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

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28 minutes ago, Derbyshire Man said:

I agree.

 

My guess is I am probably part of a target market for future Leica sales. I started with Canon and their ever enlarging cameras and lenses, swapped to Fuji for size and portability. Happened upon Q2M and loved it because of the compact size and full frame sensor, considered M with OVF but as I like narrow DoF portraiture (often with offset subject) on 28/50/80 it became clear that focussing wide open, on a range finder, composed properly through the viewfinder (so many portraits on here of faces in the middle of the screen and acres of white space above) and eyes in focus was going to be a pretty sturdy challenge. A challenge I've been through before when I had a manual focus T90. I don't need £10,000 worth of frustration and missed opportunities!

 

I don't care about autofocus but whenever I see people discussing the difficulty of the above the answer is either take loads of photos and hope one is in focus, take loads of photos and eventually after missing lots of shots you may get the hang of it, shoot at F8 (doh!) and just use the visioflex.

 

That last answer demonstrates *to me* that for a super expensive camera which I would want to use with wide open lenses, unless it has an EVF I'm very likely to have post purchase buyers remorse = one sale lost.

 

Fully accept that if my thing was hyperfocal street photography, mostly landscape or expensive high quality snaps on holiday I'd feel differently!

 

I'm not arguing for the removal of the OVF M model, just for a version with integral modern high quality EVF. With manual focus lenses and the product aim of remaining compact and simple. Once I've got one of those I'll consider an OVF M for Landscape;-) For me currently the M is a thing of beauty but an impractical one for my use case.

An M is not impractical, just the contrary. It is a precise and fast tool for those who bother to acquire the skill to use it. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Derbyshire Man]

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

An M is not impractical, just the contrary. It is a precise and fast tool for those who bother to acquire the skill to use it. 

I've been taking photographs for about 50 years now. I have used cameras which struggle with focus and compose due to curvature of the focal field and centre only focus aids. It's a defect of the tool and an answer that goes 'you're simply not good enough' is verging on the insulting in a more nuanced debate. If it were truly practical, simple and fast to use in a critical focus scenario with narrow DoF then many would be using it in the press and fashion fields, they simply are not. Currently it is sitting in the enthusiast geek zone and doesn't need to be, it's not about stopping 'enthusiasts' having access to a camera they love but more about selling a modified camera to pragmatists.

[jgeenen]

The more I think about it, for me the unique selling point of an M camera IS the range finder. Although my eyes are aging and the view finder is less than optimal for any focal length other than 50 or 75mm (for 28mm it is more guessing than framing), I still love the overview off the range finder's field of view and the fast and accurate range finder focus patch. 

EVF do have advantages, especially for telephoto, macro and wide angle lenses, and - especially for manual focus lenses - disadvantages (the focussing of manual lenses is not fast and not very well integrated into the capturing workflow; the image is more or less blurred unless focussing is completed). For me, the disadvantages are dominating with manual focus lenses.

Therefore - unless someone is developing an EVF that is truly optimized for M lenses,  an EVF M camera remains undesirable. 

I did an rough estimation of my photography style that supports this view:

How often do I use the Visoflex finder on current M11 camera? Rarely, only with 21mm lens and close focus shots.

How often do I use manual M lenses on my system camera bodies? Almost never, too slow to handle and no real advantage on images.

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by jgeenen

[lct]

3 hours ago, anbucco said:

An EVF-M wouldn’t make any sense as is technically spoken useless, since all M-lenses do not have automatic diaphragm. Focussing in difficult situations would be almost impossible.

Opposite experience here as i focus at working aperture. Works fine with all my mirrorless cameras. No need to focus recompose this way and no risk of focus shift either.

[jaapv]

20 minutes ago, Derbyshire Man said:

I've been taking photographs for about 50 years now. I have used cameras which struggle with focus and compose due to curvature of the focal field and centre only focus aids. It's a defect of the tool and an answer that goes 'you're simply not good enough' is verging on the insulting in a more nuanced debate. If it were truly practical, simple and fast to use in a critical focus scenario with narrow DoF then many would be using it in the press and fashion fields, they simply are not. Currently it is sitting in the enthusiast geek zone and doesn't need to be, it's not about stopping 'enthusiasts' having access to a camera they love but more about selling a modified camera to pragmatists.

Not impressed. I own and use M cameras since 1976 and have never found them wanting in speed and accuracy. If. I want an SLR camera I use an SLR camera. If I want an EVF camera I use an EVF camera If I want a fix-focus camera I use one. I consider trying to bully a manufacturer into bastardizing a perfectly fine piece of gear instead of using an alternative  rather silly.

[lct]

16 minutes ago, jgeenen said:

How often do I use manual M lenses on my system camera bodies? Almost never, too slow to handle and no real advantage on images.

Different experience here. I always used manual lenses on my mirrorless cameras. Fast to handle with a bit of experience and huge advantage on images taken by M lenses almost exclusively.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Derbyshire Man said:

I agree.

 

My guess is I am probably part of a target market for future Leica sales. I started with Canon and their ever enlarging cameras and lenses, swapped to Fuji for size and portability. Happened upon Q2M and loved it because of the compact size and full frame sensor, considered M with OVF but as I like narrow DoF portraiture (often with offset subject) on 28/50/80 it became clear that focussing wide open, on a range finder, composed properly through the viewfinder (so many portraits on here of faces in the middle of the screen and acres of white space above) and eyes in focus was going to be a pretty sturdy challenge. A challenge I've been through before when I had a manual focus T90. I don't need £10,000 worth of frustration and missed opportunities!

 

I don't care about autofocus but whenever I see people discussing the difficulty of the above the answer is either take loads of photos and hope one is in focus, take loads of photos and eventually after missing lots of shots you may get the hang of it, shoot at F8 (doh!) and just use the visioflex.

 

That last answer demonstrates *to me* that for a super expensive camera which I would want to use with wide open lenses, unless it has an EVF I'm very likely to have post purchase buyers remorse = one sale lost.

 

Fully accept that if my thing was hyperfocal street photography, mostly landscape or expensive high quality snaps on holiday I'd feel differently!

 

I'm not arguing for the removal of the OVF M model, just for a version with integral modern high quality EVF. With manual focus lenses and the product aim of remaining compact and simple. Once I've got one of those I'll consider an OVF M for Landscape;-) For me currently the M is a thing of beauty but an impractical one for my use case.

I agree.

The Visoflex actually works very well.  You can shift the focal point off centre, and as you focus the lens, the image is magnified through the viewfinder at your chosen spot.

[evikne]

I'm not going to cry if there's never an EVF-M. I don't really care. But I will cry if there are no more M's without a screen, I think that's much more important to continue.

In the few cases where I want an EVF, regardless of whether the camera has a screen or not, I can just put on a Visoflex.

Edited November 7, 2023 by evikne

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

As a last point I will ask those who want an EVF-M; do you think such a camera would actually improve your photography and the images that you create or would it be a different experience for taking similar images to those you take already?

Interesting question, Paul.

A lot of buying decisions are based on advertising, product perception, what appeals or a misguided belief that it will assuage all the buyer’s desires.

So, if we accept that the M system is fundamentally flawed, what are its appeals?

(1) fantastic selection of compact manual focus lenses (including legacy lenses) which are optically refined - ie, do not rely on software correction.  I’m not against software correction for lenses used with specific cameras (the SL system, and Hasselblad’s X system), but there is something about optical correction which is beguiling.  So, lenses.

(2) direct manual control, as close to a film camera as can be achieved.  Haptics and apparently simplicity.

(3) the optical coupled rangefinder (properly adjusted), which is superlatively accurate for wide angle lenses.

But, as @Derbyshire Man above comments, things get tricky with the RF - inaccurate framing, no close focus, an inability to move the focal point and challenging focus wide open with 50mm and longer lenses.  These last issues are well managed by the EVF option (currently Visoflex), but not so good if you wish to rely on the best plane of focus for wide angle lenses.

On this last point, you have two options with an EVF - (a) rely on the depth of field (not my first choice), or (b) focus wide open, then stop down hoping that focus shift isn’t an issue (clumsy).

One other benefit of the EVF is exposure simulation, obviating the need for any metering decisions that camera may make for you.

So, to answer your question, the EVF M camera is simply an alternative.  As the owner of a number of M lenses, I am committed to the M system - film, Monochrom and colour.  An EVF version would simply be another colour version, without the need for the Visoflex.  If I had such a camera, would I miss my M10-D?  Hard to answer.

Would it change my photography?  Probably not, as I have used the SL extensively and I’m currently using my X2D.  Would it change my M photography (I hesitate to say “improve”)?

It would, in three respects - better framing, better exposure and better composition.  Downsides?  I like the OVF, so it wouldn’t replace what I have, but it would enhance it as I wouldn’t need to add the EVF (which is not as frequent as if the EVF is built in - there’s something not very elegant about the Visoflex).

I hope this provides a practical and “real world” (if you’ll pardon the expression) consideration of the appeal of an EVF based M camera.

[wizard]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb IkarusJohn:

... and as you focus the lens, the image is magnified through the viewfinder at your chosen spot.

I did not know that, as I have only just bought my first digital Leica M yesterday, but that sure sounds like a good feature to have.

[IkarusJohn]

31 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I consider trying to bully a manufacturer into bastardizing a perfectly fine piece of gear instead of using an alternative  rather silly.

Not your best work.

[jaapv]

Ah-but the work I am making with my M9 Summicron 35 asph in the beautiful light right now feels pretty good. 😀😇🇾🇪

[algrove]

3 hours ago, adan said:

Not mine.  

It is possible that some M users struggle to focus with it.

Some (most?) people struggle to get anything out of a violin except shrieks and squawks - is that any standard to judge the violin by?

Finally a comparison that does not mention automobiles.

[algrove]

All kinds of views and that's the way it should be. My take.

One question Leica needs (and probably already has) to ask itself is:

Why have so many new to Leica and old to Leica purchased the Q?

I bought it (old to Leica) for many reasons with the first being AF, then FF and then size, but not for the fixed 28mm lens even though through its various Q generations Leica has given greater choices for incorporating longer lenses into it via the crop mode. I never use it as I just crop in computer.

We all will have differing reasons for buying the Q, but if Leica comes out with a new, small AF mirrorless camera what will it look like. For me it must be FF with interchangeable lens capabilities.

Now here is where it gets foggy. Does it mainly use M lenses? Does it mainly use L mount lenses with the ability of adapting M lenses? To me that could take us back to SL use with M lenses. OR do they introduce an entirely new line of small AF lenses? If so what mount is best? I never bought into the CL line because if I wanted APS-C I would buy Fuji.

Should this new camera have IBIS? Should this camera use a Leica staple for many years-- the 24MP sensor like the SL2S which I bought because it was 24MP and captures low light like no other Leica. Should it be a small SL body and not even make it M-like? That might be the answer. Does that mean it will have an L  mount? Not an L mount for large and heavy SL glass, but an L mount with small and light weight glass like some of the new ASPH lenses. 

Leica has the capability to make about anything, but they must hit a sweet spot that sells well and allows them to maximize their small workforce the best way possible. Will it be a larger Q, a smaller SL or an M with EVF?

Right now I bet they could put the new Visa into an M11 where the RFsits and have extra room left over to the right of the VF since no RF patch is required. I bet one of those has been roaming around the planet for many months. 

 

The more I ponder this, the more I realize it is not such as easy decision to do what I just described above since it might cannibalize the beloved M system which must surely generate the largest revenue per unit of all the Leica models even after 100 years of existence.

Leica decided to move away from the bottom plate on the M11. Well I for one like it since that new battery is a very strong point for getting an M11. The 60MP sensor is OK, but not necessary except for the marketing department. Heck, they even got the data wrong on how photo binning can increase DR by going 36 or 18MP. Wrong as testers found out.

 

[Smudgerer]

Just a swift comment on the Leica M OVF, ( of which I have been a user for nearly 60 years........gulp ), the viewfinder on an M is never completely accurate in regards to framing, it's a "best guess", a good one perhaps but the final framing is determined in post-production / printing with some adjustments. This is how I have always used the M's VF, I try to get my framing plus some "wiggle-room" all around, then I can be pretty certain that I have the shot I'm going for. With a SLR, a DSLR and an EVF what you see is what you are going to get and if that's what floats your boat then it's a great facility to have............Personally I like to have some room around any image I make so I can tweak it in the final delivery, whatever that might be.

[Erato]

In short, great things never came from comfort zones.
La pratique rend parfait.

[charlesphoto99]

It's sad to see how many users buy into the M system but don't understand the working ethos of it. The M is, and should always be, about the OVF and rangefinder focusing. It's what makes it unique, esp in this day and age when other rangefinder. Otherwise, it would be just a Sony A whatever with a brass covering. If the M doesn't work for you, then it's probably best to get one of those, and adjust colors in post to be more Leica-like. At the end of the day it's about making photographs, however you get there. For me it's the limitations of the M that appeal most - as @Erato says above, nothing great ever came from things being all homogenized and easy. 

[pgk]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

So, if we accept that the M system is fundamentally flawed, what are its appeals?

4. It requires a great deal of user input and does so while you are looking through an optical finder at the world as you see it.

Using a Leica M-RF has undoubtedly improved my photography. Using an EVF has allowed me to use lenses that I could not otherwise have used but I'm very doubtful that using one has actually improved my photography as such.

Cameras are only tools at the end of the day but some tools resonate with their users better than others. I'm with you on "there is something about optical correction which is beguiling" but could apply this to other, non-Leica lenses easily enough too. And apparent 'simplicity' may well be anything but, often forcing fast decision making with an outcome in mind which in turn requires a photographic though process to be adopted rather than rey on what the camera suggests. The OVF is a unique way of viewing the world photographically. So I see no benefit in an M-EVF for many reasons and I have and use EVFs when I need to so I'm not anti-EVF just anti changing a great system into an also ran.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[newtoleica]

6 minutes ago, pgk said:

 

Using a Leica M-RF has undoubtedly improved my photography. Using an EVF has allowed me to use lenses that I could not otherwise have used but I'm very doubtful that using one has actually improved my photography as such.

 

This^^ Have always found that when I've delved into other systems. I take my best images with the RF....

[algrove]

1 hour ago, Smudgerer said:

Just a swift comment on the Leica M OVF, ( of which I have been a user for nearly 60 years........gulp ), the viewfinder on an M is never completely accurate in regards to framing, it's a "best guess", a good one perhaps but the final framing is determined in post-production / printing with some adjustments. This is how I have always used the M's VF, I try to get my framing plus some "wiggle-room" all around, then I can be pretty certain that I have the shot I'm going for. With a SLR, a DSLR and an EVF what you see is what you are going to get and if that's what floats your boat then it's a great facility to have............Personally I like to have some room around any image I make so I can tweak it in the final delivery, whatever that might be.

Agree and that's the main reason I like to use a 24mm lens on the street in order to gain "wiggle room" for post processing.