Jump to content
Schittra

EVF - how do you like it?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/24/2020 at 7:04 PM, audiophileguy said:

I never use the EVF for my 50mm, 35mm, 75mm, or 90mm lenses, as the optical viewfinder is perfect.  However, I always use the EVF for my 24mm and (Zeiss) 15mm lenses, and find it more useful than changing and attaching fixed external 24 or 15 viewfinders.  For every tool a proper purpose and place....

I am also very keen to use the OVF. However I had to start relying on the EVF when using the Noctilux 75mm for 2 main reasons: 1) the size of the lens does block a quite significant part of the viewfinder and 2) when shooting within 2 meters and in particular close to a meter the frame line borders are not representing the exact final cut. The combination of these 2 factors (in particular when trying to capture a “pure” image, to tie in to the ongoing debate) made the case for the EVF more so than focusing accuracy which I found surprisingly fine with the OVF on the Noctilux. 

Edited by Hanno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Viv said:

I respectfully disagree. Unless, of course, if your definition of "utter crap" is very different from mine.

If we all had the same opinion it would be boring so thats great.

Luckily we still have different types of cameras with different viewing systems..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
vor 16 Stunden schrieb Dr No:

You're arguing over the semantics of words that you have misconstrued. These are commonly used phrases and concepts used in photography and art to describe these things.

Nominal authenticity covers not only the authenticity of ownership, but also the authenticity of the established modes and traditions of the medium that have evolved since photography began. The tradition of uncropped images has always been one of these modes, upheld by some of the greatest masters of the medium.

Aside from being original, expressive authenticity is one of the most important components of an artists work. It is made of many things. It is inherent authority, the sincerity of the artist, the genuineness of expression and the passion the artist puts into their work. An uncropped image represents these things to many. Consistently capturing a moment of time within the fixed parameters of the apparatus, that needs no further compositional correction/perfecting by cropping is an achievement of skill, knowledge, physical timing and sensitivity that has been acquired and cultivated over a life time of work and/or with natural talent. An uncropped image, found, felt and stolen from the chaos of the world, captured whole in it's entirety and needing no further compositional correction is considered by many as a pure expression of photography.

Gursky's photography is the base medium of his artwork. He has made it with great intent, found in the entire body of his work. It is highly authentic, however it is not a pure expression of photography in the traditional sense. However in the wider context of art it is widely accepted.

Yes, cropping changes the image—of course it does. When you remove elements from it you are reducing it and changing it from the original form. It’s like a nose job on a model—it’s unauthentic. If you can perfect it by cropping, then the photographer could have, and as the argument stands—should have—perfected that composition it in camera. You can believe that cropping a photo makes it more pure, but within the established modes of photography, for many, it does not. It makes it less pure. It is, to some, no different than retouching; changing it from original to perfect it.

No, I‘m neither arguing over the semantics of words nor did I misconstrue words. I am relying on the well-known and well-established concepts of „authenticity“ and „purity“ that you try to narrow down and occupy for your no-crop axiom.

While I appreciate the high level of craftsmanship involved in taking the perfect photo just by cropping the reality with the camera and the lens and without cropping the photo after it has been taken, the no-crop property in the final product of photography - i.e., the printed or developed photo where a cropped photo is indistinguishable from a non-cropped photo unless you rely on additional elements outside the photo, like film borders - is nothing more than a kind of fetish for the assertors of the no-crop axiom.

Edited by Robert Blanko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Robert Blanko said:

No, I‘m neither arguing over the semantics of words nor did I misconstrue words. I am relying on the well-known and well-established concepts of „authenticity“ and „purity“ that you try to narrow down and occupy for your no-crop axiom.

While I appreciate the high level of craftsmanship involved in taking the perfect photo just by cropping the reality with the camera and the lens and without cropping the photo after it has been taken, the no-crop property in the final product of photography - i.e., the printed or developed photo where a cropped photo is indistinguishable from a non-cropped photo unless you rely on additional elements outside the photo, like film borders - is nothing more than a kind of fetish for the assertors of the no-crop axiom.

No, you're arguing over the semantics of words that you have misconstrued and a concept you can't grasp or just simply don't agree with.

This is established industry terminology. Authenticity is a requirement for inscription upon the UNESCO World Heritage List.

The Nara Document describes Authenticity as expressed through 'form and design; materials and substance; use and function; traditions and techniques; location and setting; spirit and feeling; and other internal and external factors.

You can also read the highly regarded works of Dennis Dutton who's work on authenticity is written into the curriculum of the highest level art institutions today. You can read about Nominal and Expressive Authenticity in great detail in the Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics.

The finer details of authenticity will always be contentious, but you labelling it as a fetish is simply conjecture from someone who can't or chooses not to grasp the concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find Visoflex Type 020 extremely useful on M10s as I am using it quite often, whenever I do have time to switch between the rangefinder (focusing) and EVF (framing).

Many M10-R reviewers seem to be using EVF only as they are not that comfortable with rangefinder shooting. Focusing with rangefinder is more precise with wide angles and more precise with EVF when using fast/long lenses where DOF is narrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
vor 19 Stunden schrieb Dr No:

No, you're arguing over the semantics of words that you have misconstrued and a concept you can't grasp or just simply don't agree with.

This is established industry terminology. Authenticity is a requirement for inscription upon the UNESCO World Heritage List.

The Nara Document describes Authenticity as expressed through 'form and design; materials and substance; use and function; traditions and techniques; location and setting; spirit and feeling; and other internal and external factors.

You can also read the highly regarded works of Dennis Dutton who's work on authenticity is written into the curriculum of the highest level art institutions today. You can read about Nominal and Expressive Authenticity in great detail in the Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics.

The finer details of authenticity will always be contentious, but you labelling it as a fetish is simply conjecture from someone who can't or chooses not to grasp the concept.

No! It is you who is arguing over the semantics of words that you have misconstrued and a concept you can't grasp or just simply don't agree with. Or maybe it is also a translation issue.

The Nara document neither gives a definition for „authenticity“ nor does it overbalance the well-know standard interpretation of „authenticity“ referred to in my previous posts.

In addition to that, the Nara document refers to the context of Cultural heritage such as monuments, groups of buildings and sites of cultural value at first place. You may find an overview for instance here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ff48/e42df46bf5cd0df79dec47a9c0f0cf22ca8d.pdf

Moreover, as the skilled reader will also learn from said documents, the NAra document would not even support your case even if one would take this into account. The intention of the Nara discussion was to avoid that changing one or more aspects of cultural heritage would destroy overall authenticity when balancing the various attributes that may contribute to authenticity.

 

The reference to Denis Dutton‘s work does not lead to a different assessment either.

The documents in particular do not support the view that cropping a photo after it has been taken would affect authenticity of the photo.

The no-crop property in the final product of photography - i.e., the printed or developed photo where a cropped photo is indistinguishable from a non-cropped photo unless you rely on additional elements outside the photo, like film borders - is nothing more than a kind of fetish for the assertors of the no-crop axiom.

 

To end this off-topic discussion and to get back to the main topic:
A side effect of using the Visoflex is that you are using liveview which in turn leads to a very accurate determination of exposure time.

Edited by Robert Blanko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Robert Blanko said:

No! It is you who is arguing over the semantics of words that you have misconstrued and a concept you can't grasp or just simply don't agree with. Or maybe it is also a translation issue.

The Nara document neither gives a definition for „authenticity“ nor does it overbalance the well-know standard interpretation of „authenticity“ referred to in my previous posts.

In addition to that, the Nara document refers to the context of Cultural heritage such as monuments, groups of buildings and sites of cultural value at first place. You may find an overview for instance here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ff48/e42df46bf5cd0df79dec47a9c0f0cf22ca8d.pdf

Moreover, as the skilled reader will also learn from said documents, the NAra document would not even support your case even if one would take this into account. The intention of the Nara discussion was to avoid that changing one or more aspects of cultural heritage would destroy overall authenticity when balancing the various attributes that may contribute to authenticity.

 

The reference to Denis Dutton‘s work does not lead to a different assessment either.

The documents in particular do not support the view that cropping a photo after it has been taken would affect authenticity of the photo.

The no-crop property in the final product of photography - i.e., the printed or developed photo where a cropped photo is indistinguishable from a non-cropped photo unless you rely on additional elements outside the photo, like film borders - is nothing more than a kind of fetish for the assertors of the no-crop axiom.

 

To end this off-topic discussion and to get back to the main topic:
A side effect of using the Visoflex is that you are using liveview which in turn leads to a very accurate determination of exposure time.

How very amusing. 

Calm down dear there is no need to get angry and shout with exclamation marks to try and get your point across. Fist slamming does not erase facts.

You are forming your opinion from an interpretation, one that you've not reasonably clarified, and you are being completely ignorant to the given context. It's naive conjecture. You are arguing over the semantics of words you have misconstrued, over a concept you can't grasp, have not researched, and seem to refuse to accept that even exists and look other to freely adopt it. At this point it appears you are arguing for the sake or fun of it.

I would be quite surprised that the "skilled reader" could not relate such a simple and well written verse to all aspects of art; given the Nara Document is often referenced by the entire culture, art and conservation world for this very reason. It translates and relates to all aspects of culture and expression and this is plainly clear in the section I have quoted and really does not require a high level of comprehension. You've also completely brushed off and ignored that the work of Dennis Dutton on authenticity is written into the highest level of art education available.

Furthermore, while you continue to argue over semantics (for some peculiar reason) against this commonality, while giving nothing to support your argument within any kind context, let alone photography and art, to help you understand the correlation between authentic and pure I refer to the the following quote of Charles Lindholm on his anthropological writings, "The Rise of Expressive Authenticity".

Quote

"In English, the word "authentic" is one of an overlapping set of evaluations that includes sincere, true, honest, absolute, basic, essential, genuine, ideal, natural, original, perfect, pure, real, and right (Phillips 1997:5-6). All of these words refer to some state of being that is believed to lie outside or beneath the vicissitudes of ordinary existence. But they also have a banal function as intensifying adverbs: "I'm really telling the truth," "ideally speaking," "to be perfectly clear," "essentially, the argument is," "I mean it sincerely." It is significant that it is impossible to substitute "authentically" into any of these adverbial constructions. Unlike its cousins, the authentic cannot be reduced to a mere intensifier. Authenticity has higher claims to make."

All of these "overlapping evaluations" pertain to the very nature of the matter. Sincere, true, honest, absolute, basic, essential, genuine, ideal, natural, original, perfect, pure, real and right. Perfectly put and easy to understand.

I also refer you to the Thesis on film rebates written by Stewart Locrin. You can download the PDF published by his University >HERE< and while the entire writing is very interesting and traverses the span of historical use from Aesthetics to Authenticity, the specific section relating to film borders for authenticity can be found on page 38-45, entitled "Rebate as Fact". Citations for the authors in-depth research can be found in his document.

Quote

Rebate as Fact

Truth in photography has been a long-contested topic, often within the context of journalism, but questions of authenticity have also plagued other areas of photographic recording. Propaganda and even history have fallen victim to questions of authenticity and been revealed to be forgeries of one form or another. The appearance of a rebate on a photograph, however, can speak to a different kind of validation—the absence of cropping. Cropping is typically used by photographers to remove superfluous information or to enhance the formal qualities of the image, acting as a reframing device after the image has been captured. However, cropping has been more commonly employed as a visual editing tool for photographs that appear in print. Magazine and newspaper photo-editors, book designers, and others in the publication industry often crop a photograph to make it fit into a layout, emphasize a particular element (most often a person) and/or eliminate information that is considered extraneous.

A lack of cropping can denote that the intentions of the photographer are not to direct the viewer’s attention to a single point in the image, but instead to give them the freedom to explore the entirety of the frame, regardless of where the action or main focal point is. On one level, this places a trust in the viewer to be able to read the image effectively and to understand what the purpose is without direction, while on another it treats the viewer as one who is already capable of doing the aforementioned. For photojournalists, displaying the full frame can serve as a sense of proof not of authenticity of the event but that what is within the frame is a record of everything the photographer saw in that moment. As a result, this validates the photographer’s place within the event they are recording, and shows that, while the document is not capable of standing for an entirely assured sense of authenticity, it does give indication of the photographer’s place in it as a whole. While printing the rebate is a method that has been adapted by photojournalists to indicate that their photograph is uncropped, to some degree it also serves to pronounce the photographer’s skill and accuracy with the camera in the moment, suggesting that cropping is rendered entirely unnecessary, and would detract from the image itself.

 

Whole in it's entirety.

Quote

Of course, Cartier-Bresson could have asked the cyclist to pedal by stairs and railings multiple times in order that he achieve the perfect shot, however even if this is the truth behind the image (unknowable without access to contact sheets and film strips), there is still an undeniable element of chance that the ideal frame has been caught. In this case, the rebate stands as a form of proof that Cartier-Bresson has created the internal architecture of the image within the confines of the filmic frame.

A signature of skill.

Quote

what is important in this context is that said chance is framed and printed in such a way as to give testament to the skill of the man behind the camera.

I also add this here, for those that don't believe that the film rebate is hidden beneath matts.

Quote

Similarly, the rebate is often hidden beneath matts by exhibiting institutions, seldom revealed unless specified by the photographer during either the framing process, or over the course of their lifetime, thus setting the standard for display of their work post-mortem.

As for your arguments on the broader context of authenticity of artists, further to these quotes, anyone can simply step into any reputable art gallery and ask them about expressive authenticity, step into any specialist photography gallery or speak with a learned photography collector and ask them about film borders and how they are used to denote authenticity and how they are used as a signature of skill. Show your work to artist management or an editor and ask them about authenticity. Speak with a museum conservator about film and why prints are made with film rebates. Read the many writings on the matter or attend an art course—There is an entire industry of those passionate to the cause that you can draw upon and one that I have found very helpful in my own career to form my own beliefs and practices.

The EVF leads to accurate framing and is a very lazy way of determining exposure, one that creates a reliance, however, that I can see would be be useful for a beginner who is still learning basic concepts. Though, it would take diligence or quite possibly an overly long period of time to separate such reliance with skill.

Until you can back up your spurious claims I shall have to remain convinced that it is simply conjecture, that for me, adds nothing to the conversation other than hollow and naive criticism and there is more interesting conversation to be had with a dog barking up a tree.

Toodle-pip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr No said:

How very amusing. 

Calm down dear there is no need to get angry and shout with exclamation marks to try and get your point across. Fist slamming does not erase facts.

You are forming your opinion from an interpretation, one that you've not reasonably clarified, and you are being completely ignorant to the given context. It's naive conjecture. You are arguing over the semantics of words you have misconstrued, over a concept you can't grasp, have not researched, and seem to refuse to accept that even exists and look other to freely adopt it. At this point it appears you are arguing for the sake or fun of it.

I would be quite surprised that the "skilled reader" could not relate such a simple and well written verse to all aspects of art; given the Nara Document is often referenced by the entire culture, art and conservation world for this very reason. It translates and relates to all aspects of culture and expression and this is plainly clear in the section I have quoted and really does not require a high level of comprehension. You've also completely brushed off and ignored that the work of Dennis Dutton on authenticity is written into the highest level of art education available.

Furthermore, while you continue to argue over semantics (for some peculiar reason) against this commonality, while giving nothing to support your argument within any kind context, let alone photography and art, to help you understand the correlation between authentic and pure I refer to the the following quote of Charles Lindholm on his anthropological writings, "The Rise of Expressive Authenticity".

All of these "overlapping evaluations" pertain to the very nature of the matter. Sincere, true, honest, absolute, basic, essential, genuine, ideal, natural, original, perfect, pure, real and right. Perfectly put and easy to understand.

I also refer you to the Thesis on film rebates written by Stewart Locrin. You can download the PDF published by his University >HERE< and while the entire writing is very interesting and traverses the span of historical use from Aesthetics to Authenticity, the specific section relating to film borders for authenticity can be found on page 38-45, entitled "Rebate as Fact". Citations for the authors in-depth research can be found in his document.

Whole in it's entirety.

A signature of skill.

I also add this here, for those that don't believe that the film rebate is hidden beneath matts.

As for your arguments on the broader context of authenticity of artists, further to these quotes, anyone can simply step into any reputable art gallery and ask them about expressive authenticity, step into any specialist photography gallery or speak with a learned photography collector and ask them about film borders and how they are used to denote authenticity and how they are used as a signature of skill. Show your work to artist management or an editor and ask them about authenticity. Speak with a museum conservator about film and why prints are made with film rebates. Read the many writings on the matter or attend an art course—There is an entire industry of those passionate to the cause that you can draw upon and one that I have found very helpful in my own career to form my own beliefs and practices.

The EVF leads to accurate framing and is a very lazy way of determining exposure, one that creates a reliance, however, that I can see would be be useful for a beginner who is still learning basic concepts. Though, it would take diligence or quite possibly an overly long period of time to separate such reliance with skill.

Until you can back up your spurious claims I shall have to remain convinced that it is simply conjecture, that for me, adds nothing to the conversation other than hollow and naive criticism and there is more interesting conversation to be had with a dog barking up a tree.

Toodle-pip.

Can You please find another area of the forum to Proselytise (Cambridge English dictionary)
thanks.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, lucerne said:

Can You please find another area of the forum to Proselytise (Cambridge English dictionary)
thanks.
 

 

Who is forcing you to read it?

There is no proselytising happening, please don't exaggerate.

Edited by Dr No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually no one.  I follow all original posts.
Original post appealed to me, but you have hijacked it for your own intentions.  Its no longer a forum discussion.  Its your way of You finding a platform to force your opinion.  Boring.  I’m sure that your quoted sources would be horrified to see you using their names as battering rams.  
(by the way, are you a schoolboy who found his way onto the forum.  Reply not necessary!) .

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lucerne said:

Actually no one.  I follow all original posts.
Original post appealed to me, but you have hijacked it for your own intentions.  Its no longer a forum discussion.  Its your way of You finding a platform to force your opinion.  Boring.  I’m sure that your quoted sources would be horrified to see you using their names as battering rams.  
(by the way, are you a schoolboy who found his way onto the forum.  Reply not necessary!) .

 


 

Spare me of your hyperbole. I brought up simple concepts to which one particular person took object to, so we have debated it further.

If you don't find reading it is of interest, then don't. Much like I have just found your ignorant and insolent views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 2 Stunden schrieb Dr No:

How very amusing. 

Calm down dear there is no need to get angry and shout with exclamation marks to try and get your point across. Fist slamming does not erase facts.

You are forming your opinion from an interpretation, one that you've not reasonably clarified, and you are being completely ignorant to the given context. It's naive conjecture. You are arguing over the semantics of words you have misconstrued, over a concept you can't grasp, have not researched, and seem to refuse to accept that even exists and look other to freely adopt it. At this point it appears you are arguing for the sake or fun of it.

I would be quite surprised that the "skilled reader" could not relate such a simple and well written verse to all aspects of art; given the Nara Document is often referenced by the entire culture, art and conservation world for this very reason. It translates and relates to all aspects of culture and expression and this is plainly clear in the section I have quoted and really does not require a high level of comprehension. You've also completely brushed off and ignored that the work of Dennis Dutton on authenticity is written into the highest level of art education available.

Furthermore, while you continue to argue over semantics (for some peculiar reason) against this commonality, while giving nothing to support your argument within any kind context, let alone photography and art, to help you understand the correlation between authentic and pure I refer to the the following quote of Charles Lindholm on his anthropological writings, "The Rise of Expressive Authenticity".

All of these "overlapping evaluations" pertain to the very nature of the matter. Sincere, true, honest, absolute, basic, essential, genuine, ideal, natural, original, perfect, pure, real and right. Perfectly put and easy to understand.

I also refer you to the Thesis on film rebates written by Stewart Locrin. You can download the PDF published by his University >HERE< and while the entire writing is very interesting and traverses the span of historical use from Aesthetics to Authenticity, the specific section relating to film borders for authenticity can be found on page 38-45, entitled "Rebate as Fact". Citations for the authors in-depth research can be found in his document.

Whole in it's entirety.

A signature of skill.

I also add this here, for those that don't believe that the film rebate is hidden beneath matts.

As for your arguments on the broader context of authenticity of artists, further to these quotes, anyone can simply step into any reputable art gallery and ask them about expressive authenticity, step into any specialist photography gallery or speak with a learned photography collector and ask them about film borders and how they are used to denote authenticity and how they are used as a signature of skill. Show your work to artist management or an editor and ask them about authenticity. Speak with a museum conservator about film and why prints are made with film rebates. Read the many writings on the matter or attend an art course—There is an entire industry of those passionate to the cause that you can draw upon and one that I have found very helpful in my own career to form my own beliefs and practices.

The EVF leads to accurate framing and is a very lazy way of determining exposure, one that creates a reliance, however, that I can see would be be useful for a beginner who is still learning basic concepts. Though, it would take diligence or quite possibly an overly long period of time to separate such reliance with skill.

Until you can back up your spurious claims I shall have to remain convinced that it is simply conjecture, that for me, adds nothing to the conversation other than hollow and naive criticism and there is more interesting conversation to be had with a dog barking up a tree.

Toodle-pip.

Well, it appears pointless to discuss with a kind of word processor collecting text snippets from the internet taken out of context in alleged support of the personal theory that cropping in photography would automatically destroy authenticity.

I'am happy that at least you are strongly convinced of your theory!

I wish you all the best! And this is my final word in said respect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Blanko said:

Well, it appears pointless to discuss with a kind of word processor collecting text snippets from the internet taken out of context in alleged support of the personal theory that cropping in photography would automatically destroy authenticity.

I'am happy that at least you are strongly convinced of your theory!

I wish you all the best! And this is my final word in said respect.

 

I have never said that cropping destroys authenticity and it does not surprise me you would say this, however. Firstly, because you change your argument each time you post and secondly, because you've already shown you don't like to lose a debate.

You claim it is out of context? Ha! What can be more in context about a thesis about film rebates being used for authenticity? And an excerpt from an article on Expressive Authenticity that speaks of the commonality between authentic and pure?—this was the whole reason you engaged in debate.

Yes, i am strongly convinced with the universally accepted theory, passed down over decades by some of the greatest photographers of all time, upheld and maintained by historians, galleries and collectors, that not cropping a photo is a pure expression of photography and a sign on cultivated talent, skill and sensitivity, that displays a heightened level of authenticity that only compliments and enhances a photographers body of work.

You've no argument to give and now the crushing weight of defeat is too much for you. Surrender accepted; defeat acknowledged. Now run a long with your tail between your legs and go find another tree to bark up.

Thanks, it has been enlightening. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Now after the schoolboys of the forum went to bed, we may get back to topic...

 

One thing that I don‘t like when using the Visoflex 020: When using in lower light conditions, the viewInder image gets rather noisy, and to me it seems that the noise is more than justified by the sensor (the final photo shot handheld and thus with short exposure times is still pretty fine as far as noise is concerned).

The viewfinders of the Q2 and SL2 are much better in said respect. Maybe they use different / less efficient software in the 020 visoflex.

Edited by Robert Blanko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Robert Blanko said:

One thing that I don‘t like when using the Visoflex 020: When using in lower light conditions, the viewInder image gets rather noisy, and to me it seems that the noise is more than justified by the sensor (the final photo shot handheld and thus with short exposure times is still pretty fine as far as noise is concerned).

The viewfinders of the Q2 and SL2 are much better in said respect. Maybe they use different / less efficient software in the 020 visoflex.

... as it must be : Q2 and SL2 are cameras designed for/with EVF,  and a best as possible EVF was by definition one of the main design requirements; M is an OVF/RF camera, with EVF as an accessory... not by chance they have baptized it "Visoflex"... 🤥 ... was a Visoflex II/III better or even only comparable to the reflex finder of a Leicaflex or some other SLR ?

 

Edited by luigi bertolotti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After two years with Leica, and w/o having tried before the Visoflex, I'm sure I don't need it. I'm super happy, and grateful, that my M10 have a Rangefinder focus system which is top class. And I bought it for this reason. No blackout, large VF, minimalism, etc etc. For the type of photography I do, and using 35/50 combo only, no need or interest for an EVF.

If I'm curious to see the world in a very different way, a screen made by dots and not pure reality, I would rather get a SL2, or A7Riv, or S1R, and get the EVF experience but at top class. And take the best advantage of it. I don't like hybrids. 

But reading your answers in this thread, for the people are using it, it makes sense what you're saying. It's just doesn't work for me.

At the end, we all want to be inspired by photographs. So if you make the difference with an M camera and a Visoflex, we all are ready to appreciate your art.

All roads lead to Rome! 

Good vibes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread locked for widespread fighting. Participants will be subject to moderation if such behaviour is repeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy