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

[pegelli]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I have disabled Autozoom on my M11 (and any other camera that supports it).

+1, I would never buy a camera that would not allow disabling this feature.

[lct]

Autozoom allows me to magnify focus w/o having to press a button when i don't have the time or the desire to do so. W/o autozoom i would have little reason to prefer a Leica over my Kolari mod Sony that works fine with my old and new M lenses thanks to its BSI sensor together with IBIS and occasional AF in a compact package. Not sure i would have an M11 either since my M240 is good enough in RF mode for my needs. YMMV.

Edited February 19, 2023 by lct

[jaapv]

I prefer to compose the image I am taking. 

[lct]

6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I prefer to compose the image I am taking. 

I don't know for you but in RF mode, either i compose after zone focusing or i recompose after focusing with the focus patch of the rangefinder. Same with autozoom except that i can nail focus thanks to image magnification. 

[IkarusJohn]

3 hours ago, pgh said:

... 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 agree.

Excuse the selective quote, but this thread is too full of nickpickery and cul de sacs.  Whether you view a camera as fast or slow isn't really the point - is it fast in terms of frame rate, or just getting the picture?  Isn't speed about anticipating the picture and taking it? 

For me, knowing what the ISO is, having a good idea of the aperture I want, and just raising the camera, framing and focusing makes the M camera the quickest camera I have.  I love my SL(601), but remembering the menu settings and fighting with the AF does not make it fast or intuitive.  If I used it more, perhaps.

Don't get me started on Sonys, or even Nikons for that matter (and Nikons are a model of simplicity by comparison).  But I digress.

[jaapv]

23 minutes ago, lct said:

I don't know for you but in RF mode, either i compose after zone focusing or i recompose after focusing with the focus patch of the rangefinder. Same with autozoom except that i can nail focus thanks to image magnification. 

Too slow. Only suitable for static subjects. In auto zoom on a dynamic  subject you press the button without seeing your frame. If you half-press to kill auto zoom your subject will have moved and you will have lost your precise zoomed focus. Pressing the joystick takes zero time. The RF in the OVF is something quite  different and has nothing to do with Autozoom or this discussion. We were talking about a EVFM, remember? 

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Too slow. Only suitable for static subjects. In auto zoom you press the button without seeing your frame. If you half-press to kill auto zoom you subject will have moved and you will have lost your precise zoomed focus. The RF in the OVF is something quite  different and has nothing to do with Autozoom. 

Matter of practice. When i have the time, i see the frame, i focus and i recompose in both ways. When i don't have the time, i zone focus and i compose in both ways as well.

[jaapv]

Zone focus=misfocus. By definition.
I hardly ever use it and actively dislike the uncertainty of the plane of focus.
 

The key phrase is: when I have time. Very often you have not.

As a matter of fact, I tried this out a while ago, using the Voigtländer 75/2.8 on a SL601, CL, S5 and M9; there was no difference in the ranking between the EVF cameras.

For critical focus on static subjects, the M9 RF came in about equal with the zoomed focus on the EVF cameras. Focus peaking came clearly behind, plain EVF focus was in the last place.  Most precise was zoom focus combined with focus peaking.

For moving subjects the RF was the clear winner, both with follow-focus and trap focus. The full EVF came next and was acceptable, zoom focus was last.

On both types of subjects I sometimes lost the framing or made compositional errors using zoom focus.

Zoom focus was easiest to implement on the SL601, as the placement of the joystick ensures instant (de)-activation by a twitch of the thumb. 

I cannot think of a single argument to prefer automatic zoom focus, especially on the SL.

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

Would you buy an EVF only M camera?

No.

My Q2 fills that role.

 

[DenverSteve]

16 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

Are you suggesting that ‘survey’ is meant to be taken seriously? 

Yes. It is.  At least................ I believe so............... 😗

[lct]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

[...] For moving subjects the RF was the clear winner, both with follow-focus and trap focus. The full EVF came next and was acceptable, zoom focus was last.

On both types of subjects I sometimes lost the framing or made compositional errors using zoom focus.

Zoom focus was easiest to implement on the SL601, as the placement of the joystick ensures instant (de)-activation by a twitch of the thumb. 

I cannot think of a single argument to prefer automatic zoom focus, especially on the SL.

I have little experience with SL cameras but i prefer RF for good enough focusing generally while i mainly use focus magnification for nailing focus, especially on high res sensors. The matter is academic anyway since the EVF-M will not be an RF camera.

Edited February 20, 2023 by lct

[Erato]

A whining with a plausible proposal shall never ease the deepest pain caused by the weakness of the creative mind and a handful of skill sets.

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!

[charlesphoto99]

6 hours ago, pgh said:

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. 

Yes, referring primarily to framing. Of course when I was doing assignment work I often used a Nikon, esp for long or superwide (14-24, 70-200). But I'll never forget the time I showed up at a Pearl Jam show with two M9's. The other photogs with their 70-200's and 80-400's etc looked at me like I was crazy. Of course they were also looking over their shoulders when they got escorted out after three songs and I stayed behind to shoot the whole show. And got great stuff, most of it in focus (I mostly used manual focus on my slr AF lenses as it was). Of course if I only had ten minutes of shooting myself, I'd probably have brought a Nikon with me - and have for subsequent, much larger stadium shows, though it's the Leica shots that shine the most. 

Edited February 20, 2023 by charlesphoto99

[raizans]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Zone focus=misfocus. By definition.
I hardly ever use it and actively dislike the uncertainty of the plane of focus.

The funny thing is that all of these imprecise focusing methods are what make rangefinders, with their reverse Galilean viewfinders that show the world in crisp focus, so unique and effective. They synergize with each other. The latter facilitates and elevates the other. SLRs and mirrorless don’t have the same ability to enable imprecise focusing methods, and the technological drive has always been to get them to focus precisely as fast as possible so as not to obstruct the photographer’s visual connection with the subject with a blurry image. Leica would not be the legend it is without that history of “imprecise” methods of focusing.

Edited February 20, 2023 by raizans

[jaapv]

Zone focus is not the field of Leica. M. The built in rangefinder is meant to give precision.  Zone focus is the world of folding cameras and box cameras. Turn your lens to stick man, family group cartoon or mountains   

[pgk]

Some reality. I have Sony A7 series cameras and lenses. I also have an adapter which allows me to use Leica M lenses on the Sony and a button set to magnify part of the frame for focus. Some of my M lenses work very well on the Sonys, however .....

I rarely use M lenses on the Sonys even though some work very well in terms of the image quality they produce. I have the same fixed focal lengths Sony lenses which, like it or not, are equally competent performers and are much simpler to use on the Sony bodies either in AF or MF modes. I had an SL which worked fine and was a lovely camera but decided that it was asystem too far and actually offered me nothing that the Sonys couldn't do.

My point is that an EVF-M is really only viable as a camera if it offers something that cannot be achieved otherwise. The current M rangefinders do offer rangefinder focus and are a world away from EVF cameras and have the advantage of providing fast, accurate wide-angle focus and image 'quality'. An EVF-M would offer a MF Leica M lens based body but its only real plus is that it would have the body form of an M. The idea that it could deliver marginally improved performance using microlenses is fine, but I can obtain excellent image 'quality' using similar wide Sony lenses on a Sony camera body so what does this actualy achieve other than a smaller lens being used (not sure about lighter)? How would this drive Leica's aspirations to be a manufacturer offering the highest quality products forward? And does blurring the lines between the systems Leica offers make good sense?

I can see that some people want such a camera, but does it really make sense given its drawbacks and marginal advantages? My own feeling is that pandering to a vocieferous subset of Leica M owners is only viable if there are a good percentage of them who will be inclined to buy such a camera. If it was cheap enough I might buy one for technical applications but cheap is rarely a word associated with new Leica products. I would suggest that sales outside existing M system owners would be low too.

Edited February 20, 2023 by pgk

[lct]

It does if one sees no drawback and significant advantages as i do. How many people will share my point i have no idea but the LSI survey and that of the LUF are made to get such an idea precisely so let's see what the results will be. The majority should vote yes i suspect but i may be wrong .

42 minutes ago, pgk said:

I can see that some people want such a camera, but does it really make sense given its drawbacks and marginal advantages? My own feeling is that pandering to a vocieferous subset of Leica M owners is only viable if there are a good percentage of them who will be inclined to buy such a camera. If it was cheap enough I might buy one for technical applications but cheap is rarely a word associated with new Leica products. I would suggest that sales outside existing M system owners would be low too.

 

[jaapv]

Those surveys are without significance. Photographers without interest will not participate. So 107 out of 4 Billion photographers would buy such a camera?

[lct]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Those surveys are without significance. Photographers without interest will not participate. So 107 out of 4 Billion photographers would buy such a camera?

I may get your concern, w/o sharing them, but the only surveys with no significance are the ones Leica decides so.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Leica is perfectly capable of doing their own market research. These forum surveys are fine for signaling interest amongst their existing customers but would be disastrous to base decisions on.