Would you buy an EVF only M camera? [MERGED]

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, that goes for the L mount too, but Leica did not include it in the adapter. Technically quite simple. Why should they do so on an EVF-M? For most users it is a rather redundant complication. EVF cameras rely on Focus Peaking.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

[...] EVF cameras rely on Focus Peaking

Focus peaking is hardly more accurate than RFs on high res sensors. Nothing can replace focus magnification to nail focus on them IMHO. At least in my experience with mirrorless bodies and Visoflex for M11. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by lct

[Tailwagger]

47 minutes ago, lct said:

Focus peaking is hardly more accurate than RFs on high res sensors.

Far less accurate.

[jaapv]

That is quite true. However, Leica opted to rely on manual magnification and focus peaking (which, in conjunction are quite accurate with the L-M adapter. I fail to see why they would do otherwise with a hypothetical EVF  M surrogate.

On a side-note: Focus peaking is quite accurate if you understand the system. It does not show the precise plane of focus as such. It is a contrast measuring system that basically shows DOF. If you "walk" it with the focus ring, it is quite easy to judge the middle of DOF which, at not too close distances, is the plane of critical focus.

[SrMi]

Adjustable focus peaking with magnification is the most precise and slowest way to focus. I cannot imagine an EVF manual focusing camera relying only on that. A beachball (X2D, Z7) is faster but less precise.

[jaapv]

7 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Adjustable focus peaking with magnification is the most precise and slowest way to focus. I cannot imagine an EVF manual focusing camera relying only on that. A beachball (X2D, Z7) is faster but less precise.

I can easily imagine just that  - SL/CL/TL  series with M adapter

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, lct said:

Old debate. It's just that some people are interested in RFs in the first place, others in M lenses mainly. It doesn't mean that the latter dislike RF's, at least I don't at all, but they want to use their M lenses in the best conditions including a high res sensor designed exclusively for them and an EVF allowing to nail focus on such sensor even if the photog's visual acuity is not perfect. Not to mention features like autozoom which only M cameras can offer.

I meant: why an M-mount EVF (not RF) camera instead of an L-mount EVF camera? Let's assume an L-mount camera that is lighter and about the same size or smaller than a digital M. What would be the advantage of an M-EVF? Maybe taking video out of SL2 would be enough to make it smaller and lighter.

[SrMi]

19 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I can easily imagine just that  - SL/CL/TL  series with M adapter

Having worked with beachball and peaking/magnification, I don't see it this way. However, I understand it works well for you.

On the other hand, why did M owners who insist on an EVF M camera not get a CL?

The more I think about it, the more an EVF-M seems wrong, filling a gap created by the discontinuation of the CL line.

[Tailwagger]

38 minutes ago, jaapv said:

On a side-note: Focus peaking is quite accurate if you understand the system. It does not show the precise plane of focus as such. It is a contrast measuring system that basically shows DOF. If you "walk" it with the focus ring, it is quite easy to judge the middle of DOF which, at not too close distances, is the plane of critical focus.

A while back I published shots (maybe a vid of a sweep? cant recall) here detailing FP via the rear LCD with the WATE (and SEM 21?) showing that with that lens FP is useless. I can't recall the particulars in terms of F stop, but I recall quite clearly that virtually every edge in the scene was lit up regardless of whether focus was set to 1M or infinity.  While I'm sure its more useful from 35 or 50mm and up, for wides, the RF is both more accurate and far faster than FP AFAIC. I believe there were some here that claimed the Sony implementation is far beyond Leica, but as someone who spends a lot of time at or below 28mm, if there is an Mevf, for me to be interested at all, it would have to be able to reliably deliver a level of accuracy that the current set of tools do not IMO.

[SrMi]

10 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

A while back I published shots (maybe a vid of a sweep? cant recall) here detailing FP via the rear LCD with the WATE (and SEM 21?) showing that with that lens FP is useless. I can't recall the particulars in terms of F stop, but I recall quite clearly that virtually every edge in the scene was lit up regardless of whether focus was set to 1M or infinity.  While I'm sure its more useful from 35 or 50mm and up, for wides, the RF is both more accurate and far faster than FP AFAIC. I believe there were some here that claimed the Sony implementation is far beyond Leica, but as someone who spends a lot of time at or below 28mm, if there is an Mevf, for me to be interested at all, it would have to be able to reliably deliver a level of accuracy that the current set of tools do not IMO.

Yes, a wide angle at f/4 makes magnification or focus peaking very hard to use. Whenever DOF is large, MF assists fail. In such a case, using the distance scale yields better results. Similarly hard to focus is a 35mm lens at f/11 (no AASD).

[lct]

36 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I meant: why an M-mount EVF (not RF) camera instead of an L-mount EVF camera? Let's assume an L-mount camera that is lighter and about the same size or smaller than a digital M. What would be the advantage of an M-EVF? Maybe taking video out of SL2 would be enough to make it smaller and lighter.

Auto zoom as i suggested above and it would be another compromise of a sensor designed for both M and L lenses, let alone that such a camera would be designed for AF given its compatibility with L lenses and would then compete with the SL3.

[Tailwagger]

40 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I meant: why an M-mount EVF (not RF) camera instead of an L-mount EVF camera? Let's assume an L-mount camera that is lighter and about the same size or smaller than a digital M. What would be the advantage of an M-EVF? Maybe taking video out of SL2 would be enough to make it smaller and lighter.

We've been through this line of reasoning before as well.  Not to talk out of both sides of my mouth as again my interest is waning, but in my case, I have zero desire to be dealing with adapters, certainly not when I'm mounting north of $15K worth of glass on them.  It's dangerous enough juggling lenses in the field without throwing adapters into the mix.  Having trashed a lens in exactly this scenario... thankfully 'only' a $900 Pentax MF lens... I am not going back there.  Additionally, if it's an SL, it has AF, almost certainly video (why would they remove it?), all the buttons, controls, menu items etc required for an AF camera.  Folks who desire this sort of camera want it to be as simple as possible...totally different crowd but a similar mindset to those in love with the M-D.  Only what you need, no more.  And of course, theres the lack of M specific micro lensing issue as well.  Presumably there is some technical reason as to why the SL2 does not incorporate this tech... perhaps its forces a compromise with native lens edge performance dunno... but the fact is that wides underperform with out this tech, something I've clearly demonstrated here in the past. 

All that said... I'd love a smaller lighter L mount body (Sigma's notion of same excepted) to make an appearance along with the rumored smaller lighter L-mount lenses. AFAIC the SL2 and associated glass is right on the upper edge of weight and bulk, particularly if one is interested in using primes. So yeah great... but I'd no more use that camera with my M lenses that I do currently with the SL and never as a replacement for an actual M.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Tailwagger

[Herr Barnack]

On 1/25/2022 at 9:58 PM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

It wouldn't be an M or and SL. It'll have it's own letter. A manual focus only M mount mirrorless camera. Same size as the M or maybe the Q2. M11 battery. Q2 evf in the top left corner. 6 bit coding and some auto detection when you focus the lens for viewfinder enlargement.

Let's call it the N camera - for Not an M.  😊

As long as it doesn't replace the M camera line, I'm okay with it. 

There's no reason Leica could not produce and sell both and let them peacefully coexist side by side.

As for the question "would I buy an N camera?" - the answer is a definite maybe - depending on the details of the camera and other unpredictable variables at the time.

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Herr Barnack

[pgk]

13 minutes ago, lct said:

Auto zoom as i suggested above and it would be another compromise of a sensor designed for both M and L lenses, let alone that such a camera would be designed for AF given its compatibility with L lenses and would then compete with the SL3.

Ahhh, the C word raises its head again. Even an M sensor with M lenses is a compromise.

[SrMi]

13 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

Let's call it the N camera - for Not an M.  😊

As long as it doesn't replace the M camera line, I'm okay with it. 

There's no reason Leica could not produce and sell both and let them peacefully coexist side by side.

As for the question "would I buy an N camera?" - the answer is a definite maybe - depending on the details of the camera and other unpredictable variables at the time.

Let's not. The N-word has a very negative connotation and so does an N-camera.

[jaapv]

32 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

A while back I published shots (maybe a vid of a sweep? cant recall) here detailing FP via the rear LCD with the WATE (and SEM 21?) showing that with that lens FP is useless. I can't recall the particulars in terms of F stop, but I recall quite clearly that virtually every edge in the scene was lit up regardless of whether focus was set to 1M or infinity.  While I'm sure its more useful from 35 or 50mm and up, for wides, the RF is both more accurate and far faster than FP AFAIC. I believe there were some here that claimed the Sony implementation is far beyond Leica, but as someone who spends a lot of time at or below 28mm, if there is an Mevf, for me to be interested at all, it would have to be able to reliably deliver a level of accuracy that the current set of tools do not IMO.

If you used a Sony I can imagine - the last time I used one a herd of Zebra created a total red-out in the viewfinder. Leica's is a lot more subtle. I like using it on the SL with magnification - extremely accurate. Like any focusing method there is a learning curve.

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

If you used a Sony I can imagine - the last time I used one a herd of Zebra created a total red-out in the viewfinder. Leica's is a lot more subtle. I like using it on the SL with magnification - extremely accurate. Like any focusing method there is a learning curve.

Some Sony cameras can adjust zebra level, recommended is 109%. With that setting, zebras are quite useful. However, zebras are highlight warnings, they are not a focus help.

[jaapv]

  I'm sure that these Zebras would have been highly surprised to learn that they were highlight warnings. What side would be the highlight? The head or the bum? Does the species matter? These were Grevy's.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

27 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Yes, a wide angle at f/4 makes magnification or focus peaking very hard to use.

Different experience here. I use focus magnification at working aperture and i don't find it hard to focus at all. CV 15/4.5 v2 at f/5.6 on M11 here, FF and 100% crops.

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!

[SrMi]

Just now, jaapv said:

  I'm sure that these Zebras would have been highly surprised to learn that they were highlight warnings. What side would be the highlight? The head or the bum?

You have spent too much time on safaris. Every zebra for you is a an animal instead of a crosswalk 😄.