EVF - how do you like it?

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Sadly these are the times.  That a device, so steeped in a tradition of reportage, seems to have engendered a user base that all too often is unwilling to entertain, let alone explore, diverse points of view, is rather ironic.

The poster said "he would abandon the brand" if he does not get his precious EVF and the other poster says "goodbye then" 

What are we all supposed to do? beg him to stay if he does not get his way? 

A sign of the times is people wanting every camera to be the same,just like almost all of them are right now.

[6bit]

Thorsten Overgaard has stated he would like an M with built-in EVF. 
 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Fontan]

10 minutes ago, 6bit said:

Thorsten Overgaard has stated he would like an M with built-in EVF. 
 

 

I think that the improvement in visual aspect of EVF in general the last few years has been impressive. I truly believe that one day it can match that of OVF although obviously we are not quite there yet. But when it does -  I am not sure why you would not want to have a model with EVF, along with a model without, in your line up. 

If built in, that would solve the thumb rest problem! 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

53 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

The poster said "he would abandon the brand" if he does not get his precious EVF and the other poster says "goodbye then" 

What are we all supposed to do? beg him to stay if he does not get his way? 

A sign of the times is people wanting every camera to be the same,just like almost all of them are right now.

No he/she didn't. They said they wouldn't buy an OVF "ONLY" M. That they would "RATHER" leave the brand than buy an OVF "ONLY" M. All current M digital cameras accept an EVF. None are OVF only.

Besides there's a difference between "maybe Leica won't be good for you" or "not for me. I won't but an EVF only M" compared to "goodbye then".

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

11 minutes ago, Fontan said:

I think that the improvement in visual aspect of EVF in general the last few years has been impressive. I truly believe that one day it can match that of OVF although obviously we are not quite there yet. But when it does -  I am not sure why you would not want to have a model with EVF, along with a model without, in your line up. 

If built in, that would solve the thumb rest problem! 

The thumb rest problem was solved with the M10D. Some said it was stupid (surprise, surprise!!) but I think anyone with the current M10D would rather like it. I certainly did when I tried one.

It's certainly a retro touch but I wish it was on all digital M's.

Gordon

[rramesh]

I believe, the essence of photography is to take a picture of what you see. This is the optical view without any aid and its the power of the rangefinder.

However, there is one area the rangefinder falls short of, and that is the ability to frame the picture with an accurate view through the lens (what the SLR gives). Frame lines help but they are just a guide. Of course, one can always crop the capture, because modern day sensors have lots of pixels to play with.

I don't need a high resolution EVF, but it would be nice to have more accurate frame lines in all situations. Maybe only an EVF can do this.

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

What are we all supposed to do? beg him to stay if he does not get his way? 

Ignore it or respond in a way that this particular topic doesn't yet again devolve to the level of 5 year olds in a school yard. Pretty much every time the subject of EVF comes up, the same things happens. For anyone that wishes to raise their blood pressure further, a leaf through any number of older threads will do the trick. Regardless, calm down. Leica has repeatedly stated that as long as there is a Leica, there will be an M with an RF. 

The point of a camera is to make photographs. The point of a viewfinder is to aid you in that pursuit. In the context of an M, some gain all the functionality they ever need via the optical finder and cant fathom the desire for anything else. Others see the M's EVF as too imperfect to be useful, while still others find it essential for achieving the sorts of photographs they happen to be interested in making. It's frankly quite simple, the two technologies are quite complementary, each backfilling the others weaknesses with their strengths. Depending on what you shoot and how, either might be preferred entirely over the other. Or perhaps, like me, you utilize often utilize them both for the same shot. Regardless, no one insists the street shooter use an EVF, nor the landscaper suffer sloppy framing.

I currently own two Ms, a 240 and M10. I would not buy another M that had no EVF capability. I use both finders. I rely on both finders. I get unmatched value by having both available in the same body.  They are yin and yang, complimentary opposites that together provide the whole. 

[Tailwagger]

5 minutes ago, rramesh said:

I don't need a high resolution EVF, but it would be nice to have more accurate frame lines in all situations. Maybe only an EVF can do this.

There are other more subtle cases where the EVF can be quite valuable to avoid being misled by parallax effects.  Coincidentally, just yesterday morning, while out on my morning walk, I somewhat matter of factly took this shot. The entire reason for pausing and making the image rested solely on being able to precisely line up the rectangles, triangles and points of the roof peaks to imply the shape of an upward pointing arrow. In similar situations in the past, I've had to chimp upwards of dozens of shots to get things lined up correctly when using only the OVF.  With the EVF, I made a couple of different versions in a few seconds, no chimping necessary and came away with what I had envisioned. 

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!

 

[Dr No]

On 5/19/2020 at 6:21 AM, astrostl said:

I hate it. Find it doofy to use, slow, and ugly, and it forces you into live view for clunky shot speed.

Camera setting have an impact on live view speed.

[Fontan]

So, my Visoflex 020 has arrived from Hong Kong few days ago. Got one from AGFCamera.com, where I bought my M10. Paid $519 including shipping. It was brand new. 
 

The very first thing I noticed once slapping it on was that the right edge of the thing hover over the shutter speed dial. It was somewhat of a WTF moment, and I still kind of have not gotten over that, but in time I’m pretty sure I will. I dunno - I feel like they could have done better than that. 
 

Not able to use the thumb rest is a major buzz kill. That little pseudo built in thumb rest does lessen the pain somewhat. But having a more than minor thumb rest withdrawal as we speak. 
 

The ability to flip up therefore allowing me to look down while shooting definitely contributes to beIng more stealthy. It feels flimsy and gives me no confidence in it’s long term longevity of the device itself though. One of these days it’s going to over extend and break Off - hope not. 
 

Framing with it is a joy. This is going to save me time. Focusing for me with the peaking function is absolutely better with my failing eyesight. Accuracy of focus didn’t seem worse with EVF. 
 

The visual quality of EVF itself was no better than any other brands. I would say that Sony got that figured out much better. 
 

‘One added bonus was that it allows me to use my Pentax FA ltds lenses with an adapter. Blasphemy it is, but it’s too late for that anyway. 
 

Useful? Absolutely.
 

Regret getting it? Not so far. 

 

Love it? Will see. 
 

Would I buy an M with a built in EVF? Absolutely yes. 

[Dr No]

On 7/16/2020 at 2:14 AM, 6bit said:

Thorsten Overgaard has stated he would like an M with built-in EVF. 
 

 

Yes. reminds me old proverb - Good for spying on elephants in the dark.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Dr No

[Simone_DF]

Jesus, this forum sure is full of frustrated people. 

Don't worry, nobody is taking away your precious rangefinder, Leica won't release a M without a rangefinder, they stated that multiple times. Happy now?

[Manicouagan1]

I use the Visoflex 020 for two functions.

1) one of my favorite lenses  the is 24mm 2.8 ASPH that I purchased for  my M8 (for those that have forgotten, the M8 frame lines for the 24mm lens because of the crop factor).  The EVF allows that lens to be framed accurately.  With its wide field of view it is easy to get annoying distractions in the corners of the frame with a 24mm lens.

2)  The GPS function.  I take a lot of landscapes and gps data helps greatly when organizing the images.  For technical reasons not all images will get a gps tag but enough for my purposes.  

 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Manicouagan1
incorrect lens focal length

[fotografr]

On 6/25/2020 at 2:12 AM, 250swb said:

... or if life wasn't all about being seen with a sleek sexy looking camera...

 

 

If it was all about being seen with a sleek sexy looking camera, I'd probably have one of these hanging around my neck rather than a heavy M with a heavy lens attached to it.

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!

[fotografr]

I'm always a bit puzzled by the importance some people place on absolute framing accuracy, as if once the shutter is pressed the image is set in stone. Just shoot a bit looser and crop in post to get exactly what you want. Or am in missing something here?

[Dr No]

25 minutes ago, fotografr said:

I'm always a bit puzzled by the importance some people place on absolute framing accuracy, as if once the shutter is pressed the image is set in stone. Just shoot a bit looser and crop in post to get exactly what you want. Or am in missing something here?

Because you're a photographer.

I once met sebastiao salgado. He looked at my photo and gave me some very direct advice. He pointed and said "This is OK, this is not. Crop here and show more there" and then he added, with intensity "but you must do it in camera".

You're a photographer, you frame in camera and you edit with your shutter finger.

[Fontan]

21 minutes ago, Dr No said:

Because you're a photographer.

I once met sebastiao salgado. He looked at my photo and gave me some very direct advice. He pointed and said "This is OK, this is not. Crop here and show more there" and then he added, with intensity "but you must do it in camera".

You're a photographer, you frame in camera and you edit with your shutter finger.

That is certain one way, but that is not to say that every photographer has to do it that way to produce an excellent work. No? In my early years of practice, I had a mentor that often said to me, " you must do it this way." When you live long enough at least for me you realize that there more than one way to do things. What is important is that one finds his or her way of doing things, so to gain absolutely control of the process. 

[SrMi]

53 minutes ago, Dr No said:

Because you're a photographer.

I once met sebastiao salgado. He looked at my photo and gave me some very direct advice. He pointed and said "This is OK, this is not. Crop here and show more there" and then he added, with intensity "but you must do it in camera".

You're a photographer, you frame in camera and you edit with your shutter finger.

That is Salgado's style. Other well-known photographers crop. An example is the famous Igor Stravinsky photograph by Arnold Newman. Here are Newman's cropping notes: link.

To clarify: I do not think that one should be sloppy with framing, but try to get the best image possible in the first place. But nothing should prevent the author from cropping the image to strengthen its meaning.

[Dr No]

1 hour ago, Fontan said:

That is certain one way, but that is not to say that every photographer has to do it that way to produce an excellent work. No? In my early years of practice, I had a mentor that often said to me, " you must do it this way." When you live long enough at least for me you realize that there more than one way to do things. What is important is that one finds his or her way of doing things, so to gain absolutely control of the process. 

It depends on intentions and the individual. There are artists who intentionally crop—But it is done with intention.

Some argue that cropping is not photography but image making. There is a difference between the two and we see it more distinctively in modern day with photoshop.

A perfectly framed and exposed negative is the holy grail of photography. It's authentic and when done consistently it is the hallmark of a true artist. Journalism too, it's considered best and most authentic when uncropped and unedited. It's complete and whole in it's existence. When great photography and art bridges journalism, such as Cartier Bresson, Josef Koudelka, Salgado etc in camera cropping elevates the art. The negative stands whole as perfection. The value in this, I think, undeniable and obvious—it's the mark of a great artist.

A great musician learns their instrument and practices relentlessly until perfection. A perfect performance from cultivated talented is celebrated, it's a pinnacle in the same way.

Photography is like a performance. Do you want to be sloppy and fumble about? Or do you want to learn your instrument, find your intention, your point of view, be decisive and work to make a perfect performance?

No one can be perfect all the time, or even often, but they can work towards it and after a life long effort be the best they can be. There will of course be times when cropping is absolutely necessary, but on balance with a body of work over a life time it doesn't matter.

And of course it is fair to say some don't care for all this. For me it is important.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Dr No

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[TomB_tx]

In the 1960s we learned more about composition and framing by doing our own enlarging in the darkroom, when you saw what you could have done with the shot. Of course back then the other options were to have film developed and printed, or shoot and project slides with no cropping or adjustments. I shot a lot of Kodachrome that needed to be seen as shot.

The other learning experience was giving your contact sheet to the publication's photo editor, where he would mark the desired cropping on the shots he wanted.

But I'm no artist by temperament or talent: I was mainly a reportage photographer, which later carried over to event, advertising and product photography as the company didn't staff a pro photographer. I still got published in national publications.

Back then cropping was minimized in order to hold quality from a 35 film. Today I'm amazed at how much an M10 shot can be cropped, and of course everyone can manipulate without darkroom work.

But my point is that not all photographers are artists: there are other valid branches of photography that shouldn't be ignored.