RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
pmeheut wrote:
When I use a SLR, SLR, EVF, the screen of a camera or a phone, I see my framing and a 2D projection of the image, something that looks like the image I will see on the computer and maybe print.
When I use a M, I do not see that at all. I do not frame with the viewfinder but before. I frame "in my mind" somehow because I can "see" the frame of a 28, 35, 50 and 90mm at will without a camera.
In my case, this has a strong influence on the images I produce and this is why over the years, I've noticed that 90% of my best images were shot with a M. The others one are usually because I needed a 180mm or because I was shooting something different: I did not use the M for race cars on a circuit.
I mean: I could, Jean-Loup once shot the Monaco Grand Prix with a M4 and a 21mm if memory serves but I do not have a fraction of his talent.
Talking about photographers, Cartier-Bresson use to shoot with a reverse viewfinder showing the image upside-down to concentrate on the composition, not the subject.
He told Riboud, a young photographer at the time looking to join Magnum to use it too. Riboud went shooting the Eiffel Tower painters, almost fell due to said upside-down viewfinder but came back with a contact sheet. Cartier Bresson looked at it upside-down too, circled the now iconic "peintre de la tour Eiffel" and said "you're hired".
I'm not of course comparing myself to such great photographers, only taking inspiration from them but my point is: composition is what matters and the viewfinder is the primary tool, the only thing between our eye and the subject.
Ergonomics, lenses, sensors, etc are all important but in the end, we produce pictures with light and framing. I have little control over light shooting street mainly so I concentrate on framing.
It is different for other photographers, some can compose as well with an OVF or EVF as with a M but not me. Hence why I still use a M11: expensive, heavy with the lenses compared to my beloved PEN-F, not really convenient, kind of obsolete.
But I end up with images I like. And sometimes, they even have some likes here.
...Show more →
I understand ...
But, I'm also a bit confused.
It sounds like you want an optical, clear glass viewfinder. Then, from that, it suggests there would be no interest for you in the EV1.
Yet, it sounds like you would like a better focusing tool than the RF, due to aging eyes, which suggests you are wanting an EVF, but you don't like looking at EV displays. Which presents a conundrum for you (not for Leica, per se) that you are seeking a solution (that may not presently exist).
I had written elsewhere (a few times) that re-engineering the approach to the optical patch in the RF would be something that I'd find merit with. But, the likelihood of Leica going down that path is miniscule.
In my mind, the patch alignment approach is predicated on the overlay in the X axis, as things mechanically align / misalign laterally, for a portion of the frame.
Personally, I'd like to see the alignment shifted from the X axis to the Z axis. In that regard, the ENTIRE frame could be moved forward / aft to render focal alignment, and also present the relative DOF associated, as well. I used to use a 100% matte screen in my Nikon FE ... and things would just "pop" into focus on the matte. Granted, that was SLR Mirror for the lens optical path, with a single display pane (matte).
Here, we are talking about the viewfinder optical path ... which is aligned to mimic the calibration toward the optical path of the lens focal length. It would be different, in that it would require two panes, that would combine to provide the align / misalignment to emulate the matte screen. For those familiar with the AA filter in a single pane, vs. Canon's approach to use dual stage AA / non-AA by optical path converge / diverge optics cumulatively, that's similar in concept, here.
Converting that from a lateral to a fore / aft movement would be a tremendous paradigm shift that I think would serve multiple functions for folks.
1. Optical RF
2. Full Frame focus confirmation area (vs. central patch only)
3. DOF (relative vs. actual) presentation in optical VF (similar to matte screen of yore).
And, while I'm at it ... build in the adjustable diopter, too. Either built in, or as attachable module. The attachable module could also incorporate the pivoting head (similar to GX8) for angle finding work, or an interchangeable module. Granted, flip LCD display would seem the obvious choice here for many (in today's climate), but keeping into the realm of the optical VF perspective ... yeah, there's a way ... but, only if there's the will.
Do I expect Leica to go down this path. Nope, nada, not a fat chance with a snowball in Hades. If I were redesigning the rangefinder mechanism for an optical RF viewfinder ... yup, I'd "flip the script" from lateral / horizontal (X) to on axis (Z).
We all can want for different things to meet our desired wants / needs ... and, ultimately recognize that mfr's will never provide all of us, with what we want. They will typically hit for the bell curve of their respective target markets. For those of us who are outliers in what we want ... yeah, not gonna happen anytime soon. That's just the way it is.
If I still didn't understand your wants / needs ... feel free to clarify. But, it sounds like you're in a conundrum of what you want, and will have choices to make. Sometimes we base those on what we want. Other times, we base them on what we don't want. Imo, the don't wants (choose your poison) can be more powerful indicators than our wants. I tend to make sure I understand my poison(s), as there are often more choices in the "wants" available to cull from.
And yes, conundrum's suck. 
|
rationale that I don't get from some folks regarding M's and the deal breaker the lack of IBIS presents for them. That combination typically makes me think ... go get an Olympus and shoot m43 if you want small with great IBIS. Or, use the (larger) SL body with M glass, if you still want to use the M glass. Kind of a pick your poison thing. The engineering requirements for IBIS hardware require real estate ... so, either get a smaller sensor that packs into a smaller body, or get a larger body that allows space for larger IBIS movement mechanism's. I've never expected an M body the size of the M10 / M11 to have IBIS. I've long stated that I think the M240 body would support the necessary real estate for IBIS ... and Leica's gonna be "picky" about such an implementation into an M ... but, I digress. 
