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

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours 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)

What you’re talking about is a compact SL.  That may happen, it may not.  I personally doubt it bearing in mind the size of even the smallest of Leica’s SL mount lenses.  I can’t imagine using any of the zooms, the APO Summicrons or the massive 50 Summilux on an M camera.

Similarly, I can’t imagine why I would want AF, video and everything else the SL cameras offer in an M camera.  The M system is all about the lenses and the apparent simplicity and refinement of the M camera (well, the M10 series, at least).  The discussion is about one simple change - the option of an M camera with a built in EVF, not an SL camera in M form factor - I can’t see what you’d gain over whatever the SL3 has to offer.

I have the SL(601) and I am in the process of selling my last SL lens - I prefer my M mount lenses.

I don’t think anyone is missing the point.  Jono Slack raised this idea many months ago.

[Jacobjuul]

15 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

What you’re talking about is a compact SL.  That may happen, it may not.  I personally doubt it bearing in mind the size of even the smallest of Leica’s SL mount lenses.  I can’t imagine using any of the zooms, the APO Summicrons or the massive 50 Summilux on an M camera.

Similarly, I can’t imagine why I would want AF, video and everything else the SL cameras offer in an M camera.  The M system is all about the lenses and the apparent simplicity and refinement of the M camera (well, the M10 series, at least).  The discussion is about one simple change - the option of an M camera with a built in EVF, not an SL camera in M form factor - I can’t see what you’d gain over whatever the SL3 has to offer.

I have the SL(601) and I am in the process of selling my last SL lens - I prefer my M mount lenses.

I don’t think anyone is missing the point.  Jono Slack raised this idea many months ago.

I still think I miscommunicated since you bring up video. The only thing I'd bring over from the SL is the mount and an EVF. The rest would be more or less in the form factor and features of an M. But with the added possibility of using AF lenses if you so choose. Anyway, I am going to stop responding to these message as I just wanted to know if there was a reason this wasn't being considered, I didn't mean to start drama and get people all angry.

[pgk]

21 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

The M system is all about the lenses ......

IF, just IF, I was looking at a camera system based purely on its lenses I'm not sure that it would be an M. M lenses are compromises in so many ways. Many othe makers do not have to consider the constraints imposed by using a lens on an M.

[IkarusJohn]

17 minutes ago, Jacobjuul said:

I still think I miscommunicated since you bring up video. The only thing I'd bring over from the SL is the mount and an EVF. The rest would be more or less in the form factor and features of an M. But with the added possibility of using AF lenses if you so choose. Anyway, I am going to stop responding to these message as I just wanted to know if there was a reason this wasn't being considered, I didn't mean to start drama and get people all angry.

Who’s angry?  Speaking purely for myself, I was trying to explain why I don’t think there is any point in shoehorning an L mount into an M camera.  Clearly failed.

12 minutes ago, pgk said:

IF, just IF, I was looking at a camera system based purely on its lenses I'm not sure that it would be an M. M lenses are compromises in so many ways. Many othe makers do not have to consider the constraints imposed by using a lens on an M.

And yet, it is probably those compromises that make the M lenses so appealing.

Sure, all the tests and detailed reviews confirm that the APO Summicrons in SL mount are better than their equivalents in M mount.  The compromise for that quality, Peter Karbe freely acknowledged, was size and weight.  In use, for me anyway, that increase in quality in the SL lenses is marginal.  Using the 50 Summilux in SL mount and M mount, and the Noctilux, I came to the conclusion that the size, terrible manual focusing and complication of the SL version wasn’t worth it.  Choosing between the two systems, I opted for the M mount.  What my photography needs is improving content and composition, rather than technical improvement in lens quality.

The M mount has constraints, but it also has the benefit of 70 years of lenses, and all purely compatible. 

[NigelG]

48 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

What you’re talking about is a compact SL

This for me is the issue - why would the SL have been made any bigger than it had to be?

I’m not talking about the “massive” L lenses (M user here) but if the body was made larger to balance the lens dimensions I’m pretty sure at some point this would have been discovered/flagged and called-out.

So the question IMHO is simply whether there is a market for a (manual focus) EVF camera that mounts M lenses - with or without an adapter - and whether that is both practicable or desirable…

[DBAUDUI1]

I think the glass viewfinder is so nice, that it would be a pity to replace it with an integrated EVF, as it works quicker as the EVF and gives the viewfinder experience (the frames, the measure patch, everything is clearly visible etc...). The visoflex2 offers the big advantage of being tiltable to 3 positions, what could not be possible with an integrated EVF.

[DBAUDUI1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But if a new Leica M could also produce video (like the M240 which I keep for this reason, on top of my M11) with a better quality (not limited to 10 min) I would be interested.

[JTLeica]

3 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

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

Oh the DC DN lenses? I must say those lenses are awesome. But what I mean it you don’t just buy that to then adapt a load of M lenses and massive GM lenses. You opted for AF and small F2 compact lenses.

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 hours ago, JTLeica said:

Oh the DC DN lenses? I must say those lenses are awesome. But what I mean it you don’t just buy that to then adapt a load of M lenses and massive GM lenses. You opted for AF and small F2 compact lenses.

 

No. DG DN lenses. 24x36 not APSC. like this:

Sigma 50mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary Lens for L Mount 4314969 | Sigma Photo

1. Those lenses also work very well in L mount so *if* Leica or Sigma made a smaller body with the 60MP sensor and EVF then..... And no, the FPL doesn't count. Highly compromised. I wouldn't be surprised if Sigma did it though. I'd be all over it. If Leica did it I'd have no idea how far I would go to get one. A long way...

2. I also have an A7R5, A1 and a bunch of G and GM lenses. Generally I prefer smaller glass on the A7CR but the grip makes larger lenses doable at a pinch. Biggest I've tried was the 100-400GM. 

3. Not all the good optics are huge. The 16-35mk2 GM is small enough. My main zooms are the 20-70 and 70-200 f4 G2. They work just fine on the CR. There's a 20-60 and f4 zoom in L mount for a small body.

4. I don't think the Sony is excellent for adapting M lenses. Either an L or Nikon body are considered better. But I don't like little M lenses on the SL body. Feels wrong to me.

5. I bought my A7CR because I want a Q3 with a 45/50. This is as close as I can get. I have a 20/50/85 set for it but the 50 is on it 90% of the time. I would much prefer if Leica made me two more Q3's.

6. I used some of my APO Summicrons on my CL body. They balanced just fine.

7. I have plenty of fast M glass but tend to shoot the Summicrons as my general first choice. Summiluxes and specialist glass only comes out for a specific purpose. So f2 suits me perfectly.

But none of the cameras I have satisfy me as an EVF M solution. Not even my M11 with Visoflex 2. I'm not going to compromise either, so I'm not *putting up* with something else. M lenses on an M styled body. That's it. The A7CR isn't the solution. The EVF isn't good enough and not all the glass plays nice.

I've said MANY times. If an EVF based M mount camera comes I'm first in line. I don't generally adapt lenses. I get a body that the lenses were designed for. The exception is my CV 50mm f1 I use on my SL2. I've tried many times. It's just not my preference. I wouldn't give up my M's but somedays my eyes get tired and I'd like an alternative that feels like the lenses were supposed to be there, not an afterthought. I would consider something like the A7CR from Leica if the EVF was brilliant and M lenses were given as much importance as the SL glass. Actually that might be preferable.

Gordon

Edited February 27, 2024 by FlashGordonPhotography

[Tailwagger]

Here we are again.  I'm pretty sure that when I first joined the forum with my first digital M, the 240, there was a thread on this topic.  Over the intervening years, I've grown to prefer the duality and power of having two finders.  Each has its strengths and weaknesses to the point where I no longer see the need to spend many thousands to avoid attaching an external finder... which gets me waist level finding as well.  

Regardless, the notion of an Mevf only makes sense to me as native M mount camera. But personally, and as a former vocal advocate, I no longer see the point unless the camera was priced very, very aggressively.  I am not going to give up the OVF for anything less than a savings of several thousands.  And from what I've heard in the past, any such a discount would be highly unlikely, a few coppers at the most.  Thus the M, with its inherent versatility w.r.t. to focusing and framing remains the ideal solution.  But when I think about thing from an SL perspective, I find a variation on this theme that would appeal to me... but more importantly has the potential to stir up some new angry confrontations 😀.

A few months ago I played for a bit with a friends X100V.  While no M, I found that I thoroughly enjoyed the experience.  Now, with the release of the X100VI, I find myself thinking that ripping a page out of the Fuji book is the obvious fork in the road/path forward for Leica w.r.t L-Mount cameras.  While so far I fail to see any strong reason to upgrade to the upcoming SL3, I could see myself, as Gordon put it, first in line for an MessucherSL, if you will.  I.e. a native L-mount full frame take on the X-Pro model of dual VFs.  And where Leica has stated in the past that such a switch hitting VF was impossible within the confines of the M footprint, there should be no such constraints with the SL.  I have a few autofocus RF film cameras, notably the Porsche Rollei, gathering dust on my shelves, I think I would rather enjoy revisiting that sort of shooting experience again in the digital age.

 

[charlesphoto99]

17 hours ago, pgk said:

IF, just IF, I was looking at a camera system based purely on its lenses I'm not sure that it would be an M. M lenses are compromises in so many ways. Many othe makers do not have to consider the constraints imposed by using a lens on an M.

After shooting M lenses for so many years I see any other mfg lens as a compromise. I once sold a Canon 35 1.4 to another photographer. He asked me what I liked so much about the M. I pulled out a 35 'Lux and pointed out that I could easily fit four or five of these lenses plus a body or two in a bag he couldn't even fit one body and a lens. Sure, if I need a tele with AF, then the M is a 'compromise.' But by no means a hidden one. No camera is a Swiss Army knife. 

[JTLeica]

36 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

After shooting M lenses for so many years I see any other mfg lens as a compromise. I once sold a Canon 35 1.4 to another photographer. He asked me what I liked so much about the M. I pulled out a 35 'Lux and pointed out that I could easily fit four or five of these lenses plus a body or two in a bag he couldn't even fit one body and a lens. Sure, if I need a tele with AF, then the M is a 'compromise.' But by no means a hidden one. No camera is a Swiss Army knife. 

I just came back from Switzerland and had an M, a Q, 21, 35, 50, 90, 135 all in a 'Small F-Stop ICU'... With room to spare. 

[lct]

18 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

The M mount has constraints, but it also has the benefit of 70 years of lenses, and all purely compatible

Indeed and for the first time in photography history we can use M lenses not only in RF mode but in LV mode too since pioneer cameras like the M240 up to the (almost) modern M11. Constraints due to those unique lenses have never been so minimal.

[M11 for me]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb DBAUDUI1:

But if a new Leica M could also produce video (like the M240 which I keep for this reason, on top of my M11) with a better quality (not limited to 10 min) I would be interested.

Please NO video. I hope that Leica reads this post . . . 😀

[pgk]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Indeed and for the first time in photography history we can use M lenses not only in RF mode but in LV mode too since pioneer cameras like the M240 up to the (almost) modern M11. Constraints due to those unique lenses have never been so minimal.

You could say this about ANY legacy lenses. I'm shooting 1860s lenses using EVF cameras and yes they can deliver surprisingly good results. The constraints on ALL legacy lenses are optical. To obtain state-of-the-art optical performance requires that the size contstraints of lenses are minimised, electronic data transfer to allow for software adjustments where this is beneficial, and that the design is thoroughly integrated into the body to be used. Otherwise optics will be constrained as they are with M lenses. As I have repeatedly stated, M lenses work best as intended on RF-M cameras.

Perhaps, in order to cut costs and build a competitive EVF-M Leica might consider an option which I don't think has been discussed as yet. Build an EVF-M body and a new, cheaper series of non-RF coupled M lenses so that less of the precision engineering required to produce the RF cam is needed and thus the lenses can be cheaper. Such lenses would retain backward compatibilty with any M camera having Live View, but would not be useful with film Ms of course. They could even use plastics to reduce weight as they did in the KoB🤯. Hands up in favour?

Edited February 28, 2024 by pgk

[lct]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

[...] As I have repeatedly stated, M lenses work best as intended on RF cameras [...]

Not all RF cameras have an M mount. M lenses work best as intended on M-mount cameras.

[pgk]

15 minutes ago, lct said:

Not all RF cameras have an M mount. M lenses work best as intended on M-mount cameras.

OK, I've amended my post. Happy now?😁

[lct]

29 minutes ago, pgk said:

OK, I've amended my post. Happy now?😁

I'll be happy when you state the obvious. Just repeat after me: an M-mount camera is an M-mount camera 😄

 

[jaapv]

If you repeat: an M camera is a Messucher camera 🤪

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

If you repeat: an M camera is a Messucher camera 🤪

I don't speak German sorry 😄