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

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

This thread has gone a long way since I last looked. Catching up on EVF lag a few pages back......

I have recently been shooting dancers, trying to capture the exact moment of a leap (the initiation and rise, not coming down). As it is not always obvious when the dancer is about to leap, I was often just missing the right moment. But then I switched to manual focus and found that any perceptible shutter or EVF lag disappeared. I could press the shutter button and get the exact moment I saw something in the EVF.

I would have no worries about EVF lag in a M-EVF.

I omitted the vital info that I was shooting with a SL2-S, which otherwise has a high res and responsive EVF.

[pgk]

17 hours ago, jaapv said:

We can assume that Leica would use M sensor geometry in an M type body. 

And this is itself a compromise. I suspect that it is far easier to design lenses which interact well with a specific sensor than it is to get a variety of lenses, which project their images at different incident angles, to interact well with any particular sensor, microlensed or otherwise. Building a new system from the ground up will ensure far greater optical/sensor interacting precision than trying to modify a system which already exists. The digital M cameras do a great job but trying to modify a digital M into an EVF camera will only result in a hobbled camera which is finally outclassed by its opposition.

I know that there are those who want to use their jewel-like M lenses on an M sized, M mount EVF camera, but in all honesty will this simply be an exercise in viewing potential sales and hence profit, in order to produce a compromised manual focus EVF M camera? I can see that it appeals to some but unless they are numerous enough, and prepared to put their money down, to make it worthwhile for Leica then as far as I can see its a non-starter. Perhaps someone should actually ask Leica what numbers would have to be sold in order to make it viable and then to find out whether sufficient deposits can be put down to make it a reality. This is probably the only way it will ever get made, unless that is that Leica have decided that it may sell enough and will go ahead anyway, which in the current photographic market might be a very bold move.

[lct]

17 minutes ago, pgk said:

And this is itself a compromise. I suspect that it is far easier to design lenses which interact well with a specific sensor than it is to get a variety of lenses, which project their images at different incident angles, to interact well with any particular sensor, microlensed or otherwise. [...]

Not sure what compromise you're referring to. The EVF-M is aimed exclusively at M lenses and is supposed to work with the same sensor as that as the M11. Diametral opposite to the jack-of-all-trades camera people wishing an L mount would like.

[pgk]

Just now, lct said:

Not sure what compromise you're referring to.

Optically/digitally modern lenses designed for EVF cameras from a variety of manufacturers are now extremely good. In fact I would say that some surprisingly cheap lenses are exceptionally good. I would actually go further and say that some equal or surpass many M lenses in performance for a fraction of their price. I suspect that a lot has to do with good optical design allied with effective digital adjustments, which cannot be applied to the output from M lenses. So we come back to a Leica EVF-M being compromised by having a sensor having to cope with varied incidence angles, minimal electronic integration (lens model only via 6-bit) and manual focus only. In reality how many are going to pay top dollar for such a camera (I know some will but will asufficient number)? An L mount camera would at least be able to digitally integrate with L mount lenses designed for its sensor.

So we come back to the inevitable question of what an M is all about. Is it the pinnacle of optical design and performance? Or it is a RANGEFINDER camera? I do not believe that it can be both today and whilst I'm perfectly happy to use an M and its lenses because I like using a rangefinder, I don't see an EVF-M being anything other than a low volume and potentially short-lived compromise. That said, I may well be wring if there are sufficient well heeled and discerning buyers out there who are happy enough to buy such a camera regardless.

[jaapv]

And that camera would sell... 100 cameras? 1000? Even in the unlikely case of 10.000 Leica would never recover the development costs. Maybe as a 25.000 Euro special edition.  Add an L mount and Leica would have a larger market which might just, maybe, make it a possibility.

 

11 minutes ago, lct said:

Not sure what compromise you're referring to. The EVF-M is aimed exclusively at M lenses and is supposed to work with the same sensor as that as the M11. Diametral opposite to the jack-of-all-trades camera people wishing an L mount would like.

 

[pgk]

Just now, jaapv said:

Add an L mount and Leica would have a larger market which might just, maybe, make it a possibility.

This make so much more sense! And it cannot be beyond the realms of possibility to build such a camera with and M to L mount so well  designed and integrated into the body that it blends in seamlessly to provide an M shaped overall body. What's not to like?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

So we come back to a Leica EVF-M being compromised by having a sensor having to cope with varied incidence angles, minimal electronic integration (lens model only via 6-bit) and manual focus only [...]

The EVF-M would not be more compromised than the M11 if it works with the same sensor on the same M lenses. I don't see the problem you're referring to sorry.

[LocalHero1953]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

And that camera would sell... 100 cameras? 1000? Even in the unlikely case of 10.000 Leica would never recover the development costs. Maybe as a 25.000 Euro special edition.  Add an L mount and Leica would have a larger market which might just, maybe, make it a possibility.

 

 

Does Leica really need to sell 10,000 cameras to recover development costs? Especially since the cost of the basic body, mount, metering, shutter and geometry are already sunk. 
There have to be minimum sales, but where does 10,000 come from?

[lct]

15 minutes ago, jaapv said:

And that camera would sell... 100 cameras? 1000? Even in the unlikely case of 10.000 Leica would never recover the development costs. Maybe as a 25.000 Euro special edition [...]

So you would vote no and i would, of course, vote yes to the LSI survey which is aimed at knowing if there are enough candidates for an EVF-M camera based on the same mount, same sensor and same Visoflex as the M11. Let LSI members reply and we'll see what happens afterward .

[jaapv]

I would vote yes, why not? As long as I don’t have to buy it. But I think that Leica would likely vote no. 

[lct]

51 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I would vote yes, why not? As long as I don’t have to buy it. But I think that Leica would likely vote no. 

I would not anticipate Leica's decisions.

[LocalHero1953]

This question has come up many times in recent years, and I'm sure I've changed my opinion just as many times. This time I would not buy it.

Things have moved on. I want a camera that is technologically advanced enough for when I want an advanced camera - that means good AF, good stabilisation, good low light colour and noise and easy to manage (i.e. it gets out of the way when I'm thinking about photos, which is what Leicas generally do superlatively well).

If I want simplicity and the experience I will use film.

If I want a camera I can just pick up and use when I'm distracted by grandchildren, friends and street action, I will use the Q2.

An EVF-only, AF, stabilised, L-mount camera with video capability in a M-sized body - I would buy it in a moment. I doubt it will be made anytime soon, though I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

[charlesphoto99]

Reading this thread, it struck me that perhaps Leica could find a compromise vs a hobbled EVF-M. Like a bigger CL or a smaller SL. That way it could still take L lenses, and M lenses via an adapter. Because the CL/SL experience with adapted M lenses would be the same as an M-EVF with native M lenses - a hobbled compromise, just with no adapter needed.

Unless Leica were to reinvent the M wheel (and physics) and come out with chipped AF lenses the size of a 28 'cron or 50 'lux, it totally defeats the purpose of an M, which in my mind is to have an ultra compact system of manual focus lenses along with the super quick and accurate manual rangefinder. One can carry three or four 1.4/2 lenses in the same bag as one big AF low speed zoom or one high speed prime L/etc lens. Perhaps its just not the right camera for some users, as much as they covet and like it. The M is a camera that warrants lots of practice, and the more crutches thrown in it, the less it becomes a tool to master and more just another Sony/Fuji/Canon/Nikon mirrorless camera for the masses (albeit the well heeled ones). But for many with disposable incomes that next new, shiny camera on the market is going to make their photography SO much better (which is rarely the case) so buy and trade they will. It's the world we live in. Leica may as well make something small and full frame EVF to sell if they can. 

[Jeff S]

8 hours ago, xiaubauu2009 said:

Hence if leica could do one with a real rangefinder and they hybrid EVF for critical focus (anything 75mm is a stretch on the current system at least for me), then that’s true innovation.

When I first use the xpro1. I feel pretty surprise by that implementation, in a good way. But I don’t like the uncertainty of focus.  Whatever Fujifilm designed is actually more suitable for a real manual focus rangefinder system like Leica. 

This topic is getting old.  Stefan Daniel talked about hybrid VF attempts, talked about the Fuji implementation, and concluded by saying it’s “a no-go.”

Jeff

[Alberti]

In the query, I would vote the second option. Why? Beacuse there are posters like Raisans (reizender name) that foible intentionally.

😪

[jaapv]

 

19 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

This question has come up many times in recent years, and I'm sure I've changed my opinion just as many times. This time I would not buy it.

Things have moved on. I want a camera that is technologically advanced enough for when I want an advanced camera - that means good AF, good stabilisation, good low light colour and noise and easy to manage (i.e. it gets out of the way when I'm thinking about photos, which is what Leicas generally do superlatively well).

If I want simplicity and the experience I will use film.

If I want a camera I can just pick up and use when I'm distracted by grandchildren, friends and street action, I will use the Q2.

An EVF-only, AF, stabilised, L-mount camera with video capability in a M-sized body - I would buy it in a moment. I doubt it will be made anytime soon, though I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

 People like you are spoiling Leica's decision by declaring a no-buy for rational reasons. 👺   

[lct]

6 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

[...] An EVF-only, AF, stabilised, L-mount camera with video capability in a M-sized body - I would buy it in a moment. [...]

Could interest me to replace my Kolari mod Sony A7r2, possibly, but i would not expect it to compete with the M11 as far as WA and UWA M lenses are concerned, especially my S-A 21/3.4, ZM 21/4.5 or CV 15/4.5 v2. Nothing can beat the BSI sensor of the M11 for them. 

[LocalHero1953]

16 minutes ago, lct said:

Could interest me to replace my Kolari mod Sony A7r2, possibly, but i would not expect it to compete with the M11 as far as WA and UWA M lenses are concerned, especially my S-A 21/3.4, ZM 21/4.5 or CV 15/4.5 v2. Nothing can beat the BSI sensor of the M11 for them. 

Why wouldn't the same sensor work just as well in such a camera as I describe?

[raizans]

Note the survey results:

62.3% = yes in some form

20.38% = maybe

17.31% = no

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[raizans]

6 hours ago, pippy said:

Furthermore I'm 100% sure there will be folks here who have different "needs" to my own therefore, and as usual, this is a 'YMMV' situation.

Good point. There’s no such thing as a perfect camera.