New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.

[ski542002]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Only it wouldn’t. There are advantages to an electronic rangefinder but increased accuracy and focusing speed would not be among these.

[ski542002]

IMO, the SL EVF is so good, I seldom need to enlarge my focus point to be accurate, unless shooting wide open with my M lenses. Having an electronic rangefinder with a larger patch has to be more accurate than the tiny M rangefinder when shooting tele.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[edwardkaraa]

IMO, the SL EVF is so good, I seldom need to enlarge my focus point to be accurate, unless shooting wide open with my M lenses. Having an electronic rangefinder with a larger patch has to be more accurate than the tiny M rangefinder when shooting tele.

The EVF of the SL may be the best out there but it is to my eyes very inferior to any OVF. Until someone makes an EVF that looks exactly like reality, for me it will always be like watching a TV screen up close. The SL does fool you the first time you look into the EVF but it's very short lived.

[VictoriaC]

Since the thread now has so many posts regarding an EVF for the M, have readers read Thorsten Overgaard's most recent page on his site? About focusing the M?

His experience of M users, through his photography workshops he hosts all over the world point towards a potentially very high demand for an EVF to be a vital part of the next M design, and improved on what the 240 is.

FWIW I have gone from hating the EVF-2 to now only ever using my Noctilux lens if I have the the EVF as well and even liking the EVF when I am using my Summilux lenses as I like to shoot wide open (using a ND filter) and l appreciate the exposure preview assistance as otherwise I find that I will a fantastically exposed background but a poorly exposed subject!

What I would miss in an integrated EVF is the 90-degree swivel. It's a feature I also use a lot these days.

[erudolph]

What I would miss in an integrated EVF is the 90-degree swivel. It's a feature I also use a lot these days.

When I started using an SL, I very much missed the EVF-2s swivel, for nearly waist level shots.

Edited August 28, 2016 by erudolph

[edwardkaraa]

I'm 100% for an improved auxiliary EVF. It has undoubtedly many uses. I just don't see the benefit of a EVF based M.

[Nick Bedford]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, as stated before, it's not even a benefit to the M. It would change what the M is. It would no longer be a rangefinder, which is the whole premise of why I spent so much money on an M 240 in the first place. I don't see Leica doing anything to take the rangefinder away, but if it did happen and was still called an M, it would be a sad day indeed.

 

The world needs more manual focus digital rangefinders! 

 

I'm 100% for an improved auxiliary EVF. It has undoubtedly many uses. I just don't see the benefit of a EVF based M.

 

[lct]

No doubt the next M will have a rangefinder otherwise it would not be an M anymore. 

A Q with interchangeable lenses would be anything but an M. A compact SL perhaps but it is not tomorrow that Leica will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

What is not sure is what we will find in the next M:

- optical or digital rangefinder

- built-in or auxiliary EVF

I would prefer optical RF and auxiliary EVF personally but i seem to perceive an hybrid VF in my crystal ball. Hard to believe but who knows…

Edited August 28, 2016 by lct

[jaapv]

Well, they  will have to do  more than incremental improvements to sell a successor. The M, including its offshoots, is close enough to the wishes of most users to make it a hard proposition to beat.

[lct]

The EVF of the M240 is outdated by a couple of years at least. A new EVF a-la-SL would be far more than an incremental improvement from this standpoint.

[jaapv]

That is true, but the present one does the job for most applications which demand an EVF, so thousands of dollars for just a better "Visoflex" and newer type (if...) sensor? It would not make me reach for my wallet. Nor would it attract droves of new customers, I think.

[wlaidlaw]

That is true, but the present one does the job for most applications which demand an EVF, so thousands of dollars for just a better "Visoflex" and newer type (if...) sensor? It would not make me reach for my wallet. Nor would it attract droves of new customers, I think.

 

I agree. I would pay an upgrade price to allow a better EVF on my M240 but I would not pay the full £5000+ for a new camera just for that. I have the SL when I want a good EVF. In very low light, focusing a Noctilux on the SL, is a whole order of magnitude easier than an OVF, especially as you can to some extent, judge DOF. 

 

Wilson

[MRJohn]

Well, they  will have to do  more than incremental improvements to sell a successor. The M, including its offshoots, is close enough to the wishes of most users to make it a hard proposition to beat.

 

Well, I speculate they will put just enough evolution into the new M body to ignite desire and GAS, but not too much to keep the heritage not only visible but also familiar in its use. I also speculate they did not have resources and focus to do anything revolutionary with the M, they have been busy with the SL and building a new campus.

 

What seems to be easy wins (in my opinion), would be to mirror the user interface and speed of the SL. They need to move to newer third-party parts to make sure they have spare parts in the future. So new, faster processor, LCD, buttons, etc. It would be great if they would harmonize it between lines, just like the cockpit of all lines of cars of a manufacturer look similar. 

 

A lighter body should also be possible without too much effort, maybe even one in carbon fibre (but then brassing/aging would be gone, would that be an issue?). Most folks view lighter as better.

 

I also think that a build-in EVF at this point in time would ignite a s!&tstorm by some (though very welcome by others - like me), making it too close to SL and Q (by the way, it would be nice to have a Q50mm, when is that coming?). A hybrid VF would be perhaps a good compromise, i.e. making both sides equally happy and unhappy. But then again those things one can probably not buy from 3rd party and hence is probably a massive engineering effort for the future. So I would expect an SL-like external VF (giving them also a nice extra source of revenue).

 

I can not see them increase the MP beyond the SL at this point, maybe next year, after an initial SL upgrade.

 

So  as introduced, I would expect meaningful improvements and bringing the concept uptodate, but none of them too confrontational or disruptive with the M community. - My 2 cents.

[Peter H]

I agree. I would pay an upgrade price to allow a better EVF on my M240 but I would not pay the full £5000+ for a new camera just for that. I have the SL when I want a good EVF. In very low light, focusing a Noctilux on the SL, is a whole order of magnitude easier than an OVF, especially as you can to some extent, judge DOF. 

 

Wilson

 

 

That is exactly why I would buy a new M if it had an attachable EVF as good as that.

 

One camera instead of two, with the best OVF and EVF on the market,  in a small package and with all the other qualities I admire in the M: that  would be highly desirable.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Peter H

[EdwardM]

if there will be hybrid VF or EVF only in new M i would buy another M240 and one more M9

[Peter H]

if there will be hybrid VF or EVF only in new M i would buy another M240 and one more M9

 

 

But that's not realistic.

 

We're talking about the EVF at the moment,  but there's no way that Leica would bring out the next M with no other changes .

Edited August 28, 2016 by Peter H

[lct]

Yes the SL is not my cup of tea but a modern EVF could persuade me to stop my Sony investments for instance. A compact SL could do it as well but unless the latter is outstanding, if any, i'd prefer a faster and slimmer M with a modern accessory EVF personally. A digital M at the same level as a film M with a vastly superior Visoflex sort of. More a paradigm shift than an incremental improvement as i see it but YMMV.

Edited August 28, 2016 by lct

[pgk]

I don't see Leica doing anything to take the rangefinder away, but if it did happen and was still called an M, it would be a sad day indeed.

 

It wouldn't be an M. We've been here before. The manual, mechanical rangefinder is what appeals to many photographers. Changing it or hybridising it to its detriment is not something that Leica should attempt. They have enough products catering for other types of equipment already.

 

Perhaps adding a manual mechanical rangefinder to the T via an M rangefinder equipped adapter might be a good idea? Though, oddly enough, I don't see many thread extolling such an idea in the T sub-forum . The M is what it is already. I have an EVF for my T (which is okish but I prefer the rear screen mostly) but don't want one on any M and I really don't 'get' the constant discussion about an M EVF's virtues!

[sebben]

Smaller, lighter, cheaper & better sensor. Can’t be that hard right? 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Sensor quality is not much of a difference between cameras, that is not much of a selling point any more, lighter, hmmm... disputable - balance with heavier lenses, handling and stability make that a discussion point, smaller, sounds easy, but the geometrics of the viewfinder and legacy register distance get in the way, so that leaves price. In Leica Land: . So yes, it can be that hard...