Live View on M digital

<p>I have an M8.2. It is a marvelous continuation of the Leica rangefinder camera series. But there is one additional feature which I believe would enhance the utility of this design, a lot. That would be the redesign to provide a live view of the image before (as well as after) tripping the shutter. This would entail having the shutter open during live view, then closing and then tripping the shutter. This would be managed by the software. The advantage of this feature would be to provide view-camera like abilities, and be particularly useful with long lenses and for close up work with extension tubes. For many previous Leica model users, it would reestablish the utility of the camera for scientic and technical uses.<br>

What do the readers think of this (constructive comments appreciated)? What technical challenges would this present for camera modification? Generally, is it feasible and desireable in the M8 model series?</p>

<p>As far as liveview goes, the way it is implemented in Panasonic G1, despite it being the first generation camera of its kind, is very good and very useful.</p>

<p><strong>If this is perfected</strong> , there is no need for RF coupling.</p>

<p>Yes, to a vastly improved liveview feature and no to the implementation of it in a range finder camera.</p>

 

<p>I have no need for this on an M digital. Leica would be wise to consider a cheaper compact camera using M lenses with live view, like the oft-suggested digital CL. But what I like about the M cameras has always been the lack of superfluous 'features'.</p>

<p>Sorry, I just don't think the extra effort and cost associated with it warrant it's inclusion on a rangefinder camera, especially one where the sensor is as expensive and fickle as the M8. To me, it seems like a feature that would add more problems than it solves. If your work requires this sort of feature there are many many other cameras with this already in place and working well, and for scientific and technical uses I'm sure film Leica users who really need this have moved on with no worries to other digital cameras, you can, after all, get a decent (10mp+) live-view enabled camera with a perfectly good and sharp lens for a lot under $1000 these days.</p>

<p>Personally I would get rid of the screen, it only serves to make the camera's users less competent photographers. You could save some space and maybe some weight if it was toned down to only displaying the histogram (to prove the image has been captured and help with exposure). Rangefinder composition is harder than SLR composition, but it's not *difficult*, and anyone with a rangefinder should have grasped this by now, if not, they should probably move on.</p>

<p>When I see M8 users shoot-check-shoot-check-delete-shoot-check(-get hit by bus on crosswalk?) it makes me think of all the DSLR users you see with their flashes up in full auto mode on overcast days taking pictures of buildings and rivers, i.e. here is a person who does not know how to use their camera properly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I see M8 users shoot-check-shoot-check-delete-shoot-check(-get hit by bus on crosswalk?) it makes me think of all the DSLR users you see with their flashes up in full auto mode on overcast days taking pictures of buildings and rivers, i.e. here is a person who does not know how to use their camera properly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would politely disagree with that contention that digital users "shoot-check-shoot..".</p>

<p>You are comparing a bunch that aren't sure of themselves. Has nothing to do with DSLRs or M8.</p>

>>> Personally I would get rid of the screen, it only serves to make the camera's users less competent photographers.

 

 

I also disagree about the LCD screen "making" users less competent.

<p>I wonder what might be achieved if a company (maybe Cosina) were prepared to throw away the rule book, and come up with a design where the only stipulation would be the ability to use M lenses. Replacing the optical rangefinder with an electronic focus confirmation system (and perhaps an EVF - which might even persuade me to buy a 135mm lens) would allow a much less complicated (and cheaper) camera - there was an unconfirmed rumour a while back that Nikon was developing just such a system. Live View (and a movie mode!) would be easy to implement (no mirror to worry about). This would be a fundamentally different proposition to the M8 or the RD-1, and would probably attract a rather different sort of user, but might finally give us an affordable digital platform for all those wonderful lenses.</p>

<p>Live view could be very useful tool for checking rangefinder calibration, any time when in doubt. And it could make tilt and shift lenses feasible in M system.</p>

<p>I would like to have Video Recording. This only requires minor software enhancements. Imagine the possibilities that could open up.</p>

<p>I've always thought it would be interesting if Leica (or someone else) introduced a 'digital mp', with a mechanical cloth shutter, thumb wind and no lcd, or maybe a very tiny one to show a histogram. And a real iso dial could fit in nicely where the MP rewind knob is.<br>

The manual wind and cloth shutter would serve to make the camera quiet and it should vastly improve battery life. And of course the distraction of the screen would be gone. I don't think lcd screens in and of themselves make photographers lazy or less competent. But they can be a distraction unless you have more discipline than I. (I can't help taking a peek at the screen once in a while even if I try not to).<br>

At the same time I do think an M-mount live view camera with a digital focus confirmation and maybe video would be great, especially at a lower price than the current DRF offerings. It could expand the pool of M-lens users and provide an inexpensive backup for DRF users.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to have Video Recording. This only requires minor software enhancements. Imagine the possibilities that could open up.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If only such devices existed, the things we could do....</p>

<p>I agree with Vivek, I use my Leica lenses on my G1 a lot, and it's very good.</p>

<p>Playing devil's advocate, in a digital rangefinder you could says it's the machnaical focussing cams that the superfluous 'feature'. They certainly add more cost than liveview.</p>

<p>A digital CL that could detect focus movement, or had an easy to trigger control, and do a G1 style focussing zoom woud be really nice to use.</p>

<p>"The advantage of this feature would be to provide view-camera like abilities, and be particularly useful with long lenses and for close up work with extension tubes."</p>

<p>I believe this is called an SLR? Something Exacta developed for 35mm in the 1930's (and others developed for larger formats even earlier). If you want an SLR, there are plenty on the market. </p>

<p>The Leica M is built around a little window in the corner for viewing. If you like that kind of viewing, you buy the Leica M or some other rangefinder. If you don't like that kind of viewing - move on.</p>

<p>That's the smart-a** "Leica traditionalist" response, although there is some underlying philosophical truth to it. It is possible to put a pickup bed or 10 wheels on a Miata (or a Corvette or an Audi TT or a Smart For2, or whatever), and one can argue that both "features" would improve the capabilities of the Miata in some way - but why tear it up to make it do something it is not designed for? Just buy a pickup or a Fruehauf tractor, if that's what you want.</p>

<p>More practically - live-view requires that the sensor be "on" most of the time, which heats it up, which increases image noise (other things being equal). It requires a more complex shutter control system, and a more complex operating system, which may add bulk and/or cost. There are probably other practical reasons why it would degrade the basic premise of the Leica rangerfinder, just as a pickup bed would degrade the basic sportiness of a Miata or the efficiency of a Smart.</p>

<p>I find it sad that, in an era when we rightly celebrate and promote diversity, so many people want all cameras to have the same feature sets. In the past, there were rangefinders, SLRs, view cameras - shooting 2:3, square, 4:5, 5:7 formats. And part of the wonder of photography was that photographers made choices to give up certain attributes in exchange for other attributes, rather than trying to cram everything into one camera. Diane Arbus chose to shoot square pictures with a Mamiya, while H-CB or Mary Ellen Mark chose to shoot 2:3 with a 35mm RF, while Adams and Weston - or Avedon - chose to shoot 4:5/8:10 with a view camera, while Annie Leibowitz shot 35mm SLR - and those choices impacted their seeing and their work. Part of what makes Arbus' work uniquely her own was the decision to carry a clunky 6x6 TLR with a waist-level viewfinder and interact with her subjects through that device - complete with all its disadvantages and limitations.</p>

<p>Occasionally or eventually some of them also tried something different - 6x6 for Mark and Adams, 4x5 for Leibowitz. And it was the availability of diverse cameras, each doing some things well and others things not at all, that allowed them to grow and experiment.</p>

<p>Great comments Andy.</p>

<p>There are people who do this as a hobby who would rather just shoot video for an hour, waving the camera in every direction, and choose some stills later on, rather than put any effort into any part of what they are doing. They're usually lurking on forums talking about full-frame sensors, megapixels, live-view, HD video capabilities, etc etc ad tedium.</p>

<p>They often get annoyed when they get 'called out' by, yes, "Leica Traditionalists" and give one example why a technology that will double the cost of a sensor/image processor/camera is a great idea when what they really mean is <em>'maybe if they add this my photos won't be so awful'</em> and what they should do is, yes, get a DSLR and then upgrade every six months to the newest one.</p>

<p>Am I a "Leica Traditionalist"? I own an M8 that I rarely use, not because it hasn't got live view, because it's not the correct tool for ponderous contemplative photography. I wouldn't dream of taking anything else to an event, however, and it will be getting a run-out at a graduation tomorrow, but for long car journeys and wanders around national parks it's back in the cupboard. For that photography it's more about the glass, so it will be an M4-P (as of yesterday, found a cracking 2nd hand one for a steal), a CL or one of my CV Bessa bodies, or a selection if I need more than one ISO available.</p>

<p>I challenge every M8 owner to put their camera into review mode <em>off </em> and limit themselves to one photograph per framing, and to flippin' well learn from their mistakes so they don't need to chimp-chimp-chimp(-stand in poo?) and don't need live view, I'm guessing they all have eyes, a brain and an imagination (guessing...).</p>

<p>When I moved to digital I was enamoured with the ability to shoot/check/shoot to make sure I got the shot. I also agree with Graham about whats needed with landscapes that require a lot of thought.<br>

Live view is pointless for me because I look through the viewfinder, but to look at the screen or change controls etc I have to put my glasses on. Thats ok of for landscapes etc, but not for candid or sports. And even then, and despite my D300 having a nice big screen, its also very hard to read in our bright sunlight. I end up reviewing back in the car.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I would get rid of the screen, it only serves to make the camera's users less competent photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, that Ansel Adams guy couldn't compose worth a darn on that 8x10 screen...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Live view could be very useful tool for checking rangefinder calibration, any time when in doubt.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or any time where you have focus shift at different apertures due to spherical aberration.</p>

<p>I'm flat out amazed by the opposition to liveview. We saw it 2 years ago when it first started to appear on DSLRs, and here we go again with rangefinders. It makes the camera more useful, and if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. That's not a hard concept.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to have Video Recording. This only requires minor software enhancements.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not if the sensor can't output at video rate (like the M8) and the camera doesn't have enough processing power to handle video coding (also like the M8).</p>

<p>The M8/M8.2 already has a live view feature...</p>

<p>- it's called a rangefinder.</p>

<p>"Personally I would get rid of the screen, it only serves to make the camera's users less competent photographers."</p>

<p>"limit themselves to one photograph per framing, and to flippin' well learn from their mistakes"</p>

<p>Hmm, well, as a long time rangefinder user, I would strongly disagree with this. It is precisely by looking at the images that we learn from our mistakes. That we can now do this preciseley when we want to - immediately, if necessary, then correcting the mistake, or five minutes later and going back, or an hour later and thinking about it while things are still fresh in your mind - rather than having to wait to develop the film, that we can learn much more quickly. To characterise everyone who does this as somehow oblivious to what is going on around them, seems both disdainful, and plain daft.<br>

As to ""limit themselves to one photograph per framing", this might be enough for a landscape photographer (if they are not interested in changing light and weather conditions), but it is very rarely the way most top flight photojournalists work. Given that the M camera has traditionally been so used, I imagine most users find the screen a boon. What I would like is to see is its definition radically improved - at the moment it is probably the worse screen on any camera sold.</p>

<p>"Personally I would get rid of the screen, it only serves to make the camera's users less competent photographers."</p>

<p>"limit themselves to one photograph per framing, and to flippin' well learn from their mistakes"</p>

<p>Hmm, well, as a long time rangefinder user, I would strongly disagree with this. It is precisely by looking at the images that we learn from our mistakes. That we can now do this preciseley when we want to - immediately, if necessary, then correcting the mistake, or five minutes later and going back, or an hour later and thinking about it while things are still fresh in your mind - rather than having to wait to develop the film, that we can learn much more quickly. To characterise everyone who does this as somehow oblivious to what is going on around them, seems both disdainful, and plain daft.<br>

As to ""limit themselves to one photograph per framing", this might be enough for a landscape photographer (if they are not interested in changing light and weather conditions), but it is very rarely the way most top flight photojournalists work. Given that the M camera has traditionally been so used, I imagine most users find the screen a boon. What I would like is to see is its definition radically improved - at the moment it is probably the worse screen on any camera sold.</p>

<p>As to the live view question, I have it on my 5D II, and for critical focus and framing it is very useful. When the camera is on a tripod, it is doubly so.<br>

As far as I understand, on cameras without a mirror box it is pretty easy to include - cameras costing a small percentage of the Leica M, like the G1 have it, so why should it be so onerous to include it in the Leica. As to it causing the sensor to overheat and it draining the batteries, well, you just turn it on when you need it - so, if you didn't want to use it you wouldn't have to. It's not exactly rocket science.</p>

 

<p>The M8/M8.2 already has a live view feature...<br>

- it's called a rangefinder.<br>

<br>

A little secret Bobby; pray do not tell...... live view is about...well, you know.<br>

<br>

Your photographs are always of the highest technical quality; a credit to you. The finest bedroom (wish i was there) photos i have seen with an M8. Just kidding.</p>

<p>Great stuff .</p>

 

 

<p>how about the minor issue of a non automatic daiphram? To get the best (ie, brightest) live view image you'd have to crank open the lens only to crank it back down to take the picure... It would only be good for macro/scientific and ect (read:slow stuff), and seriously, <em>who the hell does that with a Leica M anymore???</em> The whole "extension of the eye" thing goes down the tube right there. You look INTO the LCD; you look THROUGH the view/rangefinder. much much different.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The...cloth shutter would serve to make the camera quiet...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The metal shutter on the M8.2 is substantially more quiet than the cloth shutter on the M6 and also a bit more quiet than that of the M7.</p>

<p>—Mitch/Bangkok</p>

<p >Andy Piper, May 09, 2009; 05:22 p.m. wrote as follows in part:</p>

 

<p>"The advantage of this feature would be to provide view-camera like abilities, and be particularly useful with long lenses and for close up work with extension tubes."<br>

I believe this is called an SLR? Something Exacta developed for 35mm in the 1930's (and others developed for larger formats even earlier). If you want an SLR, there are plenty on the market.<br>

The Leica M is built around a little window in the corner for viewing. If you like that kind of viewing, you buy the Leica M or some other rangefinder. If you don't like that kind of viewing - move on.<br>

That's the smart-a** "Leica traditionalist" response, although there is some underlying philosophical truth to it. It is possible to put a pickup bed or 10 wheels on a Miata (or a Corvette or an Audi TT or a Smart For2, or whatever), and one can argue that both "features" would improve the capabilities of the Miata in some way - but why tear it up to make it do something it is not designed for? Just buy a pickup or a Fruehauf tractor, if that's what you want."<br>

The quote above from Mr. Piper, outside of being meaninglessly viscious and vulgar, ignores the long history of Leica use as a copy camera, a camera for use with long lenses, a scientific camera, a close up photographic device. Mr. Piper may not be seasoned, or thoughtful enough, to know some basic Leica history, but many of you more experienced users of the system will remember the Visoflex, the extension tube sets, the bellows. Some of these attachements are still used by serious Leica M users, but there is no current production or support. The live view feature of course can replace the Visoflex, as well as be useful for view camera like purposes.<br>

I so wish that the people who write in this forum would be more tolerant, more civilized than those including Mr. Piper who seem to build on hate and arrogance (and are so often factually wrong).<br>

Many of the other answers were thoughtful and substantive, and I have enjoyed the debate so far.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>long history of Leica use as a copy camera, a camera for use with long lenses, a scientific camera, a close up photographic device</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seriously, who is going to spend $6000 on a camera as akward for these purposes in 'the digital age'? It's nonsense, there are cheaper, more megapixelly, more featured alternatives available for doing that. Why would anyone use an M8 with macro adapters when they could get a sensible dedicated lens and stick it on a 5Dii for doing the same thing at a much cheaper cost? If that's your thing, I strongly doubt that you're using an M8 for it. A history is a history, once we're in digital land the terrain is remapped, my feeling on the digital Ms is that keep the main ethos of the cameras (simplicity, reliability, quality) and build the best camera you can for that spec, acknowledging that the main cost comes from the sensor and making it as good as possible for a sensible price. Don't load it full of features so that the idiots who used to rave about Pentiums and now rant about megapixels feel the need to get involved, they're genuinely not welcome, and I'm really sorry if you feel offended, but if you want the camera to do everything for you you should go buy a 5Dii and make yourself happy... I have the image of you looking forlornly at your M8 after every bad shot thinking <em>'if only this camera was better!'</em></p>