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

[Stevejack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, Jacobjuul said:

I am not trying to argue the usefulness of an EVF, I am sure it would be useful to many people. I am just trying to make the argument that what people are asking for is the wrong thing. We should ask for an L-mount M body (with an evf)

Might be better received over in the SL forum? I don't think too many M users are on board with bringing autofocus lenses into the system but I might be off base there. FWIW I hope it happens for you - the M body is a thing of beauty. Leica struggles to fit things like IBIS inside the body but I guess if the lenses have OIS instead it would solve that problem, a bit like the Q2 I suppose. 

[Advertisement]

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

[londond]

Would the ‘L-mount M’ be in the same sort of ballpark as the 61mp Sony interchangeable lens compact?

https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7cr?

I guess Leica might want to add that string to their bow but it seems different to an M - which for me is defined by the rangefinder/OVF and the mount supporting lovely mini manual focus lenses. I have APO 50 in L and M mount, for me the use cases are very different.  A smaller body for my L lenses would be of marginal use to me (and indeed unbalanced on the zooms) - and between Ms, SL2, and Q2(M) I’m personally covered.  But the fact that other manufacturers make similar things to the Sony presumably suggests there is market for them?

 

 

 

 

 

[Jacobjuul]

41 minutes ago, Stevejack said:

Might be better received over in the SL forum? I don't think too many M users are on board with bringing autofocus lenses into the system but I might be off base there. FWIW I hope it happens for you - the M body is a thing of beauty. Leica struggles to fit things like IBIS inside the body but I guess if the lenses have OIS instead it would solve that problem, a bit like the Q2 I suppose. 

I actually have no real interest in EVF cameras; however, I am curious about why people would prefer an M-Mount EVF camera over an L-Mount camera, especially when the latter, in the same form factor, would offer greater versatility. Including an L-M adapter in the box or as part of a kit seems like a practical solution. This approach would also enable Leica to introduce smaller L-mount lenses than their current lineup.

I am fairly certain that if given the choice—assuming identical form factors—between an M-Mount EVF camera and an L-Mount EVF camera, 90% of buyers would opt for the L-Mount. The only minor drawback would be the need for an adapter

[pgk]

5 minutes ago, Jacobjuul said:

The only minor drawback would be the need for an adapter

If you read through all the discussions and arguments over an M-EVF you will find that it is the horrific thought of having to use an M-L adapter that is the sticking point. Many view it as being an atrocious compromise and will have none of it. Personally I'm not so interested in an M-EVF but an L mount M sized EVF makes most sense to me. A new fully integrated adapter which hardly looks as though it is fitted might be one solution🤔.

[costa43]

1 hour ago, Jacobjuul said:

I am not trying to argue the usefulness of an EVF, I am sure it would be useful to many people. I am just trying to make the argument that what people are asking for is the wrong thing. We should ask for an L-mount M body (with an evf)

I do not think that is so appealing, The use of an adapter takes something away from using an M for me. It will be a camera that is not particularly adept at mounting L mount lenses (due to their size) or M mount lenses, an inbetween. Makes little sense. I do see a benefit in a a slightly smaller and lighter SL camera for SL users though. 

An M mount camera with a built in EVF seems like a logical option that many users will be interested in. It does not have to be an evolution of the M system, it can be offered alongside the standard option.

[Gavin G]

M-EVF, yes please. Even i carry SL2S, still prefer mount M lens on it.

[JTLeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, Jacobjuul said:

I keep seeing this being mentioned over and over. Do we really want an M EVF camera? I think it would make much more sense to make an SL in the form factor of an M camera (with an L mount of course), and include an M-adapter in the package. 

Why is no one talking about this approach? 

Well no as you then have to bolt on those huge beer can lenses to a tiny camera, and people will make fun of me.

[JTLeica]

4 hours ago, Jacobjuul said:

I think you’re missing the point of my question. 
I’m curious why people want an m-mount evf camera. When an L mount in the form of an M camera would be a better solution (in my opinion at least). 

I would want one.

Very responsive, compact without the need for an EVF add on, automatically registers the focus change maybe and magnifies.

I dont want an SL, I want an M Mount with EVF, SL with adapter is huge. And why would anyone want a rangefinder style body with massive L Lenses, is the real question.

[dpitt]

28 minutes ago, JTLeica said:

And why would anyone want a rangefinder style body with massive L Lenses, is the real question

Indeed, I always wondered why anyone would want massive lenses. In the past they said the longer flange distance of reflexes made it impossible to make reflex lenses as small as M lenses. Now they have an L mount with even shorter distance. What is keeping them from making a compact L range?
Slightly longer and bigger is not an issue for me, ideally a body with L lens 28 or 35 mm with AF and aperture of F2.0 or F1.4 in the same size range as a Q.

Then a least you have the choice to use an adapter for M and go a little bit smaller, sacrificing the AF and possibly IS of a native L lens.

[Jacobjuul]

1 hour ago, JTLeica said:

I would want one.

Very responsive, compact without the need for an EVF add on, automatically registers the focus change maybe and magnifies.

I dont want an SL, I want an M Mount with EVF, SL with adapter is huge. And why would anyone want a rangefinder style body with massive L Lenses, is the real question.

you're missing the point. Doing this would give leica a reason to release smaller lenses and you don't HAVE to use the SL lenses. 

[JTLeica]

14 minutes ago, Jacobjuul said:

you're missing the point. Doing this would give leica a reason to release smaller lenses and you don't HAVE to use the SL lenses. 

No my friend you are missing the point, you asked a question to the M forum and you seem to only be satisfied if our opinion align with yours, which evidently they dont.

Tell me how Leica can make smaller lenses for the L mount, when the MOUNT is so large? Their design aesthetic wont allow an ugly tapered design. I dont want an M style SL camera, thanks, I just want an M with an EVF as an option, and use M glass, I dont care about autofocus for this camera, I want to maintain the smallest footprint with the best quality you can... that means forgoing autofocus and large mounts. There is an SL forum just a few clicks away... 😘

[JTLeica]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

If you read through all the discussions and arguments over an M-EVF you will find that it is the horrific thought of having to use an M-L adapter that is the sticking point. Many view it as being an atrocious compromise and will have none of it. Personally I'm not so interested in an M-EVF but an L mount M sized EVF makes most sense to me. A new fully integrated adapter which hardly looks as though it is fitted might be one solution🤔.

Yes absolutely, we already have an SL in the shape of an M, called an A7CR by Sony... Wonder how many of us bought this? None?

[Jacobjuul]

1 hour ago, JTLeica said:

No my friend you are missing the point, you asked a question to the M forum and you seem to only be satisfied if our opinion align with yours, which evidently they dont.

Tell me how Leica can make smaller lenses for the L mount, when the MOUNT is so large? Their design aesthetic wont allow an ugly tapered design. I dont want an M style SL camera, thanks, I just want an M with an EVF as an option, and use M glass, I dont care about autofocus for this camera, I want to maintain the smallest footprint with the best quality you can... that means forgoing autofocus and large mounts. There is an SL forum just a few clicks away... 😘

sorry I didn't mean to say you're wrong, I meant to say that I'm obviously failing at communicating what I mean. 

I am saying that imagine an M11 with an L mount and an SL EVF. The only difference to the m-camera would be that you would need to use an M-adapter. I only own M cameras and M-lenses, but I'd definitely go for this, because it would still allow me the flexibility of using any of the L-mount lenses (there are some very compact options in the L-mount alliance)

[dpitt]

1 hour ago, Jacobjuul said:

sorry I didn't mean to say you're wrong, I meant to say that I'm obviously failing at communicating what I mean. 

I am saying that imagine an M11 with an L mount and an SL EVF. The only difference to the m-camera would be that you would need to use an M-adapter. I only own M cameras and M-lenses, but I'd definitely go for this, because it would still allow me the flexibility of using any of the L-mount lenses (there are some very compact options in the L-mount alliance)

Indeed. My SL(601) works great with M adapter and M lenses. If they would eliminate the size and weight difference, the only difference that remains will be the RF. It would still be reason enough for most to own an M, but I see no reason why a small size and weight FF Leica camera body should be exclusive to the M mount.

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, JTLeica said:

No my friend you are missing the point, you asked a question to the M forum and you seem to only be satisfied if our opinion align with yours, which evidently they dont.

Tell me how Leica can make smaller lenses for the L mount, when the MOUNT is so large? Their design aesthetic wont allow an ugly tapered design. I dont want an M style SL camera, thanks, I just want an M with an EVF as an option, and use M glass, I dont care about autofocus for this camera, I want to maintain the smallest footprint with the best quality you can... that means forgoing autofocus and large mounts. There is an SL forum just a few clicks away... 😘

I don’t see much esthetically displeasing in an M lens on an M-L adapter. 

[lct]

Why would i need an adapter on an M-mount camera? I don't have one on my M11. I just want the same on the EVF-M with a built-in EVF in lieu of the RF. Too simple to be repeated?

[JTLeica]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

I don’t see much esthetically displeasing in an M lens on an M-L adapter. 

If you had the choice of with or without Jaap? L lenses on a small rangefinder body, too, would be a little gnarly. 

I have been through years of adapting lenses to Sony cameras and its a little unsatisfactory in use, I just like the lens to fit the body.

[jaapv]

I will never have the choice. As I don't see the point of shelling out thousands of Euros on a body that neither has the versatility (EVF, AF, etc) nor the minimalism (M-lens, RF focusing, etc) that I like.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[FlashGordonPhotography]

6 hours ago, JTLeica said:

Yes absolutely, we already have an SL in the shape of an M, called an A7CR by Sony... Wonder how many of us bought this? None?

I did. Great camera. Matched with the Sigma i series primes, great system. The EVF will hopefully improve in V2 though.

Leica wouldn't make me a 45-50mm Q. So I moved to something that works for me.

Gordon

[evikne]

3 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Leica wouldn't make me a 45-50mm Q. 

I've heard rumors of the opposite.