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!
That's nice. It will hopefully do better than the mediocre supposedly high Rez EVF in the A7. Whether it's any better than what's already in the SL has yet to be seen.Godfrey, Sony announced a new high rez evf (a while back), u can google it and three years in the digital world is old young man
LOL! I have used my M lenses on Leica EVF camerass with no problems, technically or image rendering-wise.Maybe I should not be sarcastic BUT I need to get this out:
I think the Leica M is ready for an EVF, while many Leica M shooters are not
An SL EVF would almost certainly put a bigger lump onto the left top of the CL scale body, and honestly I'm not entirely sure it's all that necessary. The size and battery life of the M-D or M10 would be a reasonable trade-off, but I'd sure like it to weigh closer to what the CL weighs.. That 200g doesn't seem like that much, but it does make a big difference on my back when bicycling with the camera.The M maybe not, I hope the M will continue to exist, I love it for lenses from 28 to 50mm.
But how about an update for the EVF with the resolution of the SL?
Or how about a FF C-M with the size and the battery of the M10, the EVF of the SL an without the display on the backside?
They could call it whatever they liked as long as it was the same size no larger than the M10 - an improved EVF and the consequent ability to also improve metering directly off chip - would be welcome to me anyway.I have no problem with a Leica M compatible camera with an EVF but it'll be called something other than a Leica M. Maybe a Leica EM, but almost surely not an Mxx?
Sorry, Godfrey, I don't get your argument on why R lenses are better than M lenses on an EVF camera. I imagine you had the SL or CL in mind.BUT the ergonomics of M lenses are not ideally suited to TTL usage, they are designed for an RF camera's operation. There are fundamental control organization differences that make M lenses awkward to use with a camera oriented around viewing and controlling focus and all functions through the eyepiece which are solved with lenses from SLR cameras ... which is why I greatly prefer using Leica R lenses, which are designed for this operation, on Leica EVF cameras. The design of T/TL/SL series Leica lenses reflect this difference as well.
This is easy, Robert.Sorry, Godfrey, I don't get your argument on why R lenses are better than M lenses on an EVF camera. I imagine you had the SL or CL in mind.
Both R and M are fully manual; aperture and focus, clearly different from T or SL lenses. But why are R 'better' than M lenses? What 'organisational differences' do you mean?
Leica keep saying it will never happen.
The EVF from the SL will not fit inside the M for a start. Anything else would be considered a compromise and I'm not personally interested in it.
I actually really like the current detachable EVF and love the way it swivels but I would like it one that is designed to look and work well with the M, one with a PC flash sync terminal or an active hot shoe on the top of it would be good too. A less generic one. I prefer the shape of the last one (it looks more M like), but prefer the way the new one fits inside the hotshoe.
To me, Leica is the M and I hope they push and develop it as their flagship and crown jewell.
The incoming Nikon EVF camera looks really quite incredible, Canon too will follow, and I hope this reinvigorates Leica's interest in the M as the supreme ruler of compact mirrorless for a hundred years.
Thanks for the elaborate story Godfrey, and it again shows how personal ergomics of handling a camera are. For instance I prefer my M-Summicron 50/2 and OM Zuiko 50/1.4 over my Rokkor 50/2, Most M-lenses (like the M-Summicron) and the Zuiko's I use have the aperture ring upfront and the focus ring mid-barrel which my muscle memory is used to, but the Rokkors have the aperture ring at the mount which I don't like as much. So for me it's not rangefinder lenses vs. SLR lenses but more the order of how the controls are laid out on the lens.Some will say that they find it perfectly easy to use the M lenses on their camera and no difference. Well, I cannot, perhaps because of the size of my hands and my expectations in using a TTL camera. For whatever reason, I use my M lenses on my Ms, and I use my R lenses (as well as my couple of F-mount Nikkors) on my CL (when I had it, my SL as well). The ability to operate the camera smoothly and hold it steadily is one of the reasons my photos are sharp when I want them to be sharp, regardless of lens...
Indeed, I think it's a matter of which reference model works better for your muscle memory based on what you're most used to. My SLR reference model was/is the Nikon F, which sited the aperture control at the rear, just like most of the other majors did in the late 60s/early 70s. The Olympus OM System was new in about, what, 1975? -76? I had an OM-1n for a while and found the shutter speed concentric to the lens mount with two small control pads to grasp it by and the aperture ring up front more difficult to find and work reliably compared to the F and FM2/FE2 control organization, because I was far more used to the Nikon.Thanks for the elaborate story Godfrey, and it again shows how personal ergomics of handling a camera are. For instance I prefer my M-Summicron 50/2 and OM Zuiko 50/1.4 over my Rokkor 50/2, Most M-lenses (like the M-Summicron) and the Zuiko's I use have the aperture ring upfront and the focus ring mid-barrel which my muscle memory is used to, but the Rokkors have the aperture ring at the mount which I don't like as much. So for me it's not rangefinder lenses vs. SLR lenses but more the order of how the controls are laid out on the lens.
Leica don't have to fit the EVF from the SL into the M, it can take the form of a hump like many other mirrorless cameras. It would no longer be an M and so need not conform to the M shape.Leica keep saying it will never happen.
The EVF from the SL will not fit inside the M for a start. Anything else would be considered a compromise and I'm not personally interested in it.
I actually really like the current detachable EVF and love the way it swivels but I would like it one that is designed to look and work well with the M, one with a PC flash sync terminal or an active hot shoe on the top of it would be good too. A less generic one. I prefer the shape of the last one (it looks more M like), but prefer the way the new one fits inside the hotshoe.
To me, Leica is the M and I hope they push and develop it as their flagship and crown jewell.
The incoming Nikon EVF camera looks really quite incredible, Canon too will follow, and I hope this reinvigorates Leica's interest in the M as the supreme ruler of compact mirrorless for a hundred years.
I said that when I was still an M owner... Nearly 4 years later they still haven’t released the body that I personally really wanted which makes me glad I didn’t wait for it and just moved onto another system. I loved my M9’s in operation and results when I owned them but it’s a camera almost strictly for working with focal lengths between 24mm and 90mm (not that there’s anything wrong with that). It’s fine for most things but it’s not fine for everything and this seems to be how Nikon and Canon took off after coming to terms with the inherent limitations of a Rangefinder.its seems very obvious that some sort of m mount evf camera would be highly desirable.