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

[sinjun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've said it before, but I would prefer a third party to make an M mount mirrorless camera with a rangefinder-style body, thin filter glass and BSI sensor or whatever it takes to minimize colour casts. Maybe CV could make a digital Zeiss Ikon. That way it should end up much cheaper than a digital M. Manual focus would be fine - in fact preferable to auto focus.

[Advertisement]

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

[Alberti]

OP:

Quote

users want the SL tech inside of the M body without video

isn’t this a kind of CL just with a FF sense and - of course a 6-bit reader? 
And then the user would be able to select automatic magnification of some (selected??) area.

• Please not a focus spot that follows the nose.
• Would be nice, no birds in the camera either, not needed. Just a slim body.
  Remember: CL replacement without the L-mount…

[Tailwagger]

3 hours ago, lct said:

I can understand this but how long will it take until M users realize that they need their Visoflex each time they have to nail focus at high resolution and that their dear M11 is not a compact camera anymore this way? I wanted to know is if there are technical reasons against the idea of the EVF-M. With all due respect to my talented opponents i don't see any for now and this, for me, is reason enough to hope . 

While the 020 was certainly an imposition, the V2, IMO is not. I can fit the M11 with the grip and V2 into the diminutive Hadley Digital along with 3 lenses. That's far smaller a space than anything else with three primes including a Fuji APS-C. So, I see no issue here. Now, if you're talking about throwing away the current M form factor altogether for something closer to the size of a Rollei 35, I could see myself popping for 28 Elmarit and using such a camera as miniature Q. 

As for nailing focus, the EVF, which as you know I use all the time and have for 4 generations of M, is a double edged sword in this regard, hence why I stated previously that I've come to see the wisdom of having both VF methods.  If you're shooting wide open, near field, 50mm and up, sure, EVF is the bomb. I think some folks would be amazed at just how sharp some of the earlier glass actually is when focused precisely.  But... the OVF is a far, far better tool for quickly finding accurate focus with anything at or below 28mm and, say F5.6 or so. I find that the WATE and SEMs are nearly impossible to focus anywhere near as accurately with the EVF at virtually any aperture, take far more time and fuss factor, often having to open and then stop back down.

As for auto-zoom, IMO there are any number of ways it could be overcome including purely via software detection. But even if it weren't possible technically, we're talking about a camera with an M mount that is designed, ground up, to be an EVF.   I see no issue in having an additional, dedicated, conveniently placed button to zoom. In some ways that might be a better solution as one can zoom in and out without having to alter focus or half press to get out of zoom mode. In fact, as I mentioned in another thread for regaining  the C functionality, one could imagine that in the context of an M-EVF a pseudo frame lever could provide a three position switch for 0, 5x, 10x viewing. 

[jaapv]

I fear that this is personal experience. Of course some users are happier using an EVF but others like me have no problem nailing critical focus on an M at least up to 90 mm. I’ll post the graph by Günther Osterloh on focus precision later. In fact, I can manage to focus 270 mm on an M9….   

[mujk]

21 hours ago, lct said:

Of course an EVF-M would have auto image magnification for the simple reason that it would have an M mount hence the same roller cam (pic) as your and my M cameras have always had. As far as M lenses are concerned, it is a unique feature of M mount cameras and no mirrorless camera, be it Sony, Nikon, Canon or others, can compete with that.  

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!

The cam roller is part of the rangefinder mechanism, so it would not be there in its current form in an EVF-only M (no OVF -> no rangefinder -> no roller). But Leica could replace the roller with something else that senses cam movement for auto magnification purposes only.

However, this cam movement sensor could probably be as easily incorporated in a new version of the M to L adapter, which would then communicate the information to the body through the L mount electrical contacts. Remember that Leica is in full control of the L mount specification so they could add this "extension" as long as it does not affect other L manufacturers. So with this type of adapter and some software in the L mount body you would get the same auto magnification functionality as you get in the current M10 and M11.

[lct]

3 minutes ago, mujk said:

The cam roller is part of the rangefinder mechanism, so it would not be there in its current form in an EVF-only M (no OVF -> no rangefinder -> no roller)

Why could not the roller be kept separately? I don't understand this objection.

[mujk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, lct said:

Why could not the roller be kept separately? I don't understand this objection.

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!

As already mentioned, in its current form it's an integral part of the rangefinder/OVF mechanism (see image above). But it could be replaced by something else sensing cam movement. And this should be doable in an adapter as well.

[lct]

On M cameras, the roller cam is just fixed on an arm that moves around an axis near the camera mount. I don't see why these parts could not be kept in the EVF-M.

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!

[Alberti]

Of course having EVF with a cam would be possible, but why? I assume a dedicated not hybrid machine. Then are looking at a screen - not through a stage binocular. So what would the position of the cam convey to that screen? 

• my only thought is the refrence in numerals what the distance is; or a pointer like in many cameras.
• but is that interesting or going to help in docus-point  peeping? Ah maybe the moment you turn the focus. OK That would help. As long as it could be shut off.

[pegelli]

30 minutes ago, lct said:

On M cameras, the roller cam is just fixed on an arm that moves around an axis near the camera mount. I don't see why these parts could not be kept in the EVF-M.

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!

Why are you so fixed on keeping the existing roller cam? Any simple device or microswitch that detects movement of the focus cam of the lens is fine to trigger your beloved automatic focus magnification and will do the job.

Edited December 11, 2022 by pegelli

[lct]

1 hour ago, pegelli said:

Why are you so fixed on keeping the existing roller cam?

Because it exists and works perfectly since the fifties.

[lct]

1 hour ago, Alberti said:

Of course having EVF with a cam would be possible, but why? I assume a dedicated not hybrid machine. Then are looking at a screen - not through a stage binocular. So what would the position of the cam convey to that screen?

The same as it does currently with electronic Visoflexes. 

[pegelli]

15 minutes ago, lct said:

Because it exists and works perfectly since the fifties.

Let me ask the question differently then, would you be against a simpler/cheaper device that provides the same function you're looking for?

[lct]

6 minutes ago, pegelli said:

Let me ask the question differently then, would you be against a simpler/cheaper device that provides the same function you're looking for?

I'm not good at academic or theoretical questions, sorry. This device does not exist and has never existed. Why changing a winning team?

[pegelli]

35 minutes ago, lct said:

I'm not good at academic or theoretical questions, sorry. This device does not exist and has never existed. Why changing a winning team?

A rollercam without the attached rangefinder mechanism doesn't exist either, so it will require additional R&D to mount it in the camera "solo". So wether you like it or not, the "winning team" will have to be changed.

And while we're at it, "changing a winning team" by removing the entire viewfinder/rangefinder and replacing it with an EVF seems to be fine by you, but heaven forbid to remove the  rollercam (which is an integral part of the removed viewfinder/rangefinder) because that part seems too sacred and good to consider another viable solution.

And btw, this whole discussion about an EVF M-mount camera is purely academic and theoretical and such a camera doesn't exist today and has never existed, so I don't see the difference why that's a fair topic for discussion but changing the rollercam to something different is suddenly too difficult to discuss.

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by pegelli

[raizans]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:45 AM, Herr Barnack said:

In thinking about this, I would welcome such a camera provided it does not replace the traditional M camera with manual focus and a true rangefinder mechanism.  

Why would it?

I don’t think I’ve come across any explanation for this anxiety:

EVF-M -> ???? -> death of the rangefinder

[lct]

1 hour ago, pegelli said:

And btw, this whole discussion about an EVF M-mount camera is purely academic and theoretical and such a camera doesn't exist today and has never existed, so I don't see the difference why that's a fair topic for discussion but changing the rollercam to something different is suddenly too difficult to discuss.

The difference is your adapter does not exist and never existed whereas the roller cam does exist since the fifties and works fine since then so the question i'm interested in is could the roller cam be used for the EVF-M or not. 

[pgk]

8 minutes ago, lct said:

The difference is your adapter does not exist and never existed .....

Nor does an EVF-M😉😆.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

11 minutes ago, pgk said:

Nor does an EVF-M😉😆.

Reason why i ask.

[Herr Barnack]

1 hour ago, raizans said:

Why would it?

I don’t think I’ve come across any explanation for this anxiety:

EVF-M -> ???? -> death of the rangefinder

Because it is far too easy to thoughtlessly cast aside something that has worked well since the 1950s (to paraphrase @lct) for something that is "new and improved" and supposedly "better."

I fervently hope that the decision makers at Leica are smarter than that.  More than a few commentators are not, but then these are people who simply do not grasp the meßsucherkamera ethos.