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

[rramesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't understand this thread. Leica already has an SL. What some want is probably is an SL-small. Will all the electronic bells and whistles users seems to ask for, why compromise the camera with a mechanical M only mount?

Edited December 16, 2022 by rramesh

[raizans]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

But equally I've run into any number of situations where more precise control of the DoF was quite crucial for the final result.

E.g., at or near 0.7m? What situations are we talking about where a wide angle with the aperture stopped down doesn’t give you much DOF for zone focusing and scale focusing by feel?

[pgk]

6 hours ago, raizans said:

Wides stopped down are easy to focus because they have such deep depth-of-field. When working quickly, line things up on the scale or pull the tab by feel, no viewfinder focusing aid needed. When working slowly, there’s 100% zoom. It’s more about the technique than the camera.

Nonsense. At best doing this is an misconception and at worst it is plain wrong. Why have precision cameras at all if you work by scale, and why use highly capable lenses if they are going to be constantly misfocused? And 100% zoom still doesn't work as precisely as the rangefinder as jaapv pointed out many posts ago, and to which I can attest having tried both ways of focusing.

I have no doubt that an EVF-M is possible to build, but it will involve many compromises which have been discussed ad infinitum already, and the above comments add nothing to the conversation I'm afraid.

[Tailwagger]

6 hours ago, Musky said:

No. The OP said it. In the first sentence of this thread. 

Then stop writing "you're saying" when you're actually referring to what the OP wrote.  

 

[cboy]

EVF M(rangefinder) Q. As proof of concept how would they even make a true digital rangefinder patch to overlay on the EVF? Or is it just a quasi mashup of two systems that one can switch between the two? Would it make the EVF M like the x100 /xpro, rangefinder-like only camera just without AF??? Imo rangefinder focusing is more enjoyable than trying to see if 'marching ants' line up.  So I guess it should be aptly named EVF - M; the hyphen is to separate the two systems that has been mashed into two, which wouldn't be really innovative for Leica.

But suppose  Leica could integrate the two systems, and allow for AF PDAF lenses along with traditional analogue m lenses wouldn't that be special? I'd definitely be inline of a true EVF M, but surely there'd be compromises such as a global shutter to reduce the space of  mechanical parts. If only it wasn't just a pipe dream....😄

[lct]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

And 100% zoom still doesn't work as precisely as the rangefinder as jaapv pointed out many posts ago, and to which I can attest having tried both ways of focusing. [...]

Not my experience i must say. Again i don't dislike RFs at all, i use them since the seventies, but as far as nailing focus is concerned, nothing can beat a good EVF at 100% magnification. Old RF calculations were based on traditional CoC values that are not relevant anymore on high res sensors.

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, Musky said:

It is the premise of this entire thread. That’s all I’m responding to. 

Then for god sake quote the OP and not me when you feel the need to write, as you did multiple times in your responses, 'you're saying'.  And btw, that was the original premise of the thread. You might not have noticed, but internet threads have a tendency to move rather far afield from their original premise.

[pgk]

25 minutes ago, lct said:

Not my experience i must say. Again i don't dislike RFs at all, i use them since the seventies, but as far as nailing focus is concerned, nothing can beat a good EVF at 100% magnification. Old RF calculations were based on traditional CoC values that are not relevant anymore on high res sensors.

Well, my experience is different. But what do I know? Wide-angle lenses were notoriously difficult to focus accurately on SLRs, and the reason why is because they have great apparent depth of field. Stopping down increases this and nailing the precise point of focus can be difficult (caveat: as with all focusing, this depends on subject/contrast/brightness). The RF offers an independent focus system which has no interaction with the image formed by the lens. It is (caveat applies), quick, simple and accurate with all the focal lengths for which the rangefinder is designed to work with and especially wide-angle lenses. Hence the restrictions with 135mm lenses on the M8 which had insufficient rangefinder base even at 12MPixels. Wide-angle lenses on the other hand are well catered for with the rangefinder fitted to Leica M cameras. Although I haven't actually tried calculating the theoretical accuracy it is highly likely that the focal length/aperture at which accuracy is no longer good enough is lowering as MPixels increase.

Of course this opens a whole can of worms as any discussion of RF/SLR/EVF benefits/disadvantages inevitably will. The problem is that we actually need a shift in the laws of physics or at least a work around their current limitations with regard to digital photography. Answers on a postcard please😉.

 

[lct]

1 minute ago, pgk said:

Answers on a postcard please

As usual . This matter has been beaten to death so unless one insists  i won't bother you and others with calculations, suffice it to grab a cam, aim, focus and shoot. Here at f/8 with the M11's EVF on a 21mm lens but i've shown other snaps above focused at f/11, and even f/16 for the sake of the discussion.

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!

[pgk]

Simple, static subjects are easy enough on any system.

[lct]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

Simple, static subjects are easy enough on any system.

Ha focusing grand children with an RF... Hit and miss when they move, at least for me. So easier with an EVF that i don't use my RFs anymore in family. Pity i'm not allowed to show my snaps here we are a family of lawyers .

[pgk]

10 minutes ago, lct said:

Ha focusing grand children with an RF... Hit and miss when they move, at least for me.

Similar with pets. Personally I use the 'phone😆. Horses for courses.

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

I have no doubt that an EVF-M is possible to build, but it will involve many compromises

The M itself is full of compromises. An EVF M adds compromises (less accurate wide angle focusing, stopped down focusing), but removes others (can't focus long, macro & non-RF lenses, RF & lens calibration errors, inaccurate framing).

Edited December 16, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

And 100% zoom still doesn't work as precisely as the rangefinder...

Hopefully, it's obvious I largely agree with what you wrote in your reply, but this particular statement, while 100% true in some contexts, is nonsense in others. The 75mm 'lux and 90 'cron, when shot wide open at 2M, have a theoretical DoF of .06M or right around 2 inches.  In my work, at least, more often than not the subject is not center of frame. Even if the fstop were higher and the RF was spot on in its calibration... mine rarely is after a few months of use... a small bit of recomposing can result in a noticeable miss.  The EVF, with its movable cursor overcomes the limitation of the RF that point of focus must be center of frame.  Thus, IMO, it's an overstatement to assert that the RF is a more precise tool in all circumstances.

35 minutes ago, lct said:

...but as far as nailing focus is concerned, nothing can beat a good EVF at 100% magnification.

Hopefully, it's obvious I largely agree with what you wrote in this reply, but this particular statement, while 100% true in some contexts, is nonsense in others. hmmm... is there an echo in here?  The WATE at 16mm, same 2 meters and F5.6 has a theoretical DoF of .86m-Infinity, at 21mm the DoF is 7m.  No EVF I've used for manual focusing has ever given me anywhere near 100% confidence that I've manage to nail focus down to a specific spot when the DoF is that deep and the image field that wide even at 100% mag. We're also being a little too quick to assume bright, well lit scenes, not to mention a glare free view when the sun is low over one's shoulder.  And of course, as the light diminishes, the ISO rises, the signal gets amplified, noise rears its ugly head and things get far, far more difficult even with narrower focal lengths. Perhaps tech advances, additional aids beyond zoom will help this situation... some here have claimed that Sony's peaking (bearing in mind it has the advantage of a full PDAF system behind hit) is far more capable (though personally I f-ing hate peaking). Regardless, I again find it an overstatement to suggest that EVF accuracy is superior to the OVF in all circumstances.

Focusing concerns are just a portion of why I concluded a while back that, like it or not, having both the OVF and EVF remains the optimal solution, at least for me.  The pairing of VFs grants me the ability to handle the full range of optics I employ as well as the circumstances I encounter both when it comes to focusing as well as any other number of issues. Not trying to sound wishy washy or overplay the role of peacemaker, but I do hope we can minimally acknowledge that each methodology has its place, even if some may never feel the need to visit both of them.

[pgk]

17 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Hopefully, it's obvious I largely agree with what you wrote in your reply, but this particular statement, while 100% true in some contexts, is nonsense in others.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was specifically referring to wide-angle lenses. I do agree that longer lenses are best focussed by EVF/SLR. Even my 135 is difficult to focus on RF and I find for guaranteed success my practial personal limit is a 90/2.8. The 75/1.4 was tricky but doable, just.

So, to recap, the RF-M works extremely well within its limits (wide-angle to very short telephoto, 0.7~1.0m near focus). Within these limits it can be exceptionally good. But the limits compromise its usage. If you are happy to work within them then RF can be highly rewarding.

An EVF-M will inherit many of the compromises and will add more (such as only being manual focus, a legacy of many lenses with less than ideal projected angle of incidence onto the sensor, and many more technical problems). Its fundamental advantage will be its ability to natively use M lenses, but I for one simply don't see this as being the reason to buy an EVF-M.

[lct]

30 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

The WATE at 16mm, same 2 meters and F5.6 has a theoretical DoF of .86m-Infinity, at 21mm the DoF is 7m.  No EVF I've used for manual focusing has ever given me anywhere near 100% confidence that I've manage to nail focus down to a specific spot when the DoF is that deep and the image field that wide even at 100% mag [...]

I have not my WATE on hand but focusing this 15mm snap with auto zoom could hardly be faster (M11, Visoflex 2, CV 15/4.5 v2, f/5.6, 2m).

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!

[charlesphoto99]

2 hours ago, lct said:

As usual . This matter has been beaten to death so unless one insists  i won't bother you and others with calculations, suffice it to grab a cam, aim, focus and shoot. Here at f/8 with the M11's EVF on a 21mm lens but i've shown other snaps above focused at f/11, and even f/16 for the sake of the discussion.

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!

That was one fast moving stump, I'm sure. Good thing you had it at f8 and had that EVF...

In all seriousness, I've found EVF's to be a slow compromise compared to the M rangefinder. Even trying the new Visoflex or the SL2 I felt as if I was watching a mini TV, with too much blackout, and no room around the image to help recompose like the optical vf. But then I'm 58 and a new generation might feel differently.

As far as capturing your kids with a RF: not a problem. Just don't get hung up on 'perfection.' May as well get a Phase One and a big Gitzo studio tripod if that's the ultimate goal. 

[lct]

6 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

As far as capturing your kids with a RF: not a problem. Just don't get hung up on 'perfection.'

Grandfather trying this for many years here. This EVF snap is time barred but nothing Leica sorry (Fuji X-E2, CV 21/4, f/4). Focused in a snap on the little guy behind the arm chair. Faster than with an RF as i did not have to focus recompose with the EVF. People claiming that focusing with an EVF is slower make me smile a bit. Nothing personal needless to say .

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-rbq3gPJ/0/b85f6016/L/i-rbq3gPJ-L.jpg

 

[raizans]

42 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

The WATE at 16mm, same 2 meters and F5.6 has a theoretical DoF of .86m-Infinity, at 21mm the DoF is 7m.  No EVF I've used for manual focusing has ever given me anywhere near 100% confidence that I've manage to nail focus down to a specific spot when the DoF is that deep and the image field that wide even at 100% mag.

Confidence is based on visual feedback, and yeah, you get less of it when DOF is deeper. But when .86m-infinity is in focus, it’s academic to worry if you’re out of focus. That’s not a difficult to focus situation....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[raizans]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

We're also being a little too quick to assume bright, well lit scenes, not to mention a glare free view when the sun is low over one's shoulder.  And of course, as the light diminishes, the ISO rises, the signal gets amplified, noise rears its ugly head and things get far, far more difficult even with narrower focal lengths.

When you’re taking photos quickly in low light, you’re stopping the lens down rather than opening up? Why? Are we talking night street photography?

Edited December 16, 2022 by raizans