EVF for the M

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some of us don't care about rangefinders. I certainly don't. It's something I put up with, rather than something I want. So why do I have an M10? Because the ONLY alternative, the SL, is way too big. The other alternatives (CL, TL2) are not full frame. I would happily get rid of the whole rangefinder thing and replace it with an EVF - especially if it became lighter, more compact, and cheaper in the bargain. 

 

 

Sounds akin to sticking with a bad marriage simply because the alternatives are too unsettling to consider.

[Advertisement]

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

[ianman]

"Some of us don't care about rangefinders. I certainly don't."

 

That quote, in the M section of a Leica forum has got to win some sort of prize!    

[Tailwagger]

Where are these dozens of other alternate solutions? AFAIK there is exactly one other manufacturer that makes a FF mirrorless ILC. All the others are DSLRs, no EVF, hence not an alternative. 

 

For many the impetus for coming the M had nothing to do with the focusing methodology, in fact it was cause for serious concern. Rather, they came because the allure of the rendering was irresistible. Once on board, they discovered an expanded palette given the availability of decade upon decade of top notch glass.  And for those who subscribe, as I do, to the notion that the best results are achieved utilizing bodies specifically designed for the lenses you own or desire, then you are highly motivated to buy an M, regardless of how you wind up focusing it.  Without this new blood, its not a certainty that there is enough of a market to support an ongoing M model.

  

If you're in the camp willing to sacrifice framing precision for the advantages of seeing beyond the frame of capture, the M is the only game in town. The passion of the RF defense is understandable and justified. But for those who came for the optics and who can't abide with constantly having to deal with the vagaries of parallax viewing, the availability and quality of an EVF is extremely important. If nothing else, even the most conservative has to acknowledge both the value of the WATEs and SEMs as well as the inability of the OVF to do them full justice. As for the 'well, just buy an SL you heretic' notion, I fail to understand why someone would ever be attracted into a system in order to spend $5-13K per optic and then mount them via an adapter.  Or is Leica lying about/exaggerating the value of an M-specific sensor and its micro-lenses?

 

It would be nice if Leica could crack the problem and provide us the ability to have both viewing methods available though a single finder, somewhat ala Fuji.  Owning a Q has further cemented the notion that the M's OVF/EVF duality has tremendous value as it's a reminder that so far no single VF technology is optimal in all situations.  It would be nice if the M's external EVF was a little more palatable both in terms of resolution as well as compactness. But, for me, I've found the drawbacks a relatively small price to pay for the added flexibility.

 

Regardless, hopefully we can respectfully acknowledge the desires on both sides and recognize that we likely need both PoVs for the M to survive.

[jkcampbell2]

It is hard to fathom the existential angst that must be suffered by all those who feel compelled to buy M cameras as some sort of jewellery/fashionista/proof of photgraphic cred piece but actually hate the cameras, yearn for the tech specs and the full feature set of other systems and then proceed to try and convince people who enjoy manual focussing with rangefinders that the sine qua non of the M system is a hopeless flaw that should be overhauled.

 

If you hate using a rangefinder, surely there are cheaper ways to punish yourself than buying a Leica M and a bunch of M glass.

 

Sorry but this is really harsh and is just the kind of stupid response that drives people away from participating in the forum. Just because someone may prefer an EVF over a rangefinder doesn't mean they "hate" rangefinders or that they are some kind of poser (jewellery/fashionista/proof of photographic cred) or that they are trying to convince anyone about "hopeless flaws" in the M system. I think we all would benefit from more open discussion and less personal attacks and insulting hyperbole. jc 

[Tragg]

The M isn't my camera of choice. I'm only in it for one reason - M lenses have no equal, and the best body for M lenses is an M camera. 

 

But really the M should ditch a whole bunch of anachronisms, beginning with that pointless rangefinder. Next to go should be that screw on bottom plate. 99% of the time I focus with the Visioflex 020, which gives more accurate framing and more precise focus especially when shooting wide open. 

 

Perhaps Leica should release an M with no rangefinder and a built-in EVF. Then see which version outsells which. 

 

I like using the rangefinder and don't regard it as anachronistic. Indeed, Leica would not have developed the M-10 in the first place if there had been little or no demand for a digital rangefinder camera. An M camera does what it was designed to do very well but It's NOT suitable for all applications, which is why many M users- myself included - own and use other cameras. There are plenty of excellent alternatives to a Leica M and many manufacturers who offer superb lenses. Your posts suggests that the Leica M is not the right camera for your needs.

[james.liam]

It would seem that the SL would be a better match for you, using M lenses on an adapter. It is bigger but not intolerably so, worth the price of the best EVF in the business to date. Below is a size comparison to the M9M, close enough.

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!

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will sell off the Leica gear that still works before I buy one that has EVF.    If you think EVF is wonderful,  I suggest you do some sports or action or panning with one .  You will not like it. 

[pgh]

The M isn't my camera of choice. I'm only in it for one reason - M lenses have no equal, and the best body for M lenses is an M camera. 

 

But really the M should ditch a whole bunch of anachronisms, beginning with that pointless rangefinder. Next to go should be that screw on bottom plate. 99% of the time I focus with the Visioflex 020, which gives more accurate framing and more precise focus especially when shooting wide open. 

 

Perhaps Leica should release an M with no rangefinder and a built-in EVF. Then see which version outsells which. 

I think the latest M cameras could use improvements in various ways. A hybrid viewfinder is something I definitely wouldn't be opposed to. However, I can't understand buying and using an M without a love for the rangefinder specifically, especially a digital M at the prices they command. If you don't love the RF design, you can spend less money and get a better camera in literally every other category that the M competes in. The only exception possibly being a full frame 50mm solution - as the M10 is the smallest of the choices. If you like 35 mm the Rx1RII easily outperforms the M with a cron mounted, and at a smaller size with video, AF, a better sensor etc. When you start using longer focal lengths the size advantage of Leica falls away too.

M lenses have plenty of equals and are actually often outperformed by current models. Their rendering is a bit unique, yes, but that character is often actually an optical flaw of some sort. 

[pico]

Some those who barge in here bemoaning the rangefinder, also wishing more pixels and insane pixel counts suggest a novice musician saying, "So what's so cool about a Stradivarius that a cheap A2D plug can't fix?"

[Alistairm]

Sorry but this is really harsh and is just the kind of stupid response that drives people away from participating in the forum. Just because someone may prefer an EVF over a rangefinder doesn't mean they "hate" rangefinders or that they are some kind of poser (jewellery/fashionista/proof of photographic cred) or that they are trying to convince anyone about "hopeless flaws" in the M system. I think we all would benefit from more open discussion and less personal attacks and insulting hyperbole. jc 

You are right. I was in high dudgeon and reading my post again it was rude and the sentiments I expressed could have been said far less combatively. My apologies to Keith and anyone else that I offended. 

 

What I should have said, was simply that the M is designed entirely around the rangefinder, from the body shape to the M lens mount that couples with the focus system, so I doubt it is every going to be the right style of body to convert to an EVF body. 

[Frankie]

For integrated EVF camera using M-glass, select a Fujifilm X-E3 [costs 1/6 of a CL] using adapted M-glass. I did since the X-E1 and retired my M2 and ZI...even my R-D1.

 

An RF is only a focus indicator, no different from Focus Peaking...let the debates begin

[jkcampbell2]

You are right. I was in high dudgeon and reading my post again it was rude and the sentiments I expressed could have been said far less combatively. My apologies to Keith and anyone else that I offended. 

 

What I should have said, was simply that the M is designed entirely around the rangefinder, from the body shape to the M lens mount that couples with the focus system, so I doubt it is every going to be the right style of body to convert to an EVF body. 

 

We all have bad days and we all say things that could have been said better but it takes real character to admit it in public. Cheers, jc

[erl]

....

 

An RF is only a focus indicator, no different from Focus Peaking...let the debates begin

So are one's eyes!

It's a natural system.

[Tailwagger]

An RF is only a focus indicator, no different from Focus Peaking...let the debates begin

 

I suspect the majority of M owners aren't wed to overlay focusing per se.  Personally, I always preferred a split screen.  While you are technically correct, range finder implementations, at the appropriate magnification, afford something no EVF or SLR system allows in that the VF permits not only to seeing what will be captured, but what won't be as well. Perhaps this is somewhat less valuable in the age of AF and zooms, but as a shooter of MF primes, I find it has significant advantages. Without it and with eye to finder, one only knows how the composition will change if one takes a step forward. With it, one can equally assess if a step or two backward could make the shot. When used day in, day out, this capability results in a subtle, but utterly crucial effect on the psychology of how one goes about composing. To my mind, this is the chief benefit of RF photography which I suspect plays a significant role, consciously or otherwise, for those who relate that moving to an M has made them a better photographer. Equally, this benefit tends to be completely lost to those who've never experienced it and therefore view a classical FR as at best a quaint anachronism. 

 

As for focus peaking, despite being someone who appreciates the additional capabilities EVF provides, I rarely use the M EVF to focus and far prefer the good old fashion optics for that purpose. In my experience, focus peaking with the M, where there is no auto-aperture, can be rather misleading as to where the central plane resides with slower lenses or faster ones when stopped down. That can result in the rather irritating discovery in post that critical areas of the shot turned out to be far softer than one had intended. I do all my setup with the OVF, going to the EVF which is almost always on my camera, if there is a need for framing precision or exposure verification. 

[hteasley]

But really the M should ditch a whole bunch of anachronisms, beginning with that pointless rangefinder.

You could have stopped talking here. You don't really know what you're critiquing. You really don't.

 

The SL is the camera you want, it sounds like. It's actually not that huge (thinner than you think), and is the best non-M body for M lenses.

 

The CL is also amazing, and brilliant with M lenses, The anti-APS-C stance doesn't really hold up, that I've seen. APS-C sensors can be incredible, and the CL is certainly that. The rendering differences between them and full frame are really only forum fodder, and not real issues that 99.99% of photographers need to worry about.

[Keith_W]

I like using the rangefinder and don't regard it as anachronistic. Indeed, Leica would not have developed the M-10 in the first place if there had been little or no demand for a digital rangefinder camera. An M camera does what it was designed to do very well but It's NOT suitable for all applications, which is why many M users- myself included - own and use other cameras. There are plenty of excellent alternatives to a Leica M and many manufacturers who offer superb lenses. Your posts suggests that the Leica M is not the right camera for your needs.

 

You're right, the M is not the right camera for my needs. But then - none of the cameras on the market really are. And believe me I have gone through quite a few brands. What I want is a compact and light full frame system with an excellent sensor and with excellent lenses in the focal length I want. And throughout my journey in this hobby, I have evaluated what's important to me, and what isn't. 

 

For ME personally (obviously doesn't apply to others!) what's NOT important are specialty lenses, e.g. tilt-shift, super-telephoto, super-macro, ability to shoot at insane FPS, video mode, and autofocus that can track moving F1 cars. I am not interested in that kind of photography, so I don't care if a system or camera offers that or not. 

 

Somewhat more important (again for ME!) is a decent flash system, a sensor that delivers usable results up to ISO 10,000, affordability, and decent autofocus. 

 

Most important of all (YES, FOR ME, in case you missed it the first and second time round!!) is compact size, light weight, good handling (meaning no need to delve into menus to control the camera), great lenses, and full frame.

 

The two things I absolutely won't compromise on is great lenses and full frame, because this is what affects my photography the most! Everything else involves a degree of suffering, e.g. am I prepared to carry around a bulky camera, or would I be prepared to give up autofocus for weight savings? Am I prepared to put up with a garbage handling camera (the Sony) in exchange for IBIS? Do I want to buy a monster of a camera (the SL) for the same price as the M, for no appreciable increase in image quality (but with the advantage of EVF built-in)?

 

I carefully weighed up my options and decided that I will put up with the expense, the rangefinder, lose autofocus, in exchange for full frame, "good enough" sensor performance, compact size, and access to the best lenses in the world.

 

Those who think you must love a rangefinder to make a rational case for owning an M are not seeing the whole picture. The M makes a case for itself, even without the rangefinder. Or in my case, despite the rangefinder.

 

And furthermore, I am NOT saying that Leica should stop making rangefinders. I suggest they make an EVF only version of the M and offer the rangefinder version next to it. 

[klytz]

Thank you for all your comments.

It now is twenty years ago that I got my first M, an M6 TTL, then an M7, and then I bought an M9P, an M246 monochrom and an M240P, so I am quite familiar to the RF. But since I feel the need to take advantage of the EVF when I use my 16-18-21, my 24, my 90 and my 135 in order to get pictures in focus and framed right, the EVF might as well be built in. I am quite aware of the possibility of using my adjustable, optical  viewfinder that I bought with the 16-18-21, but again it is a foreign body that does not make the camera more elegant, just clumsy. I know, that some may say, that I can use the VF at the back of the camera, yes, maybe on a tripod, so I don't. In fact I only focus with the RF using the 35, the 50 and the 75 mm.

 

I am into Leica because of the glass which I consider unbeatable, and I enjoy the superior craftsmanship of the cameras. But it most definitely isn't the hype that attracts me. Only the M6 (which I sold) and my M7 have the red dot on them. I feel no need to flash my camera, although I want the best.

 

Occasionally I grab my Nikon D4 if I am in the need of something quick and foolproof photographing. That camera never lets me down, but it is not satisfying to use because of the lack of challenge. In fact it is so good, that I not at all have been tempted to upgrade it. 

Kind greetings from Denmark, Klaus

Edited February 26, 2018 by klytz

[jaapv]

I've never felt a need to use the EVF for 90 and 135, and the wideangles need an auxiliary viewfinder in the hot shoe anyway. I don't see any problem with the present system...

No need to bastardize the camera. It escapes me, BTW, where this internal EVF should be located - that top plate is rather full as it is.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MRJohn]

Great that this topic has come up again, evidence that there is a huge need for an M with a build-in EVF   . - Let the engineers figure out where they want to put it, it will probably look a bit CL-like. And as long as they continue with a classic RF everybody should be happy. Now what I do not understand is this APS-C discussion. Yes, the sensor might be great, on par even with M or SL. But the lens focal length translation changes. Nobody with M or R lenses has a desire for that. So to come back to the first sentence, I see only two solutions: either they come up with am M-EVF and an M-trad, or a FF CL. - Either way, the market wants a FF with a smaller body than an SL, with the mojo of an M, with a build-in EVF, (and at east 40 MP). 

[jaapv]

Ummm.. The camera to take M lenses with an EVF is the SL. Or, if size is more important than crop, the CL.  I am sure Leica has no intention of turning their flagship camera into some kind of Fuji and kill off 90% of sales, nor of jeopardizing their interlocking systems.

 

BTW, I find that the performance of many M lenses is enhanced by cropping them on the CL. The Summilux 24 is a prime example.

 

I wonder what research you did to be so sure of "huge need"  and  "the market wants", unless you postulate a market of one person - yourself; I see no such things, and I assume that Leica is in a better position to judge the needs and wants of their customers.