Smiert Spionam wrote:
I think even a hybrid viewfinder would alienate a lot of Leica loyalists, and would probably be instantly vetoed internally -- and honestly, for mostly good reasons. I would be shocked if anyone could develop a hybrid that didn't detract, in some way, from the functioning of the optical rangefinder, which is a thing of mechanical beauty.
I'd like to think that LV could be implemented, but even that might be too offensive to the purists, which is unfortunate.
that is unfortunate since eventually all the purists will die off and leica with them if they don't also attract new customers (which they are doing now thanks to being the only compact FF vender). is there any reason a hybrid has to detract from the optical rangefinder? i've never looked through the x100s viewfinder, does the hybrid make it less bright? they could always just have the evf physically slide in and out of the viewfinder when you want it so it doesn't effect the optical rangefinder at all.
The Leica viewfinder is among the most complicated optical and mechanical viewfinders made, so I would assume it would be a challenge. Not insurmountable, surely, but likely to be met with great skepticism by users.
Some of them are of course dying off, but they're being replaced -- and Leica has no interest in being a mass market manufacturer. As much as I like new techs (love the NEX), a true optical rangefinder is a real pleasure to use. I don't blame the users and engineers who continue to support it.
First the purist would only shoot with all mechanical cameras that did not require a battery to fully function, then they accepted electronic metering and shutters, and then eventually accepted digital. I think eventually they will come around to the benefits of LV since not doing so is sort of a silly, anachronistic stance to take once you have already accepted a fully digital camera!
Sebboh, the X100 is a hybrid EVF + Optical finder but is NOT a rangefinder. I suspect it might be quite a trick to have a hybrid Rangefinder with an EVF. Most of the area in the X100/ X Pro 1 where the rangefinder would normally be is occupied by the electo-optical contraption that allows for just the EVF and OVF heads up display. There would be no room for the rangefinder mechanism.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Sebboh, the X100 is a hybrid EVF + Optical finder but is NOT a rangefinder. I suspect it might be quite a trick to have a hybrid Rangefinder with an EVF. Most of the area in the X100/ X Pro 1 where the rangefinder would normally be is occupied by the electo-optical contraption that allows for just the EVF and OVF heads up display. There would be no room for the rangefinder mechanism.
i know, i figured there is room under the finder on the m9 for the necessary bits. that's just my sense from looking at the camera though. i was just wondering if the hud makes the x100 any dimmer or if there's anything else that would hurt the rangefinder experience assuming you could fit both somewhere.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
The Leica viewfinder is among the most complicated optical and mechanical viewfinders made, so I would assume it would be a challenge. Not insurmountable, surely, but likely to be met with great skepticism by users.
it's not terribly complicated, just requires mechanical precision to construct. i've often heard the zeiss ikon has a better finder as well.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
As much as I like new techs (love the NEX), a true optical rangefinder is a real pleasure to use. I don't blame the users and engineers who continue to support it.
i know it's just me, but i gotta disagree here. rangefinders are infuriating to use. they're nice for quick manual focus for social snaps though.
sebboh wrote:
i know it's just me, but i gotta disagree here. rangefinders are infuriating to use. there nice for quick manual focus for social snaps though.
It's not just you - focus/recompose can be tricky with longer lenses.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
The Leica viewfinder is among the most complicated optical and mechanical viewfinders made, so I would assume it would be a challenge. Not insurmountable, surely, but likely to be met with great skepticism by users.
.
Rangefinders are not actually complex at all. Precise, sure, but even then they often need to be calibrated -- often many times a year. Not only that, but the Zeiss Ikon is easily superior when it comes to the actual rangefinder.
I understand how rangefinders are made, and have cleaned and calibrated them myself. You can parse all you like, but I suspect what you'll hear from Leica is that a good rangefinder viewfinder is a purpose-built device, and not easily or readily converted into an electronic hybrid. I'm not a purist, but I find it hard not to be at least a little sympathetic to that.
A Leica is satisfying, in part, because of its limitations. It doesn't strive to be all things to all people -- it strives to be very, very good at a very specific kind of shooting. As a company, and as a camera, I can't imagine a less likely candidate for the next generation universal digital back (ie, NEX). To try to will it into being is a fool's errand.
I still think that basic live view on the rear LCD would be nice, and not too disruptive of the general Leica way of doing things -- but even that might be farther than they would be willing to go.
Sorry to confuse the absolute/relative percentages back there; that's 20 absolute percent, in relative percent it's less than half the amount of loss. The Kodak sensors are actually quite a bit worse than their datasheet states - the datasheets from Kodak aren't exactly valid either, since we don't know the exact configuration in the Leica order. Nothing I've ever measured from teh M8 or the M9 has reached the claims of the Kodak datasheets (of which they seem to have pulled the M9 sensor - probably on request from Leica)
I actually don't know regarding the DxO graph, since I don't know their absolute metric. But if it's in absolute loss (total loss) compared to a "perfect" regression from F5.6 and on downwards - which it seems to be - in F it would be better than anything on the chart. OR, at least as good as the D3s and the original 5D, the two best cameras on the chart.
My main points were that for the classic M-type of camera, 3fps is good enough, and an significant increase in high ISO performance (with more pixels) would be great. The angle-efficiency is more of a bonus in the total sum.
I doubt Leica WANTS to make the M-series accessible. Most M9's are bought by people that aspire to the dream and exclusivity of the format - to impress others - and Leica would lose that customer base very quickly if they start to dilute the brand with LV and other "trinkets" of usability.
Without the dentists Leica would die, immediately.
