EVF M rumoured

[Smogg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

30 minutes ago, sdk said:

I wonder if it will have a hybrid optical/rangefinder viewfinder that can switch to 100% EVF? Sort of like the Fuji X100 series married to a traditional Leica M finder? If so that would be rather cool. Alternatively I could see them using just an EVF with focus aids that include a rangefinder overlaying the TTL image for focusing. 

Even Fujifilm with their resources could not create such a hybrid viewfinder in the GFX100RF (the quality of the EVF in the hybrid was insufficient). Therefore, it is extremely unlikely to expect a hybrid from Leica, we will get two bad viewfinders.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, sdk said:

I wonder if it will have a hybrid optical/rangefinder viewfinder that can switch to 100% EVF? Sort of like the Fuji X100 series married to a traditional Leica M finder? If so that would be rather cool. Alternatively I could see them using just an EVF with focus aids that include a rangefinder overlaying the TTL image for focusing. 

Fuji's hybrid VF is not good enough.

[Le Chef]

1 hour ago, sdk said:

I wonder if it will have a hybrid optical/rangefinder viewfinder that can switch to 100% EVF? Sort of like the Fuji X100 series married to a traditional Leica M finder? If so that would be rather cool. Alternatively I could see them using just an EVF with focus aids that include a rangefinder overlaying the TTL image for focusing. 

Stefan Daniel has already rejected this as an unacceptable compromise. If you want rangefinder and EVF, buy a Visoflex.

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, Le Chef said:

Stefan Daniel has already rejected this as an unacceptable compromise. If you want rangefinder and EVF, buy a Visoflex.

I I am sure Leica would love to have a hybrid viewfinder that maintains all the advantages of the current OVF. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be implementable with current technology.

[Dazzajl]

19 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Fuji's hybrid VF is not good enough.

The technology is great, both sides work really well. The trouble is the size restriction of the X100, with the extra room available in an M body a much better experience could be had. All academic of course.

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

The technology is great, both sides work really well. The trouble is the size restriction of the X100, with the extra room available in an M body a much better experience could be had. All academic of course.

The latest hybrid VF improved but Fuji had to drop magnification (35mm FF equivalent as widest) and they do not have a rangefinder.

[phojomatic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been thinking about the rumored 3mm top plate difference. When the SL3 came out, there was a huge to-do about the 5mm difference over the SL2. I personally hated that, but maybe bc I was so familiar with the SL2 (SL2-S actually, not that there's a difference). It's taken me since then to now to just "start" to warm up to the SL3 type body.

It seems pretty improbable that Leica would create a new top plate just for this limited run...I say limited only bc it's a variant model. I don't believe they used a different top plate when the M-D series was made, admitted that was ages ago. But still...a tried and true M camera that is now smaller and has a change of feel in the hand...that really is very un Leica-like as a sub-model. It would change the flash-hot shoe geometry too. 

 

FWIW, 92 pages later, I've come to appreciate the optical nature of the M's and would rather have IBIS than an EVF. I can shoot 1/30 with other camera's on the market (Z8, for example...hey, even the SL3-S), so it really isn't such a crazy notion that I'd like to use a M11 (M12) at something under 1/250.

 

my .02...subject to change by page 94.

 

[phojomatic]

I have Xpro2's with the 18mm (28 equivalent) lines and an Xpro3 (35mm equivalent widest). It's honestly not that much different, the 28mm finder is so wide like a .58x that you can't see details well. The newer Xpro3 (and I think it's the same in X100V) is much better. Both EVFs honestly suck. One is 2.3 mp and I think the other 3.2 mp. Maybe 100fps refresh. It's like looking at a postage stamp, and then you use a SL2/3, and you are looking at a billboard with new glasses.

I'm sure if Leica were to improve on this design, the first thing they would do is use real glass in the OVF, and improve the eye relief.  But trust me, after using the Fujis for a full day on assignment, I'm there with you wondering what if....Leica made a EVF/OVF.

Still and all, the Fujis do the job and can take horrible weather, which is why I keep them.

 

[Jean-Michel]

10 hours ago, Le Chef said:

You can likely see it in the current Visoflex.

The focusing system for an M lens is simply your finger moving the focusing ring. That combined with the rangefinder makes for a quick focus and photograph your subject. 

I do have an EVF2 for my M-P(240( and the M-L adapter for my SL2. Using M lenses with the SL2 is 'better' than the M-P/EVF2 combination, mostly because of the larger viewfinder, and, of course, the IBIS.

A properly adjusted rangefinder on an M body is as accurate as it can get; it is of course limited by its base; no wonder that there are no lenses longer than 135 mm for the M, Triangulation needs a decently long base in order to adjust/calculate the angles, etc. That said, with the rangefinder you get to focus exactly on what you want regardless of the aperture setting of the lens. The spot you focus on is at focus regardless if your lens is a Noctilux, Summilux, Summicron, Elmarit or Elmar. 

There is no way to make an M lens into an autofocus lens (unless you use some sort of contraption to move the entire lens in or out on a non-M body)

On an SLR or dSLR, you focus visually on a ground screen with perhaps some micro-prisms or even a split rangefinder with the lens wide-open, the lens will close down tooth working aperture as you press on the shutter release button. 

If you mount an M lens on a mirrorless camera, such as a SL, or use an EVF on an M body, what you see is the image at the chosen aperture. To accurately focus on the spot you choose you should do so with the lens wide-open; if you focus with the lens closed down to a smaller aperture you are playing with DOF, your image may well be 'in focus' but only because of the DOF, the exact point of focus is then just a guess. 

An M with a built-in EVF is fine, simpler than adding an external EVF, and using the EVF can be helpful at times. I mostly use my EVF2 to frame my Tri-Elmar (WATE) but do focus using the rangefinder.

 

[IkarusJohn]

Even photographing wide open, you’re playing with the depth of field - smaller or larger, depending on the subject distance.  I agree that the optical viewfinder offers the best option of achieving the best plane of focus, particularly for wide angle lenses (the EVF isn’t so good with those).  In practice, I’m not convinced with longer lenses.  Yes, you get the same focus, regardless of the focal length of the lens with an OVF, but with a 90mm or 135mm lens, what looks in focus in the optical viewfinder may not be, where the depth of field is way shallower.  I tend to use a magnifier with my 50mm and 75mm lenses, with the EVF with my M10-D.

I don’t buy the oft repeated comment that, with an EVF, you must focus wide open, then stop down.  With a T, TL2, SL and M10-D all with M lenses, I’ve never had the need to do this.  The automatic magnification is a huge help, and I seem to be able to focus just fine with an EVF (within its limits).

Anyway, everyone’s experience is different.  My only point is that, for everyone who comes up with reasons for why an EVF is a poor idea, I point to those who have happily used M lenses on CL, TL & SL cameras, and with the EVF on M(240) and later cameras, without issue.

It just comes down to personal choice.

[costa43]

3 hours ago, phojomatic said:

I've been thinking about the rumored 3mm top plate difference. When the SL3 came out, there was a huge to-do about the 5mm difference over the SL2. I personally hated that, but maybe bc I was so familiar with the SL2 (SL2-S actually, not that there's a difference). It's taken me since then to now to just "start" to warm up to the SL3 type body.

It seems pretty improbable that Leica would create a new top plate just for this limited run...I say limited only bc it's a variant model. I don't believe they used a different top plate when the M-D series was made, admitted that was ages ago. But still...a tried and true M camera that is now smaller and has a change of feel in the hand...that really is very un Leica-like as a sub-model. It would change the flash-hot shoe geometry too. 

 

FWIW, 92 pages later, I've come to appreciate the optical nature of the M's and would rather have IBIS than an EVF. I can shoot 1/30 with other camera's on the market (Z8, for example...hey, even the SL3-S), so it really isn't such a crazy notion that I'd like to use a M11 (M12) at something under 1/250.

 

my .02...subject to change by page 94.

 

It’s highly likely the top plate used for the M11-D will be what we get on the V.

Edited July 9 by costa43

[Mike Rawcs]

5 hours ago, costa43 said:

It’s highly likely the top plate used for the M11-D will be what we get on the V.

I agree. I just hope that, at last, we will be able to comfortably use a 28mm lens while wearing spectacles.

[costa43]

51 minutes ago, Mike Rawcs said:

I agree. I just hope that, at last, we will be able to comfortably use a 28mm lens while wearing spectacles.

With an EVF you will see what the lens sees so it should be fine for all focal lengths. Hopefully it has good eye relief though. My guess is that they keep the design of the EVF opening the same which might prove a little problematic still but it would be an oversight to not ensure it is comfortable as I think a large market sector for this model are those that wear spectacles.

Edited July 9 by costa43

[phojomatic]

6 hours ago, costa43 said:

It’s highly likely the top plate used for the M11-D will be what we get on the V.

I agree and think that will be the case, no pun intended. 
 

It’s too bad to loose the ISO dial though, as this through a wrench in Leica’s marketing that all the exposure triangle are at your fingertips (without powering on the camera). It also means loosing a Customer button.

I supposed you could configure the top button to ISO, and change with scroll wheel. 
 

 

[evikne]

15 minutes ago, phojomatic said:

It’s too bad to loose the ISO dial though, as this through a wrench in Leica’s marketing that all the exposure triangle are at your fingertips (without powering on the camera). It also means loosing a Customer button.

I supposed you could configure the top button to ISO, and change with scroll wheel. 

On the M11-D, it's perfect to have the ISO wheel on the back, where it belongs. But I wouldn't miss it much on a regular (screen) M either, as I usually don't change ISO in my daily use. I mostly do it like with analog cameras, where you choose an ISO for the occasion and leave it there.

[JNK100]

To me it is better to wait until the launch of this rumoured camera than to endlessly speculate.

If there is such a camera to be launched the design will have been ' frozen' in any case..

 

[Martin B]

22 hours ago, Le Chef said:

You can likely see it in the current Visoflex.

The size of the current external Visoflex will fit into the body perfectly - so yes, I believe this will be implemented. But I don't think it will rely only on the same kind of manual focusing system as used in the current external Visoflex. 

[lct]

20 minutes ago, Martin B said:

The size of the current external Visoflex will fit into the body perfectly - so yes, I believe this will be implemented. But I don't think it will rely only on the same kind of manual focusing system as used in the current external Visoflex. 

It could (and to me should) do so if it is an M-mount camera, provided Leica keeps the current rolling cam that allows to focus the same way 6-bit coded as well as uncoded lenses.

Edited July 9 by lct

[FrozenInTime]

17 minutes ago, lct said:

It could (and to me should) do do if it is an M-mount camera, provided Leica keeps the current rolling cam that allows to focus the same way 6-bit coded as well as uncoded lenses.

It would a major fail if they do not make use of RF cam movement - an advantage no L-Mount adaptor has yet offered.

Edited July 9 by FrozenInTime

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

3 minutes ago, FrozenInTime said:

It would a major fail if they do not make use of RF cam movement - an advantage no L-Mount adaptor has yet to offer.

+1. It would not make sense to choose the M mount otherwise.