jonoslack
Active member
Surely that's what they've done?A M is a optical RF finder that is its roots, they simply took a route that went outside of the optical . Live view is a given forget that for a moment. My point is the EVF this was the simplistic solution. What they needed to do was put and keep there roots within the optical finder.
If you put the EVF into the camera body itself (whether hybrid or separate), there is no of improving this as EVFs improve (which they are doing, at a startling rate).They did not take that risk to try a system the incorporates optical and electronic within the camera. In truth that external EVF should not even be there if they did this within the optical part of the cam itself. Now I admit it may have been too soon in time for a really kick butt EVF on its own to use.
People have been sticking accessory viewfinders on M cameras since the early 1950s - why is it suddenly not okay? Especially considering that, in this case it has some very obvious advantages over an optical finder:But what I am talking about was talked about and maybe it is something they just cannot do. The External EVF is the biggest complaint so far and with good reason . It's adds bulk to the camera and its a cheap solution.
1. you don't need to change it for different focal lengths
2. it allows tilting for critical focusing on a tripod for instance for macro
3. you can focus and compose with it at the same time (always an issue with optical finders)
Well, I kind of agree with you here - so you'll only use it for macro and telephoto - at least, I guess that's all I'll use it for. After all, the real point of the M is the rangefinder, and it's there to use (just as it always was).I think for myself it would be one of those accessories that may only get pulled out with a R lens and that's okay but the heart of a M given the M roots and purist it's all based within the optical. The added live view on LCD is the bonus.
As far as the focus confirmation point - I'd say two things:
1. I find these confusing when there are many points in the frame which are in focus.
2. isn't that what the rangefinder patch is for anyway?
What camera is ever finished? I do agree that a perfectly integrated hybrid viewfinder would be a wonderful thing, but certainly NOT at the expense of the mechanical rangefinder patch, and the framelines (which is what an M is about, abandon these and call it an N or a Z and that's fine). But I wonder whether the technology is there yet to commit it to an M without making unacceptable compromises to those who want to operate the camera in a traditional way.Bottom line this is not finished yet, version two or M11 will probably nail it just right. It's a great start don't get me wrong.
all the best
Last edited: