow easy dissipation of the heat generated by intensive computing.

I would not call it impossible that a smaller full-frame EVF camera might appear at some point of time. But as it would cannibalize some portion of M, SL and CL sales, I don't think it would be a very attractive sales prospect for Leica.

Link to post
Share on other sites
james.liam

james.liam

Posted
Posted

The EVF is so slow because the M cameras have limited processing power; the body design does not allow easy dissipation of the heat generated by intensive computing.

I would not call it impossible that a smaller full-frame EVF camera might appear at some point of time. But as it would cannibalize some portion of M, SL and CL sales, I don't think it would be a very attractive sales prospect for Leica.

 

 

I wonder whether an M262-like aluminum top/bottom plate camera would dissipate heat better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ramarren

ramarren

Posted
Posted (edited)

...

It would be pretty nice if they could convert the heat to energy for the battery! The more you shoot the more your battery is charged :-)

 

 

Ah, a perpetual motion machine! That's what Leica needs to make! Who cares about cameras? ... :D

 

 

 

"The more you spend, the more you save!" - Credit card company advertisement

Edited by ramarren
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
MRJohn

MRJohn

Posted
Posted

Ummm.. The camera to take M lenses with an EVF is the SL. Or, if size is more important than crop, the CL.  I am sure Leica has no intention of turning their flagship camera into some kind of Fuji and kill off 90% of sales, nor of jeopardizing their interlocking systems.

 

BTW, I find that the performance of many M lenses is enhanced by cropping them on the CL. The Summilux 24 is a prime example.

 

I wonder what research you did to be so sure of "huge need"  and  "the market wants", unless you postulate a market of one person - yourself; I see no such things, and I assume that Leica is in a better position to judge the needs and wants of their customers.

 

 

I am sorry, I do not happen to have a 24 Summilux nor a CL. Performance in whatever way you measure it may be enhanced, but characteristics (i.e. 24 mm equiv.) are gone. Regarding "market wants", if you count all people in the forum together who made similar remarks about a desire to have an M with a build-in EVF (and not an SL, and not a CL), then this is a reasonable number, not just myself. - Btw, I wonder what research you did to be so sure that Leica would kill 90% of their sales if they came out with such an M. I really wonder.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith_W

Keith_W

Posted
Posted

This conversation reminds me of what used to be discussed in Porsche forums before the Boxster came out. Back then, the only cars Porsche made were the 911 and the front engined 92* variants. At the time, the 92* variants had lost market share and Porsche was in danger of going under. 

 

I argued that they should make a mid engined Porsche, since the only mid engined Porsche they brought to market before that point was the crappy 914. Oh yes, and make it watercooled so they could relocate the radiators and increase engine power. 

 

Porsche conservatives shouted me down. Many were completely opposed to the idea of anything but a rear engined air cooled Porsche and cited the failure of the watercooled front engined Porsches as an example of what will happen if they deviated from what made a Porsche, a Porsche. Meaning - it had to be air cooled, and rear engined. I was asked in rather impolite terms why I own a Porsche in the first place, if I don't like air cooled, rear engined cars. In fact the same accusation came up - if I don't subscribe to the true philosophy of Porsche, then by definition I must be a poseur. 

 

No doubt the release of the 996-series 911 (watercooled, rear engined) and the 986 Boxster (watercooled, mid engined) saved Porsche and allowed them to grow to where they are now. But till today, there is a schism among Porsche fans - those who like "modern" Porsches, and a stubborn bunch of purists who insist that new Porsches are for the nouveau riche and pimps, and not true enthusiasts, like them. 

 

I see the same thing with rangefinders. It's stubbornly clinging on to old technology for nostalgia's sake. Insisting that anybody who does not believe the same is not a purist and not worthy of owning an M. The market has already relegated Leica to an also-ran in the very market it helped to invent, to the extent that it very nearly went under because they were foolish enough to think that digital would be a passing phase!

 

Well, the next stage in their evolution would be to integrate the EVF. If they were nervous about doing so, they could offer an EVF only version of the M alongside the rangefinder version. Provided the advantages of the EVF was passed on - more compact design, lighter, and a suitably high res and fast refresh EVF in the first place. Many people who have bought into the SL did so because they want to use M lenses with the EVF. Offer them a lighter, more compact alternative, and they will return in droves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
wattsy

wattsy

Posted
Posted

I see the same thing with rangefinders. It's stubbornly clinging on to old technology for nostalgia's sake.

 

 

I don't think you advance your argument much by insulting those who happen to like using a rangefinder. Talk about pot calling the kettle black.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
wattsy

wattsy

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, the next stage in their evolution would be to integrate the EVF. If they were nervous about doing so, they could offer an EVF only version of the M alongside the rangefinder version. Provided the advantages of the EVF was passed on - more compact design, lighter, and a suitably high res and fast refresh EVF in the first place. Many people who have bought into the SL did so because they want to use M lenses with the EVF. Offer them a lighter, more compact alternative, and they will return in droves. 

 

 

Why don't you write to Dr K.? In my experience, he is quite open to personal communication. Who knows, maybe nobody at Leica has ever thought about your idea? :rolleyes:  

Edited by wattsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
ianman

ianman

Posted
Posted

Size isn't everything... or so I'm told.  Seriously though, I would hate to have a 75mm Summilux on a II body !!

 

One important point you seem to be missing is that some RF users prefer to view the scene through glass rather than a little TV screen. For me it's about how I interact with the subject, be it a landscape, humans, whatever. There is also a point about the interaction with the tool that make it more natural to use an optical RF than an EVF.

 

A hybrid version it would seem has been ruled out by Leica so your point about having a EVF only version could be a solution to cater for the huge demand out there. Who knows maybe they are sitting there reading this thread and thinking "you know, this guy is right, and look he has single handedly saved Porsche already" ;-)

 

I may be dense but I still don't understand why on earth you use a Leica rangefinder camera if you hate the thing so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...