EVF M rumoured

[newtoleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

40 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The M system is not really considered to be suitable for this use, although it can be done with some concessions. Not even a EVF though, for framing there have been auxiliary viewfinders since Methuselah. Similar for tele lenses and Visoflexes. . RF focusing is indeed all that SrMi says, but like all things, within its use envelope. Being between 35 and 90 mm. Maybe 28 and 135. 

Many of us shoot mostly with a 24… you just get used to estimating the frame edges. ‘A bit beyond the absolute edge of the finder’ 

[Advertisement]

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

[Derbyshire Man]

18 minutes ago, newtoleica said:

Many of us shoot mostly with a 24… you just get used to estimating the frame edges. ‘A bit beyond the absolute edge of the finder’ 

I’m the same with 21, if I can see the core of my image here in the VF I’ve got what I need. People get too het up. Well for digital or B&W anyway, it’s easy to crop. No need for an external VF just the image in your minds eye and some experience with the lens. 
 

Appreciate that’s not going to work for a building for a client! Luckily not something I need to do!

Edited 8 hours ago by Derbyshire Man

[charlesphoto99]

6 hours ago, Planetwide said:

This is simply not true. An EVF is a definite improvement for poor eyesight, age related sight loss. Additionally, the keeper rate on an EVF is much higher due to focus confirmation being visible. I find it quite illuminating that the majority of rangefinder users seem to think that an (Industry Standard) EVF is somehow worse than the rf patch. The reality, is that the RF patch, and I have owned several M RF camera's, is yesterdays tech. It is limited by the fact that it only works with a small selection of lenses. I understand the desire, and thoughtful nature of photography, that an RF demands. But, and its a big but, EVF's work, and work well. They are more accurate, easier, and faster to use than the RF. I feel, that there is definitely a market for both systems of focussing within the Leica M ecosystem. This way Leica can provide a lower cost entry path for new users, who are very familiar with EVF's and traditional users will be serviced as well. I see no downside to introduction of an M - EVF...

IMHO.

You didn't read what I wrote - the concept of an EVF patch the same size as the rf patch won't necessarily be better for poor eyesight. This is in response to the hypothetical hybrid finder. A full EVF may be better for many than the tradional rangefinder. I'm not of them - EVF's seem to make me prone to seizures. Might just need to slowly train my eye on one to overcome that. EVF's also seems, for me, to 'get in the way' in a way an optical viewfinder doesn't. Of course useful for many purposes, especially commercial related.

[DadDadDaddyo]

Yeah, it's probably too late for me to see the "sweet spot focal length range" of "35-90, or maybe 28-135", as something that limits me in a way I need to challenge in my own work. That focal length range has been with me so long that it's impossible for me to separate it's influence on my seeing from the way my seeing developed on its own with that focal length range. 

I can certainly understand it as something that might prove too confining for others, especially if they come to the M from other systems. If they're already used to an EVF,  it makes sense they might want an M body thus equipped. If they like swinging a 70-200 zoom around, it makes sense they'd like a camera with Autofocus and Image Stabilization. And therefore, I guess it makes sense they'd like to see any development that moves the M closer to their envelope of comfort. An EVF M might seem like a low-threshold move for them. It might even be difficult to understand why anyone else might not want one. 

That's fine. If Leica perceives that segment as being better served by bringing out an EVF M, that's great. 

I doubt I'll buy one. The M isn't the only camera I use; the stable still has Medium and Large Format gear for when the mood strikes, but really, the Leicas have been with me the longest, and they're what I keep coming back to. 

I mean, when I started using a rangefinder Leica there were Studebakers on the road. They're mostly iron oxide now. I'm glad the Leicas are still around... 

Edited 6 hours ago by DadDadDaddyo
... small typo

[pgh]

2 hours ago, newtoleica said:

Many of us shoot mostly with a 24

Would be pretty surprised if that’s the case. No one I know personally does, and it’s generally too wide for general use because the focal length draws attention to itself in a way that a 35 or 50 doesn’t. Even a 28 is slightly less conspicuous and has been wielded well as a primary lens by only a handful of photographers. 

People usually figure this out in time and use it more sparingly when they do. I can think of very few skilled photographers - actually, maybe none - who have used something so wide as their primary lens. It can have its place, but shooting mostly? Even the Q is too wide most of the time. 

[beewee]

7 minutes ago, pgh said:

Would be pretty surprised if that’s the case. No one I know personally does, and it’s generally too wide for general use because the focal length draws attention to itself in a way that a 35 or 50 doesn’t. Even a 28 is slightly less conspicuous and has been wielded well as a primary lens by only a handful of photographers. 

People usually figure this out in time and use it more sparingly when they do. I can think of very few skilled photographers - actually, maybe none - who have used something so wide as their primary lens. It can have its place, but shooting mostly? Even the Q is too wide most of the time. 

The 24/3.8 is my most used M lens but I’m also mostly shooting landscapes in the mountains. I would happily shoot a 24mm prime as my only lens in the mountains.

If Leica would finally get around to shipping the 24 APO SL, I’d buy it in a heartbeat. Right now, on the SL3, sometimes the 21 APO SL is a little too wide and sometimes the 28 APO SL is a little too tight. A 24 APO SL would be perfect for me.

For my M kit, I will never sell my 24/3.8.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pgh said:

Would be pretty surprised if that’s the case. No one I know personally does, and it’s generally too wide for general use because the focal length draws attention to itself in a way that a 35 or 50 doesn’t. Even a 28 is slightly less conspicuous and has been wielded well as a primary lens by only a handful of photographers. 

People usually figure this out in time and use it more sparingly when they do. I can think of very few skilled photographers - actually, maybe none - who have used something so wide as their primary lens. It can have its place, but shooting mostly? Even the Q is too wide most of the time. 

Not sure about that.  I use wides more than teles.  There’s something a bit one dimensional about the once ubiquitous Canon 70-210 zoom.

For me (I can’t speak for anyone else), the 75 is my preferred portrait lens, and often for landscape; my 50s are my standard lenses, along with my 28s; but my 21 is a lens I love and should use more.  Wides make me think and have the benefit of introducing drama in skies and the surrounding environment.  The challenge is often to actually have a subject, and compose in a way which really works.

I always try to find the best plain of focus, even though the depth of field is huge.  I almost never use hyperfocal focusing (or should that be not focusing?). I did rely on depth of field with my 15/2.8 Distagon, but then that wasn’t coupled and pretty much everything was in focus regardless of what you set on the lens.  Sold that lens because of the Italian flag, and I couldn’t justify using it only for B&W.  I still regret that decision.

[algrove]

150 pages and we still do not truly know what will be released in a few weeks!

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, Andrew Gough said:

It might be a well known fact in your mind, but as someone who shoots commercial architecture, using wide angles, I respectfully disagree. Any wide angle lens is going to have a depth of field that would negate any perceived value of your claim. Further to that the inability of the RF system to show the entire lend field of view is a severe limitation. How do you focus on a near subject? If you say focus and recompose, then your focus is at best: inaccurate. I have shot wides on the M, and without an electronic viewfinder composition is just guess work.

Critical focus at sub 20mm on a modern lens, stopped down is so easy - it's a joke. I could do it using hyperlocal distance, EVF zooming, or just plain guesswork. At 20mm, F11, subject distance of 5m everything from 1m to infinity is in focus.... At 14mm its 0.5m to infinity....

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.