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

[tritentrue]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica will change the meaning of "M."

Monokular?

Meniskus?

Morph?

Modernisierung?

Uh-oh . . . 🫣  I've just been spotted by the forum ranger! 😎

[Advertisement]

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

[setuporg]

Just now, tritentrue said:

Leica will change the meaning of "M."

...

Minions edition!

[tritentrue]

20 minutes ago, setuporg said:

Minions edition!

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!

 

[IkarusJohn]

6 hours ago, thrid said:

Sorry, I'm just not sold on the EVF technology, yet. I have tried everything from a Z9 to the SL2 and Q. For my shooting there is too much lag and I hate looking at a TV image.

As I have said several times before, it may work perfectly fine for many other people, but not for me. And that's fine. I'm all for live and let live.

 

If Leica comes out with an EVF-M I'll give it a go and if it doesn't work for me I'll just stick with shooting with whatever was the last OVF M and that will be it. Heck I may even go back to shooting film.

The M11 gets 14+ stops of range and 60MP is more than I will ever need. As long as they continue to support it and make spare batteries I'll be fine.

If EVF tech suddenly matures and it works for me I'll gladly come back.

But as I mentioned before, I have a feeing that a EVF and OVF M would coexist, because there are too many people in both camps who are pretty adamant about their opinion and way of shooting.

 

Interesting, and yet that’s exactly how I feel about the M11.  For so long as my M10-D works, I’ll be happy.  Not sure what then - hopefully my Monochrom and M-A will see me out.

If Leica makes an EVF based M, based on the M11 (which is most probable), I’ll pass.   Not because of the EVF …

[raizans]

1 hour ago, setuporg said:

I bet you 2 pfennigs it won't.

I'm looking forward to either getting 2 pfennigs or eating crow!

My money is on the camera being named like the L-mount cameras: SL, CL, TL, etc. But what letter will they use? Taking bets now!

[IkarusJohn]

6 hours ago, setuporg said:

The thread we have going for years starts off with a false premise.  It’s important to redress the subject and set the record straight.

As most members know, M stands for 

Messsucher

— which means rangefinder.

Hence there is no such thing as “EVF-only M camera.”

It couid be EVF-only M-mount compatible camera.  It couid be M-shaped camera.  It couid be many things.  It won’t be an M camera.

Okay, so let’s try to rescue some value out of this (or shall we start another thread on whether or not photography is art) - what is the essence of the M camera?

“M means messsucher” was just a marketing strapline, along with “Camera for Life” - it was relevant when Leica introduced the coupled rangefinder 70 years ago.  More a relic now than an innovation.

So, why did you/we buy into the M system? Or more critically, what do we value?  For me, it was the M9 (the Nikon digitals were behind, so the alternative was the 5DII):

• Presented and operated as camera, rather than as a computer or gameboy console with switchs, buttons and dials randomly placed all over the place (a view confirmed by brief dips into the Sony eco-system)
• Fabulous lenses, loyal to legacy
• Truly, the essence of photography - new strapline “das wesentliche”
• Fine DNG files
• No nonsense, with flat menu structure and great haptics (if your background was photography)

In all honesty, my purchase decision was not about the rangefinder.  I knew it was there, I had a rangefinder camera previously, and grew to love it while understanding its shortcomings.  If you want a realistic strapline, you could say “Messucher means good to 50mm”, beyond that you need an external viewfinder or magnifier if accurate focusing for longer lenses is important to you; and forget abnout accurate framing.  Even the M camera manual is baffling in this respect.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that during the 50s and 60s, Leica offered a whole range of accessories to deal with the shortcomings of the rangefinder mechanism - goggle lenses, the original visoflex (to mimick the SLR systems), add on viewfinders and magnifiers.  I can’t take seriosuly a system which still has two viewfinders …

So, perhaps touching on the core of the opening post - what camera remains faithful to your original purchasing decision?  I think if most here were honest, they would say their original decision wasn’t based on the optical rangefinder.  I doubt they could spell messucher, let alone know what it meant.  But, most of us came to love it …

Would I still buy into the M camera system if the camera was an M11, with an EVF and global shutter, and worse an L mount?  Honestly, no.  Of my list above, all that would be left would be the lenses.  Such an M would be a Sony, wrapped in a Leica M body.  Why have an SL, if such a camera existed?

Now, before people start throwing around words like traditionalist and purist, bear in mind my other cameras are (were) the TL2, SL and X2D - I’m not at all disinterested in technology (though I loathe the Sony eco-system in almost all its forms, having wasted time and money on previous products, only to find abandoned tech and built in obsolescence).  What I love about the M cameras is more about what they leave out than what they include.

I’ve posted elsewhere about my perfect digital M - best sensor, frame, focus, aperture, shutter, ISO and fire the shutter, resulting in the best dng file possible.  EVF?  Don’t really mind as it is an option which improves what’s already there.  End of the OVF? Don’t be silly, why would Leica do that?  If Leica sells more M cameras with an EVF than an OVF, what’s the problem?  Would you rather Leica missed out on sales and product placement because you don’t want an EVF based camera to succeed?

Pixel binning; electronic shutter without a global read-out on the sensor; in camera cropping; snapshot mode (remember that?); live view metering as the only option?  No thanks.  That’s Leica taking the M camera in the wrong direction.  While close focus M lenses suggest an EVF camera, greater damage is being done to the M system already, in my view. 

It’s not about the optical viewfinder or an EVF - the problem is far more serious than that.

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, setuporg said:

It won’t be an M camera.

Honestly, what's this thread in aid of? My photography won't be any better or worse if I call the camera with an EVF, an M lens mount and an M sensor stack an M or a nonM. or an itsnotanmbutitsveryusefulcamera.

So, yes, if it has all the properties of an M camera without the rangefinder, it's still an M.

[pgk]

10 hours ago, thrid said:

They could add electronic contacts to the M mount. Nikon did it to the F-mount.

If anything makes the M-mount 'obsolete' it's maybe the diameter. A mount with a greater diameter would offer some advantages to designing lenses.

Because of the mount diameter electronic contacts might well prove too small to be reliable. And this would require a new set of lenses too and it would be difficult if not impossible to have older lenses updated. The M mount is what it is - a small bayonet ideally suited to what it does which is to allow delightfully small, RF lenses to work perfectly with a mechanical cam on an RF camera. Its too small for much else especially with digital sensors which as we have seen from the SL, need to give the freedom of physically larger lenses to the lens designer in order to produce superlative optics.

An EVF-M would be compromised in so many ways and would offer nothing other than an M shaped body and the ability to use M lenses. It would require a very effective viewfinder in order to focus as well as an RF version (especially with wide-angles) which may be the final hurdle which Leica would need to overcome. An EVF optimised for MF lenses is certainly new and innovative. My Sony EVF does work with MF lenses but slow in use and I wouldn't describe the experience as being particularly good. Likewise the SL.

[lct]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

The M mount is what it is - a small bayonet ideally suited to what it does which is to allow delightfully small, RF lenses to work perfectly with a mechanical cam on an RF camera. [...] An EVF-M would be compromised in so many ways and would offer nothing other than an M shaped body and the ability to use M lenses [...]

The EVF-M would be made to be used with M lenses exclusively. As you said nicely, its M mount would be then ideally suited to allow delightfully small M lenses to work perfectly with a mechanical cam on the EVF-M.

[jaapv]

And M len

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Because of the mount diameter electronic contacts might well prove too small to be reliable. And this would require a new set of lenses too and it would be difficult if not impossible to have older lenses updated. The M mount is what it is - a small bayonet ideally suited to what it does which is to allow delightfully small, RF lenses to work perfectly with a mechanical cam on an RF camera. Its too small for much else especially with digital sensors which as we have seen from the SL, need to give the freedom of physically larger lenses to the lens designer in order to produce superlative optics.

An EVF-M would be compromised in so many ways and would offer nothing other than an M shaped body and the ability to use M lenses. It would require a very effective viewfinder in order to focus as well as an RF version (especially with wide-angles) which may be the final hurdle which Leica would need to overcome. An EVF optimised for MF lenses is certainly new and innovative. My Sony EVF does work with MF lenses but slow in use and I wouldn't describe the experience as being particularly good. Likewise the SL.

I cannot say that I echo your experience on the SL. Good enough to focus accurately in most cases, magnification in case it is needed is fast, and for the user who likes carnival lights there is focus peaking. 

[Kwesi]

9 minutes ago, lct said:

The EVF-M would be made to be used with M lenses exclusively. As you said nicely, its M mount would be then ideally suited to allow delightfully small M lenses to work perfectly with a mechanical cam on the EVF-M.

Fortunately Leica is smart enough to realize that any EVF only camera designed to be used exclusively with manual focus lenses is a nonstarter. Auto diaphragm and the option of autofocus are essential elements in any EVF camera. 

[lct]

1 minute ago, Kwesi said:

Fortunately Leica is smart enough to realize that any EVF only camera designed to be used exclusively with manual focus lenses is a nonstarter. Auto diaphragm and the option of autofocus are essential elements in any EVF camera. 

Indeed the EVF-M would not be any EVF camera as it would be dedicated to M lenses. AFAIK, Leica did not express any reservation in this regard. They only said that they need a couple thousand sales if my memory serves me well. If this means, say, 3,000, this would make yours truly + 2,999 sales. Non starter? I know nothing in marketing so i have no idea about that.

[Erato]

Your competitors will drag you down to their level if Leica chooses not to keep it as it should be. They can beat you easily at the arena of confusion created by them.
As a warm reminder, never and ever let your fear of losing(or increasing) market share that mislead and decide your worst future. 

[algrove]

17 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

And the freedom to use software correction.

Yes, the Q is a prime example.

[algrove]

8 hours ago, raizans said:

I'm looking forward to either getting 2 pfennigs or eating crow!

My money is on the camera being named like the L-mount cameras: SL, CL, TL, etc. But what letter will they use? Taking bets now!

How about ML? Or a QM?

Edited November 8, 2023 by algrove

[algrove]

12 hours ago, bcaslis said:

You have seen the latest Leica M ads? I don't see it stated with this dogma there. And all the recent lenses all have close focusing that the rangefinder don't do.

Good thought. That means all 3 M CF lenses require an EVF to use the CF feature.

Enter the EVF camera capable of using M CF lenses without the attachment of an EVF up top. I don't care what they call it as long as the EVF is built in like the Q or the SL (or the CL fro the past). Perhaps discontinuing the CL while saying they were no longer producing cameras with APS-C was just a smokescreen to pave the way to a new CL type of body with FF.

 

But does this new camera (if it ever comes out) favor with its mount, M lenses or L lenses? If using AF then L mount makes more sense and this would not be irritating M purists with its release. I guess I am not considered an M purist since I also own Q and SL cameras.

Could they have a whole new line of Q-like AF lenses with built-in, nearly silent leaf shutters? What would that mount called, a Q mount? Leica has such a broad range of choices in this case, it is a designers playground.

 

[algrove]

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

 

What I love about the M cameras is more about what they leave out than what they include.

 

This the best explanation for having an M that I have seen in a long time. Thanks.

[algrove]

2 hours ago, lct said:

Indeed the EVF-M would not be any EVF camera as it would be dedicated to M lenses. AFAIK, Leica did not express any reservation in this regard. They only said that they need a couple thousand sales if my memory serves me well. If this means, say, 3,000, this would make yours truly + 2,999 sales. Non starter? I know nothing in marketing so i have no idea about that.

ICT, if I remember correctly Daniels first reply about an M with EVF was that an EVF implies using AF lenses. Now later with Overgaard he said let's try one to see how (the sales) go even though he did not say it would be exclusively an M mount camera. Which to me leaves the door open to M, Q or L mount lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

14 minutes ago, algrove said:

ICT, if I remember correctly Daniels first reply about an M with EVF was that an EVF implies using AF lenses. Now later with Overgaard he said let's try one to see how (the sales) go even though he did not say it would be exclusively an M mount camera. Which to me leaves the door open to M, Q or L mount lenses.

I have no recollection of this sorry. As reported by Macfilos, quoted below, Leica referred to "an M with EVF".

Quote

The prospect of a light mirrorless camera with a native M mount was attractive. And, as someone else pointed out, an M body with built-in EVF instead of the rangefinder would probably be welcomed as a second body, even by rangefinder diehards.
In response to this, Stefan surprised the audience by saying that if there were sufficient demand, Leica would consider producing an M with EVF. Asked how many they would need to sell in order to make such a decision, he estimated “a couple of thousand”.

https://www.macfilos.com/2022/10/18/leicas-stefan-daniel-on-the-retirement-of-the-leica-cl-and-some-hints-for-the-future/#comments

[algrove]

13 minutes ago, lct said:

I have no recollection of this sorry. As reported by Macfilos, quoted below, Leica referred to "an M with EVF".

https://www.macfilos.com/2022/10/18/leicas-stefan-daniel-on-the-retirement-of-the-leica-cl-and-some-hints-for-the-future/#comments

That account sounds about right even though there was a straw pole at an LSI meeting in the UK or Scotland where out of about 100 people when he asked who would buy an M-EVF camera just 5 raised their hands. Keep in mind this was a meeting of long term M users who no doubt did not relish the idea of change to the M system. These were probably many who complained about the base plate being removed in favor of ease of battery change and also a larger battery on the M11.

At the same exchange or another one Daniels said that EVF's require AF lenses, but this was well before the M11 came out.

As published by Overgaard, he later asked Daniels again about the possibility of an M EVF and he then said let's try one.