EVF M rumoured

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, hexx said:

M cameras were never action cameras 
 

I would highly disagree with this statement. M's can, and have captured, action the same as any other camera. 

[Advertisement]

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

[hexx]

3 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

I would highly disagree with this statement. M's can, and have captured, action the same as any other camera. 

Well, I’m pretty sure we all know what I meant there. You don’t really see them capturing sports like tennis, football and so on. 

Edited September 17 by hexx

[colonel]

2 hours ago, hexx said:

Well, I’m pretty sure we all know what I meant there. You don’t really see them capturing sports like tennis, football and so on. 

This is simply not true. 60 and 70s sports photos were captured with MF cameras.
Set your M to f5.t-f8 and pre focus and you are done. Much easier then AF

what you don’t get is distant shots simply as there are no long zooms for Leica m. Well there are but it’s not common to have them these days with the adaptors needed 

 

 

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!

Edited September 17 by colonel

[hexx]

1 minute ago, colonel said:

This is simply not true. 60 and 70s sports photos were captured with MF cameras.
Set your M to f5.t-f8 and pre focus and you are done. Much easier then AF

what you don’t get is distant shots simply as there are no long zooms for Leica m. Well there are but it’s not common to have them these days with the adaptors needed 

Sigh… I guess I should’ve be more specific by saying that “in the current days of digital cameras”. I’m not talking about 60s or whatever long gone era. I’m talking about the present. Is it really necessary to spell it out like that? 😀

[colonel]

2 minutes ago, hexx said:

Sigh… I guess I should’ve be more specific by saying that “in the current days of digital cameras”. I’m not talking about 60s or whatever long gone era. I’m talking about the present. Is it really necessary to spell it out like that? 😀

You implied they can’t do it. That is different. In any case a sports photographer today would rattle off 50 photos to get one. That is what you get with modern cameras, but you can do just fine with an M. It’s just modern cameras do more for you. Under editorial pressure

[charlesphoto99]

5 hours ago, hexx said:

Well, I’m pretty sure we all know what I meant there. You don’t really see them capturing sports like tennis, football and so on. 

You said action. Some people do act like if something's moving it's all bets off with an M (esp if it doesn't have an EVF😂). Sure, I'm not going to try and meld a 300 or 400mm to my M if that's the reach needed. But sports photography can mean a lot of things - see the football pics of Gary Winogrand shot with an M for example. Or the one I took below with a 90mm Macro-Elmar at a rodeo or the crow with a 135mm APO. One just needs to learn how to track the focus. 

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!

[Kiwimac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes. 

[erl]

The difference between M cameras (any era) and Digital 'machine guns' is the same as the difference between snipers and machine gunners. You know what I mean.

For more years than I care to count, I have been 'sniping' with my cameras to gain the optimal image. My success rate kept me and my family in 'comfort' for years. I shot sport, drama, active events, running, flying animals . .  . etc. I still do.

It all comes down to shooter skills, past experience, awareness, anticipation, . .  . you get the drift. It's not the camera. It's you!

[T25UFO]

10 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

You said action. Some people do act like if something's moving it's all bets off with an M (esp if it doesn't have an EVF😂). Sure, I'm not going to try and meld a 300 or 400mm to my M if that's the reach needed. But sports photography can mean a lot of things - see the football pics of Gary Winogrand shot with an M for example. Or the one I took below with a 90mm Macro-Elmar at a rodeo or the crow with a 135mm APO. One just needs to learn how to track the focus. 

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!

Totally agree.  I posted this photo in the M10R forum.  Yes, I did take several photos and this was the only one I was satisfied with, but the bird was flying fast at the time!

 

[davidnvh]

My dealer sort of confirmed that there’s a new M coming. He was in Wetzlar last week attending some training, where he saw part of the new assembly line. He couldn’t reveal much to me and simply called it the M12. So, perhaps it’s a completely new camera?

[jaapv]

 

 

8 hours ago, erl said:

The difference between M cameras (any era) and Digital 'machine guns' is the same as the difference between snipers and machine gunners. You know what I mean.

For more years than I care to count, I have been 'sniping' with my cameras to gain the optimal image. My success rate kept me and my family in 'comfort' for years. I shot sport, drama, active events, running, flying animals . .  . etc. I still do.

It all comes down to shooter skills, past experience, awareness, anticipation, . .  . you get the drift. It's not the camera. It's you!

 

So true...Older images on the M8 using the 90 AA, Hence the smaller size, the forum had far smaller limits), but still...

I sincerely doubt that an EVF would make this easier, in fact, I think that the lag would make it harder. I don’t believe that an EVF is the optimal tool for manual action focusing. 
 

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!

 

 

 

 

[erl]

Just for the record.

M10 & 90mm cron

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]

I've used M cameras to shoot fast moving and unpredictable subject matter, with success. That said, there are easier ways, but then again, the camera you have in your hand at the time is worth any number you don't have with you.

Ideally you take the correct camera for the intended usage. If I was to be shooting sports (I don't anymore) my camera of choice would not be an M. On the other hand if I want to shoot precisely focused, wide-angle, static subjects for which focus is critical an M would sit at the top of my list. And when I shoot using multishot, techniques on a large format camera with a movable back, by far the best solution is an EVF camera which uses focus magnification. There is no perfect, all-round camera. Horses for courses.

[colonel]

One of the benefits of the Leica M is the fixed focal length. Having to choose and frame based on this. It makes you think and it also removes the time waste from thinking and selecting the zoom.

The focus is a big plus. For street photography pre-focus is an essential tool. With AF cameras you have to pray it hits the target you want. Often by the time you have fiddled with the focus target the moment is lost. Also there are many situations where is just pray, like if someone is walking across your scene and you want to capture them at a specific doorway, you can’t rely on AF.

The natural light VF just makes this easier, brighter, no lag, less noise and no glitches. It’s much much easier for night photography then an EVF. 

I have no objection to a EVF projection in a VF for framing or information display. As long as it can be switched off and doesn’t compromise the VF. An EVF only camera is a non-starter for me. 

Edited September 18 by colonel

[jaapv]

Actually you can have fixed focal lengths and manual pre-focus on just about any camera. Nobody is forcing you to use a zoom lens and AF. The strength of an M is the control and precision of the rangefinder at medium focal lengths and the connection to the scene by the optical viewfinder. 

[colonel]

29 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Actually you can have fixed focal lengths and manual pre-focus on just about any camera. Nobody is forcing you to use a zoom lens and AF. The strength of an M is the control and precision of the rangefinder at medium focal lengths and the connection to the scene by the optical viewfinder. 

Yes but you are lugging around all that extra electronics and weight for a function you don’t use, and then there is the thing that the M manual focus is the best MF IMHO.

in practice although you are right about primes, no AF camera I have ever had I use for MF. It’s just a pain and a waste of the functionality.

on top of that the M is really tiny compared to anything but an A7CR with an f2.5 or darker lens. 

Edited September 18 by colonel

[Derbyshire Man]

8 hours ago, davidnvh said:

My dealer sort of confirmed that there’s a new M coming. He was in Wetzlar last week attending some training, where he saw part of the new assembly line. He couldn’t reveal much to me and simply called it the M12. So, perhaps it’s a completely new camera?

Well, @jonoslack has been very quiet of late🤣

[SrMi]

44 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Actually you can have fixed focal lengths and manual pre-focus on just about any camera. Nobody is forcing you to use a zoom lens and AF. The strength of an M is the control and precision of the rangefinder at medium focal lengths and the connection to the scene by the optical viewfinder. 

The M system removes the zoom temptation unless one counts MATE and WATE as zooms.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[DadDadDaddyo]

Machine guns vs. fast multi-shot photos:

It's easier to hit a target with a machine gun, and any hit at all will produce harm, which is after all, the intent. 

But a photograph is supposed to capture, not hit, and capture, specifically, at a correct or peak moment. 

Consider. You want to capture a soccer player kicking a ball, with the picture taken at exactly the correct, peak, moment. 

So you fire off multiple exposures just as fast as your camera permits. I don't shoot that way, so I don't know how fast that is, but let's say it's 5 shots per second. Sounds fast, right? Say you're shooting at 1/1000 of a second. 

Well, during that second in which those 5 shots are taken, the camera's shutter is closed for 995/1000 of that second. 

See? It's spends most of that second closed shut, not taking a picture. 

If it happens to be open at the correct 1/1000 of the second it's down to sheer luck. 

So the sniper types (a photographic practice I pursue) work to know fully, to know way deep down in muscle memory, beneath conscious thought, when to hit the shutter in light of the directly viewed motion and its observed and anticipated speed and direction. The hit rate improves with practice. 

In the days of film, when we had only 20 or 36 shots on a roll (unless we bulk loaded to some custom length) every factor that could be weighed came down in favor of the photographic sniper approach. 

In the digital world, we can create a backlog of shots to curate, select, and edit, at an appalling rate. 

But for this old photog, I'd rather keep practicing to get the one shot, rather than wade through an increasing number of continuous shots. The latter approach seems more like shooting video and pulling out still frames. Might be a great approach if you're a sports magazine, but I'll leave that technique to those that want to pursue it. 

I'll let them ask me, "Wow! How many shots per second were you using to get that shot??"

Edited September 18 by DadDadDaddyo

[jaapv]

13 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The M system removes the zoom temptation unless one counts MATE and WATE as zooms.

Life consists of resisting temptations (having just completed my 35-50-85 tries on the SL 🙃 despite owning a number of zooms)