M 11 will be around in less than 4 years. The speculations and facts.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Kwesi said:

In theory all this EVF -M talk sounds cool but does anyone really want to spend the rest of their lives focussing wide open then stopping down to working aperture before making the shot?

I’m sure they don’t. Why would they?

The Leica Rumours image is a mock up.  If they do make an EVF version, if it is based on the M(240) I suspect it will sink without a trace.  Leica’s own alternatives are the SL2 and APS-C cameras.  Going back to the M(240) is hardly likely to appeal to the EVF demographic ...

[Advertisement]

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

[Mr.Prime]

it's going to be a challenge selling an M if the EVF pulls it's image data from the main sensor because we'll have no image beyond the framing of the lens which is a key characteristic of the M optical finder. And there will be EVF freeze (black out) during exposure. I guess these are the trade offs one accepts with a traditional EVF. The only way around it that I can see is a separate dedicated image sensor for the EVF, but that leaves the question of focusing.

[lct]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

And there will be EVF freeze (black out) during exposure.

There is none with either of my EVFs including that of the digital CL. I mean competent EVFs of course. Dont ask me what i think of things called V******x  from this viewpoint .

[jankap]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb Mr.Prime:

it's going to be a challenge selling an M if the EVF pulls it's image data from the main sensor because we'll have no image beyond the framing of the lens which is a key characteristic of the M optical finder. And there will be EVF freeze (black out) during exposure. 

Some time ago I have sent a suggestion for improved to Leica. Namely a somewhat larger sensor for the EVF, that takes a part for the picture. The freezing I don't see, but I have a Sony. 

[Mr.Prime]

Freezing or black out is unavoidable, the sensor needs a finite time to be exposed and then the data read-out. With large resolution sensors this takes longer and fast readout increases power consumption with the higher bandwidth amplifiers and ADC generating more noise to boot. I guess live view sets a lower limit on acceptable speed anyhow.

[jankap]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb pgk:

But these cameras use fully compatible lenses with auto diaphragms and so on. A Leica M-EVF would not. Think about it - its a compromised system trying to adopt old technology (mechanical, MF and little data transfer) to a state-of-the-art EVF body. It won't be 'better' than a rangefinder because it will still be a compromise.

As an example of the 'problems' such a camera might have, if you are shooting a wide-angle (say 21mm) lens at f/16 using an EVF the the exact point of focus may not be that easy to ascertain because the EVF will show the view stopped down. Contrast this with the RF version and you might start to think that its not quite as straightforward as other cameras.

The M is old technology, 75 years old for the M. With LTM over 100 years ....

The example regarding the focus point is misleading, because the rangefinder can/will be off. With the EVF one can be sure, that the distance is OK. One could use his 21mm lens at 50cm also.

 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, jankap said:

The M is old technology, 75 years old for the M. With LTM over 100 years ....

The example regarding the focus point is misleading, because the rangefinder can/will be off. With the EVF one can be sure, that the distance is OK. One could use his 21mm lens at 50cm also.

My 21mm focus perfectly with my RF. Its not designed to focus close so again its a compromise to get it to do so. Of course of you aren't bothered by it not performing as well and a clunky interface and want to pay a high price too then so be it.

[lct]

3 minutes ago, pgk said:

My 21mm focus perfectly with my RF. Its not designed to focus close so again its a compromise to get it to do so. [...]

You don't have a SA 21/3.4 or a CV 21/4 then as they are designed to focus closer than the 0.7m MFD allowed by rangefinders. Here a CV 21/4 at less than 0.5m.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pgk]

17 minutes ago, lct said:

You don't have a SA 21/3.4 or a CV 21/4 then as they are designed to focus closer than the 0.7m MFD allowed by rangefinders. Here a CV 21/4 at less than 0.5m.

Actually I do have a SA and because it is a more symmetrical design it operates well at close focus (the R version focussed very close.Centrally sharp but not so good eyes though. But the current 21s are of completely different design.

Edited February 11, 2020 by pgk

[lct]

5 minutes ago, pgk said:

Actually I do have a SA and because it is a more symmetrical design it operates well at close focus (the R version focussed very close.Centrally sharp but not so good eyes though. But the current 21s are of completely different design.

You could focus (and meter) this view with a modded Sony then but not with a rangefinder. A7s mod, SA 21/3.4 at less than 0.5m.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[lct]

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

[...] If they do make an EVF version, if it is based on the M(240) I suspect it will sink without a trace. [...]

Not sure if mirrorless users are much interested in camera thickness but they could well need some basic video features the same way as some of us required before the "das Wesentliche" era. I'd rather this rumored Callipyge  weighing a bit less than the M240 but i hope it will keep its long lasting batteries be it at the price of a couple millimeters thickness.

[mike3996]

18 hours ago, lct said:

You could focus (and meter) this view with a modded Sony then but not with a rangefinder. A7s mod, SA 21/3.4 at less than 0.5m.

You can't focus this with a rangefinder, true. But you don't need to buy a Sony -- your M10 or M240 has this button called Live View.

Edited February 12, 2020 by mike3996

[lct]

1 hour ago, mike3996 said:

You can't focus this with a rangefinder, true. But you don't need to buy a Sony -- your M10 or M240 has this button called Live View.

... and up-to-date accessories called Visoflex . 

[lucerne]

1 hour ago, mike3996 said:

You can't focus this with a rangefinder, true. But you don't need to buy a Sony -- your M10 or M240 has this button called Live View.

Live view will not enable you to achieve a shorter focal distance than the rangefinder. Neither will the Visoflex.  The minimum focus distance is a function of the lens.  With the exception of one or more very specific Leica lenses in the product range,  Leica generally designs the lenses to 0.7mtr or in some cases 1mtr.

However, Live view would be useful for shorter focus distance if you have mounted a non-leica lens designed to do that.

Edited February 12, 2020 by lucerne

[mike3996]

46 minutes ago, lct said:

... and up-to-date accessories called Visoflex . 

Your example subject seems to sit very still. I'm sure one could manage a shot using the back screen!

[LocalHero1953]

23 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

Freezing or black out is unavoidable, the sensor needs a finite time to be exposed and then the data read-out. With large resolution sensors this takes longer and fast readout increases power consumption with the higher bandwidth amplifiers and ADC generating more noise to boot. I guess live view sets a lower limit on acceptable speed anyhow.

Theoretically correct. Practically I don't notice it (with the CL, SL;  but yes, the Visoflexes are poor).

And with liveview, yes, you lose the wider view of the scene (mainly with mid-longer lenses), but you gain a WYSIWYG view. This is a matter of personal preferences, but I prefer the latter, for composing reasons. With a bit of practice you can still get a wider view by using your left eye to look at the unobstructed, unframed scene.

[pgk]

So the bottom line is that an M-EVF can be a compromise on lens quality, view, and so on, provided its form factor is ok?

[lct]

44 minutes ago, pgk said:

So the bottom line is that an M-EVF can be a compromise on lens quality, view, and so on, provided its form factor is ok?

An M-EVF would be less of a compromise in that it could focus closer and more accurately than RF's, with more speed and less black outs (hopefully) than Visoflexes, also with less compromise than SL cameras given that its sensor would be designed for M lenses in the first place, plus the auto-zoom capability SL/SL2 don't have contrary to M cameras. RFs keeping their superiority in good enough focusing and lack of tunnel vision.

Edited February 12, 2020 by lct

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

2 hours ago, lucerne said:

The minimum focus distance is a function of the lens.  With the exception of one or more very specific Leica lenses in the product range,  Leica generally designs the lenses to 0.7mtr or in some cases 1mtr.

I'd say at least twenty exceptions including R and Visoflex lenses. 

[lct]

2 hours ago, mike3996 said:

Your example subject seems to sit very still. I'm sure one could manage a shot using the back screen!

DoF was too shallow for that. I needed a moveable focus point. The purpose was not to use an M camera anyway as none is capable to meter with the SA 21/3.4 and they produce (at least my M240 does) some nasty red edges with this lens.