EVF for the M

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When the M10 was introduced Mr Daniel and Mr von Oeynhausen explained that they tried to introduce a hybrid finder into the M. But they said they didn‘t follow this idea as it would have been just a mixture of a mediocre optical finder with a mediocre electronic one. I stay sceptical of the possibilities of a hybrid finder for the M - though I may be wrong.

 

The next instance to learn what is possible for Leica at the moment was the CL. When it was introduced many people here criticized the ugly bump caused by the EVIL. This shows that they are not able to integrate a small but high performing EVIL into a body with restrictions as far as size is concerned. I am sure they won‘t add a CL-like bump to an M-body.

 

If one day an EVIL not larger than the M-OVF is possible and it will have the same quality as the EVIL for the SL, I am sure we will see an option for an M with EVIL. The „super lenses“ (Noctilux 50and 75mm and perhaps a 90mm Summilux) and the almost unequivocal praise they find among many users show that Leica is preparing demand fo such an option.

 

I cannot see any reason for declaring the eclipse of occident if one had the choice - as far as I think I know the users of this Forum, I believe many would want both the OVF and the EVIL M.

[UliWer]

...

If, however, you broaden the definition too much (i.e. extend it to possible EVF implementations), you could as well ‚retrofit‘ the term to SLR prisms or split circles

...

I agree with you that it would be far stretched to call an EVF a rangefinder.

 

Though the question is about „Messsucher“. As far as I know this was an artificial word introduced by Zeiss for the Contax II/III.

 

They wanted to demonstrate the difference to their first model - and of course the Leica. The new word was not wrong, even when important functions for measuring were not integrated: parallax-compesation and lightmetering. The Leica M integrated parallax compensation and even a long forgotton device for guessing the depth of focus - and still called it Messsucher. The integration of lightmetering came only 15years later - and didn‘t change the name.

 

My advise would be be not to pay too much attention to this marketing descriptions of some devices. Leica is not using canonical law which is based on very sophisticated definitions with the aim of exclusion of some phenomena which do not fit into the definition.

 

You can use an EVF as you can use an OVF. I certainly prefer the OVF for the „classical“ focal lengthes from 35mm to 90mm - and I won‘t use any „super lenses“ of the Noctilux kind. Others have different preferences. Why should one not address them - without exclusion of others?

[Advertisement]

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

[pico]

The Leica M integrated parallax compensation and even a long forgotten device for guessing the depth of focus (link)

 

I liked that device in the M2 so much I redrew the instruction.

Edited February 27, 2018 by pico

[Tailwagger]

...make the SL a tad smaller... I'm sure you'll find a lot of support from SL users.

 

Actually that just starts another war in a nearby, but discernibly different, combat zone.  It matters not what you call it, it matters not which body it most resembles. What matters, if you're coming from the perspective of an M, is that its not a smaller version of a camera designed to support AF and video. If Leica is ever to make an EVF-only camera I would be interested in, it must be a native M mount, it's menu system and buttons are the M interface and buttons, its sensor is optimized for M lenses. Personally, I've never understood, given the enormity of the native glass, how a smaller SL, let alone one along side the current version makes any sense. The SL's ergonomic issues should simply be addressed in the design of the SL2.  But, and there have been discussions about this in the past, those who firmly believe the world needs a baby SL are totally wed to the L mount.  The moment you go there, you get the joy sticks, AEL/AFL buttons, a whole set of other unnecessary crap and, worst of all, none of the things I previously mentioned as requisite. That schism is already on the record, I see no more hope of resolving that disagreement then the one under discussion here. 

[david strachan]

There would be no tilt viewfinder on a combined OVF/EVF.

 

It's unlikely Leica will make a swivel live view screen. Like my Canon cameras...the swivel-tilt screen allows me a lot of pictures I'd never take otherwise.

 

I find the Leica tilt quite handy when shooting with the EVF. It's also good to reduce bulk by removing the EVF and just using the rangefinder.

 

...

Edited February 28, 2018 by david strachan

[pico]

Hey, let's get radical - no viewfinder/rangefinder in the camera body. Instead, live NFC communication with a tiny lens near one eye.

 

I will not go on, but just considering such break-aways could make an O-Series sized camera body full frame still and video a reality.

 

Or just stick a GoPro in your shirt pocket. Almost, not quite kidding on that.

Edited February 28, 2018 by pico

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find the Leica tilt quite handy when shooting with the EVF. It's also good to reduce bulk by removing the EVF and just using the rangefinder.

 

Its a good point and I too use that capability often.  I don't find the external finder all that much of an imposition per se, other than I prefer to leave it attached which results in a somewhat awkward shape in the bag. I suspect most of the grousing simply has to do with the price/performance. Its adequate, but not truly up to standard of excellence of the camera itself... assuming your in the camp that finds the M10 excellent. 

[david strachan]

Its a good point and I too use that capability often.  I don't find the external finder all that much of ... but not truly up to standard of excellence of the camera itself... assuming your in the camp that finds the M10 excellent.

 

Thank you TW...I'm still up to the excellence of the M240 (M-P). And it's bolt-on EVF, which works well for everything I've thrown at it.

 

Cheers...

[LocalHero1953]

Actually that just starts another war in a nearby, but discernibly different, combat zone.  It matters not what you call it, it matters not which body it most resembles. What matters, if you're coming from the perspective of an M, is that its not a smaller version of a camera designed to support AF and video. If Leica is ever to make an EVF-only camera I would be interested in, it must be a native M mount, it's menu system and buttons are the M interface and buttons, its sensor is optimized for M lenses. Personally, I've never understood, given the enormity of the native glass, how a smaller SL, let alone one along side the current version makes any sense. The SL's ergonomic issues should simply be addressed in the design of the SL2.  But, and there have been discussions about this in the past, those who firmly believe the world needs a baby SL are totally wed to the L mount.  The moment you go there, you get the joy sticks, AEL/AFL buttons, a whole set of other unnecessary crap and, worst of all, none of the things I previously mentioned as requisite. That schism is already on the record, I see no more hope of resolving that disagreement then the one under discussion here. 

My M240 has 8 buttons, 2 dials and a direction pad; the SL has 8 buttons, 2 dials and a joystick - same difference.

 

The M10 gets down to 5 buttons (sorry 4 - miscounted), 2 dials (sorry 3 - forgot the ISO plunger) and a direction pad; the CL has 5 buttons, 2 dials and a direction pad. 

 

The TL2, of course, has 1 button and 2 dials.

 

Not that clear to me which one has the unnecessary crap!

Edited February 28, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[klytz]

I started this thread out of common curiosity and I must say that I am quite overwhelmed by all the different kinds of attitudes. 

May I ask why some of you do not find evolution thinkable? If the purists were deciding, there would have been no digital M, no built in lightmeter, no M-mount, and I am sure that you could make that list much longer. If Leica hadn't refined their product, the brand would not have existed today, and I think that it makes no sense to refer us on to other Leica models. It is the M that we are discussing. If I want a big camera I just take my Nikon D4, which can do all the tricks that the M cannot (yet)

 

Best wishes from Denmark

 

Klaus

[LocalHero1953]

I started this thread out of common curiosity and I must say that I am quite overwhelmed by all the different kinds of attitudes. 

May I ask why some of you do not find evolution thinkable? If the purists were deciding, there would have been no digital M, no built in lightmeter, no M-mount, and I am sure that you could make that list much longer. If Leica hadn't refined their product, the brand would not have existed today, and I think that it makes no sense to refer us on to other Leica models. It is the M that we are discussing. If I want a big camera I just take my Nikon D4, which can do all the tricks that the M cannot (yet)

 

Best wishes from Denmark

 

Klaus

It's a question of how far evolution should go before Leica starts a new species.

It did that when it couldn't evolve the Leica I, II and III any further, and created a new species - the M.

It's done it now when it cannot easily evolve the M any further, and has created the SL and TL/CL.

 

I guess the argument is whether it is worth the effort of trying to evolve the M further with a built-in EVF and no OVF/RF. Frankly the idea that one cannot do it simply because "M means Messsucher" belongs in Lewis Carol (“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”). No one's arguing about whether a particular camera should have a particular letter engraved on it; the argument is about what the camera does and looks like.

 

Nor do I entirely buy the argument that Leica wouldn't make an EVF version of an M, because it would sell too well and take sales away from the M - really? "We make a camera that sells better than its predecessors so we'd better not make it?" ........... I said "entirely", because Leica may actually make little money out of the M camera, but a lot out of M lenses - in that case, they might not wish to harm M lens sales. They might make a EVF M with an M-mount, but you can bet that this forum would then be filled by posts complaining that Leica hadn't used the L-mount, with its options for AF, AE etc.

 

I have a foot in both M and L camps, so I'm happy!

[ianman]

Who exactly is against "Evolution" and "refine" ?

 

... my Nikon D4, which can do all the tricks that the M cannot (yet)

 

Yet ??  In essence you are saying that you want a future M to be equivalent to your Nikon D4 (I don't know about it but I'm guessing it's a massive DSLR).

[Martin B]

I started this thread out of common curiosity and I must say that I am quite overwhelmed by all the different kinds of attitudes. 

May I ask why some of you do not find evolution thinkable? If the purists were deciding, there would have been no digital M, no built in lightmeter, no M-mount, and I am sure that you could make that list much longer. If Leica hadn't refined their product, the brand would not have existed today, and I think that it makes no sense to refer us on to other Leica models. It is the M that we are discussing. If I want a big camera I just take my Nikon D4, which can do all the tricks that the M cannot (yet)

 

Best wishes from Denmark

 

Klaus

 

+1! Well said! I believe part of the protective behavior expressed by many is related to the investment they made into an existing M series camera - and worries that a successor would have much better technology in it making their current model much less valuable than the otherwise expected depreciation. Slower innovation helps in this case to keep prices up. 

[james.liam]

Who exactly is against "Evolution" and "refine" ?

 

 

Yet ??  In essence you are saying that you want a future M to be equivalent to your Nikon D4 (I don't know about it but I'm guessing it's a massive DSLR).

 

You guessed right:

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!

Edited February 28, 2018 by james.liam

[james.liam]

From another angle:

 

For an M Monochrome, 2x the height, 2.5x the thickness, 15% wider.

 

Weight difference (Nikon D4 vs M10): 1340 vs 590 gms

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!

Edited February 28, 2018 by james.liam

[klytz]

Sorry., james.liam You are completely missing the point of this whole thread

[james.liam]

Sorry., james.liam You are completely missing the point of this whole thread

 

 

Sorry klutz, you're missing the point of my reply, it's directed to 'ianman' and his comment just above. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by james.liam

[ianman]

and ????

[ianman]

+1! Well said! I believe part of the protective behavior expressed by many is related to the investment they made into an existing M series camera - and worries that a successor would have much better technology in it making their current model much less valuable than the otherwise expected depreciation. Slower innovation helps in this case to keep prices up. 

This is one of most ridiculous comments yet.

 

And anyone who "invests" in a consumer digital camera body is a complete fool.

 

Once again just in case you still have not understood. Nobody, from what I have read, is against evolution, refinement or improvement. Some M users prefer to see the world through glass than a little TV screen. That's it. No more, no less.

 

And I don't see why users who do prefer using an OVF get all hot and bothered when it is suggested they use another system which meets their demands much better. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[james.liam]

and ????

 

 

So, nothing. You mentioned you were guessing at what a D4 looked like and I simply provided the dimensions and weight. That's all.