EVF M rumoured

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, pgh said:

With regards to an EVF M, the question I have to ask is why? What problem does it solve that an SL doesn’t?

As a semi-neutral observer, I expect the rational responses will be to use M lenses (of any vintage and "look") without:

1. the SL camera size, form-factor and weight compared to "M-sized"

2. the requirement for an M-SL lens adapter

[IkarusJohn]

4 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

As a non-related (non-Magnum) example, Avedon - for his multi-year and very famous American West project - shot c 17,000 sheets of B&W 8x10, and curated it down to just over 100 final images (and apparently destroyed the rest of the negatives). Now that’s hard work and control over a legacy, IMHO.

Robert Frank exposed 767 rolls of film through his Leica over 9 months, and published 83 images in The Americans.

[jakontil]

M with EVF is the more budget line to the RF

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Robert Frank exposed 767 rolls of film through his Leica over 9 months, and published 83 images in The Americans.

With digital, the photographer tends to shoot more than with film, but digital does not increase the number of excellent shots. So, the ratio is even worse.

For some photographers, the ratio of the number of shots made to the number of excellent shots is infinity :).

[IkarusJohn]

5 hours ago, SrMi said:

With digital, the photographer tends to shoot more than with film, but digital does not increase the number of excellent shots. So, the ratio is even worse.

For some photographers, the ratio of the number of shots made to the number of excellent shots is infinity :).

Perhaps. The quality ratio doesn’t seem to have kept pace with the explosion of digital photography. 

But I don’t think that’s the point. Would Robert Frank have taken more images if he had a digital camera?

Somehow, I doubt it.
 

[Chris W]

For me there is a confusion here between firing off multiple shots of a subject and shooting a lot of pictures in a day.

The contact sheets I've seen usually only have five or six shots of a subject, sometimes only one or two. The skill of the pro-photographer is seeing the moment, then taking the shot. It isn't firing off a blizzard of shots and hoping to see something good back at the computer. They also see a great location and stand around for hours waiting for a good subject to appear. Some classic shots were created when the photographer kept going back to the same location for several weeks until the perfect subject appeared.

I do know a few professional photographers and photo journalists. The days of press photo editors are basically over. Not many people are commissioned and even fewer just hand over hundreds of raw images for someone else to deal with.

A lot of photographers work for their agency, then when a great image comes in the agency shops it around the news organisations. Everyone I know edits and processes their own images, just hours after shooting them. They'll send the best 12 - 20 images (completely processed) off to their agency or directly to a magazine or news editor IF there is one.

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Robert Frank exposed 767 rolls of film through his Leica over 9 months, and published 83 images in The Americans.

Yes, he had his camera in his hand for many hours every day and shot hundreds of different scenes and subjects. It's not about taking dozens of shots of the same subject the way most digital amateurs do.

[pgk]

9 minutes ago, Chris W said:

The skill of the pro-photographer is seeing the moment, then taking the shot.

It only takes a few moments to look at a news website and realise that today the 'skill' of photography has been replaced by the reality of 'being there'. Many poor images are now used simply because they are actual records of a newsworthy event taken by people involved or close by, or by CCTV. As with many genres of photography, the role of the photojournalist is changing (or has changed). Most of the comments here relate to times gone by. I used to do newspaper work at one time, never well paid and often recording locations and people in the news rather than events (of which there were some). Things shifted, I found other niches more to my liking and stopped shooting as a freelance news photographer. As with most aspects of professional photography today, its not a career I would advise for anyone other than the absolutely driven to take up. Of those that do such work today, I doubt any are interested in an evfM.

[Smogg]

25 minutes ago, pgk said:

It only takes a few moments to look at a news website and realise that today the 'skill' of photography has been replaced by the reality of 'being there'. Many poor images are now used simply because they are actual records of a newsworthy event taken by people involved or close by, or by CCTV. As with many genres of photography, the role of the photojournalist is changing (or has changed). Most of the comments here relate to times gone by. I used to do newspaper work at one time, never well paid and often recording locations and people in the news rather than events (of which there were some). Things shifted, I found other niches more to my liking and stopped shooting as a freelance news photographer. As with most aspects of professional photography today, its not a career I would advise for anyone other than the absolutely driven to take up. Of those that do such work today, I doubt any are interested in an evfM.

As I imagine (and I may be wrong), the EVF-M is aimed primarily at enthusiasts who shoot wide open and those who like to explore the aberrations of older lenses.

[UliWer]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb adan:

As a semi-neutral observer, I expect the rational responses will be to use M lenses (of any vintage and "look") without:

1. the SL camera size, form-factor and weight compared to "M-sized"

2. the requirement for an M-SL lens adapter

As one might even be able to use M lenses with an M camera with optical viewfinder, the rational response narrows down to lenses which are better used with an EVF. For me these are only lenses with focal lengthes of 50mm or longer and an extremely narrow depth of focus. As these lenses are rather or very large the form-factor of an M compared to an SL becomes less important. 

[lct]

30 minutes ago, UliWer said:

As one might even be able to use M lenses with an M camera with optical viewfinder, the rational response narrows down to lenses which are better used with an EVF. For me these are only lenses with focal lengthes of 50mm or longer and an extremely narrow depth of focus.

... And WA or even UWA lenses for close-ups and macro. S-A 21/3.4 @ f/8 here.

[Smogg]

10 minutes ago, lct said:

... And WA or even UWA lenses for close-ups and macro. S-A 21/3.4 @ f/8 here.

for UWA lenses RF+Visoflex is more convenient

[lct]

1 hour ago, Smogg said:

for UWA lenses RF+Visoflex is more convenient

Never used RFs with UWAs so far. Accessory OVFs in the past, now EVFs. Matter of taste an/or habits i guess. YMMV.

[pgh]

12 hours ago, SrMi said:

With digital, the photographer tends to shoot more than with film, but digital does not increase the number of excellent shots. So, the ratio is even worse.

For some photographers, the ratio of the number of shots made to the number of excellent shots is infinity :).

The ratio is worse, but there are absolutely more good pictures than there were in the film days. We can’t empirically prove this because it’s subjective, but it’s easy to think better of the past until you go and really look at it. The standards for a good photograph tend to be much higher now - yes, in part because technical proficiency is much easier to achieve. But this puts a heavier emphasis on the intangibles that make strong photographs. Go look at any magazine from the 90’s and that truth will be inescapable - as long as you can escape the nostalgic desire to call an image better because it has the distance of being made in another time and in another medium. It’s nice to romanticize the past but digital has definitely aided dramatically in the production of a much higher number of strong images that were almost unimaginable in the film days. 

 

7 hours ago, Chris W said:

do know a few professional photographers and photo journalists. The days of press photo editors are basically over. Not many people are commissioned and even fewer just hand over hundreds of raw images for someone else to deal with.

The industry has certainly contracted dramatically, but this work is still being done every day. However, it’s never really been standard practice for us to hand over hundreds of images for someone else to deal with. Photo editors at large media outlets often tend to prefer photographers narrow down their take to somewhere between 10 and 40 images depending on the job (and complete any basic post production). On occasion editors want larger takes but that goes with larger projects and still requires a lot of editing labor on the part of the photographer.  

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, pgh said:

The ratio is worse, but there are absolutely more good pictures than there were in the film days.

Technically (sharper, less noisy), yes. But aesthetically, I doubt that photographers are shooting better pictures today than in the film days.

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb SrMi:

Technically (sharper, less noisy), yes. But aesthetically, I doubt that photographers are shooting better pictures today than in the film days.

I disagree. Better technology has also expanded the variety of situations in which photos can be taken today. Both good and bad, but ultimately more than none.

Not to mention the missed shots where you didn't focus quickly or accurately enough. Zone focussing is not the answer to every situation. However, the EVF is not enough to increase the speed; you need autofocus. A computer can do this part of the job much better than a human. So the human can concentrate more on composing the image and looking for the best moment. OK, autofocus already existed in the film days but far away from the level modern mirrorless cameras can achieve today (apart from perhaps Leica's (or Panasonic's) current implementation).

Edited February 20 by 3D-Kraft.com

[Dazzajl]

23 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Technically (sharper, less noisy), yes. But aesthetically, I doubt that photographers are shooting better pictures today than in the film days.

An interesting statement, in as much as it seems both true and false from my view. 

I don't believe that photographers are better or more capable as a tribe than we were pre digital but I do know that we can get shots and make final images that would have been completely impossible previously. In that context, we are shooting better pictures today.

[lct]

Define better. Gilden vs HCB?

[Derbyshire Man]

9 hours ago, pgk said:

It only takes a few moments to look at a news website and realise that today the 'skill' of photography has been replaced by the reality of 'being there'. Many poor images are now used simply because they are actual records of a newsworthy event taken by people involved or close by, or by CCTV. As with many genres of photography, the role of the photojournalist is changing (or has changed). Most of the comments here relate to times gone by. I used to do newspaper work at one time, never well paid and often recording locations and people in the news rather than events (of which there were some). Things shifted, I found other niches more to my liking and stopped shooting as a freelance news photographer. As with most aspects of professional photography today, its not a career I would advise for anyone other than the absolutely driven to take up. Of those that do such work today, I doubt any are interested in an evfM.

To be honest I think you can apply much of that (with some minor alterations) to most professions as part of the general enshittification of life!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Dazzajl]

3 minutes ago, Derbyshire Man said:

part of the general enshittification of life!

That is a very fine description of the phenomenon!