noimmunity
scratch my niche
It seems to me that there are two trends happening right now. The first is to make top-in-class image quality (i.e., best IQ for size/weight/cost) the highest goal and standard. The second is to put a price tag on the value of the RF/OVF (eg., how much is it worth it to have the RF/OVF vs. top-in-class image quality?).
I don't need the first, yet I love the second. The RF/OVF helps me establish my footing on the ground that for me is closest to "what it's all about": relationships. I'm not saying that a TTL (E)VF doesn't do that, it's just that in my experience it hasn't worked at all the same way.
Unfortunately, my love for the RF/OVF requires buying into a brand system that is priced too high for my life choices. There would be a lot less agony not just in my life but on RFF as a whole if only there were an alternative to Leica that offered an RF/OVF in a digital format.
I've watched many many people here make their statement and take their stand. Some have decided that the RF/OVF is for use exclusively with film, period. Some have embraced the Leica dRF, buying each new iteration. Some do amazing work with yesterday's (or really several years ago's) digital dinosaur. Some get really excited about every new body that can take adapted M lenses. Some have figured out how to dissociate the OVF from the RF and have found solace in Fuji-land. It's all good.
For myself, I just really like having the RF/OVF. It is definitely more important than the best IQ. How important? Sheesh, what kind of a question is that? There's something like a 'digital tax' on cameras with an RF/OVF, as if it were luxury. A luxury??? C'mon! A shame, really, a crying shame.
(rant over, thanks for listening).
I don't need the first, yet I love the second. The RF/OVF helps me establish my footing on the ground that for me is closest to "what it's all about": relationships. I'm not saying that a TTL (E)VF doesn't do that, it's just that in my experience it hasn't worked at all the same way.
Unfortunately, my love for the RF/OVF requires buying into a brand system that is priced too high for my life choices. There would be a lot less agony not just in my life but on RFF as a whole if only there were an alternative to Leica that offered an RF/OVF in a digital format.
I've watched many many people here make their statement and take their stand. Some have decided that the RF/OVF is for use exclusively with film, period. Some have embraced the Leica dRF, buying each new iteration. Some do amazing work with yesterday's (or really several years ago's) digital dinosaur. Some get really excited about every new body that can take adapted M lenses. Some have figured out how to dissociate the OVF from the RF and have found solace in Fuji-land. It's all good.
For myself, I just really like having the RF/OVF. It is definitely more important than the best IQ. How important? Sheesh, what kind of a question is that? There's something like a 'digital tax' on cameras with an RF/OVF, as if it were luxury. A luxury??? C'mon! A shame, really, a crying shame.
(rant over, thanks for listening).
sojournerphoto
Veteran
The drf market is small and so it's possibly better that one, expensive, brand survives (at least it creates a stream of second hand bodies) than 2 or more slug it out in a game of mutually assured destruction.
I'm pretty firmly in the rf camp, but I have a GX1 with a clip-on ovf on it that feels nice, but can be a bit unreliable to focus.
I'm pretty firmly in the rf camp, but I have a GX1 with a clip-on ovf on it that feels nice, but can be a bit unreliable to focus.
Maybe not luxury, but a niche that can be exploited for sure. And when you have a niche in technology, and a hit within that niche, you can charge a lot.
Bille
Well-known
It´s pretty sad Cosina (Voigtländer) never even tried...
YYV_146
Well-known
Because the mirrorless OVF IS a luxury. I'm going to be brutally honest, but in my experience EVFs are far more efficient as a tool than all OVF offerings short of a 100% FOV DSLR finder.
With the RF window, precise framing is impossible. You can see outside the box but some of it is going to be blocked by the lens anyways. Off-center focusing is also impossible, as well as preview of DOF. Shooting very long and very wide is awkward, shooting very fast almost guarantees focus shifting.
With the Fuji OVF things are even worse. The overlay is laggy even compared to EVF speeds, and manual focusing confirmation is impossible to achieve. Of course AF works, but that rather defeats the purpose of the OVF in the first place.
I'm not saying that one cannot have fun with both systems (I know that I do). But if I am working, I pick up a EVF camera, and zoom in to achieve perfect focus, fine-tune exposure before I make the shot. There is a steep learning curve for reliably using RFs for any kind of paid on-demand work, zero such curve for EVF cameras. The EVF concept, irritating as it might be to some, is the best thing that has happened to many, many photographers since Oscar Barnack. And I want to see one with 4x the resolution and 10x the DR of today's models much more than I want to see more OVF cameras.
With the RF window, precise framing is impossible. You can see outside the box but some of it is going to be blocked by the lens anyways. Off-center focusing is also impossible, as well as preview of DOF. Shooting very long and very wide is awkward, shooting very fast almost guarantees focus shifting.
With the Fuji OVF things are even worse. The overlay is laggy even compared to EVF speeds, and manual focusing confirmation is impossible to achieve. Of course AF works, but that rather defeats the purpose of the OVF in the first place.
I'm not saying that one cannot have fun with both systems (I know that I do). But if I am working, I pick up a EVF camera, and zoom in to achieve perfect focus, fine-tune exposure before I make the shot. There is a steep learning curve for reliably using RFs for any kind of paid on-demand work, zero such curve for EVF cameras. The EVF concept, irritating as it might be to some, is the best thing that has happened to many, many photographers since Oscar Barnack. And I want to see one with 4x the resolution and 10x the DR of today's models much more than I want to see more OVF cameras.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
From a purely formal point of view there is definitely room for market segmentation within the niche.
Of course, I have read many of the arguments, and tried many (but not all) alternatives. I didn't say EVFs weren't better. I just said that the RF/OVF in a 135mm format is *in my experience* unbeatable for getting *me* photographs of people, especially, with whom I have various sorts of relationships (events, encounters, exchanges, meetings, karma, etc...).
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Wow... your perspective couldn't be more diametrically opposed to mine.
I am a dinosaur myself. I am not, however, a Luddite. I have used a bunch of digital automated cameras over the years, and I have a Lumix GX1 as my current 'live view' box. It's handy on 'program' for snapshots, but for anything serious I use my M9P or my M8. My 'calibrated eyeball' gets all out of whack trying to extrapolate exposure through an EVF. You just can't judge ambient light quality. And don't even get me started on off-center focus. Fifty years practice with focus and re-frame is much faster than trying to figure out how to get some little + to move where I want it to in the frame. And of course, how that + moves is slightly different in each camera... in some cases even in each model from the same manufacturer! It's all interesting technology, but none of it is necessary to make good images. And there's a steep learning curve for most of these new electronic wonders that I'm just not willing to climb any more. It's not that I can't do it. I can. I just have better things to do with my time. Like make images.
We do agree on the Fuji setup though. It's pretty klodgy, but thanks to the XPro1, I'm now reinvested in Leica M gear. If the image is screwed up with an M, it's because I screwed it up.... not some programmer.
thegman
Veteran
I would like a really small, waterproof camera with a flash and a zoom. I accept the only way I can do that is to get a digital camera, even though I am exclusively a film user otherwise.
Likewise, if you want range finder camera and don't want to spend for what for most people is quite a lot of money, the only way you can really do that is get a film camera.
Sometimes companies will not make exactly what we want, and that just needs to be accepted.
Likewise, if you want range finder camera and don't want to spend for what for most people is quite a lot of money, the only way you can really do that is get a film camera.
Sometimes companies will not make exactly what we want, and that just needs to be accepted.
jschrader
Well-known
it not a tax
it not a tax
it is also not luxury. It is the price for something made in small number.
Today, we are used to get any technical device dirt cheap because one can make something for millions of users. In 1955, an M3 was more expensive than an M(240) today, counting in the median monthly pay of an average european or US person.
The Leicas today are not made for millions but for thousands of users. Fact is that most do not appreciate an OVF. Look at all the dSLR user holding their camera at arms length as is this was the posture to take photos sice Adam and Eve.
It is a pity. I otherwise fully agree with the OP. I am using an M6 and scanning negatives because I find the digital Leicas too expensive; I like the handling and I LOVE THE FINDER.
it not a tax
it is also not luxury. It is the price for something made in small number.
Today, we are used to get any technical device dirt cheap because one can make something for millions of users. In 1955, an M3 was more expensive than an M(240) today, counting in the median monthly pay of an average european or US person.
The Leicas today are not made for millions but for thousands of users. Fact is that most do not appreciate an OVF. Look at all the dSLR user holding their camera at arms length as is this was the posture to take photos sice Adam and Eve.
It is a pity. I otherwise fully agree with the OP. I am using an M6 and scanning negatives because I find the digital Leicas too expensive; I like the handling and I LOVE THE FINDER.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Any camera is a luxury unless you are a working photographer. There's no tax, just the economics of the marketplace.
Too much angst. If you really want an RF/OVF and there's only one game in town, and it is expensive, well ... save up and buy a used one. Even the used ones are super cameras.
G
Too much angst. If you really want an RF/OVF and there's only one game in town, and it is expensive, well ... save up and buy a used one. Even the used ones are super cameras.
G
Scrambler
Well-known
Gman - I might have a small, waterproof, flash-equipped film camera around if I dig around.
Not zoom ...
and takes 110 film...
I have a couple of small water-resistant flash-equipped zoom film cameras you can have for postage ... they take APS film though.
Perhaps you're right about not everything you want being made.
I find the digital waterproof a good substitute for my uses.
Back on topic, I have gone down the film road with RF because I can't justify the digital cost. Yet.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Count me in as a Philistine, who enjoys using both OVF and EVF. I also like ground glass.
My experience is that each of these technologies have qualities that make photography fun and I get extra enjoyment from using different viewfinders for different jobs.
My experience is that each of these technologies have qualities that make photography fun and I get extra enjoyment from using different viewfinders for different jobs.
jschrader
Well-known
Then, also your car and your second pair of shoes is luxury (except you are a travelling salesman).
I would define luxury something that is unneeded, expensive and rare. Hifi sets were luxury stuff in 1950 but is not so any more.
Hobbies are just hobbies, not luxury except the price is not otherwise justified by a function. A gold Leica is luxury, always. If you use a Leica because no other camera offers the same (e.g. finder quality), then I would not call it luxury
willie_901
Veteran
As of last week, these statements no longer apply to any Fuji X camera with an OVF.
None of my Fuji X cameras have OVF lag when you turn the focus barrel. In manual focus mode focus confirmation while turning the lens collar can be checked visually with the push of a button. Pushing the button again returns to the OVF view. With older cameras, this can be unrewarding in extremely low light (below EV 5). Otherwise it works well.
The purpose of the OVF in my work is to minimize shutter lag, and compose or time exposures based on what's out side the frame. Pushing the AFL/AFE button to initially set focus in manual focus mode does not affect these goals. An added advantage is focus lock is can be confirmed with a low volume audible signal. Again, pushing a button (actually the selector control) conforms focus accuracy and exactly where the focus locked. The entire operation (when you need to do it) takes about the same amount of time required to carefully align an optical RF patch.
I use the OVFs whenever possible and find my out-of-focus reject rate to be better than what I experienced with a Zeiss Ikon M and ZM lenses.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Technically correct. I'd agree with that, except you might need a car for things other than selling goods. I wouldn't own a car if I didn't need one.
Your definition of luxury makes nearly anything a necessity unless it is an extreme example of something one uses. That's too inclusive to be useful as a definition.
G
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Count me in as a Philistine, who enjoys using both OVF and EVF. I also like ground glass.
My experience is that each of these technologies have qualities that make photography fun and I get extra enjoyment from using different viewfinders for different jobs.
My feelings, too.
My choice of the word "luxury" was facetious.
But there is an argument to be made that "simplicity" is increasingly occupying a market niche that requires considerable outlay.