EVF M rumoured

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

32 minutes ago, colonel said:

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. 

Yes, but it does help not having to drag multiple systems around... If I am out with an MF camera and want - need to use manual, I'm not driving home to get my M. 

[jaapv]

8 minutes ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

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??"

Well, 20 fps bursts or continuous 8K with pre-release are all the thing nowadays.

[Derbyshire Man]

5 hours ago, colonel said:

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. 

I'm not sure I agree with the no lag element. I've taken Canon 1d(xx) and 5Dmk4 bodies to Wimbledon in the past and got exactly the shot I imagined when I pressed the shutter button. Two years in a row I've taken Leica M camera's and cannot get the shot I want even when I try to predict where the action will be, the lag between pressing the shutter button and the image recorded seems to be too large and so far, for me, slightly unpredictable. Having said that I've not taken my R5Mk2 yet although that seems fine for cricket.

Agree though it's horses for courses, I wouldn't want to do documentary/reportage with a 5D/R5/1D(xx) 

Edited September 18 by Derbyshire Man

[Markey]

7 hours ago, pgk said:

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.

Agreed .

I`ve shot sports (equestrian ) with M3, M2 and M4 since the eighties but I don`t anymore .

I use an SL2s .

 

[lct]

Matter of practice i guess. Been shooting moving subjects for 10+ years with M lenses on various mirrorless cameras. With focus magnification + focus peaking, you can easily see moving subjects entering and leaving the peaking areas, so nailing focus on them has never been a problem for me. We shall see how the M11-V behaves actually but i see no reason why it would do worse than my old Fuji X-E2 or my basic M11 with Visoflex 2 so far.

• Fuji X-E2, Super-Elmar 21/3.4

• M11, Visoflex 2, Summicron 50/2 DR (blurred for privacy sorry)
 

[erl]

Referencing shutter lag, mentioned somewhere above, muscle memory deals adequately with that, provided you are aware of it. In my early (pre my Leica days) I used Hasselblads for everything that came my way. For those that know, Blads do have a significant shutter lag. I used to know precisely what it is, but importantly, my brain 'built the lag into' my reflexes and consequently I was very successful, at the time. The VF blackout with early Blads was an annoyance, but with the advent of the later models which incorporated instant return mirror, that improved functionality. Still, there is nothing quite like continuous viewing on a RF Leica.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not shutter lag, that is of all times, but EVF and electronics lag. An OVF is real time. 

[Patarei]

I was shooting a beach volleyball final In Brussels last year with my M246 paired with a Hektor 13.5 cm f4.5 ltm from 1939. I got some nice photos, so its doable but not so easy.

[downstairs]

A non-sequitur: would lens makers be offering M mount lenses without focus cams for M11-V or M12s? 

[JNK100]

I now only use a 50mm with biological-zoom feature ( I have legs 😉) with my M and have a decent focus success rate . An EVF would feel different and not as distinct from every other camera out there.

 

[luigi bertolotti]

1 hour ago, downstairs said:

A non-sequitur: would lens makers be offering M mount lenses without focus cams for M11-V or M12s? 

Only if this EVF M will enjoy BIG success 😁... there are lot of RF Leicas still working and used...

[evikne]

1 hour ago, JNK100 said:

I now only use a 50mm with biological-zoom feature ( I have legs 😉) with my M and have a decent focus success rate . An EVF would feel different and not as distinct from every other camera out there.

The biological zoom is usually better too, because you really get closer. The changed perspective gives a different impression than if you zoom in from a distance.

One disadvantage, however, is when you are photographing a wild animal and would rather avoid being eaten. 😬

[lct]

2 hours ago, downstairs said:

A non-sequitur: would lens makers be offering M mount lenses without focus cams for M11-V or M12s? 

Some lenses have been made without focus cams like the ZM 15/2.8 if memory serves but such cams are necessary to modern digital M cameras for their auto focus magnification, aka auto zoom feature. Also such lenses could hardly focus on regular M cameras with rangefinders so chances of such offers seem rather theoritical.

[downstairs]

3 minutes ago, lct said:

Some lenses have been made without focus cams like the ZM 15/2.8 if memory serves but such cams are necessary to modern digital M cameras for their auto focus magnification, aka auto zoom feature. Also such lenses could hardly focus on regular M cameras with rangefinders so chances of such offers seem rather theoritical.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of the focus magnification.  

 

[FrozenInTime]

2 hours ago, downstairs said:

A non-sequitur: would lens makers be offering M mount lenses without focus cams for M11-V or M12s? 

A good question.

Faster or more compact fast lenses may be possible if the full width of the M bayonet was available. 

Removing the RF cam could allow wider and deeper lens cells; same goes for removing the mechanical shutter. But in these scenarios a feature would be needed to prevent damage if mounting of these, say M-v2,  lenses was attempted on classic M mount bodies. This would be moving into L-mount territory, so I don't see it happening any time soon.

 

[3D-Kraft.com]

It's hardly convincing to cite a few lucky shots, taken with a wide aperture or simply by chance with a pre-focused camera triggered at the right moment, as proof of the Leica M's suitability for action/sports photography. Of course, such shots do exist, but their relevance is about as strong as arguing that "2 is a prime number, therefore all even numbers must be prime numbers."

This won't change significantly even with an EVF-equipped Leica M.  The capabilities of modern cameras with hybrid (phase and contrast) autofocus are simply far beyond what even the most skilled and experienced photographers can achieve with manual focusing. I don't know any sports photographers who use a Leica M (or SL or Lumix) today, and that's certainly not because the photographers who were most active in the 1960s-90s were all so much more talented than those of today.

[pgk]

13 minutes ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

I don't know any sports photographers who use a Leica M (or SL or Lumix) today, and that's certainly not because the photographers who were most active in the 1960s-90s were all so much more talented than those of today.

The World Athletics Chamionships are on in Tokyo at the moment. Watching the highlights I see Canon's, Nikons and Sonys being used but oddly no Leicas ..... .

[costa43]

10 minutes ago, pgk said:

The World Athletics Chamionships are on in Tokyo at the moment. Watching the highlights I see Canon's, Nikons and Sonys being used but oddly no Leicas ..... .

To be fair, I would also use a Sony if the end product was everything. Leica wouldn’t get a look in! 

[TeleElmar135mm]

vor 30 Minuten schrieb pgk:

The World Athletics Chamionships are on in Tokyo at the moment. Watching the highlights I see Canon's, Nikons and Sonys being used but oddly no Leicas ..... .

 

vor 18 Minuten schrieb costa43:

To be fair, I would also use a Sony if the end product was everything. Leica wouldn’t get a look in! 

... look here (sorry it's in German): Fußball WM 2014: These are sport pictures I like and prefer.

https://m-magazine.photography/ceemes/de/news/one-night-in-rio-1360.html

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[BernardC]

41 minutes ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

This won't change significantly even with an EVF-equipped Leica M.  The capabilities of modern cameras with hybrid (phase and contrast) autofocus are simply far beyond what even the most skilled and experienced photographers can achieve with manual focusing.

That's true in bright light, but I find that I can focus a rangefinder much faster in low light, compared to a good AF or EVF.

27 minutes ago, pgk said:

Watching the highlights I see Canon's, Nikons and Sonys being used but oddly no Leicas .....

Professional sports are the exclusive domain of Canon and Nikon. Leica doesn't even try to compete in that market. I doubt that Canon and Nikon make any profit directly from a few hundred high-end sports photogs worldwide, but those halo cameras and lenses are great advertising, and they sell most of them to wealthy amateurs.