Would you buy an EVF only M camera? [MERGED]

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Planetwide said:

I would also postulate, the most users buy and use the EVF as add on for critical focus

Not really - for the experienced user the rangefinder is considerably more accurate - and faster. The EVF is meant as an accessory for long and wide lenses, macro, etc. With magnification, the EVF can be accurate too, but that is a crutch as one loses the framing and it slows everything down. Buy a rangefinder camera - use it like a rangefinder camera - there are plenty of other and better cameras for other types of use. If you cannot get fast and critical focus with the rangefinder, there are but three solutions: practice, practice and practice.

[SrMi]

10 hours ago, Planetwide said:

Actually, they have made an EVF M, it's just an add on. I would also postulate, the most users buy and use the EVF as add on for critical focus. 

I use Visoflex mainly for framing, as focusing with EVF and without automatic-aperture-stop-down is cumbersome (unless always shooting stopped down). I almost always focus with the rangefinder. For me, it is faster and more accurate.

EVF is also useful to set exposure using highlight warnings.

[Jeff S]

9 minutes ago, jaapv said:

 If you cannot get fast and critical focus with the rangefinder, there are but three solutions: practice, practice and practice.

Besides practice, my 2 prior solutions: correct vision (distance and/or astigmatism) as best as possible; and, ensure RF and lens are each properly calibrated.  Practicing with faulty vision and/or faulty gear is a recipe for RF focusing frustration.  I know you know this, but those unfamiliar with, or frustrated by, RF focusing may not.

Jeff

[jaapv]

Of course, Jeff, those are basic assumptions. I should have mentioned them -again.  

[raizans]

Rangefinder camera.

EVF mirrorless camera.

Same lens mount.

One system.

The EVF-M will be called the Leica 1!!!

Is your mind blown?

[Planetwide]

12 hours ago, SrMi said:

I use Visoflex mainly for framing, as focusing with EVF and without automatic-aperture-stop-down is cumbersome (unless always shooting stopped down). I almost always focus with the rangefinder. For me, it is faster and more accurate.

EVF is also useful to set exposure using highlight warnings.

That's an interesting way to about taking a photo, back and forth between the EVF and the RF.

[Planetwide]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, jaapv said:

Not really - for the experienced user the rangefinder is considerably more accurate - and faster. The EVF is meant as an accessory for long and wide lenses, macro, etc. With magnification, the EVF can be accurate too, but that is a crutch as one loses the framing and it slows everything down. Buy a rangefinder camera - use it like a rangefinder camera - there are plenty of other and better cameras for other types of use. If you cannot get fast and critical focus with the rangefinder, there are but three solutions: practice, practice and practice.

Jaap, I have owned several Leica RF camera's, have perfect eyesight,  practiced, and tried to find the love... The RF process simply wasn't for me - and I am glad that you enjoy it! As I have mentioned several times, at no point would I want to see the RF gone as it is well loved by many a Leica fan. There are, however, some of us that love the lenses, but dislike the RF "experience". So why not an EVF cam for us?

[SrMi]

55 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

That's an interesting way to about taking a photo, back and forth between the EVF and the RF.

Yes, it is not the most convenient, but is the quickest and most accurate for me.

[sdk]

The only way to add AF to the M system would be moving the sensor in the camera body, or have the lens mount move the lens forward and backward. Automating focus of Leica or other M-mount rangefinder lenses is not practical from an engineering standpoint. Moving the sensor or lens mount would work, but it would also add weight, complexity, camera body thickness, and LOTS of expense to an M mount AF camera. And it probably would only work well for normal and wide angle lenses. For telephoto use this kind of system would not offer enough extension to full AF from infinity to a reasonable close focus, so it could not do more than fine focus correction. This would also not use the floating element correction that some of the best Leica and lenses use, so the legendary optics of the M-system would be compromised.

Contax had an SLR camera that moved the film plane rather than focusing its Zeiss lenses, to achieve limited AF capabilities. It sold poorly, while Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Minolta systems with AF lenses took off in the market. The AX was a marketing failure.

There may indeed be a market for Leica to have an M-style body with an EVF and compact AF lenses, but this should probably be a side branch of the SL-system, so the company would not have to reinvent the M to be some compromised Franken-system, or something called an M that really is no longer an M RF camera. Leica could market such a camera and make M-sized AF lenses in L-mount that emphasize compactness with minor compromises in optical quality compared to full size L mount lenses. This could be something like what Fuji makes for X mount, but full frame sensor sized, and better optically.

[T25UFO]

1 week, 14 pages, 264 posts for a camera that does't exist and probably never will 😂

[pgk]

17 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

1 week, 14 pages, 264 posts for a camera that does't exist and probably never will 😂

Again😆.

[LocalHero1953]

4 hours ago, Planetwide said:

That's an interesting way to about taking a photo, back and forth between the EVF and the RF.

Like the Barnacks - back and forth between the RF and the OVF.

[jaapv]

Still I think Leica dropped the  CL prematurely. First run a campaign to counter the Full Frame marketing machine- there is nothing remotely full frame about the 135 format. Full frame means a size that allows a decent contact print, like 18x24. 
More importantly, APS brings out higher performance in M lenses as one avoids the small size compromise that restricts a rangefinder lens.  
The solution to the discussion in this thread is : bring out a M mount CL. R&D is minimal: superglue to stick the adapter on and firmware changes to remove all references to AF. Barnack size and shape and and philosophy: maximum quality with minimum size.  

[Tailwagger]

On 12/13/2022 at 8:51 AM, Planetwide said:

That's an interesting way to about taking a photo, back and forth between the EVF and the RF.

Not back and forth, at least in my case.

I've been using this method since my M240 days, but many Leica shooters... those with ultra wides... have been doing something similar for half a century via external optical finders. There's really nothing new or novel in working this way, it's simply far more accurate now that we have EVFs. 

While at first this methodology might seem awkward in a very short time it becomes second nature. A further advantage in today's world is that with zoom enabled, after RF focusing, the EVF image remains zoomed allowing one to quickly re-confirm focus accuracy. Particularly useful when shooting wide open with longer lenses or in those cases where RF focusing mistakes are easily made... say focusing on a fence or other repetitive pattern.  A simple half press immediately kills the zoom, allowing you to confirm the desired framing and shoot. The other advantage of adopting this approach is that in those situations where speed is more important, theres no psychological trauma involved as its perfectly natural to shoot purely RF given the shooting process always starts from the OVF in all circumstances. 

[lct]

24 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

[...] The other advantage of adopting this approach is that in those situations where speed is more important, theres no psychological trauma involved as its perfectly natural to shoot purely RF given the shooting process always starts from the OVF in all circumstances. 

What about O% (or 100%? ) trauma by shooting 100% with the EVF?  

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, lct said:

What about O%...

No such thing around here.  Even if you came to these pages perfectly sane and well adjusted... few do... any poor soul who foolishly dared to come out of that particular closet would take so much crap for not using, let alone worshipping, the RF that even the most tight fisted insurance company wouldn't deny payment for the extensive emergency psychiatric care required.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

one to quickly re-confirm focus accuracy.

And confirm composition slowly... I  notice that you split your infinitive - does that mean that you still had your split image patch in mind?  

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

And confirm composition slowly... I  notice that you split your infinitive - does that mean that you still had your split image patch in mind?  

Imagination confirmation takes whatever time required regardless of the VF type. After so many years of doing the VF two step, it is barely a conscious act whose overhead takes well under 1/2".  Too slow for some perhaps, but as a % of my process it's in the noise. 

I'd rather miss a shot altogether than get even more pissed off at having blown it due to loss of critical edge content.  And then there is at least one other scenario where the EVF is critical... parallax.  I vividly recall being out with the 240 and 90 Elmarit struggling to shoot a bird perched on a telephone wire with set of intersecting power lines underneath.  I shot at least a dozen frames, chimping all the way, all in a failed attempt to position the subject precisely within the checkerboard. Eventually we both gave up and went our separate ways.  Ordered an EVF the next day.  I've since been shocked to discover that chimping for confirmation is quite a bit slower than just moving over to the EVF in the first place. Who knew?

 As for the pendanticism...

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Even if you came to these pages perfectly sane and well adjusted...

point made. 🤣

[Jipster]

8 hours ago, jaapv said:

Still I think Leica dropped the  CL prematurely. First run a campaign to counter the Full Frame marketing machine- there is nothing remotely full frame about the 135 format. Full frame means a size that allows a decent contact print, like 18x24. 
More importantly, APS brings out higher performance in M lenses as one avoids the small size compromise that restricts a rangefinder lens.  
The solution to the discussion in this thread is : bring out a M mount CL. R&D is minimal: superglue to stick the adapter on and firmware changes to remove all references to AF. Barnack size and shape and and philosophy: maximum quality with minimum size.  

I find this thread perplexing. It’s like somebody complaining that a bike has only 2 wheels and does not protect against rain and snow. If only it was a car! Sure, but then buy a car! If people like EVF and autofocus so much, there is the SL system or Nikon Z, or countless others. There is only one manual focus rangefinder, but people want to make it like others. That seems bizarre to me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

2 hours ago, Jipster said:

I find this thread perplexing. It’s like somebody complaining that a bike has only 2 wheels and does not protect against rain and snow. If only it was a car! Sure, but then buy a car! If people like EVF and autofocus so much, there is the SL system or Nikon Z, or countless others. There is only one manual focus rangefinder, but people want to make it like others. That seems bizarre to me.

Why is it that bizarre to prefer M lenses? It sounds even more bizarre to ignore the preference of Leica users for them. In the film days, we had to use bulky Visoflex housings for that. Only non Leica users could find bizarre to use the optical cell of a Summicron 90/2 or a Tele-Elmar 135/4 in reflex mode on them. Nowadays those Visoflex housings are becoming as compact as optical OVF's more or less. Nobody found bizarre to use them since the thirties either. Did i say bizarre? .

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by lct