EVF M rumoured

[Smogg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

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).

When it comes to specialized photography, such as sports photography, fast autofocus is important. But in general photography, the added value of the author is much more important than the accuracy of focus.

[Advertisement]

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

[charlesphoto99]

It may be easier now to make lots of 'good' photographs, but it's just the same trying to make a 'great' photograph as it was with film. It's important to make that distinction. Also keep in mind that most film photographs never made it past the contact sheet stage due to the darkroom process; now it's easy to flood viewers with hundreds of mediocre photos from the day/night before with the press of a mouse. Editing is key (and the first round should mostly be done by the photographer, with the final choices typically made by the client - or photographer if a personal project). 

[costa43]

I actually think there is some exceptional photography nowadays but it’s not as recognised as it used to be as it such a common medium and social media has dumbed it down to a quick like and move on culture. 

[DadDadDaddyo]

"Wagner's music isn't as bad as it sounds..."

-- Mark Twain

Edited February 20 by DadDadDaddyo

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Smogg:

When it comes to specialized photography, such as sports photography, fast autofocus is important. But in general photography, the added value of the author is much more important than the accuracy of focus.

The question is, where "specialized photography" starts.

It doesn't necessarily have to be sport. Even people in normal movement are quite difficult to photograph in low light and with shallow depth of field without autofocus as shown here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/297666-show-us-your-noctilux-wide-open-shots/?do=findComment&comment=5758737

I have been photographing this event for 15 years, both with and without autofocus (then with EVF). 15 years ago, for example, with a Noctilux 50/1, this year with a Noctilux 75/1.25 in an autofocus setup. Since you can neither control the movements of the actors nor the many people standing around, the only option is to separate them using a shallow depth of field. Even with the burst mode and forward/backward movement of the body, the hit rate is much lower without autofocus and many valuable moments were lost forever. However, the joy over the fewer successful pictures is actually greater. Presumably this (and the excessive prices) is the psychology that still makes the M system so interesting...

May be, that you categorize this already as "specialised photography" but for me this isn't.

[J.C.T.]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto99 said:

" now it's easy to flood viewers with hundreds of mediocre photos from the day/night before with the press of a mouse."

When "the algorithm" becomes the de-facto arbiter of taste and "likes", it is the "flywheel of mediocrity" that pays the bills, unfortunately. 

[Stevejack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, costa43 said:

I actually think there is some exceptional photography nowadays but it’s not as recognised as it used to be as it such a common medium and social media has dumbed it down to a quick like and move on culture. 

True, I think people just see so many images day to day.. before the days of fast internet we had to actually click-on and download each picture individually - and we would only do that if the description sounded like something we might be interested in.

These days the images are auto-loaded and infinitely rendered as we scroll. It's image saturation and only the simplest and boldest images will grab people's attention. Any image where we have to stop and look closely at the arrangement of elements to appreciate it is quickly glossed over because on the whole, most images on our feeds are not worth looking closely at. They weren't carefully thought out, they have nothing to say, and they were published for no apparent reason. And because mobile phones make up the majority of media consumption, unless a good picture stands out as a tiny thumbnail among a thousand other images it usually won't get seen at all. 

[jrichie]

3 hours ago, Stevejack said:

True, I think people just see so many images day to day.. before the days of fast internet we had to actually click-on and download each picture individually - and we would only do that if the description sounded like something we might be interested in.

These days the images are auto-loaded and infinitely rendered as we scroll. It's image saturation and only the simplest and boldest images will grab people's attention. Any image where we have to stop and look closely at the arrangement of elements to appreciate it is quickly glossed over because on the whole, most images on our feeds are not worth looking closely at. They weren't carefully thought out, they have nothing to say, and they were published for no apparent reason. And because mobile phones make up the majority of media consumption, unless a good picture stands out as a tiny thumbnail among a thousand other images it usually won't get seen at all. 

I totally agree, especially the part about the images in the feeds in these forums.  I would guess the ratio of good image to a scroll past around 1:50 [a lot of my photographs would end up in the 50....]

[Smogg]

6 hours ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

The question is, where "specialized photography" starts.

It doesn't necessarily have to be sport. Even people in normal movement are quite difficult to photograph in low light and with shallow depth of field without autofocus as shown here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/297666-show-us-your-noctilux-wide-open-shots/?do=findComment&comment=5758737

I have been photographing this event for 15 years, both with and without autofocus (then with EVF). 15 years ago, for example, with a Noctilux 50/1, this year with a Noctilux 75/1.25 in an autofocus setup. Since you can neither control the movements of the actors nor the many people standing around, the only option is to separate them using a shallow depth of field. Even with the burst mode and forward/backward movement of the body, the hit rate is much lower without autofocus and many valuable moments were lost forever. However, the joy over the fewer successful pictures is actually greater. Presumably this (and the excessive prices) is the psychology that still makes the M system so interesting...

May be, that you categorize this already as "specialised photography" but for me this isn't.

I don't think that you need to use an open aperture in this case. Moreover, I think that too narrow field of focus does not allow you to fully reveal the atmosphere of this holiday, the delight of the crowd, and so on. The feeling of involvement in what is happening is completely lost and you get just figures from a clothing catalog. To highlight the subject of the photo in the crowd, there are many creative techniques, and not just technical ones. Look at how Magnum photographers shoot holidays in different countries. You will hardly see a background blurred into dust. To some extent, this is considered a creative failure of the photographer.

Edited February 21 by Smogg

[Stevejack]

3 minutes ago, jrichie said:

I totally agree, especially the part about the images in the feeds in these forums.  I would guess the ratio of good image to a scroll past around 1:50 [a lot of my photographs would end up in the 50....]

We're so used to attention grabbing images these days as well, I think it's easy for us to get confused as to what actually makes up a good image. 

These weren't taken with my Leicas but I just want to illustrate the point, if I post this picture of the bird eating a dragonfly it's always well liked and I can see why, it's attention grabbing because the colours are nice and the bird is doing something interesting. But it wasn't a difficult shot to make and there is nothing special about the composition - it stands out on the page, but that's all there is to it.  

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!

 

This pelican one however required a lot more technical consideration on my part and involved a good deal of luck. The seagull made 3 or 4 passes at the pelican and each time the pelican did something interesting in response, so I have 4 interesting photos of the pelican trying to shoo away the seagull but this is the only one in which the background has a direct relationship to the subject. The chimney stacks in the background lead into and mirror the vertical beak of the pelican and this is what ties the image together. The other 3 photos from the set are ok but unless the pelican's beak is exactly vertical, there is no background / foreground relationship and the image is much weaker. This was a difficult shot to pull off and it involved a large element of luck in terms of how the pelican responded and the positioning and gesture of the seagull. 
But when these two images were posted into a bird photography forum the dragonfly image got thousands of likes and comments, whereas the pelican only received about 25 likes. The pelican photo did win a national competition, so it was appreciated by judges, but as a shared image on social media it gets completely ignored in favour of simpler, bolder, and flashier images like the dragonfly one. 

At the end of the day, likes or no likes, being able to recognise in our own work what makes for a strong photograph, versus just a cool looking picture to share online, is worth exploring. 

 

[Smogg]

4 minutes ago, Stevejack said:

We're so used to attention grabbing images these days as well, I think it's easy for us to get confused as to what actually makes up a good image. 

These weren't taken with my Leicas but I just want to illustrate the point, if I post this picture of the bird eating a dragonfly it's always well liked and I can see why, it's attention grabbing because the colours are nice and the bird is doing something interesting. But it wasn't a difficult shot to make and there is nothing special about the composition - it stands out on the page, but that's all there is to it.  

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!

 

This pelican one however required a lot more technical consideration on my part and involved a good deal of luck. The seagull made 3 or 4 passes at the pelican and each time the pelican did something interesting in response, so I have 4 interesting photos of the pelican trying to shoo away the seagull but this is the only one in which the background has a direct relationship to the subject. The chimney stacks in the background lead into and mirror the vertical beak of the pelican and this is what ties the image together. The other 3 photos from the set are ok but unless the pelican's beak is exactly vertical, there is no background / foreground relationship and the image is much weaker. This was a difficult shot to pull off and it involved a large element of luck in terms of how the pelican responded and the positioning and gesture of the seagull. 
But when these two images were posted into a bird photography forum the dragonfly image got thousands of likes and comments, whereas the pelican only received about 25 likes. The pelican photo did win a national competition, so it was appreciated by judges, but as a shared image on social media it gets completely ignored in favour of simpler, bolder, and flashier images like the dragonfly one. 

At the end of the day, likes or no likes, being able to recognise in our own work what makes for a strong photograph, versus just a cool looking picture to share online, is worth exploring. 

 

The second frame is undoubtedly much stronger. I would have passed by the first one without paying attention, there are hundreds of thousands of them. And in the second one there is a master photographer who created added value.

[LocalHero1953]

While the photographer may be disappointed that their best composed and thoughtful image does not get the appreciation it deserves (and I'm writing in general terms, not about @Stevejack's comparisons) the observer may be just as interested in what the image shows as subject matter. Look at the 'Favourite Images' section of the forum: a high proportion are there because of what they show, not because of the composition. The camera is valid as both a documentary and an artistic tool.

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Smogg:

I don't think that you need to use an open aperture in this case. Moreover, I think that too narrow field of focus does not allow you to fully reveal the atmosphere of this holiday, the delight of the crowd, and so on. The feeling of involvement in what is happening is completely lost and you get just figures from a clothing catalog. To highlight the subject of the photo in the crowd, there are many creative techniques, and not just technical ones. Look at how Magnum photographers shoot holidays in different countries. You will hardly see a background blurred into dust. To some extent, this is considered a creative failure of the photographer.

Tastes differ in this regard - fortunately. But there is actually a pretty good comparison option in this Facebook group - as far as I know, publicly accessible: https://www.facebook.com/groups/102227469979

The images taken with smartphones, cameras with zoom lenses (or other combinations) with almost infinite depth of field look terrible (not only) for my taste. You become far too distracted from the actual actors and also risk problems with the personal rights of the other people in the picture. Some try to get around this by adding strong vignettes or artificially blurring the background afterwards. This doesn't really look any better...

I can tell from the likes and the feedback from the actors that photos with strong separation / narrow depth of field are clearly preferred. Most of the actors love my pictures and watch out particularly for them since years.

[Smudgerer]

Interesting discussion.......I'm perhaps 70% in the digital realm now in regards to what I tend to make my images with but at the same time I am still deeply ingrained with the film way of working in that I rarely shoot more than 20-30 shots per outing and most times considerably less than that, a 32gb card could be plenty enough for me.

I still have the habit of waiting and looking before I release the shutter, perhaps the ingrained "only 36 exposures" dictum is still there with the nervousness of knowing that you are at frame 32........"Should I still wait or just swiftly reload a fresh film!" That conundrum that digital has all but eliminated, but for me it's still lurking.

In post I delete easily more than half of what I come back to my studio with even before anything hits second tier culling in my preferred PP editor, ( LrC )...........Just like when I worked with film, develop, contact, wax pencil mark out the possibles and print only those, ( but also save the contact sheets and negatives in a file, just in case ! With digital I tend to bin the first rejects right away ).

Working decades in film embedded this workflow that to a large extent has passed through to digital working and I am comfortable with it's familiarity.

[evikne]

6 hours ago, Stevejack said:

We're so used to attention grabbing images these days as well, I think it's easy for us to get confused as to what actually makes up a good image. 

These weren't taken with my Leicas but I just want to illustrate the point, if I post this picture of the bird eating a dragonfly it's always well liked and I can see why, it's attention grabbing because the colours are nice and the bird is doing something interesting. But it wasn't a difficult shot to make and there is nothing special about the composition - it stands out on the page, but that's all there is to it.  

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!

 

This pelican one however required a lot more technical consideration on my part and involved a good deal of luck. The seagull made 3 or 4 passes at the pelican and each time the pelican did something interesting in response, so I have 4 interesting photos of the pelican trying to shoo away the seagull but this is the only one in which the background has a direct relationship to the subject. The chimney stacks in the background lead into and mirror the vertical beak of the pelican and this is what ties the image together. The other 3 photos from the set are ok but unless the pelican's beak is exactly vertical, there is no background / foreground relationship and the image is much weaker. This was a difficult shot to pull off and it involved a large element of luck in terms of how the pelican responded and the positioning and gesture of the seagull. 
But when these two images were posted into a bird photography forum the dragonfly image got thousands of likes and comments, whereas the pelican only received about 25 likes. The pelican photo did win a national competition, so it was appreciated by judges, but as a shared image on social media it gets completely ignored in favour of simpler, bolder, and flashier images like the dragonfly one. 

At the end of the day, likes or no likes, being able to recognise in our own work what makes for a strong photograph, versus just a cool looking picture to share online, is worth exploring. 

 

I liked how these two images were placed together here. First we see a bird trying to eat a dragonfly, and then a pelican opening its beak towards a seagull. At first it gave me the impression that the pelican was trying to snap the seagull and eat it! But that wouldn't be the case if I saw the images separately. 😄

Edited February 21 by evikne

[Chris W]

I think both pictures are excellent - the dragonfly and the pelican.

I try not to base my qualification of skill on likes on a forum. I have pictures I know are good that don't receive more than a glance on Instagram. People will more likely 'like' a photograph of a celebrity, not because it's a great picture but it's a picture of someone they like.

[Chris W]

1 hour ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

 

I can tell from the likes and the feedback from the actors that photos with strong separation / narrow depth of field are clearly preferred. 

Horses for courses.

The topic is an M with EVF. Judging by most of your contributions to the topic you strongly favour cameras with fast auto-focus and which are accurate with f1.0 lenses.

None of which is a Leica M. Use something else, like an SL3 or more likely a Sony.

[Chris W]

28 minutes ago, Smudgerer said:

 

I still have the habit of waiting and looking before I release the shutter, perhaps the ingrained "only 36 exposures" dictum is still there with the nervousness of knowing that you are at frame 32.......

I can't be bothered to wade through hundreds of images sitting at my computer. I'm by no means a professional, but after 30 years of snapping I know when something worthwhile is happening in front of me. Sometimes, more out of frustration, I fire off a few frames at something bland or boring. 99.99% of the time I see those shots are boring and worthless when I get home.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[costa43]

9 hours ago, Stevejack said:

True, I think people just see so many images day to day.. before the days of fast internet we had to actually click-on and download each picture individually - and we would only do that if the description sounded like something we might be interested in.

These days the images are auto-loaded and infinitely rendered as we scroll. It's image saturation and only the simplest and boldest images will grab people's attention. Any image where we have to stop and look closely at the arrangement of elements to appreciate it is quickly glossed over because on the whole, most images on our feeds are not worth looking closely at. They weren't carefully thought out, they have nothing to say, and they were published for no apparent reason. And because mobile phones make up the majority of media consumption, unless a good picture stands out as a tiny thumbnail among a thousand other images it usually won't get seen at all. 

Yes and the general feeling I get nowadays is that people find it harder to focus for a prolonged period of time. Even in conversation, I can see them switching off, it may well be my boring drool but that lack of focus is more evident to me than it has been in the past. Maybe it is due to technology giving people such instant gratification in many aspects of life..

Edited February 21 by costa43

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Chris W:

The topic is an M with EVF. Judging by most of your contributions to the topic you strongly favour cameras with fast auto-focus and which are accurate with f1.0 lenses.

None of which is a Leica M. Use something else, like an SL3 or more likely a Sony.

No, the topic is not "M with EVF", it is abot an EVF-M.
So it is (hopefully) not only about integrating an Visoflex-like EFV into the M body instead of the optical view-rangefinder.
It is about the question, if and how there can be better support for manual focusing than just magnification or focus peaking, because we have the option to use (sense) the RF coupling of the M-lenses and AI support (like eye-detection).

Some purists would like to maintain the impression that there is no need for an EVF or even autofocus if you have enough practice with the optical view-/rangefinder. My examples are intended to show that there are areas where this is simply wrong.

So it is also about the question, how an EVF-M could improve or extend the capabilities of an M and where you still have limits. As Noctilux lenses are part of the M lenses portfolio, there is also the question if and how it could make more sense to use them on an M body in the future. For M-lenses, a SL3 is still not more than an M with Visoflex and larger grip. Much bulkier and not really an improvement.

This raises the question of what Leica engineering will surprise or disappoint us with. If it disappoints, it is good to know about the options, how to better use wide open M lenses until they come up with a better solution. In contrast to the purists bound by tradition, I do not consider it impossible to integrate an AF mechanism into an M-body in the next iteration. But then one could actually question the name "M" - but not necessarily the M's iconic form factor (which I like).

Edited February 21 by 3D-Kraft.com