This topic is in the 2013 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2013Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
p.19 #1Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Lee Saxon wrote:
So in this David v. Goliath rivalry you have imagined, you're siding with Team Goliath? Even if watching David get his ass kicked means no more beautiful little lenses?If it meant no more beautiful little lenses, no.
But if it meant Leica realizing that they couldn't compete in the digital camera game - something everyone except them has known since the day they got into the digital camera game - and refocused their resources exclusively on lenses (their true strength), yes.
They managed to turn their losses around in the middle of one of the worst global economic downturns in history with digital cameras that "couldn't compete in the digital camera game." I'm not saying Leica doesn't deserve criticism, but they should get credit where credit is due.
freaklikeme wrote
vovkinson wrote
I want to see Sony kick leica's a$$ a bit. Just can't waitBut if it meant Leica realizing that they couldn't compete in the digital camera game - something everyone except them has known since the day they got into the digital camera game - and refocused their resources exclusively on lenses (their true strength), yes.
They managed to turn their losses around in the middle of one of the worst global economic downturns in history with digital cameras that "couldn't compete in the digital camera game." I'm not saying Leica doesn't deserve criticism, but they should get credit where credit is due.
Aug 07, 2013 at 10:07 PM
p.19 #2Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
philip_pj wrote:
Me too, FLM, I'd love to see Sony do great (make that 'even better') at the high end. And capitalism rewards innovators - who dares wins!
I see Leica as a magnificent company that has been indolent and unresponsive to the needs of even their own adoring (and cashed up) consumer base. Thay erected this mystique (the red dot syndrome) and tried for too long to milk it by charging outrageous sums of money for too too little - as exemplified so recently with the silly PR campaign before the release of the lead balloon known as the Vario X...it...Show more →
The only place Sony and Leica directly compete are in fixed lens cameras.
Me too, FLM, I'd love to see Sony do great (make that 'even better') at the high end. And capitalism rewards innovators - who dares wins!
I see Leica as a magnificent company that has been indolent and unresponsive to the needs of even their own adoring (and cashed up) consumer base. Thay erected this mystique (the red dot syndrome) and tried for too long to milk it by charging outrageous sums of money for too too little - as exemplified so recently with the silly PR campaign before the release of the lead balloon known as the Vario X...it...Show more →
The only place Sony and Leica directly compete are in fixed lens cameras.
Aug 07, 2013 at 10:10 PM
p.19 #3Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jeff Kott wrote:
People keep bringing this article up as proof that RF focusing is better than EVF focusing. I think a fair reading of what Tim Ashley is saying is that in his opinion RF focusing on the M240 is more accurate than EVF focusing on the M240. What he doesn't say is that M240 has probably has the worst implementation of EVF focusing of any of the high end cameras on the market today that have an EVF.
also, is his conclusion that the rangefinder is more consistent or more accurate (i'm much too lazy to follow the link)? more consistent with the same camera and lens i'd definitely believe, more accurate i'd have to work hard to find circumstances where that is believable without designing a super contrived test.
rscheffler wrote
If reviews such as those by Tim Ashley are to be believed, focus consistency is actually better with RF use than live view, meaning RF remains relevant. But based on his comments, that's not necessarily something you'd discover from the spec sheet list, but instead from actual experience with the camera...also, is his conclusion that the rangefinder is more consistent or more accurate (i'm much too lazy to follow the link)? more consistent with the same camera and lens i'd definitely believe, more accurate i'd have to work hard to find circumstances where that is believable without designing a super contrived test.
Aug 07, 2013 at 10:10 PM
p.19 #4Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
sebboh wrote:
also, is his conclusion that the rangefinder is more consistent or more accurate (i'm much too lazy to follow the link)? more consistent with the same camera and lens i'd definitely believe, more accurate i'd have to work hard to find circumstances where that is believable without designing a super contrived test.
OK, here's how you contrive the test. Take a camera with an EVF with which you can focus using magnified view, but will not allow you to move the focus spot within the frame (it stays in the center); focus on an object using magnified view and then recompose the frame so the object that you focused on is no longer in the center of the frame and then take the shot. Then compare to using the RF.
also, is his conclusion that the rangefinder is more consistent or more accurate (i'm much too lazy to follow the link)? more consistent with the same camera and lens i'd definitely believe, more accurate i'd have to work hard to find circumstances where that is believable without designing a super contrived test.
OK, here's how you contrive the test. Take a camera with an EVF with which you can focus using magnified view, but will not allow you to move the focus spot within the frame (it stays in the center); focus on an object using magnified view and then recompose the frame so the object that you focused on is no longer in the center of the frame and then take the shot. Then compare to using the RF.
Aug 07, 2013 at 10:22 PM
p.19 #5Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Good to hear a variety of views - one of our strengths obviously. Leica won't be troubled commercially from what I read here, but that does not mean there is not huge unmet demand for a very good 'FF NEX' style camera, as shown by the RX1. It really should not have been possible, no one predicted it.
One issue is that with Sony improving fast on several key fronts - sensor tech, Zeiss optics integration, EVF/LCD tech - they appear to be a generation in front already, with new models on the near horizon.
And face the fact that modern cameras are electronic devices, a huge advantage for a producer of good value for money high-end cameras. It might become harder to justify big buck M240 style cameras over time - when you really are saying 'well it has a rangefinder'...it also has an LCD and EVF option, seems almost a concession to modernity, even with a somewhat clunky implementation (according to some users from a quick read).
I still have a hard time believing an RF will focus as well (consistently or accurately) as an RX1 with AF or focus mag in ISO 10000 f2/ 1/80s conditions. In fact I don't! Add to which many Leica users are elderly with deterioriating eyesight...to these users EVFs/LCDs are a godsend.
The market for used M bodies will be interesting to watch. But there will plenty of M aspirants (let's call them) who will do the sums in a financially constrained world and make an obvious choice, IF Sony get it right. If not with this one, they will do so soon (1-2 years), of that I have little doubt. Or someone else will.
One issue is that with Sony improving fast on several key fronts - sensor tech, Zeiss optics integration, EVF/LCD tech - they appear to be a generation in front already, with new models on the near horizon.
And face the fact that modern cameras are electronic devices, a huge advantage for a producer of good value for money high-end cameras. It might become harder to justify big buck M240 style cameras over time - when you really are saying 'well it has a rangefinder'...it also has an LCD and EVF option, seems almost a concession to modernity, even with a somewhat clunky implementation (according to some users from a quick read).
I still have a hard time believing an RF will focus as well (consistently or accurately) as an RX1 with AF or focus mag in ISO 10000 f2/ 1/80s conditions. In fact I don't! Add to which many Leica users are elderly with deterioriating eyesight...to these users EVFs/LCDs are a godsend.
The market for used M bodies will be interesting to watch. But there will plenty of M aspirants (let's call them) who will do the sums in a financially constrained world and make an obvious choice, IF Sony get it right. If not with this one, they will do so soon (1-2 years), of that I have little doubt. Or someone else will.
Aug 07, 2013 at 10:26 PM
p.19 #6Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jeff Kott wrote:
What he doesn't say is that M240 has probably has the worst implementation of EVF focusing of any of the high end cameras on the market today that have an EVF.
True. You actually don't even have to stick with high cameras. You have to go a ways down the chain to find one that's just as bad (Ricoh GXR), but it's also the best available implementation of an EVF on a rangefinder by virtue of being the only one.
What he doesn't say is that M240 has probably has the worst implementation of EVF focusing of any of the high end cameras on the market today that have an EVF.
True. You actually don't even have to stick with high cameras. You have to go a ways down the chain to find one that's just as bad (Ricoh GXR), but it's also the best available implementation of an EVF on a rangefinder by virtue of being the only one.
Aug 07, 2013 at 10:38 PM
p.19 #7Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
freaklikeme wrote:
True. You actually don't even have to stick with high cameras. You have to go a ways down the chain to find one that's just as bad (Ricoh GXR), but it's also the best available implementation of an EVF on a rangefinder by virtue of being the only one.
I'm ok with him saying he finds focusing with the RF on the M240 to be more accurate than focusing with the M240 EVF, but I've seen several instances where people have taken his article as evidence that RF focusing is more accurate than focusing with an EVF on any camera, which is ridiculous.
True. You actually don't even have to stick with high cameras. You have to go a ways down the chain to find one that's just as bad (Ricoh GXR), but it's also the best available implementation of an EVF on a rangefinder by virtue of being the only one.
I'm ok with him saying he finds focusing with the RF on the M240 to be more accurate than focusing with the M240 EVF, but I've seen several instances where people have taken his article as evidence that RF focusing is more accurate than focusing with an EVF on any camera, which is ridiculous.
Aug 07, 2013 at 10:43 PM
p.19 #8Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
freaklikeme wrote:
True. You actually don't even have to stick with high cameras. You have to go a ways down the chain to find one that's just as bad (Ricoh GXR), but it's also the best available implementation of an EVF on a rangefinder by virtue of being the only one.
I think the GXR implementation of MF with the EVF is better than most in some respects. The focus assist is better than Fuji, and the OM-D is missing it entirely. (I haven't tried the Sony Nex's or the M240)
Jeff Kott wrote
What he doesn't say is that M240 has probably has the worst implementation of EVF focusing of any of the high end cameras on the market today that have an EVF. I think the GXR implementation of MF with the EVF is better than most in some respects. The focus assist is better than Fuji, and the OM-D is missing it entirely. (I haven't tried the Sony Nex's or the M240) Aug 07, 2013 at 10:55 PM
p.19 #9Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Jeff Kott wrote:
I'm ok with him saying he finds focusing with the RF on the M240 to be more accurate than focusing with the M240 EVF, but I've seen several instances where people have taken his article as evidence that RF focusing is more accurate than focusing with an EVF on any camera, which is ridiculous.
Agreed, although, for me, it was pretty much a wash between my buddy's M9 and the GXR I used to have. Tiny little RF spot or full screen of little detail. With those options, I found myself focus bracketing quite a bit.
freaklikeme wrote
True. You actually don't even have to stick with high cameras. You have to go a ways down the chain to find one that's just as bad (Ricoh GXR), but it's also the best available implementation of an EVF on a rangefinder by virtue of being the only one.Agreed, although, for me, it was pretty much a wash between my buddy's M9 and the GXR I used to have. Tiny little RF spot or full screen of little detail. With those options, I found myself focus bracketing quite a bit.
Aug 07, 2013 at 10:57 PM
p.19 #10Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
CVickery wrote:
True. You actually don't even have to stick with high cameras. You have to go a ways down the chain to find one that's just as bad (Ricoh GXR), but it's also the best available implementation of an EVF on a rangefinder by virtue of being the only one. I think the GXR implementation of MF with the EVF is better than most in some respects. The focus assist is better than Fuji, and the OM-D is missing it entirely. (I haven't tried the Sony Nex's or the M240)
I am equally perplexed to read that. The EM-5 offers four levels of magnification on a higher resolution screen, the X-E1 even higher resolution and at least two levels of magnification. And unless I'm missing something, you can select where on the image you're zooming. So what did you find better about the GXR?
freaklikeme wrote
Jeff Kott wrote
What he doesn't say is that M240 has probably has the worst implementation of EVF focusing of any of the high end cameras on the market today that have an EVF. I think the GXR implementation of MF with the EVF is better than most in some respects. The focus assist is better than Fuji, and the OM-D is missing it entirely. (I haven't tried the Sony Nex's or the M240) I am equally perplexed to read that. The EM-5 offers four levels of magnification on a higher resolution screen, the X-E1 even higher resolution and at least two levels of magnification. And unless I'm missing something, you can select where on the image you're zooming. So what did you find better about the GXR?
Aug 07, 2013 at 11:12 PM
p.19 #11Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
GXR: one button toggle focus assist on/off, another button toggle magnification on/off. Mode 2 is extremely easy to see, so you can focus on subject's eye and see the plane of focus clearly, for example. Half press shutter momentarily return to normal view for framing and metering, release the half press will go back to focus assist/magnification so you don't need to toggle it on again with another button press. It's the little things that make it work.
Aug 07, 2013 at 11:36 PM
p.19 #12Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
Agreed on the half-press of the shutter, although I'm fairly certain the EM-5 has something similar. Not a fan of mode 2 and all of the cameras give you one button access to magnification. For me it was the big things that made it a failure. 
Aug 07, 2013 at 11:54 PM
p.19 #13Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
It certainly is not a commercial success, but outside of Leica it is the camera that works best with all the M glasses. So within its niche and small fan base it is well received.
Aug 08, 2013 at 12:08 AM
p.19 #14Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
rscheffler wrote:
My guess is most NEX FF buyers would never be M buyers in the first place, for numerous of reasons. Even here in the alt forum, I suspect many legacy glass owners are primarily focused on SLR system lenses, not RF. Whatever Sony releases, I really, really doubt it will have a rangefinder (and one that is M compatible). If it doesn't, there is still a very strong reason for RF fans to keep their M240 orders in place.
A bunch of people here, myself included are using m glass on mirrorless to hedge their bets till FF mirrorless comes along.
Sony is an electronics company, When they're slowly phasing out OVFs / mirrors in their DSLR line then it will be extremely unlikely they'll introduce rangefinder mechanism in their mirrorless cameras.
Even if Sony do not release a rangefinder, there will be a lot of interest from Leica users if m glass can be used on it and the MF experience is good, and it is a good body.
I'll probably get flamed for this, but l feel EVFs are the way of the future. IMHO they'll one day replace all OVFs. The rangefinder along with the mirror were hacks till better technology came along, and will become obsolete one day IMHO. The issues with EVF can be overcome over time. It offers so many advantages over RF, that over time the balance will tip, and RF fans will become EVF fans.
My ultimate mirrorless would be FF with retina quality EVF, with excellent MF experience. My Nex 6 is half way there!!
Edited on Aug 08, 2013 at 01:06 AM · View previous versions
My guess is most NEX FF buyers would never be M buyers in the first place, for numerous of reasons. Even here in the alt forum, I suspect many legacy glass owners are primarily focused on SLR system lenses, not RF. Whatever Sony releases, I really, really doubt it will have a rangefinder (and one that is M compatible). If it doesn't, there is still a very strong reason for RF fans to keep their M240 orders in place.
A bunch of people here, myself included are using m glass on mirrorless to hedge their bets till FF mirrorless comes along.
Sony is an electronics company, When they're slowly phasing out OVFs / mirrors in their DSLR line then it will be extremely unlikely they'll introduce rangefinder mechanism in their mirrorless cameras.
Even if Sony do not release a rangefinder, there will be a lot of interest from Leica users if m glass can be used on it and the MF experience is good, and it is a good body.
I'll probably get flamed for this, but l feel EVFs are the way of the future. IMHO they'll one day replace all OVFs. The rangefinder along with the mirror were hacks till better technology came along, and will become obsolete one day IMHO. The issues with EVF can be overcome over time. It offers so many advantages over RF, that over time the balance will tip, and RF fans will become EVF fans.
My ultimate mirrorless would be FF with retina quality EVF, with excellent MF experience. My Nex 6 is half way there!!
Edited on Aug 08, 2013 at 01:06 AM · View previous versions
Aug 08, 2013 at 12:57 AM
p.19 #15Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
SKumar25 wrote:
I'll probably get flamed for this, but l feel EVFs are the way of the future. IMHO they'll one day replace all OVFs. The rangefinder along with the mirror were hacks till better technology came along, and will become obsolete one day IMHO. The issues with EVF can be overcome over time. It offers so many advantages over RF, that over time the balance will tip, and RF fans will become EVF fans.
Let's make a test. With a fully charged battery, for how many hours can we have the EVF active before the battery is drained? You test with the NEX 6 and I test with the NEX 7. Does the newer NEX 6 last longer?
I'll probably get flamed for this, but l feel EVFs are the way of the future. IMHO they'll one day replace all OVFs. The rangefinder along with the mirror were hacks till better technology came along, and will become obsolete one day IMHO. The issues with EVF can be overcome over time. It offers so many advantages over RF, that over time the balance will tip, and RF fans will become EVF fans.
Let's make a test. With a fully charged battery, for how many hours can we have the EVF active before the battery is drained? You test with the NEX 6 and I test with the NEX 7. Does the newer NEX 6 last longer?
Aug 08, 2013 at 01:06 AM
p.19 #16Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alundeb wrote:
Let's make a test. With a fully charged battery, for how many hours can we have the EVF active before the battery is drained? You test with the NEX 6 and I test with the NEX 7. Does the newer NEX 6 last longer?
Will it be impossible to solve battery life issues over time?
SKumar25 wrote
I'll probably get flamed for this, but l feel EVFs are the way of the future. IMHO they'll one day replace all OVFs. The rangefinder along with the mirror were hacks till better technology came along, and will become obsolete one day IMHO. The issues with EVF can be overcome over time. It offers so many advantages over RF, that over time the balance will tip, and RF fans will become EVF fans.Will it be impossible to solve battery life issues over time?
Aug 08, 2013 at 01:19 AM
p.19 #17Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
SKumar25 wrote:
Will it be impossible to solve battery life issues over time?
To the level of zero power as an OVF has, it is impossible.
The problems with EVF and power, is that the demands for quality like an OVF drives the power consumption up (refresh rate, brightness, size). All we can hope for, is that the technology will give a battery life that is sufficient, but it will never be even approximately as good.
In the case of the rumored FF NEX, If I have to carry two extra batteries for extended VF use with say a 70-300mm lens on a hike, it completely outweighs the weight advantage of a FF NEX + adapter vs a D800 that I have.
FF NEX + adapter: 400g+20% + 150g = ~650 g
D800: ~850 g
Will it be impossible to solve battery life issues over time?
To the level of zero power as an OVF has, it is impossible.
The problems with EVF and power, is that the demands for quality like an OVF drives the power consumption up (refresh rate, brightness, size). All we can hope for, is that the technology will give a battery life that is sufficient, but it will never be even approximately as good.
In the case of the rumored FF NEX, If I have to carry two extra batteries for extended VF use with say a 70-300mm lens on a hike, it completely outweighs the weight advantage of a FF NEX + adapter vs a D800 that I have.
FF NEX + adapter: 400g+20% + 150g = ~650 g
D800: ~850 g
Aug 08, 2013 at 01:44 AM
Emacs
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.19 #18Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alundeb wrote:
To the level of zero power as an OVF has, it is impossible.
You pay for better. Today's EVFs are better than these optical gimmicks.
To the level of zero power as an OVF has, it is impossible.
You pay for better. Today's EVFs are better than these optical gimmicks.
Aug 08, 2013 at 02:22 AM
p.19 #19Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
alundeb wrote:
To the level of zero power as an OVF has, it is impossible.
The problems with EVF and power, is that the demands for quality like an OVF drives the power consumption up (refresh rate, brightness, size). All we can hope for, is that the technology will give a battery life that is sufficient, but it will never be even approximately as good.
In the case of the rumored FF NEX, If I have to carry two extra batteries for extended VF use with say a 70-300mm lens on a hike, it completely outweighs the weight advantage of a FF NEX +...Show more →
huh, i would have to carry like 15 NEX-7 batteries for it to take up the same space as a d800. i don't think i ever take weight into consideration. the FF NEX would still be way easier to (manual) focus though.
also how long does it take you to wear down the battery with continuous use? when i'm hiking the battery lasts all day since there are lots of time when i'm not actively shooting. when i'm hanging out in one place shooting without turning the camera off it lasts a few hours.
SKumar25 wrote
Will it be impossible to solve battery life issues over time?The problems with EVF and power, is that the demands for quality like an OVF drives the power consumption up (refresh rate, brightness, size). All we can hope for, is that the technology will give a battery life that is sufficient, but it will never be even approximately as good.
In the case of the rumored FF NEX, If I have to carry two extra batteries for extended VF use with say a 70-300mm lens on a hike, it completely outweighs the weight advantage of a FF NEX +...Show more →
huh, i would have to carry like 15 NEX-7 batteries for it to take up the same space as a d800. i don't think i ever take weight into consideration. the FF NEX would still be way easier to (manual) focus though.
also how long does it take you to wear down the battery with continuous use? when i'm hiking the battery lasts all day since there are lots of time when i'm not actively shooting. when i'm hanging out in one place shooting without turning the camera off it lasts a few hours.
Aug 08, 2013 at 03:20 AM
p.19 #20Our prayers have been answered: Nex-FF in 2 months
sebboh wrote:
i don't think i ever take weight into consideration.
Not even when doing 500-1000 height meters per day?
also how long does it take you to wear down the battery with continuous use? .
That was my original question, and it was meant literally. I actually want to test it out, with the VF continuously active.
i don't think i ever take weight into consideration.
Not even when doing 500-1000 height meters per day?
also how long does it take you to wear down the battery with continuous use? .
That was my original question, and it was meant literally. I actually want to test it out, with the VF continuously active.
Aug 08, 2013 at 04:09 AM