The Fuji Fetish - Leave the M alone

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The colours in an EVF have never been a point of worry for me at all. Why worry about inaccurate colours due to poor calibration, or the inherent defects of the EVF, when your final image is going through the same electronic processing? An OVF will no more give you a better idea of what the converted raw image will look like than an EVF.

I can see flaws in the EVF, but that isn't one for me. The main flaw is lag, especially as the light level goes down. Although the best are fast enough in good light, all EVFs I have seen slow up in poor light. The OVF, obviously, does not. 

[Herr Barnack]

7 hours ago, jakontil said:

I wish they wont remove the mechanical shutter, and evf remains an option since i see myself using the ovf very most of the time 

+1.

If the options are lose the mechanical shutter in favor of EVF, that's a no go IMHO.  So is make the M body larger to accommodate both EVF and mechanical shutter.  I just don't wan an EVF that badly.  It's just not a thing with me.  And I think many if not the majority of M camera shooters would go along with that.

To quote @petermullett -

Quote

The thing is, no matter how good, ( and who decides what is "good" is when the EVF is calibrated upon installation ? ), an EVF will always "lie". I've used many types in many differing cameras, both cinema digital and still cameras, from very high professional quality to "consumer" grade and I have yet to find one that correctly depicts what I can see when I take my eye off of the EVF-VF and look at the scene before me. There's always a shift in colour, contrast and density not to mention lag that can plague even the best digital cinema EVFs. You cannot properly determine a scene through an EVF, precise framing perhaps, but everything else no. An EVF is only after all giving you an interpretation via tuned electronic circuitry of what the sensor sees. But OK, I can believe that an EVF-M of some sort or other will be offered some-time or other, but it's not for me because I am wedded to an optical finder whether that's with a M as they are now or DSLRs like my Nikon D810 and D610 that were among the last of the "breed" before Nikon too went mirror-less. I tried hard to like the SL's because I could use my M lenses with one, ( the SL native glass being too large and heavy for my taste), but found that I couldn't make that step away from the OVF/mirrors in the Nikons. If anyone compares the SL2 to a S2/3 VF you'd understand what I am saying here..........However I am not one to bemoan such possible "progress", and I wish Leica good fortune if they do go this route with a future M model, I just will not be trying to jump the queue.

Given the above, substituting an EVF for the rangefinder and OVF in an M camera sounds like a liability rather than an asset.   Making the M fatter to accommodate an EVF and/or throwing out the mechanical shutter in favor of an EVF also seems like negative "progress."

I think we are at the end of the road here. 

[Advertisement]

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

[hdmesa]

5 hours ago, petermullett said:

The thing is, no matter how good, ( and who decides what is "good" is when the EVF is calibrated upon installation ? ), an EVF will always "lie". I've used many types in many differing cameras, both cinema digital and still cameras, from very high professional quality to "consumer" grade and I have yet to find one that correctly depicts what I can see when I take my eye off of the EVF-VF and look at the scene before me. There's always a shift in colour, contrast and density not to mention lag that can plague even the best digital cinema EVFs. You cannot properly determine a scene through an EVF, precise framing perhaps, but everything else no. An EVF is only after all giving you an interpretation via tuned electronic circuitry of what the sensor sees. But OK, I can believe that an EVF-M of some sort or other will be offered some-time or other, but it's not for me because I am wedded to an optical finder whether that's with a M as they are now or DSLRs like my Nikon D810 and D610 that were among the last of the "breed" before Nikon too went mirror-less. I tried hard to like the SL's because I could use my M lenses with one, ( the SL native glass being too large and heavy for my taste), but found that I couldn't make that step away from the OVF/mirrors in the Nikons. If anyone compares the SL2 to a S2/3 VF you'd understand what I am saying here..........However I am not one to bemoan such possible "progress", and I wish Leica good fortune if they do go this route with a future M model, I just will not be trying to jump the queue.

EVF does not lie, OVF does. We’re shooting a digital camera, so the output itself is a lie: a digital image. The EVF literally lets one see the lie of what the final digital image may look like.

I appreciate the POV, but OVF versus EVF is a ancient argument that has been well considered. So while I appreciate the reasons I and some others may want an OVF, let’s not kid ourselves that there is some sort of purity to it that connects it with the look of the output — not even with film. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by hdmesa

[SrMi]

40 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

EVF does not lie, OVF does. We’re shooting a digital camera, so the output itself is a lie: a digital image. The EVF literally lets one see the lie of what the final digital image may look like.

I appreciate the POV, but OVF versus EVF is a ancient argument that has been well considered. So while I appreciate the reasons I and some others may want an OVF, let’s not kid ourselves that there is some sort of purity to it that connects it with the look of the output — not even with film. 

I do not see EVF as accurate representation of a scene. There is no WYSIWYG for color or contrast. We use OVF to frame properly, with EVF framing is sometimes difficult because of lack of detail in shadows. EVFs are great for display of digital data and amplifying light. It’s a bit like night goggles. For me, EVF removes the emotion of a scene a bit.

I expect EVFs to improve, maybe in 10 years?

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Herr Barnack said:

+1.

If the options are lose the mechanical shutter in favor of EVF, that's a no go IMHO.  So is make the M body larger to accommodate both EVF and mechanical shutter.  I just don't wan an EVF that badly.  It's just not a thing with me.  And I think many if not the majority of M camera shooters would go along with that.

There is no relation between adding EVF and removing mechanical shutter.

Removing mechanical shutter would free up space so that IBIS could be added. Maybe.

Removing mechanical shutter should also make the camera lighter.

 Of course, the sensor must have a readout speed that is similar to the speed of the mechanical shutter.

The tactile feedback of a mechanical shutter is nice, but I could live without it. Why do others prefer mechanical shutter?

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

I do not see EVF as accurate representation of a scene. There is no WYSIWYG for color or contrast. We use OVF to frame properly, with EVF framing is sometimes difficult because of lack of detail in shadows. EVFs are great for display of digital data and amplifying light. It’s a bit like night goggles. For me, EVF removes the emotion of a scene a bit.

I expect EVFs to improve, maybe in 10 years?

Does Leica not have an EVF option for “natural view” or whatever Canon and others call it? It’s an EVF mode that has faster refresh rate along with no exposure simulation and more natural shadows?

Modifying the “Natural” Leica film styles to have -2 contrast along with not using full-time exposure simulation (keeping it on the default half-press of the shutter button) helps a lot.

Anyway, I was really just trying to make the counter-argument that a digital image is no more “natural” than the image in the EVF — the EVF feed is literally the film sim you have selected. 

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

There is no relation between adding EVF and removing mechanical shutter.

Removing mechanical shutter would free up space so that IBIS could be added. Maybe.

Removing mechanical shutter should also make the camera lighter.

 Of course, the sensor must have a readout speed that is similar to the speed of the mechanical shutter.

The tactile feedback of a mechanical shutter is nice, but I could live without it. Why do others prefer mechanical shutter?

Same reason some people prefer to hear a gas V8 engine over a silent electric vehicle I guess. Personally I’m fine with no mech shutter if it means we get IBIS. Shutter sound is not congruent with the M ethos of discrete shooting anyway. Once sensor scan speed is fast enough to fully eliminate rolling shutter, the mechanical shutter becomes an affectation, much like making prints with the sprocket holes showing.

Edited August 23, 2022 by hdmesa

[SrMi]

41 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Does Leica not have an EVF option for “natural view” or whatever Canon and others call it? It’s an EVF mode that has faster refresh rate along with no exposure simulation and more natural shadows?

Modifying the “Natural” Leica film styles to have -2 contrast along with not using full-time exposure simulation (keeping it on the default half-press of the shutter button) helps a lot.

Anyway, I was really just trying to make the counter-argument that a digital image is no more “natural” than the image in the EVF — the EVF feed is literally the film sim you have selected. 

Using Natural View or similar is a helpful option to simulate OVF: it increases DR, lifts shadows, and equalizes brightness. However, that also means that the histogram and blinkies are incorrect. With some cameras, I can switch that mode quickly on/off via a function button. I would love to see the histogram computed from raw instead of what we see in the EVF.
Thank you for the tip on Leica's film style. I will try it out.

[Herr Barnack]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

There is no relation between adding EVF and removing mechanical shutter.

Removing mechanical shutter would free up space so that IBIS could be added. Maybe.

Removing mechanical shutter should also make the camera lighter.

 Of course, the sensor must have a readout speed that is similar to the speed of the mechanical shutter.

The tactile feedback of a mechanical shutter is nice, but I could live without it. Why do others prefer mechanical shutter?

If you have only the electronic shutter, you are stuck with rolling shutter distortion when photographing certain subjects.  The mechanical shutter give you a way to avoid that.

Is losing the mechanical shutter worth that trade off to have IBIS?  Something to think about.  In some ways, IBIS would be nice - but ditching the mechanical shutter is not a decision that is sacrifice free.

As for weight and shutter sound, I'm willing to carry an extra ounce or two to have a mechanical shutter, and the shutter sound is a non-issue IMO. 

Having both mechanical and electronic shutter capability makes the M11 more versatile, which would seem to be a good thing.

[SrMi]

7 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

If you have only the electronic shutter, you are stuck with rolling shutter distortion when photographing certain subjects.  The mechanical shutter give you a way to avoid that.

Is losing the mechanical shutter worth that trade off to have IBIS?  Something to think about.  In some ways, IBIS would be nice - but ditching the mechanical shutter is not a decision that is sacrifice free.

As for weight and shutter sound, I'm willing to carry an extra ounce or two to have a mechanical shutter, and the shutter sound is a non-issue IMO. 

Having both mechanical and electronic shutter capability makes the M11 more versatile, which would seem to be a good thing.

Fast electronic shutters (seen in Z9, 1/270 sec) do not have perceptible rolling shutter issues. If Leica wants to ditch the mechanical shutter, they need to use a sensor similar to the one in Z9.
P.S.: Does anyone know the speed of the mechanical curtains? I read somewhere between 1/200 and 1/350 sec.

 

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

...If Leica wants to ditch the mechanical shutter, they need to use a sensor similar to the one in Z9...

That may be a solution - but I'd rather have a sensor similar to the sensor in the M11.

Quote

Fast electronic shutters (seen in Z9, 1/270 sec) do not have perceptible rolling shutter issues...

On a computer screen, perhaps so.  But what about at large print sizes? 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[IzelPhotography]

The Sony A9 is the same. I've been using the A9 for some time for action images and only use electronic shutter. No rolling shutter issues even when the peloton comes screaming by. In fact, I never use the mechanical shutter on the A9 at all.

If Leica were to introduce an "Electronic Only" shutter, it would have to be at that level at the very least!

Edited August 23, 2022 by IzelPhotography

[SrMi]

17 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

That may be a solution - but I'd rather have a sensor similar to the sensor in the M11.

On a computer screen, perhaps so.  But what about at large print sizes? 

If you can't notice it at 100% view on screen, you will not see it at any print size. 
You can have a rolling shutter effect with a mechanical shutter as well. I believe current mechanical shutters are as fast as the Z9's sensor readout. So if you notice a rolling shutter effect with Z9's electronic shutter, you will also see it with the mechanical shutter.

 

[jakontil]

11 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

+1.

If the options are lose the mechanical shutter in favor of EVF, that's a no go IMHO.  So is make the M body larger to accommodate both EVF and mechanical shutter.  I just don't wan an EVF that badly.  It's just not a thing with me.  And I think many if not the majority of M camera shooters would go along with that.

To quote @petermullett -

Given the above, substituting an EVF for the rangefinder and OVF in an M camera sounds like a liability rather than an asset.   Making the M fatter to accommodate an EVF and/or throwing out the mechanical shutter in favor of an EVF also seems like negative "progress."

I think we are at the end of the road here. 

Very much i love being the end of the road, the market is trying to push more tech into M, but in an interview post launch M11, stefan daniel assured that as long as he is around wetzlar, M will remain M 

finger crossed 🤞 

[Herr Barnack]

12 hours ago, jakontil said:

Very much i love being the end of the road, the market is trying to push more tech into M, but in an interview post launch M11, stefan daniel assured that as long as he is around wetzlar, M will remain M 

finger crossed 🤞 

I have not seen that interview, but it is very good to hear that he made that that assertion.  Here's hoping Herr Daniel will be a permanent fixture at the Leica mother ship.

[jakontil]

10 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

I have not seen that interview, but it is very good to hear that he made that that assertion.  Here's hoping Herr Daniel will be a permanent fixture at the Leica mother ship.

Im pretty sure he meant it for the relief M souls.. he emphasized M means messucher on why he would keep it that way.. well one of the reason too my i swear by M 😂

[atournas]

Competition and the markets play strangle games. Wasn't it some years ago when a Leica "top top man" declared in an interview that Leica would never produce a mirrorless camera? Anyone else in this forum recollecting that interview?

Yes, it would be pure wisdom if they left the M camera a rangefinder only.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Herr Barnack said:

I have not seen that interview, but it is very good to hear that he made that that assertion.  Here's hoping Herr Daniel will be a permanent fixture at the Leica mother ship.

What @jakontilprobably referred to is this article (original). Excerpt:

You offer the additional electronic viewfinder Visoflex for the M11. Would it be conceivable that in the next M the very complex optical viewfinder would be substituted with an electronic solution? 

M stands for rangefinder – and as long as I have something to say about Leica, it will have a range finder. Of course, it would be conceivable, but we would give away the most characteristic part of the Leica M, especially something that the majority of M users appreciate. 

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, atournas said:

Wasn't it some years ago when a Leica "top top man" declared in an interview that Leica would never produce a mirrorless camera?

A mirrorless M. The Digilux2 was mirrorless, the Panaleicas are, etc.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jdlaing]

I believe the M cameras are mirrorless cameras. Before some expert says “It does have a mirror” the peepee little mirror in the rangefinder mechanism doesn’t count.