EVF M rumoured

[FrozenInTime]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

55 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Or have built-in lidar for focus confirmation on wide lenses and/or closed apertures.

An interesting footnote in the history of rangefinders is the Linhof 2000 EMS:

"Converts the basic Master Technica 2000 into a fast action camera for handheld large format photography" !

The intent of this electronic module was to replace the traditional lens matched cam and optical rangefinder on the Linhof Master Technica.

It measured the distance to subject on a linear CCD and indicated when the bellows were extended to match this focus, using an IR sensor as a cross check.

There is a good scan of the brochure here: http://www.laflexcamera.com/brochures  

 

This was all a bit much for the electronics of the time, a failure, and was recalled by Linhof; an expensive electronic way of doing something opto-mechanically simple.

But the LiDAR and ToF sensors of today would be relatively easy to incorporate in a EVF-M body; to function as a cross check for stopped-down lens focusing.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

36 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I agree about accurate, but since many of the EVF M proponents want help with failing eyesight, then they may be willing to sacrifice speed. And those who are familiar with EVFs but newbies to rangefinders, and nervous about using them, will not be aware of comparative performance.

Focus magnification takes some time but for good enough fast focusing there still is focus peaking. Even faster than RF focusing since there is no focus recompose to do.

[sinjun]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

IF Leica produce an evfM it is obviously essential that its focus system is as accurate and fast as the rangefinder. Anything else would be a retrograde step.

Agreed up to a point. I like using the rangefinder method when I know my lens is well calibrated but it's not uncommon for lenses to be slightly out - and I'm not just talking about focus shift. I have a number of lenses which I compensate for by slight turns of the focus ring and I find myself become less tolerant of the need to do this.

[Derbyshire Man]

5 hours ago, lct said:

Matter of practice i guess but the Visoflex 2 is capable enough as a standalone manual focusing camera, at least for me. As far as my lenses are concerned, focus magnification together with focus peaking can do it at working aperture with lenses from 12mm to 135mm. 28mm at f/8 here, full frame and crop.

I think it's ok if your style is slow enough to accept magnification and your subjects happy to be static but for off centre portraiture/environmental/street with open apertures that's simply not practical. As ever we need to look more broadly at others' use cases rather than our own needs and preferences.

Focus peaking is too broad for f1.4 it simply doesn't work, more resolution is the answer, it's quite feasible with 5.5mp or better and focus peaking turned off, frame rate is also important so 5-6mp with decent frame rate is better than choppy 10mp+

Edited February 16 by Derbyshire Man

[pgk]

2 hours ago, lct said:

Focus magnification takes some time but for good enough fast focusing there still is focus peaking. Even faster than RF focusing since there is no focus recompose to do.

Focus peaking is really not as precise as rangefinder focusing. I regularly use it to give an approximation of focus then magnify the image to fine tune the precise point of focus. This works well enough but is slow and only suitable for static subject matter, and is certainly slower than using a rangefinder. Using focus peaking alone is not, in my experience, as accurate as a rangefinder especially with wide angle lenses.

[jaapv]

In fact it can be quite precise if one realizes that it has a kind of DOF; If one "walks" the plane of focus and puts it in the middle of the peaking zone, normally it is spot-on.

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If someone finds rangefinder focusing is only 'capable enough' or 'good enough' but not perfect (for them), then why would one want only a 'capable enough' or 'good enough' but not perfect EVF-M to replace what already works to the same degree? If Leica do it, it has to be state of the art for what they charge. Hopefully it is, but I'm not holding my breath...

[Derbyshire Man]

24 minutes ago, jaapv said:

In fact it can be quite precise if one realizes that it has a kind of DOF; If one "walks" the plane of ocus and puts it in the middle of the peaking zone, normally it is spot-on.

Interesting, I'll give that a go.

[lct]

27 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

If someone finds rangefinder focusing is only 'capable enough' or 'good enough' but not perfect (for them), then why would one want only a 'capable enough' or 'good enough' but not perfect EVF-M to replace what already works to the same degree?

Because they prefer EVF to RF i guess. Also the EVF does not work to the same degree in that it can focus more accurately thanks to focus magnification. It is when speed is required that the RF can prove superior but it is a matter of practice and/or taste since focus peaking can be very fast too. Good for RF and EVF users, there is some place for both.

Edited February 16 by lct

[raizans]

I’m dreaming of eye control over PDAF focus points. No need for peaking! You look at the spot where you want to focus, then turn the focusing ring until a green indicator turns on, Nikon style.

[pgk]

43 minutes ago, jaapv said:

In fact it can be quite precise if one realizes that it has a kind of DOF; If one "walks" the plane of focus and puts it in the middle of the peaking zone, normally it is spot-on.

Depends on the aperture, lens, subject and more. Using focus magnification ensures a more precise point of focus and most of the time a marginal adjustment is needed. I suppose that is the point. A rangefinder is a precision instrument allowing a spot to be selected and focussed on. Using focus peaking (admittedly it improves with practice) is a less precise method. But if yu are changing from a precision to a more imprecise way of working then why bother with all the precision of M lenses and manual focus.

It seems to me that demands being made are for a 'hobbled' evf camera (manual focus, small lens throat, less precise/slower focus) from a presitious manufacturer. What could possibly go wrong?

[pop]

33 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

If someone finds rangefinder focusing is only 'capable enough' or 'good enough' but not perfect (for them), then why would one want only a 'capable enough' or 'good enough' but not perfect EVF-M to replace what already works to the same degree? If Leica do it, it has to be state of the art for what they charge. Hopefully it is, but I'm not holding my breath...

One of the premises for this discussion appears to be that each photographer has one and only one camera for all his work, or only one type of camera.

This is why the question of the superiority of one kind of viewfinder over another one is discussed so prominently here. However, we all know that many of the participants here have more than one camera anyway. And we all know that not every camera is suited equally well for each kind of job.

Therefore, it's not all that unlikely that someone vastly prefers a rangefinder for part of his work, a built-in EVF for other parts and, perhaps, an off-camera display for still others, not to speak of a camera without any finder at all for other situations. Of course, there's considerable overlap, so that you can happily shoot in quite a few situations with any viewfinder at all, or none.

I, personally, prefer my rangefinder cameras for taking pictures of the scenery or even for snapshots. For more ambitious work on architecture or close-up work an EVF is often much more useful, and so on. Often, it's a highly individual preference, so YMMV, of course.

[UliWer]

vor 45 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

In fact it can be quite precise if one realizes that it has a kind of DOF; If one "walks" the plane of focus and puts it in the middle of the peaking zone, normally it is spot-on.

It very much depends on the lenses DOF. I mostly use LiveView on the camera‘s display with very close and macro distances. Here you can see the focus peaking slowly moving with fractures of a millimeter as you focus and can exactly define the position of max. sharpness. Similar with long focal lengthes, though they have to be very stabile.

Though when I recently tried different versions of a 3.5/50mm Elmar - on tripod - and relied on focus peaking on the display with a distance short before infinity I was astonished how unsharp some results were and how much better others: my focus peaking was sloppy, there was too much indicated as „sharp“ which really wasn‘t. With wide angle lenses - and especially with modern contrasty ones - focus peaking is as reliable as the lenses DOF-scale.

As I don’t have any Noctiluxes my EVF is only used with the 135mm Apo-Telyt.  No sufficient reason to wish the rumors become true. 

[jaapv]

23 minutes ago, pgk said:

Depends on the aperture, lens, subject and more. Using focus magnification ensures a more precise point of focus and most of the time a marginal adjustment is needed. I suppose that is the point. A rangefinder is a precision instrument allowing a spot to be selected and focussed on. Using focus peaking (admittedly it improves with practice) is a less precise method. But if yu are changing from a precision to a more imprecise way of working then why bother with all the precision of M lenses and manual focus.

It seems to me that demands being made are for a 'hobbled' evf camera (manual focus, small lens throat, less precise/slower focus) from a presitious manufacturer. What could possibly go wrong?

I tend to use focus peaking with magnification. 

[lct]

2 hours ago, Derbyshire Man said:

Focus peaking is too broad for f1.4 it simply doesn't work [...]

Different experience here. Been there done that for many years. Below with my first Sony and a Summilux 50/1.4 asph in 2016.

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]

59 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I tend to use focus peaking with magnification. 

So do I. But its slow, much slower than using arangefinder most of the time. And thereby lies the problem. Typically wide-angles are tricky - and with a rangefinder they focus best, which is just as well, because this is where rangefinder's strength lies.

[algrove]

14 hours ago, Stevejack said:

A lower quality evf doesn’t matter with most cameras because there is visual feedback from the autofocus system.
With manual focus you rely on either a high resolution display to nail focus, or you’re left with focus peaking. And focus peaking 1. Is useless at narrow apertures, and 2. obscures important information in the frame by covering it over with coloured pixels. Focus peaking makes it so you often can’t tell if a subject is even looking at the camera unless their face is filling enough of the display.  

So my fear is, that they just put in an EVF  equivalent to the Visoflex 2 (which is their stated aim according to the last user survey) and it will not be capable enough as a standalone manual focusing system. 

At the moment I find the Viso 2 on an M11 just fine. I never use focus peaking only magnified view for critical shots so for me whatever they put in a new camera will be just fine for manual focusing.

[algrove]

6 hours ago, pgk said:

At least Leica users would be easier to spot😆.

Can you imagine a Leica workshop out somewhere so that all these people are bumping into the others solar hat. What a mess.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[IkarusJohn]

I’ve used focus peaking on multiple cameras multiple times, and it has never worked for me (cue @lct & @jaapv).  I find the EVF almost useless with M wides - the depth of field is so thick, I can’t confidently work out the best plane of focus - and no, “walking” focus peaking back and forth with a 28 Summaron-M on a TL2 or an SL does not result in best focus.

Neither the OVF nor the EVF is universally better, one than the other.  For the M, I mostly prefer the OVF, but I accept that the subjects in my photos will tend to be in the centre, and not accurately framed (I tend not to worry too much about the edges in that case.  But, the OVF is fast and generally accurate, until you want to focus a Noctilux or 75 Summilux wide open.  Then I use the EVF - the automatic magnification is great, and I can move the magnification point if I have the time.  It isn’t fast.

EVF?  Well, it works well with the SL and X2D, but that’s with AF.  Exposure simulation, off-centre focusing, accurate framing and no focus shift are advantages, but they come at a cost.  I don’t miss looking down the barrel of an SLR …

With practice with both EVF and OVF, the OVF is definitely faster, but the EVF has its uses - I carry my Visoflex with me whenever I take either my TL2 or my M10-D.  It’s a ugly thing, spoils the look of the camera and catches in the bag if I leave it on; but it’s useful.  I lost the first one after it fell off somewhere …

[Smogg]

8 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I’ve used focus peaking on multiple cameras multiple times, and it has never worked for me (cue @lct & @jaapv).  I find the EVF almost useless with M wides - the depth of field is so thick, I can’t confidently work out the best plane of focus - and no, “walking” focus peaking back and forth with a 28 Summaron-M on a TL2 or an SL does not result in best focus.

Neither the OVF nor the EVF is universally better, one than the other.  For the M, I mostly prefer the OVF, but I accept that the subjects in my photos will tend to be in the centre, and not accurately framed (I tend not to worry too much about the edges in that case.  But, the OVF is fast and generally accurate, until you want to focus a Noctilux or 75 Summilux wide open.  Then I use the EVF - the automatic magnification is great, and I can move the magnification point if I have the time.  It isn’t fast.

EVF?  Well, it works well with the SL and X2D, but that’s with AF.  Exposure simulation, off-centre focusing, accurate framing and no focus shift are advantages, but they come at a cost.  I don’t miss looking down the barrel of an SLR …

With practice with both EVF and OVF, the OVF is definitely faster, but the EVF has its uses - I carry my Visoflex with me whenever I take either my TL2 or my M10-D.  It’s a ugly thing, spoils the look of the camera and catches in the bag if I leave it on; but it’s useful.  I lost the first one after it fell off somewhere …

Exactly my experience.