EVF M rumoured

[DadDadDaddyo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

43 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

A sort of collective coitus interruptus?

If this is coitus, then please interrupus! 

[Advertisement]

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

[Derbyshire Man]

10 hours ago, frame-it said:

could be a new watch that activates the coffee machine.

Wait, there's a Leica coffee machine?

🤣

[TeleElmar135mm]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb Derbyshire Man:

Wait, there's a Leica coffee machine?

🤣

yes, with red beans  and water from the Lahn river ...

Edited 23 hours ago by TeleElmar135mm

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, chrismuc said:

You are right, I forgot that the Q does not have a focal plane shutter. 

Nor IBIS, as many have already noted.

[pgh]

16 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

The challenge is often to actually have a subject, and compose in a way which really works.

Exactly. The wider it gets, the more the challenge increases, the more the average user fails in this. You note you should use your 21 more. But you find it challenging. And rightly so. This is just me, but I find most users who go so wide with a primary lens have a lot of wasted space in compositions. I've seen it in my classes all of the time. One of the first fixes for a lot of students in really engaging with their subject matter is to get them to drop the fascination with wide, sweeping skies that a wide angle can provide because it's often at the expense of just about anything interesting in the picture. The reason that Winogrand, Friedlander were so skilled with a 28 is that they could see and frame from side to side, from front to back, and embrace the complexity of picture making that such a wide lenses tends to demand. It's a rare skill. 

I won't argue that 35 (standard wide), perhaps even 28, and of course 50 are all common primary focal lengths (28 less common and less commonly well done) I think for most people that use M's in the ways that M's are typically used, it's 35 and 50. Really doubt 24 is that common as the real primary for most users. It's used yes, but the main thing? Just haven't seen a lot of portfolios that show that in real use. I could be wrong and my purview is that at of more documentary photography - which is the world I come from, but I generally don't see it and very few examples come to mind if any. 

[adan]

1 hour ago, catacore said:

Go get some popcorn, it is still on....🙃

... or perhaps a vomit bag. 😜

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, newtoleica said:

Well I do, and so does Leica Ambassador Alan Schaller. We both do B&W urban and street photography. I met him earlier in the year on London’s south bank, both of us with our M10 Mono and 24 summilux. LOL. Using a 24 and especially the Lux in mono draws in a particular way and captures street photography in a way that takes the eye in a story around the image. Alan tends to urban abstracts with deep shadows and lonely figures, while I tend to get in close in demonstrations and crowded streets. I was influenced at a young age by the work of Tony Ray Jones and Gary Winogrand and have developed that style over several decades. So please don’t dismiss a style that isn’t yours as ‘something you work your way out of’….. a tad arrogant perhaps 🤔 even if unintended? 

I'm sorry if you took offense.

To be clear - my "style" when it comes to appreciating photography has only one real rule - it needs to be strong work. That can sure be done with a 24mm. But whatever the lens, it's really hard to do in general. I'm not sure if I've ever succeeded at it myself, so don't take this as my stating a how to do it from a personal point of view. 

But I stand by my statement - I've spent as much time "reading," editing, and teaching pictures in my career as I have had making them and so I've developed opinions on this over time. You could accuse me of taking photography too seriously, you could accuse me of being arrogant in what I think is strong work, but I've dedicated my life to it so I will have some opinions. 

Importantly, Winogrand used a 28 - not a 24 - and he is one of very few that used it as a primary very well. Tony Ray Jones, far as I can tell (and it looks like it) used a 35 the most and a 50 as well, a wider lens only occasionally. So, neither are examples of 24mm primary lens users - if that's relevant to you I'm not sure. 

This is all subjective of course, but I didn't come up with this notion myself. I resisted it as a student when I loved shooting 24 myself, I was learning from people who put out the books that moved me as a young person. I resisted it myself until I learned that, for the most part, they were right - I was wasting space and losing sight of what mattered in the picture. Note that I'm not saying this is a hard and fast rule, but exceptions tend to be self evident. Most people by nature of the concept are not the exception here. I wasn't. 

I took a brief look at Schaller's work and I'm sorry, but I'm unmoved (unlike with Winogrand and TRJ who do move me), and I also see a lot of room for cropping, I see a lot of giving in to the seductive pulling sensation a wide angle tempts users with, and one that my students have made better work with when they've gotten past that. "Drawing" in a particular way is in no way synonymous with strong work, for what it's worth. Fisheyes draw in a very particular way, and they're mostly not used well. That's just my take. If being unmoved by photography makes me arrogant I plead guilty. But I'm perhaps one of the few that thinks more criticism of it would be a good thing as the world drowns in millions of images while a lower and lower percentage of them transcend the medium into being something that is really good.  

Lastly though - if you enjoy your 24mm, as it seems you do, and you do this for fun and pleasure, this is all that matters. No need to listen to a crank like me or let my takes diminish your enjoyment of it. While I believe criticism is an important part of photography, not all of it is equal. There's a skill in learning what to take to help you and what to leave behind - and only an individual can discern that over time.

Oh...EVF M? Right. Uh...no comment. 

[Jeff S]

39 minutes ago, pgh said:

Really doubt 24 is that common as the real primary for most users. It's used yes, but the main thing? Just haven't seen a lot of portfolios that show that in real use. I could be wrong and my purview is that at of more documentary photography - which is the world I come from, but I generally don't see it and very few examples come to mind if any. 

Most recently, Alan Schaller comes to mind. 

[TeleElmar135mm]

Maybe Leica should create something like this to shorten the waiting time ...

 

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!

[tappan]

This thread started months ago and has over 3000 replies.
In my humble opinion the only replies that one can put any stock in are @jonoslack
 

[Stephen.s1]

And, rightly so, he ain't talkin'

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, pgh said:

Exactly. The wider it gets, the more the challenge increases, the more the average user fails in this. You note you should use your 21 more. But you find it challenging. And rightly so. This is just me, but I find most users who go so wide with a primary lens have a lot of wasted space in compositions. I've seen it in my classes all of the time. One of the first fixes for a lot of students in really engaging with their subject matter is to get them to drop the fascination with wide, sweeping skies that a wide angle can provide because it's often at the expense of just about anything interesting in the picture. The reason that Winogrand, Friedlander were so skilled with a 28 is that they could see and frame from side to side, from front to back, and embrace the complexity of picture making that such a wide lenses tends to demand. It's a rare skill. 

I won't argue that 35 (standard wide), perhaps even 28, and of course 50 are all common primary focal lengths (28 less common and less commonly well done) I think for most people that use M's in the ways that M's are typically used, it's 35 and 50. Really doubt 24 is that common as the real primary for most users. It's used yes, but the main thing? Just haven't seen a lot of portfolios that show that in real use. I could be wrong and my purview is that at of more documentary photography - which is the world I come from, but I generally don't see it and very few examples come to mind if any. 

Yes, carrying a 21 is a mindset!  I don’t use it much because it’s rather large …

One of my favourite Nikkor lenses was my 14-24 AFS (nicked, unfortunately). One of the things I found is that I used it more at 14 than at 24, rarely in the middle (I really don’t particularly like zooms).

With any lens, my goal has always been to take a picture which suits the lens.  I’ve failed if someone looks at an image and says - ah, a 21 Summilux or a Noctilux. Takes time and thought.  

Edited 22 hours ago by IkarusJohn

[newtoleica]

1 hour ago, pgh said:

Lastly though - if you enjoy your 24mm, as it seems you do, and you do this for fun and pleasure, this is all that matters. No need to listen to a crank like me or let my takes diminish your enjoyment of it. While I believe criticism is an important part of photography, not all of it is equal. There's a skill in learning what to take to help you and what to leave behind - and only an individual can discern that over time.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Chapeau…. 
sorry for my morning grumpiness…. And no offence taken 

you’ll see a lot of 24mm on my website, some 35mm, a bit if 50, but not much. I like to tell a story in a frame if I can and what’s going on around the edges is important. https://www.brendandelaneyphotography.com
 

 

[Derbyshire Man]

1 hour ago, pgh said:

I'm sorry if you took offense.

To be clear - my "style" when it comes to appreciating photography has only one real rule - it needs to be strong work. That can sure be done with a 24mm. But whatever the lens, it's really hard to do in general. I'm not sure if I've ever succeeded at it myself, so don't take this as my stating a how to do it from a personal point of view. 

But I stand by my statement - I've spent as much time "reading," editing, and teaching pictures in my career as I have had making them and so I've developed opinions on this over time. You could accuse me of taking photography too seriously, you could accuse me of being arrogant in what I think is strong work, but I've dedicated my life to it so I will have some opinions. 

Importantly, Winogrand used a 28 - not a 24 - and he is one of very few that used it as a primary very well. Tony Ray Jones, far as I can tell (and it looks like it) used a 35 the most and a 50 as well, a wider lens only occasionally. So, neither are examples of 24mm primary lens users - if that's relevant to you I'm not sure. 

This is all subjective of course, but I didn't come up with this notion myself. I resisted it as a student when I loved shooting 24 myself, I was learning from people who put out the books that moved me as a young person. I resisted it myself until I learned that, for the most part, they were right - I was wasting space and losing sight of what mattered in the picture. Note that I'm not saying this is a hard and fast rule, but exceptions tend to be self evident. Most people by nature of the concept are not the exception here. I wasn't. 

I took a brief look at Schaller's work and I'm sorry, but I'm unmoved (unlike with Winogrand and TRJ who do move me), and I also see a lot of room for cropping, I see a lot of giving in to the seductive pulling sensation a wide angle tempts users with, and one that my students have made better work with when they've gotten past that. "Drawing" in a particular way is in no way synonymous with strong work, for what it's worth. Fisheyes draw in a very particular way, and they're mostly not used well. That's just my take. If being unmoved by photography makes me arrogant I plead guilty. But I'm perhaps one of the few that thinks more criticism of it would be a good thing as the world drowns in millions of images while a lower and lower percentage of them transcend the medium into being something that is really good.  

Lastly though - if you enjoy your 24mm, as it seems you do, and you do this for fun and pleasure, this is all that matters. No need to listen to a crank like me or let my takes diminish your enjoyment of it. While I believe criticism is an important part of photography, not all of it is equal. There's a skill in learning what to take to help you and what to leave behind - and only an individual can discern that over time.

Oh...EVF M? Right. Uh...no comment. 

I've not long had a 21 although I always used to love my Canon 16-35. Wide is definitely tough to use well and I think not ideal as a standard lens. 35 I love the most for this.

One person who pulls off the 24 consistently is Tommy Jiang on LFI. He does it by getting up so close you can smell the breath of the subjects, pulling you into the scene. Not many of us have that level of bravery or are able to strike up good enough relations with our subjects to do that and still come home with the camera and lens!

https://lfi-online.de/en/gallery/m-mastershots/Prankster-3880872.html

Edited 21 hours ago by Derbyshire Man

[newtoleica]

1 hour ago, Derbyshire Man said:

I've not long had a 21 although I always used to love my Canon 16-35. Wide is definitely tough to use well and I think not ideal as a standard lens. 35 I love the most for this.

One person who pulls off the 24 consistently is Tommy Jiang on LFI. He does it by getting up so close you can smell the breath of the subjects, pulling you into the scene. Not many of us have that level of bravery or are able to strike up good enough relations with our subjects to do that and still come home with the camera and lens!

https://lfi-online.de/en/gallery/m-mastershots/Prankster-3880872.html

How about this? parliament Square London with Palestine Action protest.

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!

[IkarusJohn]

The late Lars Berquist (enthusiastic forum member) wrote a bit about using wides, particularly following the release of the 21 SEM.  Worth searching on the forum.

He used to say that 35s and 50s make you focus on a singles subject, whereas wider lenses require a more Asia way of thinking, having a panorama of subjects, across the frame in two dimensions.  Can’t say I necessarily agree, but wides certainly make you think differently. 

[pgh]

39 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

The late Lars Berquist (enthusiastic forum member) wrote a bit about using wides, particularly following the release of the 21 SEM.  Worth searching on the forum.

He used to say that 35s and 50s make you focus on a singles subject, whereas wider lenses require a more Asia way of thinking, having a panorama of subjects, across the frame in two dimensions.  Can’t say I necessarily agree, but wides certainly make you think differently. 

35’s make you focus on a single subject? That’s a new one for me. Alex Webb says otherwise, for example.
A 50, that is a bit more bit more sensical although layering is still possible and beneficial. Robert Frank might take issue with that one. 
The 50 is harder to incorporate depth, the 35 the perfect balance between it being an achievable skill and not losing control of the edges of the frame - for most. But sometimes you want a single subject. 
The issue with shooting superwides in that layered fashion is that the distortion on human subjects near the edges of the frame becomes so evident as to usually be overpowering of the rest of the content of the frame. The stock issue lens we all used to get was a 16/17-35 (depending on if your publication was canon or Nikon) and we’d get reamed by editors for using the wide end too much, with some exceptions. Sometimes a 17mm really does what you need for a landscape or an interior - very rarely did for a  documentary picture, though - on occasion, if you couldn’t back up, it was the best way to go. Agree that you have to think differently with each lens though. 

[jrichie]

21 hours ago, SrMi said:

I was talking about focusing with an M with an EVF handheld. Sean Reid mentioned the issue and the solution (using a rangefinder for focusing and the EVF/LCD for framing). I also found it to be quicker and more precise than using EVF for focusing, and it also avoids the issue of closed working aperture.

that's exactly how I use my M11 for anything below 35mm due to wearing glasses and inability to see the frame lines.  I can get away with 28mm  but still guessing to a point.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Smogg]

It seems to me that when you discuss the use of different focal lengths, you are missing the fact that the M11 has a fairly high magnification factor, which makes it difficult to even use a focal length of 35, let alone 28. Perhaps it would be worth releasing not an EVF version of the M11, but a version with a noticeably reduced magnification factor?

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, pgh said:

35’s make you focus on a single subject? That’s a new one for me. Alex Webb says otherwise, for example.
A 50, that is a bit more bit more sensical although layering is still possible and beneficial. Robert Frank might take issue with that one. 
The 50 is harder to incorporate depth, the 35 the perfect balance between it being an achievable skill and not losing control of the edges of the frame - for most. But sometimes you want a single subject. 
The issue with shooting superwides in that layered fashion is that the distortion on human subjects near the edges of the frame becomes so evident as to usually be overpowering of the rest of the content of the frame. The stock issue lens we all used to get was a 16/17-35 (depending on if your publication was canon or Nikon) and we’d get reamed by editors for using the wide end too much, with some exceptions. Sometimes a 17mm really does what you need for a landscape or an interior - very rarely did for a  documentary picture, though - on occasion, if you couldn’t back up, it was the best way to go. Agree that you have to think differently with each lens though. 

Robert Frank is probably my favourite photographer of all time. 

Sadly, not many match his skill. The biggest shortcoming of the rangefinder is the tendency to compose at head height with the subject in the middle of the frame, where the focus patch is. You get away with it with a 50 and longer, almost with a 35, but you can’t really with wider lenses. Then, focus and recompose creates its own challenges. 

I’m not sure that Lars was right. But, I am firmly of the view that most photography posted here suffers not just from the lack of an interesting subject, but more critically from having every subject in the middle of the frame. 

The issue is really one of composition, and yes, not having egg-shaped heads on the edges of the frame. 

Perhaps I’m getting old. I almost need to carry the instruction manual for each camera (and exposure meter) when I go out. Mostly, I just get it to work and I don’t bother with added features.

But with each lens, I do remind myself, or try to, what its character is, and how to compose with it.  Where to put the camera, where to put the subject in the frame, aperture and the shutter (if I have to).