PDA

View Full Version : How long before Leica dumps the RF in favour of an EVF?


Keith
07-07-2015, 03:58
Or maybe a hybrid finder like the Fuji X100?

I can't remember the last time I used the optical finder on my 240 and if it had a built in EVF that didn't black out for a few seconds after exposure the way the clip on example does I'd be one happy camper! And surely the manufacturing costs of an EVF would be less than the current rangefinder mechanism.

No doubt some of you out there will think is total heresy! :p

mfunnell
07-07-2015, 04:03
No doubt some of you out there will think is total heresy! :pYep. Total heresy, from my POV. The only point, to me, of a digital M is that it has the OVF/RF. But that's just me. Even if Leica never makes another, it's no skin off my nose because I'm sticking with the one I have (if only because I couldn't afford to buy another).

...Mike

jaapv
07-07-2015, 04:16
Leica will probably keep on making both. The Q has an excellent EVF, the M has a superb OVF. Enough for both groups of customers.

jsrockit
07-07-2015, 04:19
I can't imagine the M is going anywhere... not until it has no fans and no longer sells.

shadowfox
07-07-2015, 06:02
To me, not using the optical rangefinder on an M is like sitting inside a Nissan GT-R and then play a car racing game on a tablet instead of driving the real thing. :D

Keith
07-07-2015, 06:13
To me, not using the optical rangefinder on an M is like sitting inside a Nissan GT-R and then play a car racing game on a tablet instead of driving the real thing. :D



True I guess! :D

I haven't seen much of you around here of late ..... or maybe I just didn't notice! :) :)

Godfrey
07-07-2015, 06:26
I use both, together, a good bit of the time. I'm pretty happy with the M-P just as it is.

I'm pretty sure Leica will continue making an optical viewfinder M for quite a while. I'm fairly certain that they'll also start making an EVF M at some point.

I don't know for sure that a suitable EVF represents much of a reduction in manufacturing cost.

G

kshapero
07-07-2015, 06:41
To me, not using the optical rangefinder on an M is like sitting inside a Nissan GT-R and then play a car racing game on a tablet instead of driving the real thing. :DNicely put. No zoom zoom for me.:D

jarski
07-07-2015, 06:51
rangefinder didn't disappear with previous technical innovations, decades ago, enter the R-system for example.

willie_901
07-07-2015, 06:51
Never.

Leica still makes new film cameras. So why wouldn't the optical RF will always be available as well? The price to own one will keep increasing (beyond inflationary normalization).

The economics of optical RF is interesting as it is both a value added feature and expensive to manufacture. And the demand is small yet constant. The final cost is not just due to the difference between EVF and RF production economics.

The Fujifilm solution works for me. Other find it completely unacceptable. Viva la difference!

Roma
07-07-2015, 07:09
hope they integrate an EVF but definitely keep the RF. Plus, the battery life with just the RF will always be better.

ruby.monkey
07-07-2015, 07:32
When enough people stop buying them, Leica will stop making them.

shadowfox
07-07-2015, 07:38
True I guess! :D

I haven't seen much of you around here of late ..... or maybe I just didn't notice! :) :)

Yes, I haven't been here as often as I'd like to be in the past few months. Heck! I just developed my first roll of film in 2015 last Saturday :D

BillBingham2
07-07-2015, 07:58
I'm not sure that they will give up on the optical ever, but I can see the time where they make a EVF with the same basic body (e.g. support M mount glass) as the film based bodies. A lot of the decision I think has to do with quality of the EVF compared to an optical (e.g. sharpness, responsiveness). My guess it will take another couple or three generations for engineering.

I think EVFs are SLRs without the hump (often, but not always). There is something about the window on the front of a camera. Perhaps the hybrid will be the way they go. I'd be OK with that as some times if feel like a nut (use SLRs for long glass) and some times I don't (wide glass on a optical viewfinder).

If I were pressed to put a date on when we might see one from Leica I'd say about 2020.

B2

David Hughes
07-07-2015, 07:58
Hi,

Well, they've experience of them from the Digilux 2, so I guess we shall just have to wait and see. A pity they don't do a full frame (meaning 24 x 36 mm) dSLR so we could snatch up all those cheapo R series lenses and use them for what they do best on a Leica body...

Regards, David

rscheffler
07-07-2015, 08:38
When an M-mount camera with only an EVF appears, it will be in addition to the current RF-based camera style. That's my expectation, though I would be very pleasantly surprised if Leica offers a hybrid solution in the near future.

I would think it will take at least a few product cycles for EVF to supplant the RF. I would ideally like a hybrid solution built into the camera, rather than as an add-on, to allow faster switching and eliminate the need to carry another accessory. My current technique when using live view is to focus wide angle lenses with the RF and compose with the LCD or EVF display. I'll use the EVF to double check critical focus with the 90, but will often focus it first with the RF, especially if it's a moving subject or I'm stopped down a fair ways and absolute focus is less critical. IMO, in many situations I photograph, RF remains much faster to use for precise focusing and I would be reluctant to lose its versatility.

jsrockit
07-07-2015, 08:45
We can certainly say the Q may be a test to see if people want an EVF-only Leica. If it succeeds, it could turn into a M mount camera. I would agree that it would be in addition to a rangefinder M.

taemo
07-07-2015, 08:46
if Leica decides to move to EVF, they'll be just one of the many mirrorless cameras out there.

I shoot Leica because it's a rangefinder, otherwise I would just get a Sony

jsrockit
07-07-2015, 09:38
if Leica decides to move to EVF, they'll be just one of the many mirrorless cameras out there.

I shoot Leica because it's a rangefinder, otherwise I would just get a Sony

Agreed. I think the M is its main reason for existing as a company.

Godfrey
07-07-2015, 09:44
if Leica decides to move to EVF, they'll be just one of the many mirrorless cameras out there.

I shoot Leica because it's a rangefinder, otherwise I would just get a Sony

That's not much of an endorsement. I tossed the Sony A7 because I didn't like the clumsy controls, chaotic menus, poor workflow, and mediocre ergonomics. Good sensor, however, and a decent viewfinder ... But working those two against all the other negatives produced nowhere near as nice a camera to work with as the Olympus E-M1 or Leica M-P.

I do expect Leica to make an interchangeable lens EVF camera at some point soon. Whether it's labeled M or not is mostly a matter of branding and product differentiation. But I'm sure they'll be producing M rangefinder cameras for some time to come as well.

G

robert blu
07-07-2015, 09:45
Q (and T) are probably also a test to see people reactions to a non RF cameras. I only tried the T (Q all agree to be better) and I find the EVF acceptable.
robert
PS: not sure about AF in a non OVF camera...

Luke_Miller
07-07-2015, 09:46
I shoot with both an EVF camera and a Leica M9/Monochrom. For some photography the EVF is the better choice, while the optical range finder is superior for others. Perhaps at some point advances in technology will allow the EVF to replace the range finder, but that is not the case at present IMO.

robert blu
07-07-2015, 09:46
I do expect Leica to make an interchangeable lens EVF camera at some point soon. Whether it's labeled M or not is mostly a matter of branding and product differentiation.
G

AS I just said I think the T could be a market test for that...
robert

taemo
07-07-2015, 10:06
That's not much of an endorsement. I tossed the Sony A7 because I didn't like the clumsy controls, chaotic menus, poor workflow, and mediocre ergonomics. Good sensor, however, and a decent viewfinder ... But working those two against all the other negatives produced nowhere near as nice a camera to work with as the Olympus E-M1 or Leica M-P.

I do expect Leica to make an interchangeable lens EVF camera at some point soon. Whether it's labeled M or not is mostly a matter of branding and product differentiation. But I'm sure they'll be producing M rangefinder cameras for some time to come as well.

G

true, which is why I'm also about to sell my A7 and saving for an M9 or M240 again :D
for now the GR and X100T will have to do for digital for me.

my point is that the M and maybe S are their flagship and that most people that shots a Leica is for the RF experience.
they have released other cameras too that have proved unsuccessful, curious and hoping to see that the Q is a success though so that they may release a 35mm version.

semordnilap
07-07-2015, 10:41
That's not much of an endorsement. I tossed the Sony A7 because I didn't like the clumsy controls, chaotic menus, poor workflow, and mediocre ergonomics. Good sensor, however, and a decent viewfinder ... But working those two against all the other negatives produced nowhere near as nice a camera to work with as the Olympus E-M1 or Leica M-P.

I do expect Leica to make an interchangeable lens EVF camera at some point soon. Whether it's labeled M or not is mostly a matter of branding and product differentiation. But I'm sure they'll be producing M rangefinder cameras for some time to come as well.

G

It's a cost-benefit thing, isn't it? To me, there's not much, if any, reason to spend on a Leica if it doesn't have the OVF and RF mechanism. There are a lot of EVF cameras out there to choose from, and we can each probably find one to suit our personal style. None of them will be perfect (I'm also shooting an EM-1 and I have major issues with its ergonomics and usability), but that's cameras, right?

David Hughes
07-07-2015, 10:44
Hi,

Their strength, surely, is their lens design and manufacture?

Regards, David

krötenblender
07-07-2015, 11:15
Or maybe a hybrid finder like the Fuji X100?

If the optical path contains a real mechanical rangefinder as in current Leica-M cameras, I would really love that. Even the X100* without real RF are a joy to use in OVF mode. EVF lack some characteristics for me, although I use them, where needed.

I can't remember the last time I used the optical finder on my 240 and if it had a built in EVF that didn't black out for a few seconds after exposure the way the clip on example does I'd be one happy camper!

If you can't remember and really think, the EVF is better, then you should also think about, if the only reason for your M240 is to show off the Leica-logo... Because besides the RF, most other decent cameras are technically better and much cheaper at the same time. For the handling, Fujis would be a good alternative, for sensor performance probably Sony and so on. No reason to use a Leica M240 RF without using the RF. It is a clumsy and pretty ugly camera (and still my favourite, because of the combination of a real RF and digital).

Why do you still keep Leica, if the essence of the system doesn't appeal to you anymore? - I mean, nothing wrong with being irrational, but I think, there are cheaper and better methods to be irrational about photography...

And surely the manufacturing costs of an EVF would be less than the current rangefinder mechanism.

Yes, and they keep getting better and better. Still, there is nothing like a real RF.

No doubt some of you out there will think is total heresy! :p

No. It's only... weird. Even with a red dot, I wouldn't recognize it as a Leica, I think, or as The Leica. It would be just a digicam like any other. I wouldn't take it, and if my M240 would be no more switch to Fuji and keep the M6 for the RF.

krötenblender
07-07-2015, 11:16
Hi,

Their strength, surely, is their lens design and manufacture?

Yes, they really know how to make lenses. Cameras not so much anymore. If they would produce more lenses for other camera makers - Fuji for example...

Godfrey
07-07-2015, 11:41
It's a cost-benefit thing, isn't it? To me, there's not much, if any, reason to spend on a Leica if it doesn't have the OVF and RF mechanism. There are a lot of EVF cameras out there to choose from, and we can each probably find one to suit our personal style. None of them will be perfect (I'm also shooting an EM-1 and I have major issues with its ergonomics and usability), but that's cameras, right?

I don't apply so rigorous a calculus about "cost-benefit" ratios. To me, the reasons to spend the money on a Leica are a) the lenses, b) excellent ergonomics, c) the lenses, d) simplicity in design, e) the service and support I've received from Leica USA and Leica dealers, and f) the lenses. Did I say I like the lenses? ;-) For all its drawbacks (price, sensitivity, etc), the M-P is the most overall delightful and productive camera I've owned in a while. AND the Leica X is the best fixed lens camera I've ever owned, bar none.

The E-M1 takes more study than any Leica to understand all the options, configure the camera, and take advantage of everything it offers. I went through that and have become completely comfortable with it. It suits me, even if I seriously under-use it because I'm using the Leica so much.

Nothing's perfect, for sure. Or ever will be.

G

Godfrey
07-07-2015, 11:45
Hi,

Their strength, surely, is their lens design and manufacture?

Regards, David

Yes, they really know how to make lenses. Cameras not so much anymore. If they would produce more lenses for other camera makers - Fuji for example...

Far as I'm concerned, Leica always knew much more about making lenses than making camera bodies. But their skill at designing very usable, "simple to learn-easy to remember" bodies is second to none nowadays.

G

nickthetasmaniac
07-07-2015, 12:03
My completely uneducated guess, is that in a couple of years there will be two full-frame, interchangeable-lens model lines from Leica:

- The classic 'M' with a mechanical, optical RF and a designed for manual focus M lenses. Priced similarly to current digital M's (say $10k per body).
- The modern M; essentially an interchangeable-lens Q, with EVF and a hybrid M-mount that allows for AF. Priced as a premium product but significantly below the classic M (say $5-6k per body). To be released with a new line of high-quality AF zooms and primes.

I think there will continue to be a significant market for folk who simple want an optical RF, regardless of whether an EVF is 'better', and will happily pay a premium for it.

Likewise, I think there's plenty of room in the market for a system that blends the best of Leica's traditional strengths (optical quality, mechanical user interface, build quality and tacticality, aesthetics etc) with genuinely modern advancements in camera tech (much as the Q has done).

Finally, I think splitting the line would allow the classic M to stay classic - ie. get rid of video and the EVF port and whatnot, and allow it to be the purest implementation of the digital M concept.

semordnilap
07-07-2015, 13:01
I don't apply so rigorous a calculus about "cost-benefit" ratios. To me, the reasons to spend the money on a Leica are a) the lenses, b) excellent ergonomics, c) the lenses, d) simplicity in design, e) the service and support I've received from Leica USA and Leica dealers, and f) the lenses. Did I say I like the lenses? ;-) For all its drawbacks (price, sensitivity, etc), the M-P is the most overall delightful and productive camera I've owned in a while. AND the Leica X is the best fixed lens camera I've ever owned, bar none.

The E-M1 takes more study than any Leica to understand all the options, configure the camera, and take advantage of everything it offers. I went through that and have become completely comfortable with it. It suits me, even if I seriously under-use it because I'm using the Leica so much.

Nothing's perfect, for sure. Or ever will be.

G

I don't mean a rigorous "cost-benefit analysis"... more than the principal reason I'm using a Leica is the optical viewfinder and rangefinder. If they took that away... I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to buy the Leica over a similar EVF camera. Ergonomics are ok to me... Software is also only ok. There are some great things, and some awful things, like most cameras I've used!

Sure, the lenses are great, but there are a lot of great lenses out there...

About the EM-1, it is really the most maddening camera I've yet to own. Button placement is just terrible, as in all the function buttons are exactly where they don't need to be, and not where they're easy to reach, the manual focus controls are an abject and utter failure (how many buttons do I have to press to get in and out of focus magnification?), and the configurability is just, well, so... limited! Yet the size is good, the AF is fast, and the f/2.8 normal zoom is good and, again, very well sized. So it gets used.

Range-rover
07-07-2015, 14:09
I'm adding my two cents, never I hope, that's the magic of the Leica M.
The EVF at this point is crap I had a fuji X-E1 and it was a nightmare to
use the EVF, and that turned me back to Leica's

Range

seakayaker1
07-07-2015, 14:12
..... I enjoy the optical view finder, I have yet to use the LV feature on my M-P 240.

I know I did not like the experience of using the electronic view finder when handling the Sony A7.

f16sunshine
07-07-2015, 14:15
I'm adding my two cents, never I hope, that's the magic of the Leica M. The EVF at this point is crap I had a fuji X-E1 and it was a nightmare to use the EVF, and that turned me back to Leica's Range

Range
Evf's have come a long way since 2012.
The xe1 is usable but not great. Later models are excellent.
The Leica Q is supposedly top of the top!

ian_watts
07-07-2015, 14:19
The EVF at this point is crap

Agreed. I tried out the much lauded Q the other day and thought the view through the EVF was only marginally less awful to use than the one on the T. A dreadful way to compose a photograph.

Kwesi
07-07-2015, 14:22
Or maybe a hybrid finder like the Fuji X100?

I can't remember the last time I used the optical finder on my 240 and if it had a built in EVF that didn't black out for a few seconds after exposure the way the clip on example does I'd be one happy camper! And surely the manufacturing costs of an EVF would be less than the current rangefinder mechanism.

No doubt some of you out there will think is total heresy! :p

Not going to happen.
Leica has succesfully positioned as the antidote to the uber automated camera.
Why mess with that success?

DougFord
07-07-2015, 14:27
I'm thinking just one more generation M with the classic RF assembly, then the full digital M with dual purpose mount and AF lenses, as others speculate.
The classic RF camera is relegated to second place in a couple/few years as the transition to the full digital M progresses.

jaapv
07-07-2015, 14:30
Lenses - well, historically Leica and Zeiss vied for the top place, with Zeiss out ahead more often than not. And still, even if I have a cupboard full of Leica lenses, on my Monochrom I prefer Zeiss...

hlockwood
07-07-2015, 14:55
Hi,

Well, they've experience of them from the Digilux 2, so I guess we shall just have to wait and see. A pity they don't do a full frame (meaning 24 x 36 mm) dSLR so we could snatch up all those cheapo R series lenses and use them for what they do best on a Leica body...

Regards, David

Yes, but as soon as they did an dslr, those cheapo lenses would not be cheapo.

HFL

GaryLH
07-07-2015, 16:13
I don't think Leica will ever do away with an optical rf design unless they get bought by some investment group that is clueless about the Leica heritage or there is no profit in it any longer.

As others have said, it doesn't mean Leica will never do an evf only m mount. It could be that the T is a test vehicle for things to come and it is being used to gage acceptability of an evf only solution just as Fuji used the X100 to gage whether they should do a xp1.

The T has a pretty good solution for manually focusing the 28mm lens. It would be nice IMHO if they had the Fuji split image focusing aid.

Reality though..it is probably more likely that the T is followed by other T variations then a m mount version in the foreseeable future though. If they ever make a T in a 40f2, I am going to sorely tempted to say the least :(

Gary

GaryLH
07-07-2015, 16:19
That's not much of an endorsement. I tossed the Sony A7 because I didn't like the clumsy controls, chaotic menus, poor workflow, and mediocre ergonomics. Good sensor, however, and a decent viewfinder ... But working those two against all the other negatives produced nowhere near as nice a camera to work with as the Olympus E-M1 or Leica M-P.
G

Feel basically about the same...but i have enough legacy lenses to keep it around. I find it is better than the a6000 or rx100 though. A much better than the nex menus.

Gary

honozooloo
07-07-2015, 16:19
I've got an A7R, and just purchased jsrockit's M9 in the classifieds (thanks again John, loving it!). I own and use the A7R and X-T1, both considered some of the best EVF one can hope for at the moment. And neither the Sony nor the Fuji matches the precision of the optical RF patch on a real Leica M. I've found focus peaking to be unreliable at wide aperture, and the fine control over DOF/focus point that's easy on an M's optical VF is simply not there yet on EVFs. If I'm shooting a 1.4/f2 lens on the A7R, the ONLY way I can reliably verify my exact focal point on a subject is to zoom in and adjust fine focus for the eyes. Same for the X-T1. Peaking seems to have a 1-2 inch margin of error the way I use it. And part of me doubts that it'll ever get more accurate than that, as Sony and Fuji both have a vested interest in improving their user's AF experience, as both cameras' native lenses are AF. So why would they put intense effort into improving MF performance?

While passably usable, no EVF I've yet used manages to "get out of the way" when I'm shooting with adapted MF glass; in fact I'm constantly reminded of the fact I'm using an EVF because of all the zooming in to confirm focus, and the total lack of confidence in using an EVF with a lens at wide aperture. The exact opposite can be said of using a dead-on optical RF.

Haven't used the Q yet but I'd guess in MF mode, it's going to have the same issues other EVF based systems have. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. One doesn't design bodies for AF and then prioritize MF focus performance, and EVF is nothing if not a technology intended for bodies with AF lenses and modern mirrorless systems.

One interesting thought: Doesn't Live View in the M240 effectively "close the loop" in the RF's "open loop" focusing design? Imagine if Leica developed a hybrid system that let you focus on an object at min distance, infinity, and medium distance using Live View, and somehow figured out a way to then automatically make RF mechanism adjustments to match the confirmed focus in Live View? You'd then be able to make custom adjustments to fine tune each lens/body pairing, or save profiles for each lens to maximize accuracy of the optical RF patch? Or maybe I'm just dreaming of a day I don't need to ship my cameras halfway across the world for RF alignment...

airfrogusmc
07-07-2015, 16:21
Never I hope. For street shooting a true rangefinder is for many like me the best option.

GaryLH
07-07-2015, 16:21
Honozooloo,

Have u tried the split image focusing on the xt1 instead of focusing peaking or are u referring to only the Sony focusing peaking here?

Gary

f16sunshine
07-07-2015, 16:45
EVF's are great for autofucus or afl type manual focus.
I like the exposure preview of many cameras and find that feature combined with AF indisposable for paid shoots.
Let's just all admit it guys. When you see a pre-view of what you are going to get, it's much easier to bank on than inaccurate frame lines and hoping you have predicted curvature of field and other anomalies correctly.
Still.... I would love to use a Rangefinder any day for my own work :p
Horses for courses. I hope we will always have a rangefinder option.
My favorite RF for the last year has been a Fuji GF670 not a Leica.
Probably for next year as well :D

lucasjld
07-07-2015, 17:14
I had a Sony A7s with a M Mount adapter. It was a great travel kit, tiny and light, ISO, price, AF possibility, etc.
But it wasn't close to the simplicity of my Bessa R2M.

The main reason I got a M240 was to have a decent Digital Rangefinder.

One thing that I find utterly annoying is the image review INSIDE the EVF. Both Sony A7S and Fuji X100T do that. You can't set "SHOOT WITH EVF, REVIEW WITH SCREEN".
You just use that eye sensor that keeps switching stuff on and off.

Kate-the-Great
07-07-2015, 18:06
I wonder if Leica might offer a choice of finder as an "ala carte" option with future bodies, like the choice of .85/.72/.58 finders they offer currently?

Give customers a choice of .72 fully optical finder, .72 optical/electronic hybrid, or full-on EVF.

That seems like the way to go. The clip-on EVF for the M240 has always seemed like an awkward afterthought to me, especially as it appears to just be a re-branded Olympus VF-2 for double the price. Not to say it's not a nice finder- the Oly VF2 was the first EVF I actually liked using- but the whole solution seems to be lacking the "Leica elegance".

jsrockit
07-08-2015, 05:54
I've got an A7R, and just purchased jsrockit's M9 in the classifieds (thanks again John, loving it!).

You're welcome Aaron. Now, I'm waiting for my EVF having Leica Q!

jaapv
07-08-2015, 06:06
I wonder if Leica might offer a choice of finder as an "ala carte" option with future bodies, like the choice of .85/.72/.58 finders they offer currently?

Give customers a choice of .72 fully optical finder, .72 optical/electronic hybrid, or full-on EVF.

That seems like the way to go. The clip-on EVF for the M240 has always seemed like an awkward afterthought to me, especially as it appears to just be a re-branded Olympus VF-2 for double the price. Not to say it's not a nice finder- the Oly VF2 was the first EVF I actually liked using- but the whole solution seems to be lacking the "Leica elegance".

It is not a rebranded Olympus finder. Both Leica and Olympus get it from a generic manufacturer: Epson.
At least part of the price difference is a matter of scale, where Olympus maybe orders 100.000, Leica can order only 5000....

Keith
07-08-2015, 06:13
It is not a rebranded Olympus finder. Both Leica and Olympus get it from a generic manufacturer: Epson.


So obviously this generic manufacturer charges Leica at least double what they are charging Olympus .... or maybe that Leica Logo is done in pearl paint by virgins, with brushes made from the mane of a unicorn?

:angel:

willie_901
07-08-2015, 07:23
EVF technology is relatively new and undeveloped. By technology I don't mean the quality of the display hardware or even the refresh rate. The software is equally important. And the software's potential depends on the camera's CPU speed. These functions are programmed in Assembly language. Writing and optimizing low-level code is difficult. We are not even close to experiencing the full potential for EVF focusing aids.

Focus peaking depends on subject contrast. In some cases FP is extremely useful. In other cases it is not. FP can be quite confusing in some circumstances. Deep DOF, curved focus planes and differences in subject contrast within the DOF can cause confusion and frustration. FP is not the only option for EVF focusing, but it is the most common.

Optical rangefinders have issues as well. These are well known. How many optical RFs will focus to better than the 1-2 inch margin mentioned in an earlier post? Is accuracy the same for all lenses? Without recalibration, how long can one expect this sort of performance over the life of the camera. Is focusing to better than the 1-2 inch margin possible at different ambient temperatures (winter outdoors to indoor focusing)? Then there's unavoidable focus shift with some optical designs.

The SLR/DSLR is affected by different issues. But there's a reason why higher-end bodies have the ability to store different AF calibrations for different lenses.

Critical focusing accuracy can be wasted without tripod usage.

Critical focusing is difficult.

jaapv
07-08-2015, 10:05
So obviously this generic manufacturer charges Leica at least double what they are charging Olympus .... or maybe that Leica Logo is done in pearl paint by virgins, with brushes made from the mane of a unicorn?

:angel:
Try buying five bottles of beer or five thousand. I bet you can get the five thousand at half-price.

Huss
07-08-2015, 11:48
Try buying five bottles of beer or five thousand. I bet you can get the five thousand at half-price.

Yes but the customer, not the middle man, can go drink the exact same beer for half price if he does not mind the label.

Would you pay double for the same beer?

jsrockit
07-08-2015, 12:15
Yes but the customer, not the middle man, can go drink the exact same beer for half price if he does not mind the label.

Would you pay double for the same beer?

Which beer is exactly the same as another, at twice the price, with the only difference being a label?

Kwesi
07-08-2015, 13:48
Lets not kid ourselves here.
Leica does have a healthy upcharge when they rebrand 3rd party items.
On the other hand i think Leica should be applauded for doing what they can recently to keep their prices affordable in the USA at least. eg. Exchange rate savings, thant have gone on since the beginning of the year and the very negligible markup on the latest DLux camera, not to mention the M Safari Kit

jaapv
07-08-2015, 16:17
Let's look at it from the other end. After being technically bankrupt in 2006, and expensive even then, they are a healthy company now, but they are certainly not raking in money by the bucketload. I doubt that they could lower their prices significantly without ending up in the red again.

Lss
07-09-2015, 00:46
Would you pay double for the same beer?
Often have, often will. Beer price greatly depends on the location.

ian_watts
07-09-2015, 02:48
but they are certainly not raking in money by the bucketload. I doubt that they could lower their prices significantly without ending up in the red again.

The company are almost certainly back in the red and, far from "raking in money by the bucketload", are bleeding it. It is a good job that they made hay while the sun shone during the M9 halcyon days and that they are (at least still half) owned by the enthusiastic and wealthy Dr K. It will be interesting to see what happens when Blackstone manage to divest themselves of their unhappy investment.

Kwesi
07-09-2015, 02:58
So the question is if Leica were to lower its prices, would the increase in sales revenue more than make up for the price cut, or would there be less demand because it's now considered affordable by all?

Keith
07-09-2015, 03:16
Try buying five bottles of beer or five thousand. I bet you can get the five thousand at half-price.


Beer ..... surely not a valid comparison. I was thinking chardonnay! :)

Fraser
07-09-2015, 03:32
Or maybe a hybrid finder like the Fuji X100?

I can't remember the last time I used the optical finder on my 240 and if it had a built in EVF that didn't black out for a few seconds after exposure the way the clip on example does I'd be one happy camper! And surely the manufacturing costs of an EVF would be less than the current rangefinder mechanism.

No doubt some of you out there will think is total heresy! :p

While my leica m9 was back in Germany having the sensor remapped etc I decided to pickup a secondhand x100 as a stop gap. I was amazed by the hybrid finder. It works great no parallax problems and macro works brilliantly. This is surely the way leica should go. New lenses with electronic contacts and the ability like nikon and canon (even the 6d) to adjust the focus. Oh and leica should have the ability to remap the sensor built in. I think sooner or later they maybe have to make the brave move to dump the m mount to something different just as canon had to when they introduced autofocus.

Kwesi
07-09-2015, 04:57
While my leica m9 was back in Germany having the sensor remapped etc I decided to pickup a secondhand x100 as a stop gap. I was amazed by the hybrid finder. It works great no parallax problems and macro works brilliantly. This is surely the way leica should go. New lenses with electronic contacts and the ability like nikon and canon (even the 6d) to adjust the focus. Oh and leica should have the ability to remap the sensor built in. I think sooner or later they maybe have to make the brave move to dump the m mount to something different just as canon had to when they introduced autofocus.

I personally don't see a need to change to an EVF and auto focus.
There are countless other brands to choose from that offer that.
I find the M line to be a respite from all that and am willing to pay a premium for the option.

ian_watts
07-09-2015, 05:01
So the question is if Leica were to lower its prices, would the increase in sales revenue more than make up for the price cut

I think that would entirely depend upon whether Leica's key priority in the short term is cashflow or profit.

jsrockit
07-09-2015, 05:08
So the question is if Leica were to lower its prices, would the increase in sales revenue more than make up for the price cut, or would there be less demand because it's now considered affordable by all?

Leica cannot compete with Sony, Nikon, and Canon when it comes to pricing. Even if Leica priced its cameras near these other manufacturers, they couldn't handle the same production I would guess.

jsrockit
07-09-2015, 05:10
I personally don't see a need to change to an EVF and auto focus. There are countless other brands to choose from that offer that. I find the M line to be a respite from all that and am willing to pay a premium for the option.

Well, the Q seems to be doing well... so, it appears that Leica having a quality AF camera is important to some users. Leica is smart not to keep all of its eggs in the M basket. Though, I think it would be suicide to get rid of the mechanical RF.

Kwesi
07-09-2015, 05:33
Well, the Q seems to be doing well... so, it appears that Leica having a quality AF camera is important to some users. Leica is smart not to keep all of its eggs in the M basket. Though, I think it would be suicide to get rid of the mechanical RF.

Agreed!
I think to turn the M to a mainstream camera would diminish its appeal.

Keith
07-09-2015, 05:38
Well, the Q seems to be doing well... so, it appears that Leica having a quality AF camera is important to some users. Leica is smart not to keep all of its eggs in the M basket. Though, I think it would be suicide to get rid of the mechanical RF.


I don't really see it this way. I think they would gain a lot of new customers who want the Leica name but not attached to a camera that focuses with a system that dates back to the thirties that can be hard to master initially.

Ultimately I expect to see a camera similar to the Q but with interchangeable lenses and the RF gone from the range entirely. Not within the next couple of years .... but ultimately.

airfrogusmc
07-09-2015, 05:55
If they stop making a rangefinder completely I would then have no reason to by a Leica. I would buy one of the other MANY options already out there. For me and the way I work a true rangefinder is the best option and I don't think I am the only one that believes that. At least I have a real choice in the sea of sameness out there in the one size fits all lets remove the photographer process world out there.

jsrockit
07-09-2015, 05:58
I don't really see it this way....

... Ultimately I expect to see a camera similar to the Q but with interchangeable lenses and the RF gone from the range entirely. Not within the next couple of years .... but ultimately.

80 something years of history and it keeps on going with rabid fans...

I know many are fans of the lenses, but there are equally as many who think the mechanical rangefinder is what makes Leica special. Why else would people spend $7000 on a seemingly under-spec body? There are many great lenses these days and many are not made by Leica. I never bought a Leica because of lenses.

airfrogusmc
07-09-2015, 06:14
History has shown Leica has never been about specs and new innovation (maybe with the exception being the first Leica). How long did it take them to put a meter in an M? Still don't have auto focus lenses for the M (thank God). For the street and really fast shooting there is nothing more intuitive than an M. No auto focus is faster than being pre focused. And the ability to see whats about to come in the frame or leave the frame so easily there is nothing better in my opinion and I have tried a lot of different formats and cameras over the years. There are certainly plenty of other great choices if you don't want a rangefinder.

nongfuspring
07-09-2015, 06:14
The R&D required for future M digitals I imagine is pretty minimal. They've already put in a lot of money to develop the digital M series, the elements that can be upgraded are much fewer than in a more modern digital camera; swap out the sensor and processor, a few minor handling tweaks and you have a new M.

With that in mind I doubt Leica will be dropping DRFs anytime soon - it would be like Porsche dropping the 911 or Ray Ban discontinuing the wayfarer; the M is intrinsic to the Leica brand identity and it's value lies in more than just it's profitability as a product line.

Mcary
07-09-2015, 06:16
80 something years of history and it keeps on going with rabid fans...

I know many are fans of the lenses, but there are equally as many who think the mechanical rangefinder is what makes Leica special. Why else would people spend $7000 on a seemingly under-spec body? There are many great lenses these days and many are not made by Leica. I never bought a Leica because of lenses.

Feel the same way!

mcfingon
07-09-2015, 06:43
You're a stirrer, Keith. Maybe the answer is they will and they won't dump the RF. My evidence is from BMW's attempt to dump their quirky horizontally-opposed twin motorbikes back in the 80's and move to triples and four-cylinder more mainstream bikes. They found some of the people still wanted the old style and some wanted new so they made both, while refining some of the quirks out of the horizontal twin. I have both styles of BM in my shed below:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~fingon/gallery/a7s/sonnar_35/r75_f800_shed_dusk_800px.jpg

Kwesi
07-09-2015, 06:48
I don't really see it this way. I think they would gain a lot of new customers who want the Leica name but not attached to a camera that focuses with a system that dates back to the thirties that can be hard to master initially.

Ultimately I expect to see a camera similar to the Q but with interchangeable lenses and the RF gone from the range entirely. Not within the next couple of years .... but ultimately.

For those customers Leica makes a variety of cameras that they will find attractive - The allure of the Leica M on the other hand is that its a bit like a musical instrument in that although it may take some time to master, in time it will sing to your tune

jloden
07-09-2015, 06:52
The rangefinder is a key component of the Leica M and I just don't see it going away in favor of an EVF. I'm not against EVFs and I've been using them since 2012, but they also clearly aren't a viable replacement for an OVF in every case.

I strongly suspect they will introduce a hybrid rangefinder technology in the next M that will retain an optical viewfinder component. Mind you, it need not necessarily be along the lines of the Fuji implementation either. That's one example of the hybrid approach but not the only one.

For example, I could envision an OVF with an electronic overlay focus patch fed focus data from the sensor, eliminating the need for the expensive, complex, and bulk-inducing mechanical rangefinder linkage. Something like that could also pave the way for a more svelte digital M closer in size to the classic film M, which is something Leica fans have wanted for years.

jloden
07-09-2015, 06:58
[...]

One thing that I find utterly annoying is the image review INSIDE the EVF. Both Sony A7S and Fuji X100T do that. You can't set "SHOOT WITH EVF, REVIEW WITH SCREEN".
You just use that eye sensor that keeps switching stuff on and off.

If you set the X100T to "Viewfinder only + Eye Sensor" it will use the VF only, and hitting the playback button (with the camera away from your eye) will display the image review on the back LCD.

Caveat is that this doesn't work for menus, only playback. The menu is still only displayed in the EVF so if you need to change a setting you either have to do it through the EVF or change the view mode first.

willie_901
07-09-2015, 07:02
Let's look at it from the other end. After being technically bankrupt in 2006, and expensive even then, they are a healthy company now, but they are certainly not raking in money by the bucketload. I doubt that they could lower their prices significantly without ending up in the red again.

This a pragmatic summary of the situation. This is also how come Leica cameras/lenses exemplify an interesting blend of quality and value-added pricing. The "paying for the red-dot" is used as a derogatory cliche and does not represent the whole truth. At the same time, like all cliches, it applies to some degree.

On some level people know this when they purchase new Leica products. This is where the value-added part becomes relevant. Leica products are not commodities. For some there is no competition. Porsche's "there is no substitute" marketing slogan applies.

In my view people should buy products they enjoy and match their priorities. Life is too short.

willie_901
07-09-2015, 07:06
... I think they would gain a lot of new customers who want the Leica name but not attached to a camera that focuses with a system that dates back to the thirties that can be hard to master initially.

...

I disagree. The market share that's up for grabs will not pay those prices.

My sense is the Leica name doesn't mean that much to young consumers looking to move up from smart-phone photography or upgrade from an entry level DSLR/mirrorless system.

Luke_Miller
07-09-2015, 11:24
T I'm not against EVFs and I've been using them since 2012, but they also clearly aren't a viable replacement for an OVF in every case.

A point that seems overlooked by some. I suspect Cartier-Bresson would have struggled trying to capture his "decisive moment" with a current generation EVF. At some point EVF latency will be reduced to insignificance, but until then optical viewfinders (or hybrid) are needed for some types of photography.

Darthfeeble
07-09-2015, 11:32
I'd say that it's more prophecy than heresy. I rarely use the OVF on my X Pro 1 and it's not the latest and greatest.

jsrockit
07-09-2015, 12:01
A point that seems overlooked by some. I suspect Cartier-Bresson would have struggled trying to capture his "decisive moment" with a current generation EVF.

I can't see why...

honozooloo
07-09-2015, 12:19
Honozooloo,

Have u tried the split image focusing on the xt1 instead of focusing peaking or are u referring to only the Sony focusing peaking here?

Gary

I have tried split focus on the X-T1. I learned photography on Nikon F bodies, so Split Focus is what I'm most accustomed to.

The problem (well for me at least) with Fuji's split focus system is that instead of a piece of ground glass which is more or less ALWAYS in focus, making it clear when you're not properly focused, the Fuji system simulates the effect; the trouble is, of course TTL the EVF is unable to show the split focus area as sharp until you're close to being focused. Maybe my eyes suck, but this solution just didn't work out for me. I couldn't acclimate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy there are a variety of options on my X-T1 and in all honesty they aren't BAD...but as many others have said, they just aren't as bang-on reliable as their analog counterparts.

robert blu
07-09-2015, 12:54
...Ultimately I expect to see a camera similar to the Q but with interchangeable lenses and the RF gone from the range entirely. Not within the next couple of years .... but ultimately.

I would like to buy a similar camera...but I'm already 66 times flies and I cannot wait too long :-)
robert

flyalf
07-09-2015, 23:58
I have tried split focus on the X-T1. I learned photography on Nikon F bodies, so Split Focus is what I'm most accustomed to.

The problem (well for me at least) with Fuji's split focus system is that instead of a piece of ground glass which is more or less ALWAYS in focus, making it clear when you're not properly focused, the Fuji system simulates the effect; the trouble is, of course TTL the EVF is unable to show the split focus area as sharp until you're close to being focused. Maybe my eyes suck, but this solution just didn't work out for me. I couldn't acclimate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy there are a variety of options on my X-T1 and in all honesty they aren't BAD...but as many others have said, they just aren't as bang-on reliable as their analog counterparts.

Thanks for sharing,

This is the kind of experineces I expect to find in reviews, but alas never see.

Imo the EVF MF solutions are great in theory and in product advertismenst, but not good enough for real photography. Anyway the only "electronci" MF solution I am using is focus by meter scale. And even this can be done faster and better on mechanical MF lenses.

Conclusion: MF is only usable by mechanical OVF solutions.

leicapixie
07-10-2015, 03:21
The real problem of the M RFDR is digital:
the need for exact focus on sensor,
the craze for ultra speed wide aperture lenses,
that can drift focus and do..
The folks using these lenses have by all accounts, a torrid time, maintaining the needed accuracy.
That is where the live view/EVIL finders are needed.
Auto(mis)focus is OK for slow, small aperture lenses used on kit DSLR zoom lenses,
the smaller formats where everything is easily in focus..
Folks coming from i-phones will be unhappy at lack of depth of field.
Leica will keep making the RF because it is the reason of Leica-M.
Any slight departure could cause havoc!
The Leica M5 was proof.
Will there be auto focus lenses?
Yes a few, but not a whole new line, economically impossible.

jsrockit
07-10-2015, 05:21
Yes a few, but not a whole new line, economically impossible.

How can this be predicted?

Luke_Miller
07-10-2015, 06:04
I can't see why...

The inherent latency in the EVF, even though measured in fractions of a second, means that what you saw in the viewfinder when you released the shutter is not exactly the image that is recorded. Sometimes that difference is pretty dramatic. When shooting, street, events or dramatic productions and trying to capture a fleeting expression, gesture, or a specific composition of milling subjects the EVF latency makes that very difficult. It is amazing how quickly things change with animated subjects. With an EVF ones choices are to shoot with both eyes - using the EVF for basic composition and the naked eye to determine when to release the shutter - or shoot bursts of images and hope that one proves to be usable. I don't have to do this with my OVF bodies. The effect of the latency is easy to see. Just look through the EVF at sometning that is changing - like someone in conversation - and observe with the naked eye the difference in the two wiews.

I use EVF bodies and think the EVF is a marvelous device that will only get better going forward. But at the moment it is not a universal solution.

jsrockit
07-10-2015, 06:40
The inherent latency in the EVF, even though measured in fractions of a second, means that what you saw in the viewfinder when you released the shutter is not exactly the image that is recorded.

I get what you meant, I just haven't had it effect my images... and I do street photography a lot.

Luke_Miller
07-10-2015, 07:14
I get what you meant, I just haven't had it effect my images... and I do street photography a lot.

Understand. Probably not a factor in 90% of my shooting. But a big issue on occasion. Nothing more frustrating than to release the shutter on the perfect shot and then chimp and see the camera recorded something different. I think one factor on how important it is - is if one is doing paid work. When being paid I don't have the luxury of missing many shots.

willie_901
07-10-2015, 08:11
It may seem odd, but EVF lag (X-T1) has only annoyed me during the 1-2% of the time I've done sport photography of family members (tennis). Nevertheless, I prefer the X-Pro1 OVF for candid photography.

I will also risk heresy and mention automated bursts of exposures enables one to choose between several different decisive moments when editing candid work. Fast camera CPU technology and high-speed storage cards eliminate the disadvantages of this technique.

I have pushed the shutter button just that much ™ too late with SLRs and RF cameras.
EVF or no EVF, anticipation is a skill one learns... an intuitive technique that has to be developed and honed.

With current technology I don't find EVF lag is not a handicap. However inappropriate menus settings can increase the total time. For example using (AF) every time on presses the shutter button even though refocusing is redundant. But many people don't know this.

Baby of Macon
07-10-2015, 08:25
I have to say that I find the latency of the X-T1 a real pain. Its enough to make me only use the camera on those occasions when I absolutely can't use an SLR.

jsrockit
07-10-2015, 08:36
Perhaps I've been using EVFs for so long that I anticipate the lag. I have no idea... but I also only look through the VF for a second or so for most street shots.

Luke_Miller
07-10-2015, 08:47
I have pushed the shutter button just that much ™ too late with SLRs and RF cameras.
EVF or no EVF, anticipation is a skill one learns... an intuitive technique that has to be developed and honed.

True enough. I've shot high school softball with my EVF body to good effect. With a bit of practice I can anticipate when to release the shutter in order to catch the batter making contact with the ball. Unfortunately, anticipation requires one to have an understanding of what is going to happen next, so that the shutter is released in time to capture "next'. With random activity "next" is difficult to predict.

Of course I have my own latency. That time between deciding to take the shot and when my finger actually depresses the shutter. And all cameras seem to have a measurable (but very short) period of time before the shutter actually opens after depressing the release. So I miss shots because I can't react fast enough. With an OVF I know that immediately since I am watching the subject in real time and can see what was going on when the shutter fired. With an EVF I have to chimp before I know if I got the shot when shooting dynamic subjects.

honozooloo
07-10-2015, 11:40
I get what you meant, I just haven't had it effect my images... and I do street photography a lot.

I'm gonna agree here...the qouted EVF latency is .005 milliseconds on the X-T1. Human perception of EVF lag is in the order of tenths of a millisecond if I remember correctly. Actual shutter lag (including AF lock time) on the X-T1 has been qouted at around 14ms to lock AF and fire the shutter. And other mirrorless systems like the OM are even shorter I think. Of course this is under ideal AF conditions. My reflexes are probably more like a few dozen milliseconds, forget about one 5 thousandth. I am not debating the existence of lag, but personally since I have crappy reflexes I'd chalk up missed shots to my own lack of timing.

Aren't most film Leica Ms in the 10-15 millisecond range shutter latency-wise? I remember seeing the M9 was in the order of 80ms worth of lag. Of course the optical VF is lagless (duh) but in actual use, shutter lag is just a part of having a camera that obeys the laws of physics. EVFs are definitely different than their analog counterparts, but I wonder if it's because they're objectively inferior, or if it's just that we've all spent years or decades developing a "feel" for how our OVF Ms and SLRs shoot. The EVF still makes me feel like a fish out of water in some fast-paced situations too.

In the end it's just a matter of getting used to how your tool of choice functions and in a way, decisive shots are all about intuition and knowing your camera, as most of us normal humans have slower reaction times than our cameras.

EDIT: Did a little digging, and it turns out image-resource.com tested the X-T1's lag and if prefocused shutter lock time/lag (also in MF mode, the subject of discussion) is .051 sec, AKA 51 milliseconds. So if one was accustomed to the 15 milliscond lag on a film Leica M, yeah I suppose shutter lag on an EVF based camera could feel a little pokey. The new M240 seems to be in the same range of 50something milliseconds, sooo...these newfangled cameras are a little slower. I suppose I'm not critical enough to notice though?

Luke_Miller
07-10-2015, 13:56
Can't speak to the Fuji cameras, but the Nikon EVF bodies I shoot with have visible EVF lag. I have no doubt this will eventually be a non-issue in all cameras.

Here is a real world example. I was on vacation with my Nikon V1, which has a reasonably fast EVF. Trying to photograph a landmark from across a busy street. I would compose, focus, and watch through the EVF until the street was free of vehicles before releasing the shutter. After four consecutive shots with half a car in the frame I needed a new approach. I had to use my left (non-viewfinder eye) eye to view the scene and use it rather than the viewfinder to determine when the street was clear.

krötenblender
07-10-2015, 15:08
Just a thought, why lag may be more of an issue for the optical rangefinder fan: with the traditional RF you can see out of the frame, which gives you a limited type of precognition. Through the OVF of a rangefinder (not of a SLR), you can see (and get used to see, as I am) how the scene and composition will look like in a moment. This will give you a clear advantage for the "decisive moment".

For me, this is one of the most important and enjoyable aspects of the RF-experience. I also use a pretty good EVF (E-M1) very often and it's okay. But there is nothing and will never be something like the RF-experience.

Ben Z
07-11-2015, 06:30
I know many are fans of the lenses, but there are equally as many who think the mechanical rangefinder is what makes Leica special. Why else would people spend $7000 on a seemingly under-spec body? There are many great lenses these days and many are not made by Leica. I never bought a Leica because of lenses.

Agree 100%. The only reason I am willing to pay Leica's price is because it's the only current digital camera with an optical rangefinder. I do not like EVF's. I feel like I'm watching TV through a keyhole. It gives me a feeling of one more degree of separation from the subject. If not a rangefinder, then I would use a reflex. I have the EVF for my M240, use it in specialized situations. It's a useful accessory for me, but I would not pay Leica prices for an EVF-only camera, period, full stop.

willie_901
07-11-2015, 07:28
This data (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-t1/fuji-x-t1DAT.HTM) for the X-T1 was reported by Imaging Resources.

"Shutter Lag (manual focus): 0.155
Shutter lag (full AF, with flash): 0.55
Shutter Lag (prefocused): 0.051
Shutter Lag (notes): Full AF lag, Multi-area AF mode = 0.151s"

This is with the initial firmware.

Here is their data (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a77-ii/sony-a77-iiDAT.HTM) for the SONY A77 II

"Shutter Lag (manual focus): 0.095
Shutter lag (full AF, with flash): 0.21
Shutter Lag (prefocused): 0.051"

Now the Olympus EM-5 II

"Shutter lag (full AF, wide/mid): 0.14
Shutter Lag (manual focus): 0.068
Shutter lag (full AF, with flash): 0.34
Shutter Lag (prefocused): 0.046
"

No doubt latency or lag can be longer with some combinations of menu parameters for these cameras. In particular some of the older, larger, Fujinon lenses exhibit longer lag times because of older AF mechanisms. And the 60 mm macro (well, not really a macro) lens was slow on purpose because Fujifilm assumed macro focus was more difficult.

I could never focus a rangefinder or MF SLR faster than about 1/2 a second. I doubt I ever focused one that fast.

mfunnell
07-11-2015, 14:36
My problems with EVFs are more-or-less personal to me, or at least to those who have similar eyesight imperfections to mine. It's pretty simple: I need to wear glasses for clear distance vision and (now that my eyes are aging) I have to take my glasses off (or at least away from my eyes) for clear vision close up. For example, now I can only read without glasses.

When I use an OVF I leave my glasses on and see through the OVF to my subject. If I'm not looking through the finder I can still see my subject clearly with my glasses on. With an EVF, however, I'm looking at a small TV screen very close to my face. To see the EVF clearly I have to remove my glasses. To see my subject clearly I have to put them back on. Rinse and repeat... I don't like working that way, I find it annoying and it affects my photography badly (and I need all the help I can get, not added problems). So I won't use an EVF.

But that's specific to me and my eyesight, and nothing to do with EVFs as a general proposition. In fact I'm somewhat jealous of those who can get along with EVFs as I can see advantages or, at the very least, cameras which would otherwise be attractive to me except that I can't get on with their EVFs.

But, as I say, that's just me and I'm sure EVFs are great for others.

...Mike

CameraQuest
03-02-2016, 10:09
I think this is an interesting thread

Timmyjoe
03-02-2016, 10:21
Or maybe a hybrid finder like the Fuji X100?

I can't remember the last time I used the optical finder on my 240 and if it had a built in EVF that didn't black out for a few seconds after exposure the way the clip on example does I'd be one happy camper! And surely the manufacturing costs of an EVF would be less than the current rangefinder mechanism.

No doubt some of you out there will think is total heresy! :p

I don't care when they dump the Optical Finder. I've got my M-E and my two M film bodies, they can now make whatever they like. I wouldn't be buying any of it anyway. If I ever buy another Leica body, it will be a used film body, and they all have beautiful Optical Finders.

Lucadomi
03-02-2016, 10:29
Didn't read all the thread, but a Leica without rangefinder sounds like an oxymoron to me.

uhoh7
03-02-2016, 11:03
Didn't read all the thread, but a Leica without rangefinder sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I guess you missed the Leica R system :bang:

and the UR-Leica :)

But for M the OF rangefinder is going to be an option for 20 years at least, I would bet. It just should not be the only option.

jsrockit
03-02-2016, 11:24
I guess you missed the Leica R system :bang:



No need to bang your head... I'm sure he meant Leica, without a rangefinder model in its line-up, doesn't seem like Leica.

GaryLH
03-02-2016, 12:30
As long as there is enough people willing to pay the bucks for the drf, they'll continue to make it..no worries.. When there is not enough people to support drf sales, who knows. Maybe a predictor is this party lens makers like Codina/voitlander cutting back or stopping certain rf lens production.

Expanding to other areas only makes sense...

Gary