To EVF or Rangfinder

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, jaapv said:

The EVF is just an auxiliary system it does what it has to do- nothing more. 

Its the best thing ever made for the M10 period. I used to use it on my old M10

[Jeff S]

Don’t own, need or want an EVF for my M10.  

Jeff

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Don’t own, need or want an EVF for my M10.  

Jeff

Do t knock it until you’ve tried it

[Jeff S]

Just now, NW67 said:

Do t knock it until you’ve tried it

I have, just to see.  Yuck.  

RF rules on an M.  At least for me, for over 30 years.

Jeff

[jaapv]

19 hours ago, NW67 said:

Its the best thing ever made for the M10 period. I used to use it on my old M10

I used it as well when needed, but it remains a second-rate crutch. 

[Edax]

One can only wonder if an M10 with 0.85x finder magnification would improve focussing *enough* with the 50/0.95...

Edited September 3, 2019 by Edax

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 minutes ago, Edax said:

One can only wonder if an M10 with 0.85x finder magnification would improve focussing *enough* with the 50/0.95...

Hello Edax,

Welcome to the Forum.

You might try borrowing an M3 & see how you like it. You could get a reasonably good idea.

Best Regards,

Michael

[Edax]

Michael,

Thank you for welcoming me to the forum. Apparently I have been lurking here for too many decades.

As Adan said it in another thread: "I used "central point" focusing for decades even before using rangefinders, since SLRs used to have a very nice central split-image focusing device not unlike the Leica RF in use (align two images). Which I loved - I had no time to be yanking a lens back and forth until things looked "sharpest" - I just put the two images together and shot. Half a second - zip-beep-done."

It is this feature that is essential to the M rangefinder. If it doesn't work good enough and an "Yanking back and forth" EVF is the answer, one has to wonder why... 

[ckuwajima]

On 8/15/2019 at 2:04 PM, NW67 said:

What does the gang prefer to use when shooting either of these lenses 90mm APO or Naughtlux 50mm 095?

neil

Even though I get more consistent results with EVF, I prefer rangefinder. I guess it is because I shoot (much) more with film M's.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Edax,

There is not necessarily a reason that you can not at least try, if not do, both.

I use an earlier version mechanically (They are all the same optically.) of a 135mm, F4, Tele-Elmar that separates so that you can use the lens head with a viewing system where you look thru the lens.

I do what I choose when I want to. I generally use the range/viewfinder system for moderate & middle ground photos. I use the thru the lens viewing for closeups & distant subjects. Except, not always.

You don't have to "carve 1 or the other in stone".  You can do both or go back & forth.

For now, with a 50mm, F0.95, Noctilux you could try using the lens with a 1.25X or 1.4X magnifier to see if 1 of them is better. You might even see if you like photographing with an M3 (Gasp: film.) or another "M" camera with a 0.85X range/viewfinder (Also Gasp: More film.).      

Best Regards,

Michael

 

[Photoworks]

20 hours ago, NW67 said:

Its the best thing ever made for the M10 period. I used to use it on my old M10

not sure how so many people are happy with the current EVF..  I would be happy with a much improved one.

[jaapv]

Actually, it is so simple. People buy the Leica M because it is a rangefinder camera. Part of the high price over most other cameras in its class is the rangefinder. It would be silly to pay the premium for this expensive part if it were not a reason to choose this camera. That the functionality is extended by the optional EVF is nice, but not a primary functionality.
In other words: there are so many excellent EVF cameras (for far less money, too) that there is no rational reason to buy an M10 if you prefer EVF focusing.

[pico]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Actually, it is so simple. People buy the Leica M because it is a rangefinder camera. Part of the high price over most other cameras in its class is the rangefinder. It would be silly to pay the premium for this expensive part if it were not a reason to choose this camera. That the functionality is extended by the optional EVF is nice, but not a primary functionality.

The EVF is not of a primary functionality unless we consider Leica's consumer demographics. Most of us are growing old and appreciate assistance when it is necessary, and often it is.

[lct]

22 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Actually, it is so simple. People buy the Leica M because it is a rangefinder camera. Part of the high price over most other cameras in its class is the rangefinder. It would be silly to pay the premium for this expensive part if it were not a reason to choose this camera. That the functionality is extended by the optional EVF is nice, but not a primary functionality.
In other words: there are so many excellent EVF cameras (for far less money, too) that there is no rational reason to buy an M10 if you prefer EVF focusing.

Actually, it is so simple.  People buy into the M system because it uses M lenses. Some of them are happy with the rangefinder, others would prefer a built-in EVF and the last ones an M with an accessory EVF working at least as well as that of modern P&S cameras. There is no rational reason to buy an M10 if you don't belong to the first category so far.

[jaapv]

@ Pico:I think that they would prefer to sell us an SL/CL system.

[jaapv]

7 minutes ago, lct said:

Actually, it is so simple.  People buy into the M system because it uses M lenses. Some of them are happy with the rangefinder, others would prefer a built-in EVF and the last ones an M with an accessory EVF working at least as well as that of modern P&S cameras. There is no rational reason to buy an M10 if you don't belong to the first category so far.

This mantra  is less and less true. The M lenses are amongst the best - given the size constraints that a rangefinder system imposes. There are many better lenses out there, from the SL series to the OTUS and ART lenses. And even then, in the past the lens quality was a ding-dong battle between Zeiss and Leica, with Leica fairly often losing out. Even Canon and Nikon have produced LTM lenses that outperformed the Leica offerings.

BTW, what camera do you use your M lenses on?

[lct]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

This mantra  is less and less true. The M lenses are amongst the best - given the size constraints that a rangefinder system imposes. There are many better lenses out there, from the SL series to the OTUS and ART lenses.

More and more true to me. Those so-called better lenses are monsters M users are not interested in at all. They(we) don't like M lenses because they fit the rangefinder system in the first place but because they offer the highest IQ and quality in the smallest package.

[jaapv]

Yes. And that smallest package is dictated by the rangefinder design. M lenses are the best possible within the size limit. As soon as Leica is released from that restriction, they will build larger lenses to improve quality - R, SL, TL, Digilux2/3,  X Vario, etc. For the very best IQ you don't buy an M. Although it is pretty good

[Michael Geschlecht]

28 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Yes. And that smallest package is dictated by the rangefinder design. M lenses are the best possible within the size limit. As soon as Leica is released from that restriction, they will build larger lenses to improve quality - R, SL, TL, Digilux2/3,  X Vario, etc. For the very best IQ you don't buy an M. Although it is pretty good

Hello Everybody,

Sometimes what people are looking for is a "mix":

Doing the most possible with the least amount of size within the smallest package in a manner that is logically "elegant" & straight forward. Reliable & repairable. Something that is well thought out & works intuitively. And the majority of what you have works chronologically forward & backward as much as is possible.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

30 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Yes. And that smallest package is dictated by the rangefinder design. M lenses are the best possible within the size limit. As soon as Leica is released from that restriction, they will build larger lenses to improve quality [...]

I beg to differ. The smallest package is not dictated by anything else than the wishes of photographers. What HCB and others were interested in was the small package in the first place. Rangefinders were only available then but mirrorless cameras allow for the same compactness nowadays, reason why M lens users, at least some of them, are interested that much in those cameras and/or accessory EVFs.