RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
pmeheut wrote:
The EV1 has a lot of competition.
Kinda depends on how you define competition. I'd suggest it has a LOT of alternate choices.
Depending on which race you're running with it ... there some things that the EV1 can't really compete with. On the flip-side, there things that others don't fare as well as the M form factor.
In the end, there are a ton of attributes in play. Everything from physical shape / weight to EVF refresh rate to retained optical performance of the M lenses and a slew of other attributes that we can always find SOMETHING, somewhere that on attribute vs. attribute that can be better / worse than another.
To that end, I think the salient point of using a M body with M glass BEGINS with the desire to use M lenses, designed for M registration distance, and accompanying filter stack / microlens configuration. If someone isn't WANTING to use M Lenses, the list is very long. If someone wants to use M lenses, the list narrows if they desire to retain optimized optical performance from their M lenses.
If THIS ^ isn't part of the mission / goal for folks ... then, the universe is available as alternatives, and all other attributes are capable of providing different choices. But, if THIS remains your desire, there are not a lot of options that RETAIN this. As I see it, the list migrates a bit like this for options.
M bodies with RF / Visoflex
SL bodies with EVF
Other bodies with non-M spec optical filter stack / microlenses.
For folks that do not hold this perspective regarding the optical path that M lenses and M bodies present as an engineered pair ... the number of options mushrooms, once we abandon this premise in terms of retaining the highest level of competitive optical performance from M glass. Change the conversation to discount this, and begin using other attributes as the benchmark of competitive performance and it is an entirely different conversation, imo.
As with so many things in our beloved craft ... the quid pro quo relationships are intricate and deep. To which, a vast number of folks will always have an array of considerations in how they'd configure THEIR quid pro quo.
The matter of physical size / weight is very personal and preferential (as but one). Getting the combinations of attributes configured the way folks want ... is gonna be a scenario of simply ... you're not going to please everyone, no matter what you do.
The thing is Leica has ZERO intent / desire to achieve that. Their desire is to retain the M ethos, first, foremost and above all. For those who are aspiring to have the M format (tactile, mechanical interface), but with an EVF instead of an RF ... I don't see ANY competition that brings the ability to use M glass on a tactile, mechanical interface. Even the SL requires an electronic interface for the SS speed and the shutter release. The ability to simply look at the camera and know where you are in the triangle (even when the camera is off) and be using M lenses is unrivaled, that I'm aware of.
So, here again ... it kinda depends on how you are defining "competition". As a tactile interface of the triangle with M lenses (and an EVF), I see little, to no competition in this space. If you want to open up the quid pro quo to begin relinquishing the M interface and the M optical path ... the quid pro quo conversation becomes a very different thing and one can make point after point after point about whatever tickles their fancy.
But (imo), the EV1 stands alone in retention of the M optical path, combined with the tactile interface of the M ... and, now offering an integrated EVF. Relinquish the ethos of that triangulated package, and the options become many. Retain the ethos of that triangulation and the options are significantly fewer.
YMMV
|
