They Say Future M Might Be Able To Switch Between RF and EVF

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

26 minutes ago, adan said:

Well, not exactly. An EVF is not shaped like the long skinny "gerrymander" space used for the Leica RF/VF. (see lct's pix top of the page, although I'm sure we're all familiar with the layout).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#/media/File:The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png

With a substantial juggling of the M10 innards (think of those sliding-number games: https://www.amazon.com/Toysmith-TSM1956-Number-Slide-Puzzle/dp/B002LGVYBA ), Leica could collect all that space into one more-efficient "cube", but it would mean moving mostly electronic stuff around, and thus require redesigned ribbon cables or flexible CBs to reconnect all the bits that have moved to new places. https://www.flexiblecircuit.com/product-category/flex-printed/

Now, so long as Leica amortizes all the R&D and "bespoke parts" costs required into strictly the price of the M10-E (and doesn't palm them off onto the prices for our happily-sufficient plain-vanilla M10s), that's OK with me. I look forward to the whines and howls when the EVF crowd find out they will pay $8700 for a CL-grade EVF-M.

You want SL-grade? The depth of that finder is about twice the depth of an M body (and the required-quality eyepiece is about twice the diameter of the M10 eyepiece).

In theory, Leica could "periscope" that with a right-angle bend down into the body innards, like the Fuji X-Pro 2.

https://fujifilm-x.com/global/stories/advanced-hybrid-multi-viewfinder-of-x-pro2-part2/

But it won't be simply transplanting the SL finder. It'll need custom optics (a prism for one), and "special parts" = "special prices." And you'd still need an eyepiece so wide it would require moving at least one of the rear-LCD function buttons - or moving the whole complex - or going to a totally-touch LCD or a smaller LCD.

First step in engineering - buy a ruler and measure things.

Transplanting?  No, it would never be that simple.

Development?  Sure, but that is what Leica does.  Note the reference to Leica having already developed a hybrid EVF/RF.  I don’t have Jaap’s keen insider knowledge, but I expect Leica is almost continuallt producing prototypes of all its cameras - the development of the M11 would have started with the release of the M10 for production, as will have the SL2 and the Q2 ...

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

Or, you know, we can go with a future Leica M with an integrated EVF instead of a rangefinder mechanism. I mean, if using the rangefinder is “the spirit of Leica M,” then why does Leica even make and sell the Visoflex EVF?  There is obviously a sufficient market base that wants EVF functionality with this camera. And I expect a large percentage of that user base (and also many future potential Leica M customers) would prefer the EVF be integrated into the camera rather than a clunky, expensive add-on attachment. 

It boggles my mind how many people seem to be so wedded to nostalgia that they would trash others for looking forward to the future and innovation. Twenty years ago, these same types of people would have scoffed at the notion of a digital M and likely criticized anyone who wanted Leica to develop one. Yet, how many people today are buying a new M-A or MP film camera vs. an M10?  I suspect the difference is substantial. In twenty more years, I expect the rangefinder mechanism will be a quaint relic of the past, relegated to a niche product, and most of the M cameras sold will have an integrated EVF.  To say this “is not realistic” is to bury your head in the sand of history. 

Edit:  I also find it interesting how many people feel the need to be “gatekeepers” about what the essence of an M camera is or should be for all photographers. To me, it’s about many things: size, feel, esthetic, quality of build, simplicity and ease of use for photography, but most of all, as lct says, the quality of the native M lenses (both vintage and new) and the ability of the camera to get out of the way and allow me to get the most out of those lenses. 

I agree that we don’t need gatekeepers.  But unfortunately your comments are similarly judgmental just by dismissing the RF as nothing more than nostalgia.  I personally love the beautiful optical view it allows, and don’t much like electronic finders, all of which (even the top end one in the SL) seem like unnatural tv screens to me. 

I like the idea of more options, including an EVF based M, and hope that the RF version continues.  The more the merrier if Leica deems it market worthy.  Heck, I might even own both, just because I like so much else about the M, apart from that magnificent finder and focusing.

Jeff

[pico]

1 minute ago, IkarusJohn said:

That gets us to the focusing mechanism, which is what this thread is about, No?

Yes, John, however would it be terrible if Leica chose to maintain a traditional M and offer alternatives?   I admit I see a profound difference of the M from Leicas alternatives. Someone inform me.

[pgk]

3 hours ago, Dirk Mandeville said:

There is obviously a sufficient market base that wants EVF functionality with this camera. And I expect a large percentage of that user base (and also many future potential Leica M customers) would prefer the EVF be integrated into the camera rather than a clunky, expensive add-on attachment.

We have been here before - many times. The problem is that replacing the RF with an EVF is a dead end. Whilst there may be some who would buy an EVF M, Leica build modern, fully integrated alternatives which do everything that an EVF M does plus they use modern AF lenses. Why would a manufacturer spend time and money developing a camera which at best will sell in small numbers and take sales from its other offerings?

[calijax]

1 minute ago, pgk said:

Why would a manufacturer spend time and money developing a camera which at best will sell in small numbers and take sales from its other offerings?

They made a $8k camera with no screen and a fake film rewind lever.

You sure could make a pretty penny telling them about how to sell cameras in large numbers 😄

[pico]

I find with the M10 EVF (visoflex) focusing and composition is so slow that I might as well be working with a 1940's press camera - with greater fidelity  than the M10

 

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by pico

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, calijax said:

They made a $8k camera with no screen and a fake film rewind lever.

They do, but it hardly required the insertion of custom built cutting edge technology squeezed into the body did it?

[calijax]

1 minute ago, pgk said:

They do, but it hardly required the insertion of custom built cutting edge technology squeezed into the body did it?

You are correct, they didn't use a "cutting edge technology" (aka EVF) for the M10-D

[jkcampbell2]

30 minutes ago, pgk said:

Why would a manufacturer spend time and money developing a camera which at best will sell in small numbers and take sales from its other offerings?

"at best will sell in small numbers" is an assumption. It appears Leica is at least considering the option so I would assume they are also doing the marketing research to understand what the market is.

"and take sales from its other offerings?" Or possibility  bring in new customers who would not have bought a Leica M without an EFV option. 

I still think a improved Visoflex would be a great next step. For my type of shooting, the best of both worlds! Cheers, jc

Edited January 16, 2019 by jkcampbell2

[lct]

Saying that the M mount is a dead end is like saying that M lenses are a dead end themselves. Leica won't let them die that easily hopefully.

[pico]

8 minutes ago, calijax said:

You are correct, they didn't use a "cutting edge technology" (aka EVF) for the M10-D

Leica did not create its EVF.

[pico]

1 minute ago, lct said:

Saying that the M mount is a dead end is like saying that M lenses are a dead end themselves. Leica won't let them die that easily hopefully.

In my dreams I imagine Leica buying back legacy lenses. But those are dreams.

[calijax]

1 minute ago, pico said:

Leica did not create its EVF.

It doesn't have an EVF. 

This discussion has devolved. Back to the sidelines and my popcorn.

[Tailwagger]

4 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

 As for the obsolete mount, I couldn’t agree more.  But Leica is committed to this mount - they’ve been saying this for decades.  So, let’s take the mount as a given, along with the popularity and continued development of lenses using that mount, and the cameras, for that matter.

I continually find myself scratching my head at the level of opposition to a second, hopefully less expensive, evf based alternative for natively mounting M lenses. Such a camera broadens the market for M glass, not diminishes it, which helps ensure the very market for the optical RF version these folks wish to preserve. Lens adaptation on the SLs and CLs of the world are a path away from the M.  That might help Leica, but it does little for M adherents. It is a strategy, which if successful, means the only attractor to the M over any of the alternatives is the optical RF.  And why would any one NEW to Leica, say coming from Sony or Fuji mirrorless camera chose an M over an SL, given it supports AF, L-Alliance glass and 50 year old Summicrons all in one package? Those fully wed to traditional M photography, might not care in the moment, but the number of buyers who simply have to have an RF is diminishing, not growing.  Without some way to cultivate alternative customers to the platform, the M and its optics will only continue to get more and more expensive, both to purchase and maintain. A situation which risks the inability to keep the M's imaging capability reasonably current and/or makes inevitable a slow fade towards oblivion.  Purists can feel free to pooh-pooh such a camera, much as I feel about the special editions, but I accept they serve a purpose. Similarly, I fail to see why anyone would view the development of an evf-based camera as a threat rather than an ally for keeping the good ship M afloat. 

[pgk]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Saying that the M mount is a dead end is like saying that M lenses are a dead end themselves.

I didn't. I said that an EVF 'M' camera would be. It would have all the disadvantages of the M mount and none of the advantages of the L mount.

56 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

I continually find myself scratching my head at the level of opposition to a second, hopefully less expensive, evf based alternative for natively mounting M lenses. Such a camera broadens the market for M glass, not diminishes it, which helps ensure the very market for the optical RF version these folks wish to preserve.

Why build a dead end camera which is a niche within a niche (greater sales? really?) and which may steal sales from L mount cameras which already cater for M lenses?

The M is an RF and is good at being so. Making it into a MF EVF camera makes little sense.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

So?  That job has already been done.  We’re talking about removing the rf and replacing it with an evf ...

Now, now, do n’t misquote me.  Leica has the evf technology in its existing offerings - that’s not “off the shelf”.

What does this have to do with anything?  I referred to the Q to point out that a good (though not as good as the SL) EVF can fit into a body smaller than the M10.  What has the sensor lens design got to do with it?

I’m sure Leica is relieved to have your blessing, Jaap.  As for the obsolete mount, I couldn’t agree more.  But Leica is committed to this mount - they’ve been saying this for decades.  So, let’s take the mount as a given, along with the popularity and continued development of lenses using that mount, and the cameras, for that matter.

That gets us to the focusing mechanism, which is what this thread is about, No?

OK - Leica is committed to the rangefinder - they've been saying this for decades.

However, they have said of late that the L mount is Leica's future as well.

Re Q : The compact design of the lens-sensor unit made it possible to fit an EVF into the smallish body. As I said.

[jaapv]

Let's return to the speculations about the lens mount of a hypothetical  VF-M. There is a very strong parallel in history.

Coming out of bad times, Leica introduced a revolutionary camera, sporting an integrated rangefinder/viewfinder and on top of that a new M mount. As an aside, the camera was considerably bulkier as well.

Old lenses could be mounted through an adapter. Worried that LTM users would not take to the new lens mount, they built a model with a RF/VF and the old screw mount - the iiig. It was quietly phased out in a couple of years for lack of buyer interest...

Now one can argue that the LTM-M adapter does not lose functionality, as opposed to the L-M adapter (i.e.Auto-magnification) That is a spurious argument. Either Leica deems the feature marginal* or they could introduce the feature in an L-mount camera, either through a transponder in the adapter, or by sensor based focus change detection.

*Personally I prefer control by the thumb wheel over automatics, and I'm not alone.

 

[pico]

.. deleted my stupid question ..

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by pico

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Why build a dead end camera which is a niche within a niche (greater sales? really?) and which may steal sales from L mount cameras which already cater for M lenses?

The M is an RF and is good at being so. Making it into a MF EVF camera makes little sense.

Who said anything about making an M into a EVF camera. I said " a second, hopefully less expensive, evf based alternative for natively mounting M lenses". I carry two cameras 99% of time. The EVF is a PITA.  An EVF M for me is a second  body. 

As for making sense, how about to take market share from Sony and Fuji?  Whose users, I was one of them four years ago, mount a Leica optic and realize that the glass they've been buying is garbage. Folks who have a very different opinion on the value of EVF than traditionalists. 

[Dirk Mandeville]

3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

I agree that we don’t need gatekeepers.  But unfortunately your comments are similarly judgmental just by dismissing the RF as nothing more than nostalgia.  I personally love the beautiful optical view it allows, and don’t much like electronic finders, all of which (even the top end one in the SL) seem like unnatural tv screens to me. 

That’s a fair point. Personally, I don’t dislike a good optical viewfinder. What bothers me is the disadvantages of the mechanical rangefinder focusing mechanism. I’ve said before that I would be happy if Leica were to develop a digital rangefinder mechanism, assuming it would be able to assist the user in nailing focus and that it would be able to be easily user calibrated with any given lens. I don’t know if they have considered such a thing or whether it would even be feasible. I know Khonost was trying to develop one, but that company seems to have given up the ghost. 

Having said that, evf’s are improving and they do have certain advantages. Seeing the actual framing of the photo, vs a frame line that may or may not be accurate. Seeing the whole frame on a 28mm lens, even while wearing glasses.  Being able to zoom automatically to achieve accurate focus. And being able to quickly observe depth of field of the photo you are taking in real time. And, of course, not having to buy separate finder pieces to frame up wider lenses. There are probably more, but that’s enough to sell me on the evf.