Double Negative
Not Available
Hehehe... I use the other approach, myself;
"What, this old thing?"
Remember, it's easier to seek forgiveness than to ask permission.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
An Open Letter to Leica – what should the Leica M10 be like?
- Thread starter johnastovall
- Start date
"What, this old thing?"
Remember, it's easier to seek forgiveness than to ask permission.
With all respect to EVF -
I still believe an EVF does mean
- a considerable delay between what happens and what you see in the viewfinder. For me more difficult to "catch the moment"
- needs magnification if you want to focus manually (and if you do have magbification it means part of the viewfinder is blocked for focusing and not usable for composing at the same time)
The rangefinder works very accurate as long as you lenses are calibrated fine and as long as you donr use lenses that suffer from focus shift.
While some of the reasons for Leica becoming so famous (small size, fast etc) might not be 100% valid any more there are still many practical reasons that the concept works still very well (IMO) as it is.
-compact camera
.compact lenses
-large bright viewfinder even if you use slower lenses (EVF would destory this argument)
-first class selection of class, (ok-has nothing to with rangefinder concept)
-simple and clean user interface (important IMO; EVF would destory this IMO)
-fast
-low vibration
-M8/M9 -> great sensor (I dont know why you dont find a comparable one in a DSLR)
-you can see the action around the frame ((EVF would destory this argument)
I have to agree with the TV-comment; Personally with the Leica M8/9 I feel I am in the scene/ not much between the subject and myself.
With the EVF of the gh1 (my wife uses one) I feel more like I watch TV, more indirect and with a slight delay all the time. Becoming more difficult when it gets darker and lenses get slower.
Its good to have the choice between both but (for my taste) I wouldnt call a camera with EFV "M10". Call it whatever but I would give it a new name and please continue also the "traditional" (and still practical) M line.
It works very well for me and is my most used camera.
I still believe an EVF does mean
- a considerable delay between what happens and what you see in the viewfinder. For me more difficult to "catch the moment"
- needs magnification if you want to focus manually (and if you do have magbification it means part of the viewfinder is blocked for focusing and not usable for composing at the same time)
The rangefinder works very accurate as long as you lenses are calibrated fine and as long as you donr use lenses that suffer from focus shift.
While some of the reasons for Leica becoming so famous (small size, fast etc) might not be 100% valid any more there are still many practical reasons that the concept works still very well (IMO) as it is.
-compact camera
.compact lenses
-large bright viewfinder even if you use slower lenses (EVF would destory this argument)
-first class selection of class, (ok-has nothing to with rangefinder concept)
-simple and clean user interface (important IMO; EVF would destory this IMO)
-fast
-low vibration
-M8/M9 -> great sensor (I dont know why you dont find a comparable one in a DSLR)
-you can see the action around the frame ((EVF would destory this argument)
I have to agree with the TV-comment; Personally with the Leica M8/9 I feel I am in the scene/ not much between the subject and myself.
With the EVF of the gh1 (my wife uses one) I feel more like I watch TV, more indirect and with a slight delay all the time. Becoming more difficult when it gets darker and lenses get slower.
Its good to have the choice between both but (for my taste) I wouldnt call a camera with EFV "M10". Call it whatever but I would give it a new name and please continue also the "traditional" (and still practical) M line.
It works very well for me and is my most used camera.
gogopix
Subscriber
No, the P65+ and P45+ have LV and are CCD. There IS a difference between Kodak and Dalsa technology, and how the sensors read out .
Victor
Double Negative
Not Available
tom in mpls
Active member
My use of distance scales has not yet been extensive. This writer complains that the current distance scales are useless for digital cameras. Can others comment on this?
jonoslack
Active member
That certainly is what it sounds like - hateful - in my view one of the very most important ideas about a rangefinder is that the field of view is always the same - with the framelines showing what you get.Sounds like the Contax G2-style design that someone mentioned earlier in the thread.
If you're going to zoom the rangefinder then you may as well simply use an SLR (or an EVF).
Mind you - I'm not simply luddite about this, I think there is an argument for having perhaps 3 settings for the rangefinder (e.g. for wide angles, normals and telephotos) - each with their own set of framelines.
It would also be good to have a single frameline for each focal length, and I'm right on for focus confirmation too.
jonoslack
Active member
But it still spoils the idea about the point of view - having it the same each time you look through the camera is, to me, a really important part of the rangefinder experience - it isn't just being able to see around the framelines (although that's important as well). It makes it like taking pictures with your eyes rather than with a camera.:bugeyes: (I don't have zooming eyes)
I don't mind adding functionality, but not at the expense of the basic feel of the camera.
Double Negative
Not Available
Bah! Who needs a VF at all? It's all about ZEN, baby. Man up!
I don't use external VFs, barely eyeball framelines with reckless disregard and shoot from the hip. Works for me.
I don't use external VFs, barely eyeball framelines with reckless disregard and shoot from the hip. Works for me.
I personally wouldn't mind "focus conformation".....simply a small red left arrow, a small center red dot and a small red right arrow at the bottom of the viewfinder window, in addition to the rangefinder patch. This would be minimal intrusion and would aid immensly with focusing a long distance, especially with longer telephoto focal lengths. This focus conformation or readout lights would of course have to be easily distuingushable from the three exposure lights in the viewfinder.
Dave (D&A)
Dave (D&A)
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Jono you make this a menu option to turn the zooming on or off. Just like they could do this with focus confirm. These two features just add functionality via the electronics and controlled by firmware with the option to use or not use. You still have electronic frame lines and it could be exactly like it is today but projected electronically in the finder instead of a mechanical one. Frankly you could make it so you would not even know the difference . Than add the option in the menu item so if a 90mm is put on the body the function of zooming it up can be controlled via the menu items or not.
End of day all leica would be doing is taking away the mechanics of the frame lines and making them electronic than just adding control features via the firmware. This keeps the Leica traditionalist shooters very happy but modern and for the old farts like me that can't see anymore bring the framing up or bigger so we can focus better.
Seriously this was why i sold the M8 and went to MF besides the files and MPX of course but was the inability to be on target 100 percent of the time with focus and framing or at least amuch better keeper rate. Honestly I don't think this is to much to ask in the 21st century and the traditionalist would not even know the difference if it is off
I brought this all up when the M8 was released and it still is vapor. Frankly it is the most logical way to solve a lot of issues and keep everyone happy. Also focus confirm via a green dot lower left would be very nice as well and make that to turn off if you wanted. I say give us this stuff and give us the option to turn off as well. No one loses and your only going to get 3 menu options in the whole deal.
tom in mpls
Active member
Tough trade-off right now with the M. Files are terrific, glass is outstanding, the package is wonderfully compact. Focusing is a crap shoot.
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Guy Like you, I've been asking for this for some time . . . I had some interesting discussions while I was in Germany. I'm sure that the primary concern was to make a digital M . . and I think they've achieved that. Now, perhaps, all options are open (even a CMOS sensor and live view). I think a zooming rangefinder would be great - but perhaps it would be more relevant to an N camera or something new and revolutionary. The M gestalt is not about lots of different options.
On the other hand, I think it would be great to have a rangefinder which could be adjustable to 3 or 4 different magnifications (as Monza said), Electronic framelines with parallax correction couldn't offend anyone, and I can't see that focus confirmation would either.
My personal feeling is that the M10 should revolutionise what the M camera is currently all about, rather than inventing something else or revolutionising the way one uses it.
Mind you I'd love to see the something else as well!
all the best
Ron (Netherlands)
New member
hmm why asking for things other camera brands long provide. The idea behind the M8 and M9 is to be able to take photo's like with an M3 and M2, but to get at the same time a nice digital file. If one acquired the M8 or M9 with that in mind - like I did, you may not agree with the propostions in the 'open letter'.
tom in mpls
Active member
Shooting wide open with a fast lens, I do my best to get the images to merge together, but am never certain that I hit it right. Sometimes it's right on, sometimes not. Stopped down it's not such a problem.
jonoslack
Active member
Hi Ron - I'm right with you - don't object to innovation, but please don't take away what we already have.
Well, that does argue for at least focus confirmation. However, if the gear isn't in calibration focus confirmation won't help.
So, if focusing tends to be a consistent issue, have you bench tested your camera/lenses to be sure they are in calibration?
I had a terrible time with my M8, and upon testing found the camera and over half of my lenses to be a little off. However, the combination of camera and lenses was lethal for wide open shooting. Once calibrated most, if not all, focus issues disappeared.
I think we tend to blame ourselves, where it is often the gear when dealing with Leica M stuff.
I had a 50/1.4 ASPH that went back to Germany twice before being fixed. My policy now is to bench test any new/used lens immediately, and if it's off, it goes straight back. Oddly, I tried 3 different 75/2 ASPHs (2 used ones, and one new one) and all three were off to the point of being unusable at f/2.
Also, do you need any diopter adjustment? It seems that if you aren't sure the images have converged properly, it may be that it really isn't clear. BTW, the test of this is in lower light not broad daylight.
I now use a 1.15X mag with an adjustable diopter built in ... and it helped a lot especially with anything over 35mm.
The new M9 came perfectly calibrated and so did the new lenses I got for it ... 24/1.4 ASPH, Nocti 50/0.95 ASPH, and a late model used German 75/1.4. My hit ratio is now about the same as when using an AF DSLR ... except on moving subjects at f/.095 of course
-Marc