pop

It also might be for the people who like the rangefinder for part of their work and other finders for other work. I have pruned my (excessive) digital camera fleet to just two cameras: an Epson R-D1 for the intuitive "work" (when I'm connected to the subject, as you call it) and a Leica CL for precision work such as architecture or still lives (when I'm connected to the resulting image, as you call it). Some of the time I use the same lenses on both and most of those are by Leica. Using both an Mn and an M-EVFn would be bliss, I imagine. Same sensor stack, hence same work flow, and same user interface of the gear when in the field. What's not to like, excepting the price tag, of course?

Sigh. It's not a Q. I't an electrified Rolleiflex with some parts dropped.

That's a great plus. I wouldn't like my camera to speak to me..

I know from experience: Focusing accurately with some focal lengths. Seeing what's outside of the field of view of the lens. Ability to focus with very little light. No latency in the viewfinder. Apparent depth of field of virtual finder image. There are probably more when I think longer about it. Add autofocus to the question, then the optomechanical rangefinder has the advantage that you never have to think about how and why the autofocus will focus on another part of the scene than you need. Of course, there are settings where working with an EVF or with an autofocus system will be faster or more reliable. That's why I use both. Would be nice, though, to be able to use similar cameras with the same sensor stack, the same lenses and the same handling (not to speak of the same batteries).

Oh well. It has been said here in this thread over and over again that the Messsucher (the optical rangefinder in combination with the viewfinder as built into the traditional M camera) supports the process of taking a photograph very well in some circumstances, not so well in others. If you have ever used an M camera you should know what I'm talking about. Hence, using an M camera for some jobs and another camera with the same sensor stack and using the same lenses for other jobs can be a rational decision. There are indeed things the M does better than the M EV; there are - presumably - things the M EV will do better than the M, who knows.

Rather, like having an espresso machine and a teapot and a kettle. Or a 35mm lens and a 50mm lens.

Both run on batteries.

... and some larger capacity batteries.

It's called a 'Meilenstein' in German. Let's hope it's not going to be a millstone.

There also seems to be a determination by advocates of RF cameras to ignore their actual shortcomings. People having used both (and other) cameras know perfectly well that in some situations an RF excels, in others an EVF or a SLR will be more useful and in a vast number of cases it's just a matter of personal preference or convenience. I think parts of this discussion are perfectly ridiculous. Just fancy that Leica was to announce a - say - 43mm M lens. Would people also reason as if all 50mm lenses and all 35mm lenses would suddenly not be produced any more or even stop working? There's a use for 35mm, 50mm and presumably 43mm, just as there's a use for RF and for EVF and others.

I have been using cameras for several decades now. Finally, someone explains to me that depth of field is not a custom but physics. Thanks so much for making that clear.

YouTube scheint zu sagen, dass der Uploader das Video von YouTube entfernt hat

Why should it? You shouldn't call it a photograph, though.

In other words, the most ancient threads. Each subforum usually shows the most recent entries first, right after the stuck ones . If that makes it any clearer.

Would that concern also apply to photographers focusing and framing on a ground glass under a black cloth? Do they lack imagination?