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

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28 minutes ago, newtoleica said:

This^^ Have always found that when I've delved into other systems. I take my best images with the RF....

Agree and I also have found that I enjoy the experience the best when using a RF.

[Advertisement]

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

[BillCB]

I've been to and fro with Leica RFs for many years. I started with an M4 then an M6 but moved to Canon to get autofocus and digital. A decade later I went back to RF with an M9 for a few years. I left the system again because at heart I'm a medium format guy and I needed the money for more lenses for that system.

Now I've aged to the point I need something smaller and lighter - so back to Leica. For me, funnily enough, using the RF forces me to shoot more like MF. It slows me down, I compose better and I really like focussing precisely where I want sharpness. The whole process is more considered and thoughtful, at least for what I photograph. (I'm not a street shooter and I'm not into "spray and pray".) I do use the EVF for focussing the 135mm and for framing the 21mm. Otherwise RF is so much more controllable.

Yes, I like the OVF and RF focussing but in truth the most compelling reason for the M system is the lenses. I've had Canon and Sony systems and to me, Leica lenses are unparalleled in 35mm format.  So we can argue about RF versus EVF but as long as I can use Leica glass, I don't really care that much.

[FrozenInTime]

The Sony a9 III just received a 24.6 Mpixel stacked sensor with Global shutter  - this could make for an interesting M12.

[jaapv]

I would miss the miniscule tremor of the shutter blades braking.

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I would miss the miniscule tremor of the shutter blades braking.

Buy a Nikon F for the nostangic feel of a shutter that means business. Cheaper😆.

[FrozenInTime]

7 minutes ago, pgk said:

Buy a Nikon F for the nostangic feel of a shutter that means business. Cheaper😆.

Apparently the titanium shutter foils from a F2 can be fitted to Leica Ms.https://www.cameraworks-uk.com/price-list

[raizans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, BillCB said:

Yes, I like the OVF and RF focussing but in truth the most compelling reason for the M system is the lenses.

Ironically, the goal of making the “best lenses possible” arose in the late 90s in response to the niche market appeal of rangefinders. They had to promote the system in another, more compelling way to people who otherwise didn’t want to put up with a rangefinder. This led to a user base with conflicting priorities and opinions.

[lct]

29 minutes ago, raizans said:

[...] the goal of making the “best lenses possible” arose in the late 90s [...]

I've seen this since the sixties if my memory serves but i may be wrong.

[Derbyshire Man]

53 minutes ago, raizans said:

Ironically, the goal of making the “best lenses possible” arose in the late 90s in response to the niche market appeal of rangefinders. They had to promote the system in another, more compelling way to people who otherwise didn’t want to put up with a rangefinder. This led to a user base with conflicting priorities and opinions.

Interesting. Seems little has changed!

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, raizans said:

Ironically, the goal of making the “best lenses possible” arose in the late 90s in response to the niche market appeal of rangefinders. They had to promote the system in another, more compelling way to people who otherwise didn’t want to put up with a rangefinder. This led to a user base with conflicting priorities and opinions.

That arose from the traditional rivalry between Leitz and Zeiss, so it is quite understandable that Leica wanted to carry their reputation forward. Interestingly, the "best lens" aspirations presently have shifted from the M series to the L series, caused by the possibility to design better lenses without the constrictions that rangefinder use imposes.

[IkarusJohn]

20 minutes ago, jaapv said:

That arose from the traditional rivalry between Leitz and Zeiss, so it is quite understandable that Leica wanted to carry their reputation forward. Interestingly, the "best lens" aspirations presently have shifted from the M series to the L series, caused by the possibility to design better lenses without the constrictions that rangefinder use imposes.

And the freedom to use software correction.

[jaapv]

Sure, that too. 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, lct said:

I've seen this since the sixties if my memory serves but i may be wrong.

From the 1860's.

Seriously.

Philip.

[pgk]

25 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

And the freedom to use software correction.

But all modern lenses are actually designed using software and computers. This saves a lot of physical ray tracing but of course such ray tracing has been with us since the 1850s (Thomas Grubb of Dublin was an early exponent of it back then) and is the real way proper lenses are designed .....😇.

And seriously, software correction offers designers more possibilities ad in today's digital world is a logical extension of digital cameras. Of course it really needs electronic information transfer between lens and camera, but we've been here before😉.

[pop]

This is one of the weirder threads in this forum.

Obviously, the optical glass in the lens, the sensor stack and the shutter make the quality of the image. The bodies of the camera and the lens along with all the controls and the finders make the ergonomics of the picture taking process, which in part can affect the quality of the image, too.

We all know that the traditional M camera is best suited for a smallish set of circumstances as well as a set of skills and capabilities of its operator.

What, then, if someone wants the identical image quality (i.e. the same lenses, sensor stack and shutter) for a job where a traditional M camera is a poor match? You can either add an EVF to the traditional M camera or you can wish for a camera with a native EVF without the expensive and sensitive mechanism and optics of the rangefinder.

I bet many of the people taking part in this discussion unflinchingly use several cameras, depending on the job at hand. So, the decision seems to boil down to

• Do I use different camera systems for different jobs or
• do I use the traditional M camera with M lenses with an add-on EVF or
• do I use both an M camera with a RF and an M camera with an EVF, depending on the job.

Not so very complicated, I'd think.

[pgk]

59 minutes ago, pop said:

Not so very complicated, I'd think.

If only it was that simple!

[raizans]

3 hours ago, lct said:

I've seen this since the sixties if my memory serves but i may be wrong.

I think of the Mandler era as being more about “good lenses with great rendering” while the “cost is no object” approach is unmistakably Karbe era.

[pop]

38 minutes ago, pgk said:

If only it was that simple!

It is, for one who already has a traditional M camera with its expensive lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[thrid]

On 11/5/2023 at 1:53 PM, adan said:

That's the myth - the reality is that that photo was made with an off-camera flash, that Smith had to set up, with wires trailing over to Smith and his camera.

Smith's quote regarding that photo and others he made with off-camera flash (Country Doctor, Nurse Midwife😞 "Available light is any damn light that is available [even if it comes in my camera bag]!"

It is possibly true that having done the set-up work, he then did wait for the best moment. But he was not above "directing" his subjects as well. It is also the case the woman furthest to the left is looking directly at Smith and his lens - he was a fairly large "fly" after all.  

- from a follower of Gene Smith's great photography (and even greater mythology) for 50+ years.

But you are right about EVF lag.

Absolutely true. A lot of his shots had some staging and he did use flash. He also sometimes got a little more creative in the darkroom than is allowed for a photojournalist....

So, maybe that wasn't the best example, but I do believe that the picture I was trying to paint (no pun intended) about the challenges in shooting a situation like that is valid.

Here is an example of a similar situation I found myself in when shooting a piece on New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina.  This was back when I had ambitions to move over into photojournalism, but unfortunately the business imploded right at that time. And no, I am not equating my work in any way shape or form to that of Mr Smith, who's shoes I couldn't even shine.

I took one shot on a 50 and the older lady still heard the shutter on my M2 and became, let's say... self conscious and flustered. It was heartbreaking and I felt so bad that I wanted to just disappear into the ground. That's the hardest part of covering these types of events. Thankfully I was able to sit with them and talk and they were actually thankful that people were trying to tell their story. But I still had to wrap my head around the experience for days afterwards.

But the moment was fleeting and the situation so delicate from a human standpoint that you only got one shot at making the picture. Firing off a single shot felt inappropriate enough and I knew that if they heard it, it would all be over. I can't even imagine how offensive it would have been to hammer her with one or more 10-20 frame bursts. I also wonder if I had been able to see their expressions clearly on an EVF. It all was there for just a split second.

Anyhow.

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!

[thrid]

On 11/5/2023 at 10:17 AM, IkarusJohn said:

Leaving aside the patronising nature of your post (which I’m sure was unintentional), yes I do understand that.  And no, I have never run and gun.  I assume you were making a general comment, rather than responding to my post.

From the film days as a child with my first camera, I learned to sit and watch, decide where I wanted to take the image, and waited for the right moment.  If I can, I don’t raise my camera to the eye, as that is a distraction (the last of which is not possible with an ovf with any accuracy).  I have found that an EVF is no impediment to this approach developed over more than 50 years of taking photos.

My post was simply to share my experience with an EVF.  I thought I was being respectful to your opposing view (sadly not reciprovated).

Fair enough.