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

[raizans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You know Mike Johnston’s observation that “people like Leicas,” not necessarily rangefinders? Everywhere you look, there is evidence that people bought a Leica rangefinder mainly because it’s a Leica, even if an SLR or EVIL mirrorless camera would meet their needs better. Or you see owners gatekeeping by saying “that’s not a real Leica” about many Leica products, or being snobby to users of other brands of rangefinder cameras.

The coming of the EVF-M is a reckoning.

Edited February 19, 2023 by raizans

[lct]

14 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

But it was the M11 sensor you said (or implied) would not be good enough. [...]

I don't recall having said or implied that but my aging brain may be playing tricks on me... Any link?

[IkarusJohn]

37 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

No, I never have. The only M lenses I have are Summilux-M 75 and Thambar. I have the SL2-S and have previously had the SL.

But it was the M11 sensor you said (or implied) would not be good enough. Why would it be good in the M11 but not with a L-mount in front of it? That is what I was asking you to explain. What am I missing?

As I recall, LCT hasn’t owned an SL either.

Why an L mount?  Installing an EVF into an M camera would have no effect on the sensor - it would be identical to the M11, just without the OVF.  I’m not sure where we got to the L mount.  Using AF L mount lenses on an M camera would be very strange.  The whole point of the M system is everything manual.  The SL is an all singing, all dancing universal mount - nothing in common with the M at all, really.

I see nothing in the LSI poll which suggests using such a camera with anything but M lenses and the current M sensor …

[LocalHero1953]

Your post in praise of the M11 sensor:

3 hours 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. 

My reply asking why the M11 sensor wouldn't work if it had a L-mount in front of it (and EVF) in a M-shaped body:

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

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

Your reply, implying that it would not be good enough:

2 hours ago, lct said:

Would be another jack-of-all-trades sensor made for both M and L-mount lenses then. Déjà vu with SL cameras.

Hence my question: why wouldn't it work?

Edited February 19, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

1 minute ago, IkarusJohn said:

 I’m not sure where we got to the L mount.  

You might want to read back and see how the side-issue arose.
After 33 pages you can't expect every post to answer the question in the thread title!

[jaapv]

5 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

As I recall, LCT hasn’t owned an SL either.

Why an L mount?  Installing an EVF into an M camera would have no effect on the sensor - it would be identical to the M11, just without the OVF.  I’m not sure where we got to the L mount.  Using AF L mount lenses on an M camera would be very strange.  The whole point of the M system is everything manual.  The SL is an all singing, all dancing universal mount - nothing in common with the M at all, really.

I see nothing in the LSI poll which suggests using such a camera with anything but M lenses and the current M sensor …

To broaden the appeal of the camera. Outside Leica M lovers, nobody would accept a EVF camera without the advantages such a camera brings. I am assuming here that Leica would appreciate actually selling the camera.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

43 minutes ago, raizans said:

You know Mike Johnston’s observation that “people like Leicas,” not necessarily rangefinders? Everywhere you look, there is evidence that people bought a Leica rangefinder mainly because it’s a Leica, even if an SLR or EVIL mirrorless camera would meet their needs better. Or you see owners gatekeeping by saying “that’s not a real Leica” about many Leica products, or being snobby to users of other brands of rangefinder cameras.

The coming of the EVF-M is a reckoning.

Currently, we cannot assume that an EVF-M is coming at all.

[charlesphoto99]

Part of the problem I see, that no one's talked about really, is that M lenses don't have an auto iris, so EVF-M focusing can actually be more frustrating and less precise than the traditional rangefinder if focusing at medium to large f-stops. Not sure how Leica could overcome that except by re-inventing the M lens. 

[IkarusJohn]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

To broaden the appeal of the camera. Outside Leica M lovers, nobody would accept a EVF camera without the advantages such a camera brings. I am assuming here that Leica would appreciate actually selling the camera.

I guess I see this as the straw man you have been burning for years, Jaap.

I agree that an M camera with a L mount and EVF would be odd, and hard to sell.  That sounds like a smaller SL or a full frame CL, where a smaller SL would be a better idea.  That has nothing to do with an MEVF.  Sorry to be a bore, staying on topic!

I first raised the concept of a built in EVF over 10 years ago, and I doubt I was the first.  The suggestion was met with scorn, probably justified with the state of EVFs at that time.  Now, EVF technology has moved on; and so have I.  But the point was that the OVF provides vague, at best, framing and focus shift was a problem.  An EVF also gives the option of exposure simulation, effectively doing away with the need for any metering options.  I maintain those are compelling arguments.

The issue for me is not the M mount - it works fine with M lenses.  For me, it is focusing - for my 50s and my 75, the EVF is better than the OVF.  I don’t mount my APO Elmarit-R 180/2.8 on my M cameras, but if I did the EVF would be the only option.  I prefer that lens on my SL(601).  But for wides - 35-28-21 - the OVF can’t be bettered.  That is my experience.  I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that the M10-D with the EVF works best for me.

For those with firm views on the efficacy of an EVF with M lenses, just try an M camera with the Visoflex EVF, or your SL or CL with M lenses.  You don’t need to focus wide open, then stop down; you don’t need focus peaking; and there are actually few obstacles to just focusing, magnified if you wish, as Jono observed some time ago.

But then, there seems to be great pleasure in this thread raising theoretical alternative complications and shooting them down.  All good - but they should not be arguments against the simple concept of an M camera, as is, but with one change - a built in EVF.  The software is already there, baked into the camera.

Losing the windows on the face of the camera will kill this idea … 😅

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Part of the problem I see, that no one's talked about really, is that M lenses don't have an auto iris, so EVF-M focusing can actually be more frustrating and less precise than the traditional rangefinder if focusing at medium to large f-stops. Not sure how Leica could overcome that except by re-inventing the M lens. 

I have mentioned a couple of times that the lack of AASD (auto-aperture-stop-down) is a significant issue in EVF focusing with a closed aperture, especially with wide-angle lenses. Even wide open, with a 21/3.4, I prefer to use the rangefinder to focus precisely. Sean Reid has mentioned that issue on his site as well. 
Some forum members disagreed and wrote that they do not have issues focusing with a closed aperture.

[lct]

3 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Part of the problem I see, that no one's talked about really, is that M lenses don't have an auto iris, so EVF-M focusing can actually be more frustrating and less precise than the traditional rangefinder if focusing at medium to large f-stops. Not sure how Leica could overcome that except by re-inventing the M lens. 

I don't see anything to overcome. Focusing at working aperture is a no brainer to me. YMMV.

[IkarusJohn]

8 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I have mentioned a couple of times that the lack of AASD (auto-aperture-stop-down) is a significant issue in EVF focusing with a closed aperture, especially with wide-angle lenses. Even wide open, with a 21/3.4, I prefer to use the rangefinder to focus precisely. Sean Reid has mentioned that issue on his site as well. 
Some forum members disagreed and wrote that they do not have issues focusing with a closed aperture.

Agreed - using M lenses on any EVF platform has this issue, including the M(240), M10 & M11 with the add-on EVF, and the SL and CL cameras.  Some will focus wide and stop down, others won’t.  I don’t see moving the EVF inboard on an M camera being significant - it is inherent in the M lenses.

So why don’t people focus wide and stop down?  Auto aperture stop down was developed for SLR cameras for the simple reason that reliably focusing stopped down was just about impossible with an SLR - the view on the focusing screen was so dim it was unrealistic.  Pressing the stop down button was supposed to preview depth of field; it just made everything black!

There are two particular issues with focusing wide and stopping down (apart from being hopelessly slow in a camera best for fast photography) - (1) focus shift; and (2) an over-fixation with the plane of best focus.  I confess to being guilty with the second issue, but as Ansel Adams observed - there’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.  Depth of field is your friend, and in most cases focusing stopped down isn’t an issue.

Edited February 19, 2023 by IkarusJohn

[raizans]

29 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Part of the problem I see, that no one's talked about really, is that M lenses don't have an auto iris, so EVF-M focusing can actually be more frustrating and less precise than the traditional rangefinder if focusing at medium to large f-stops. Not sure how Leica could overcome that except by re-inventing the M lens. 

Various features have been suggested such as auto viewfinder zoom via the cam arm to easily focus at 100%, specially tuned focus peaking to reduce the quantity of peaking even when stopped down, and PDAF confirmation indicator (i.e., the green dot).

[pgh]

20 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

There are two particular issues with focusing wide and stopping down (apart from being hopelessly slow in a camera best for fast photography) - (1) focus shift; and (2) an over-fixation with the plane of best focus.  I confess to being guilty with the second issue, but as Ansel Adams observed - there’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.  Depth of field is your friend, and in most cases focusing stopped down isn’t an issue.

I think it's a little anachronistic to call an M a camera best for fast photography. In 1975, sure. Now, it's about as slow as you get for 35mm format and people like that about it. If I were ever going focus this way on a 35mm format camera it would be an M (I won't). Not that it can't be used quickly with a lot of skill but any modern evf will run circles around it most of the time even with a less skilled user vs a skilled M user. But that's also not the point - it's always been fast enough for what it is. 

As for the question my tune has changed. I used to think of course I'd get an EVF M camera. Now it's really about the implementation and I have my doubts. I've shot an SL2 for a year now and for my purposes it's essentially an M with an EVF, in that I use mostly M lenses on it most of the time and the size isn't a concern during that use, and everything else is gravy - I don't feel it's a compromise in any way to use the adapter. It's really nice in some respects, and but in others doesn't compare to the rangefinder. Not sure I'd ever want to get rid of the rangefinder and I'm not convinced EVF is better - just different. I shoot mostly 50mm but occasionally 35 and rarely 135, which the SL2 is nice for. In short, if I don't need the IQ of the SL2 (I have an M10), I'll use the M10 for viewing experience, even though I find the SL2 very nice to use.  

[charlesphoto99]

7 minutes ago, pgh said:

I think it's a little anachronistic to call an M a camera best for fast photography. In 1975, sure. Now, it's about as slow as you get for 35mm format and people like that about it. If I were ever going focus this way on a 35mm format camera it would be an M (I won't). Not that it can't be used quickly with a lot of skill but any modern evf will run circles around it most of the time even with a less skilled user vs a skilled M user. But that's also not the point - it's always been fast enough for what it is. 

 

Nah, I'll disagree (but then again I'm an extremely skilled user). Thing is, and what is rarely mentioned, is that the M is a precision made instrument to make imprecise photographs - and if you look at the history of M photography, it's often in that imprecision where the magic happens. Embracing that sense of looseness, and the M becomes a wholly different experience. 

[pgh]

1 minute ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Nah, I'll disagree (but then again I'm an extremely skilled user). Thing is, and what is rarely mentioned, is that the M is a precision made instrument to make imprecise photographs - and if you look at the history of M photography, it's often in that imprecision where the magic happens. Embracing that sense of looseness, and the M becomes a wholly different experience. 

That's fair, but I've been using M's for close to two decades myself - but I mean sure, if you include in that imprecision slightly oof images then the M is as fast as any other camera set to MF and it's all a question of who has the biggest buffer. Anyways, I sort of agree with your take about the purpose of the M, at the same time, digital is different and the same level of grace doesn't seem to apply. I'm not filing oof M images to the newspaper of record for example, no matter how magical it may feel to me. Framing is different I think. 

But for real, there are way faster cameras when speed matters, and the M (for me) is most gratifying in work that has the space to be a little more meditative in approach. An out of focus 40 mp digital image doesn't have the same soul as some pushed HP5. 

[jaapv]

56 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I guess I see this as the straw man you have been burning for years, Jaap.

I agree that an M camera with a L mount and EVF would be odd, and hard to sell.  That sounds like a smaller SL or a full frame CL, where a smaller SL would be a better idea.  That has nothing to do with an MEVF.  Sorry to be a bore, staying on topic!

I first raised the concept of a built in EVF over 10 years ago, and I doubt I was the first.  The suggestion was met with scorn, probably justified with the state of EVFs at that time.  Now, EVF technology has moved on; and so have I.  But the point was that the OVF provides vague, at best, framing and focus shift was a problem.  An EVF also gives the option of exposure simulation, effectively doing away with the need for any metering options.  I maintain those are compelling arguments.

The issue for me is not the M mount - it works fine with M lenses.  For me, it is focusing - for my 50s and my 75, the EVF is better than the OVF.  I don’t mount my APO Elmarit-R 180/2.8 on my M cameras, but if I did the EVF would be the only option.  I prefer that lens on my SL(601).  But for wides - 35-28-21 - the OVF can’t be bettered.  That is my experience.  I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that the M10-D with the EVF works best for me.

For those with firm views on the efficacy of an EVF with M lenses, just try an M camera with the Visoflex EVF, or your SL or CL with M lenses.  You don’t need to focus wide open, then stop down; you don’t need focus peaking; and there are actually few obstacles to just focusing, magnified if you wish, as Jono observed some time ago.

But then, there seems to be great pleasure in this thread raising theoretical alternative complications and shooting them down.  All good - but they should not be arguments against the simple concept of an M camera, as is, but with one change - a built in EVF.  The software is already there, baked into the camera.

Losing the windows on the face of the camera will kill this idea … 😅

Well, considering the conspicuous absence of such a camera, Leica appears to agree with me... At least for the time being.

[lct]

2 minutes ago, pgh said:

I've shot an SL2 for a year now and for my purposes it's essentially an M with an EVF, in that I use mostly M lenses on it most of the time and the size isn't a concern during that use, and everything else is gravy - I don't feel it's a compromise in any way to use the adapter. It's really nice in some respects, and but in others doesn't compare to the rangefinder. Not sure I'd ever want to get rid of the rangefinder and I'm not convinced EVF is better - just different.

Same here except that my mirrorless cameras are a digital CL and a modded Sony and i find it a compromise to not being allowed to do auto zoom with them. The EVF-M would simply fix this issue allowing me to use my M lenses in LV mode the way they are intended. I suspect nobody would object if i said exactly the same about my M11 and Visoflex 2. 

[jaapv]

I find it hard to understand this fixation on Autozoom. It is no cure-all and has serious drawbacks. It destroys framing and viewing/interaction with the subject and is not needed for many shots. The SL implementation is perfect. The right  thumb is always on the joystick, whatever mode used. One push and there it is - magnification instantly when needed and removed when destructive. I would be. surprised if Leica implemented it differently on an EVFM. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

22 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I find it hard to understand this fixation on Autozoom. It is no cure-all and has serious drawbacks. It destroys framing and viewing/interaction with the subject and is not needed for many shots. The SL implementation is perfect. The right  thumb is always on the joystick, whatever mode used. One push and there it is - magnification instantly when needed and removed when destructive. I would be. surprised if Leica implemented it differently on an EVFM. 

I have disabled Autozoom on my M11 (and any other camera that supports it). Instead, on M11 I trigger magnification with a button press, similar to SL.