To EVF or Rangfinder

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, lct said:

The M3 is "only" 0.91x though. Better use an 1:1 viewfinder like that of the R-D1 from this viewpoint. Associated with current M rangefinders, it would allow for focussing difficult lenses more easily. Now accessory EVF or OVF(s) would have to be used for lenses wider than 50mm or 40mm anyway so chances to get such a VF are likely to approach zero IMHO. 

Hello LCT,

I am not recommending this as a cure for all problems in all situations. I am simply writing that for normal & longer focal length lenses: A larger range/viewfinder magnification might solve a lot of people's problems in a number of situations. Without having to re-do existant systems/structures significantly.

Don't forget that Leitz/Leica as a manufacture has at times been known to produce more than 1 similar model simultaneously, each with somewhat different characteristics.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited September 27, 2019 by Michael Geschlecht

[Advertisement]

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

[Michael Geschlecht]

10 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

Lol. Your comments are all over the place. 

Hello DKMoore,

That is an interesting observation.

Throughout this Thread I have tried to be reasonably precise in my comments. Could you clarify your statement please?

Best Regards,

Michael

[lct]

14 minutes ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Don't forget that Leitz/Leica as a manufacture has at times been known to produce more than 1 similar model simultaneously, each with somewhat different characteristics.

I don't forget it in spite of my ageing memory  but lenses like Summaron or Summicron 35 with goggles would have to be made again given that they could not be framed on that modern M3. Sounds more reasonable to keep current RF magnifications as they are more or less and provide a decent accessory EVF if you ask me. Now i can't seem to figure out how M11 users could focus lenses like the rumored 90/1.5 if the current 0.73x OVF magnification is not enhanced in a way or another.  

[IkarusJohn]

There are multiple good reasons for both EVF and OVF mechanisms.

Surely the starting point of the M system is its fabulous manual lenses and its analogue appearance in a digital camera.  Certainly, it was those two factors which attracted me, rather than the optical rangefinder - I hadn’t thought about it really.  I was mildly surprised, but had rangefinders before with parallax focusing - quaint, but effective in a limited way (28-75).  I got comfortable with it, and enjoy the accuracy with wide lenses that aren’t so easy to focus using an EVF (the 28 Summaron-m springs to mind).

What intrigues me is the naysayers:

(1) You couldn’t economically or physically fit an evf into the M body?  What?  Pick up the Visoflex 020 (it also has a GPS receiver in it) and look at the space taken up across the entire top of the M camera, then look at the X1D II ...  If Hasselblad can fit a very good EVF into the X1D II, I have no doubt Leica can do the same with the M camera.  When the SL was released, I asked Leica if they could put the EVF into an M - they said no room.  That was 4 years ago.  I have no doubt at all that the smaller EVF in the A7 cameras (considerably improved) and a number of other cameras could fit, and that with less pixels than the SL, but a processor like the X1D II, it could easily work.

(2) Cost?  I’d be amazed if the electronics in an EVF cost anything like the optical mechanism in the current EVF - fitting, adjusting and maintaining would justify any additional cost.

(3) You would need a new mount to transmit aperture information, to stop down for exposing and you have to focus wide open ... Well, anyone thinking this needs to try the Visoflex.  None of this is necessary.  Actually, aside from its less than state of the art refresh rate and low light performance, the Visoflex works very well with the M10-D and TL2.  It gives the clearest idea of what an evf based M would be like, and it’s very good.

(4) Any such camera would be L mount?  Why?  We already have the CL, TL2 and SL, all in L mount and compatible with M lenses, but they are autofocus, video enabled and something altogether different to an M, with its direct aperture, shutter, ISO and manual focus.  An L mount M would need all that extra gubbins which would do nothing more than turn it into a small SL - waht would be the point?  The rather confused M(240) springs to mind.  An M camera with an evf would still be an M camera in every respect, except for the rangefinder - in many respects that would be an improvement, and in others retrograde.  But it just might be a preference for some people, and for others a nice addition to their M system - better than the rather ugly Visoflex insecurely sitting atop an otherwise beautiful piece of industrial design.

(5) The last one, M means messucher, find another forum to post these heretical ideas on ... subtext, I feel threatened by the idea.  Well, we already have the EVF on the M(240) and the M10.  That ship has sailed.  Leica will keep making the optical rangefinder based cameras for so long as there is demand.  Where there is demand of an M10-E, why wouldn’t  Leica fill it?  And there is demand here alone - more so than for the M10-D, I’d hazard.

The antagonism to this idea is curious.  I don’t see a future in which Leica stops making the ovf based M camera.  Why would that be degraded by offering the option of an M10-E?

Edited September 28, 2019 by IkarusJohn

[pico]

11 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

If Leica can release a second M camera without a back screen for the super duper hardcore fans of the "film experience", I don't see why they can't release an additional M with EVF or even better hybrid EVF/rangefinder for those who want it.

Removing features is more economical than inventing anew and Leica knows the likely market for a backwards feature and can control production accordingly; it is already capitalized. If you were a shareholder (and you cannot be one) you should appreciate that.

[dkmoore]

9 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello DKMoore,

That is an interesting observation.

Throughout this Thread I have tried to be reasonably precise in my comments. Could you clarify your statement please?

Best Regards,

Michael

Sure, because I don’t sense hostility and I hope you feel the same. 

1. You originally request forum member to try the M3 rangefinder because he is moving on from Leica M due to focus issues. 

- ignoring the fact that the M10 has better eye relief and better focus for eyeglass wearers (even tho I mention it)

- and a more robust rangefinder 

- M3 isn’t digital 

- this isn’t the thread for “what I would like to see in the next M camera 

2. Ignore the fact that the discussion is about digital 

3. When questioned on this point you come out of nowhere with some wishlist to Leica response for an M3 rangefinder and comment that they could do it and that they produce parallel products 

- seems slightly patronizing 

4. Ignoring 21-28mm lens users - you can approximate 21mm with the outer frame. 

- higher magnification also doesn’t resolve issues eye glass wearers face 

the only reason I even commented on your original post is because you were recommending something that seemed like a waste of time for the above reasons and a couple that Ict points out.  Otherwise I wouldn’t have said anything  

My response at midnight eastern time after a wedding rehearsal probably won’t be all that clear but it is what you are getting at the moment  

 

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 hours ago, lct said:

I don't forget it in spite of my ageing memory  but lenses like Summaron or Summicron 35 with goggles would have to be made again given that they could not be framed on that modern M3. Sounds more reasonable to keep current RF magnifications as they are more or less and provide a decent accessory EVF if you ask me. Now i can't seem to figure out how M11 users could focus lenses like the rumored 90/1.5 if the current 0.73x OVF magnification is not enhanced in a way or another.  

Hello LCT,

I am sorry that I was not clear enough in what I was writing.

 Originally introduced when there was no M2: "Goggles" later became an option for those people who preferred the angles of view & 0.91X magnification of the lenses displayed in the range/viewfinder of the M3:

 And, who also wanted to use 35mm lenses their M3 because: The M3 was clearly designed to be a camera with the 90mm lenses as the center of lens usage with the 50mm lenses & 135mm lenses still being well served.

The purpose of the M2 was to do a similar grouping where the 50mm lenses were the center of lens usage with the 35mm lenses & 90mm lenses being easily usable.

The 2 cameras were  originally provided simultaneously because they were meeting different needs.

My idea of a larger magnification range/viewfinder digital camera as a solution for some people's vision complexities is not meant to be universal replacement. It is for a specific section of users just as Monochrome Leica models are available for some users.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Michael Geschlecht

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello DKMoore,

We are fine. We are just trading information to benefit everybody who is reading this.

I am sorry that I was not clear about the M3. My idea was that a person might try looking thru 1 or/& using 1 for a short time to see IF the increase in magnification, etc would be of benefit to them in some camera of the future. It might well be that for some users the increase in magnification & other different characteristics of the M3's range/viewfinder would make their photography easier/better.

Please keep in mind that Leica's pronouncements about the M10's range/viewfinder are in comparison to its immediate predecessor. The range/viewfinders of the M's 2, 4 & 5 are different from those of the M10. And the M3's range/viewfinder is entirely different. By the way, there were at least 3 versions of the M3 range/viewfinder.

No "wish list" or "patronizing" here. Please see my response to LCT in my Post #187, just above.

1 of the reasons that I suggested looking thru an M3 range/viewfinder is that: Because it is a different optical design & layout it might provide a solution to some of the problems that users of the current range/viewfinders are having.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited September 28, 2019 by Michael Geschlecht

[lct]

•

Edited September 28, 2019 by lct

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello LCT,

I was not writing in favor of or against electronic viewfinders. I think that electronic view finders are good today & that as time goes on that they will be even better. People who like them should use them. 

I am simply presenting an already existant option which is available now. Whether or not Leica chooses to use it. Which could be a viable alternative for some people in some situations.

Best Regards,

Michael

[lct]

36 minutes ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello LCT,

I was not writing in favor of or against electronic viewfinders. I think that electronic view finders are good today & that as time goes on that they will be even better. People who like them should use them. 

I am simply presenting an already existant option which is available now. Whether or not Leica chooses to use it. Which could be a viable alternative for some people in some situations.

Best Regards,

Michael

Yes that's what i understood Michael but how would those people be doing for framing 35mm (let alone 28mm) lenses then? With an accessory OVF unable to focus those lenses? They would be in a worse situation than photographers from the sixties who could use goggles for framing and focusing 35/1.4, 35/2 and 35/2.8 lenses at least. Unless they agree to use an accessory EVF of course but the same could be used for 50mm lenses and above obviously so chances to get such a digital M3 sound rather dim i fear but YMMV.

[spersky]

It would seem that some people are worried the the Leica M made with an EVF is a violation of standard revered tradition and a defiliing of the Leica good name.  If I were Leica or even an avid afficiantio of Leica,  I would be more concerned that Leica lost a photographer who has had previously an M6, M7, M9 and more money in Leica lenses than he knows what to do with for a camera that I can focus effectively.  Do you think I wanted to sell all my lightweight Leica glass?

I revisited the forum with the intention of coming back with a huge investment of Leica glass because I always loved the way they render images,  searching for any indication of things to come.

The reason for this post is maybe a Leica product specialist can see there is in fact a market for an M mount camera with a modern EVF.  The amount of missed critical focus with the rangefinder patch is absurd compared to an EVF with focus peaking.  The Zeiss Otus at f1.4 is amazing with extreme high hit rate even at dusk.  Imagine focusing the 75mm Noct at dusk wide open?  I admit the Zeiss Otus is heavy, but seeing that critical focus with resulting micro contract pop makes it all worth the effort.  Can you imaging that with a Leica M lenses?

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by spersky

[farnz]

20 minutes ago, spersky said:

Imagine focusing the 75mm Noct at dusk wide open?

I've never had the opportunity with the 75/1.25 Noctilux but I have, and have had, little difficulty in regularly nailing focus at dusk or at night with the 50/1 Noctilux, the 50/0.95 Noctilux, and the 90/2 APO-Summicron asph so it can be done.  

If your eyesight is failing then you have my utmost sympathy, I hope never to have to suffer the same, and I completely understand why an M with a built-in EVF would be attractive to you.

Pete.

[pico]

1 hour ago, spersky said:

It would seem that some people are worried the the Leica M made with an EVF is a violation of standard revered tradition and a defiliing of the Leica good name.

And some people are not aware that Leica already makes EVF cameras that are happy with M lenses.

[farnz]

9 hours ago, farnz said:

've never had the opportunity with the 75/1.25 Noctilux but I have, and have had, little difficulty in regularly nailing focus at dusk or at night with the 50/1 Noctilux, the 50/0.95 Noctilux, and the 90/2 APO-Summicron asph so it can be done.

(I should have mentioned that I meant focussing with the OVF exclusively.)

Pete.

[Michael Geschlecht]

21 hours ago, lct said:

Yes that's what i understood Michael but how would those people be doing for framing 35mm (let alone 28mm) lenses then? With an accessory OVF unable to focus those lenses? They would be in a worse situation than photographers from the sixties who could use goggles for framing and focusing 35/1.4, 35/2 and 35/2.8 lenses at least. Unless they agree to use an accessory EVF of course but the same could be used for 50mm lenses and above obviously so chances to get such a digital M3 sound rather dim i fear but YMMV.

Hello LCT,

I think that you might have missed my Post #187 where I wrote about these issues.

Best Regards,

Michael

[lct]

2 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello LCT,

I think that you might have missed my Post #187 where I wrote about these issues.

Best Regards,

Michael

I was trying to answer to this very post so i suggest we agree to disagree if you don't mind.

[topoxforddoc]

Definitely Rangefinder. I have the 020 EVF for my M10, but only ever use it with R lenses. But I find it too slow with the EVF - the moment has gone.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[setuporg]

First of all, apologies for pulling in interesting but not terribly relevant words above — for us non-native English speakers words are fun, but as @pico observed, an analogy might struggle.

Second, I’d like to sum this up as follows: Leica M fans want an EVF camera that is smaller than the SL, and/or possibly keeps the RF OVF.  Obviously the SL is the full-frame, EVF-only Leica camera that exists today.  The chief complaint here is that SL is too big, with an implication that the MEVF, to coin a shorthand, would not need AF and so might be smaller.  One thing missing is whether it needs to preserve the RF system?  I’d get it should or it would be a bit silly.

From the standpoint of Leica tradition, the camera would be semi-crippled by comparison as all EVF cameras Leica makes right now allow for AF.  At the same time Leica is the only company that can introduce LCD-less M and so that might not stop it either.  So from the product standpoint, there are two questions to be answered.

1.  Do you agree to let go of RF in the MEVF?  That would allow making the smallest ever MEVF.

2.  If you want to keep the RF, how small would be OK compared to the SL?  How often would you need the RF if the size is comparable to the SL?

I cannot answer those questions as I absolutely need the RF on the M and expressly do not want the EVF, so my Ms already exist, and always did as we know them.  But if a substantial crowd demands MEVF and can answer 1-2, it could be made, and even two different ones, one pure MEVF, the other ME/OVF (or MEVFRF, etc.) 

Edited October 2, 2019 by setuporg

[evikne]

I much prefer the RF instead of an EVF, but I could probably live with an EVF-only M if Leica managed to make it the way I have described in another thread: The viewfinder is just a transparent window that we can see straight through, but there is a digital overlay with a small split image in the middle. It will look and feel almost like a real rangefinder, but because the split image is a readout from the sensor, it would be immune to focus shift and calibration issues. 

The viewfinder could also have more choices for those who want a more ordinary EVF. With the click on a button, the transparent window could be filled with a digital image showing the actual depth of field and exposure, with or without the split image in the middle. So with the button we could cycle through three different view modes.