jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
As long asInteresting comments so far.Live view should be part of the next M, absolutely.
a. I don't have to use it, can disable it and forget it is there
b. does not impair the function or quality of the camera in any way
c. does not add to the price
d. is fitted to another camera
In other words this kind of thingamejig may well be practical, if you want it get a camera that has it.
The idea behind a rangefinder runs contrary to this kind of gizmo. The only justifiction of the camera type is to have as little impairment between your subject and your eye at the moment of exposure as possible. Peeping at some LCD is the exact opposite of that.The current M cameras are this idea in the purest form. I strongly object to refugees from the gimmick asylum of the DSLR world trying to take over this niche.
It would be great if the M2-style live view could zoom in for critical focus and provide histograms.
Last edited by a moderator:
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Why not add a built-in flash as well while you're at it
Oh, and make it suitable for zoom lenses
Oh, and make it suitable for zoom lenses
Discrete photography is the domain of the RF and having a swivel LCD with live view enables even more opportunities. And I agree, if you don't want to use it, flip the LCD over and don't.
ferider
Veteran
The digital AUFSU. I'm all for it.
Sam N
Well-known
Why wait for the next digital M?
If you want to use M glass with live-view and a crop factor just get a GH1.
If you want to use R glass with live-view, just get a 5D mark II.
If you want to use M glass with live-view and a crop factor just get a GH1.
If you want to use R glass with live-view, just get a 5D mark II.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Rangefinder framelining has always seemed a bit of a muddy science to me ... this lack of accuracy quite often has me reaching for my SLR
The purists can protest all they want ... I think this would be a great feature for a future digital M.
The purists can protest all they want ... I think this would be a great feature for a future digital M.
jke
Well-known
I don't think I am a purist. I just want a sensor that matches the price of the camera. This is a $4-6000 camera whose sensor gets shown up by $6-800 DSLRs, especially when it comes to ISOs higher than 400. The other stuff might make the camera more usable by some people and more attractive to others, but if the sensor remains unimproved, what's the point?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
ferider
Veteran
Well, life view can be implemented in two ways:
1) using a second sensor, in front of the shutter, a la SLR solution
2) getting rid of the shutter and using the main sensor.
2) has the additional advantage of making the camera absolutely quiet. This might even appeal to the M purist
Roland.
1) using a second sensor, in front of the shutter, a la SLR solution
2) getting rid of the shutter and using the main sensor.
2) has the additional advantage of making the camera absolutely quiet. This might even appeal to the M purist
Roland.
Phil_Hawkes
Established
I like the idea.
I would be willing to pay for a EVF camera like the Panasonic G1 that takes RF lenses but has a larger sensor, particularly targeting telephoto lenses. My understanding is that tele lenses don' usually have the issue with high angle-of-incidence, so a full-frame sensor may even be feasible. Such a camera would be (functionally) very similar to a DSLR, but the advantages are no mirror/prism and significantly smaller lenses while maintaining (potentially) full-frame image quality.
This would make a useful camera to pair with an M8/8.2 or R-D1.
It has been a long time since I used by 90 and 135 mm lenses on my Epson R-D1 since focusing is very hit-and-miss at full aperture.
Phil
I would be willing to pay for a EVF camera like the Panasonic G1 that takes RF lenses but has a larger sensor, particularly targeting telephoto lenses. My understanding is that tele lenses don' usually have the issue with high angle-of-incidence, so a full-frame sensor may even be feasible. Such a camera would be (functionally) very similar to a DSLR, but the advantages are no mirror/prism and significantly smaller lenses while maintaining (potentially) full-frame image quality.
This would make a useful camera to pair with an M8/8.2 or R-D1.
It has been a long time since I used by 90 and 135 mm lenses on my Epson R-D1 since focusing is very hit-and-miss at full aperture.
Phil
Al Kaplan
Veteran
A rangefinder camera is an intuitive instrument. There's no need to see what you're doing. You KNOW what you're doing. There's no need for histograms (idiotgrams?) because you KNOW that you got decent exposure. No need to chimp a little screen because you KNOW when you've caught the moment.
Once you get to the point where your camera is a part of your hand, your brain, your vision, all that electronic crap becomes a distraction. Learn to REALLY see, how to interact with people, compose on the fly, all the things at which rangefinder cameras excell, and go out and photograph something. This type of thread reminds me too much of my high school days when kids "customized" cars by milling the heads, adding dual tail pipes sporting glasspack mufflers, chopped and channeled the frame...but did the chicks care? Hell no! Nor did most of the guys if they really admitted it. Please, please, PLEEEEEZE suggest something that's useful.
Maybe get some old Graflex 200 watt second electronic flash units with the heavy-as-hell seperate power pack containing a pair of 497 dry cell high voltage batteries. Charge up the capacitor, no need for a flash head. Whenever you get a high tech electronic idea go low tech instead. Just grab the two leads from the capacitor. Problem solved. The rest of us can go about using our rangefinder cameras in peace!
Once you get to the point where your camera is a part of your hand, your brain, your vision, all that electronic crap becomes a distraction. Learn to REALLY see, how to interact with people, compose on the fly, all the things at which rangefinder cameras excell, and go out and photograph something. This type of thread reminds me too much of my high school days when kids "customized" cars by milling the heads, adding dual tail pipes sporting glasspack mufflers, chopped and channeled the frame...but did the chicks care? Hell no! Nor did most of the guys if they really admitted it. Please, please, PLEEEEEZE suggest something that's useful.
Maybe get some old Graflex 200 watt second electronic flash units with the heavy-as-hell seperate power pack containing a pair of 497 dry cell high voltage batteries. Charge up the capacitor, no need for a flash head. Whenever you get a high tech electronic idea go low tech instead. Just grab the two leads from the capacitor. Problem solved. The rest of us can go about using our rangefinder cameras in peace!
But you don't have to use the features, Al. Do you have a digital M? Just curious.
Do you have a digital M? Just curious.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Now that was good ... you're so twisted Al!
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Digitalintrigue, just exactly how many times do I need to say that I'm planning on buying a digital M as soon as my three M film bodies wear out, and I don't have to worry about blowing the electronics with an old high voltage trigger circuit flash unit either.
I had a small electronic flash unit that I was putting onto a hot shoe one time, and the next thing I knew, I was picking myself off the floor. Plus those burn spots were pretty painful.
Last edited by a moderator:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Hmmm, we're talking about Live View, not Auto-focus, so it's not like adding an auto-transmission to an LR
What many of us wanted is actually a portable full-frame sensor that can be used in existing M-body.
But it's obvious that Leica isn't going to give us that (I'm sure they will once the technology caught up
). So why not take advantage of newer features made feasible by the digital technology?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Best summary of what I think a rangefinder camera should be used
... but Al, with a swiveling live view, you can frame your famous self-with-surrounding-wide-angle portraits more accurately, no?
Al Kaplan
Veteran
shadowfox, if you're at all familiar with my photographs you should realize by now that the hair styling, wardrobe, location, lighting, and posing are all directed by Monkette, my toy monkey, and she's a big fan of low tech. VERY low tech. She even dictates what kind of film I'm allowed to use! No digital for her. No way!
Also consider the fact that I'm about never looking at the camera when I shoot the self-portraits. How could I see the screen? You're just jealous that I have such a sweet and loving toy monkey as an assistant.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Also consider the fact that I'm about never looking at the camera when I shoot the self-portraits. How could I see the screen? You're just jealous that I have such a sweet and loving toy monkey as an assistant.
http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Last edited:
Sam N
Well-known
Well, life view can be implemented in two ways:
1) using a second sensor, in front of the shutter, a la SLR solution
2) getting rid of the shutter and using the main sensor.
2) has the additional advantage of making the camera absolutely quiet. This might even appeal to the M purist
Roland.
SLRs don't implement live-view by using a second sensor in front of the shutter. They (4/3 cameras, 40D, 50D, 5D2, D90, G1, GH1, etc.) all use the main sensor.
There's really no reason not to offer live-view anymore. It's a very simple feature to implement, and if done right it doesn't get in anyone's way.