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

[goodbokeh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm paying attention to the upcoming debut of the Lumix S5 II that will be introduced at the CP+ Photoshow in Japan this February. I think the Lumix S5 II will provide the platform of a new Leica SL-3 body. That will be the closest thing to a Leica M EVF model we will ever see.

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

13 minutes ago, goodbokeh said:

I'm paying attention to the upcoming debut of the Lumix S5 II that will be introduced at the CP+ Photoshow in Japan this February. I think the Lumix S5 II will provide the platform of a new Leica SL-3 body. That will be the closest thing to a Leica M EVF model we will ever see.

I assume that S5 II will be as adequate for M lenses as S5. I am not sure that S5 is any better than a7rV or Z 7 II for working with M lenses.

[Planetwide]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Who in the world is going to buy a handicapped manual focus EVF camera at a price point of at least $ 8000 and with lenses in the range of 4000-10.000 $, outside the core die-hard Leica M customer base? And how many  of those will be attracted by a non-rangefinder "abomination" ?

My guess is that if Leica were to develop such a camera, they would test the water by issuing a 20.000$ limited edition first.

The "q" is the abomination that you talk about, albeit with a fixed lens. I guess they don't sell, or do they?

[Planetwide]

4 hours ago, pgk said:

There are already many options for doing exactly this. I don't see massive market share increase as a result, because for the vast majority of users the advantage of having an EVF camera capable of taking M lenses is that they can use MF M lenses on a camera in addition to 'native' fully functional AF lenses and not instead of (there wll be a few exceptions of course). I do this myself - M lenses on a Sony and I use manual focus magnification if I need to do so. The Leica M rangefinder camera remains a niche camera. An EVF version would be a niche within a niche. If Leica can make one and make a profit by doing so then great, but there are technical hurdles to overcome as well as the conceptular concerns which many of us have too and whilst no doubt Leica will be looking into the idea, they will be doing so with a business head on.

The only other options that really work with M lenses are the SL series Cameras, and they are not perfect either. The Sony is a poor substitute for a EVF M, you know it and so do I. Try using anything wider that a 35mm. For that matter, why do you even bother - I'll bet it's for the Leica lens look even if the edges are poor.

The thing is, it is an assumption on the part of existing M users that there is no market for this type of camera, and they are wrong. The assumption that there is no market, makes no sense,  given every other mirrorless camera. As I have mentioned, older M users, people who do not like the RF experience, but want the size advantage would buy.

The thing is the RF M is like Harleys are to the motorcycle world, it faces declining market share as the users age and stop buying. Very few new users are buying it, instead, they are buying the Q, and that says it all.

[Jeff S]

20 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

The "q" is the abomination that you talk about, albeit with a fixed lens. I guess they don't sell, or do they?

The Q2 (including fixed 28mm Summilux) is $5795.  The M11 with a 28mm M Summilux is $16,790. 

Jeff

[Planetwide]

14 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

The Q2 (including fixed 28mm Summilux) is $5795.  The M11 with a 28mm M Summilux is $16,790. 

Jeff

Exactly. What new user is going to dole out almost 17k for and M with a 28mm Summilux just to try?  Maybe the "EVF M" will be a Q derivative, you never know...

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

42 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

The "q" is the abomination that you talk about, albeit with a fixed lens. I guess they don't sell, or do they?

The Q is of no interest to the customer base of the M except as a different type of camera for casual use. Apples and Oranges. My point is that the core M users don’t even accept a camera that does video, let alone one that replaces the USP of a rangefinder camera by a little TV screen. 

[jaapv]

3 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

Exactly. What new user is going to dole out almost 17k for and M with a 28mm Summilux just to try?  Maybe the "EVF M" will be a Q derivative, you never know...

Unlikely. The internal construction is too different. 

[pgk]

8 hours ago, Planetwide said:

The only other options that really work with M lenses are the SL series Cameras, and they are not perfect either. The Sony is a poor substitute for a EVF M, you know it and so do I. Try using anything wider that a 35mm. For that matter, why do you even bother - I'll bet it's for the Leica lens look even if the edges are poor.

The thing is, it is an assumption on the part of existing M users that there is no market for this type of camera, and they are wrong. The assumption that there is no market, makes no sense,  given every other mirrorless camera. As I have mentioned, older M users, people who do not like the RF experience, but want the size advantage would buy.

The thing is the RF M is like Harleys are to the motorcycle world, it faces declining market share as the users age and stop buying. Very few new users are buying it, instead, they are buying the Q, and that says it all.

I suggest that you use the search function here. You will find that the concept of an EVF-M has been discussed here for years. Oddly enough, Leica still haven't made such a camera despite people like yourself telling them about the viable market which exists for an EVF-M camera. This is worth pondering.

And for the record, wide-angle focus is where the RF is exceptionally good; for accurate, none aperture dependant focus. I see NO advantage in an EVF for wide-angle M lenses other than perhaps framing, although in practice this is not a real issue, for me at least, and probably many RF users too. An EVF-M would be most effective at mid to long focal lengths which is where there are less issues with other camera systems. Jaapv's post shows just this.

[lct]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

And for the record, wide-angle focus is where the RF is exceptionally good; for accurate, none aperture dependant focus. I see NO advantage in an EVF for wide-angle M lenses other than perhaps framing, although in practice this is not a real issue, for me at least, and probably many RF users too. [...]

Matter of tastes and/or experience i guess. I generally prefer the RF when i don't need nailing focus and when i can use frame lines in the OVF. But otherwise i use almost exclusively the EVF including with UWA lenses like 21mm on the M11. Just been testing a ZM Biogon 21/4.5 on this forum. The Visoflex 2 was on the M11 and i could have used the RF and/or the EVF alternatively as i can do with 35mm to 135mm lenses usually but in this case i did the whole shooting with the Visoflex at f/4.5 and f/8. No focusing problem whatsoever at working aperture thanks to the auto zoom feature that i find more than handy compared to my mirrorless cameras (Digital CL, Sony A7r2 mod) which require using a button or a dial for image magnification. FWIW.

[pgk]

52 minutes ago, lct said:

Matter of tastes and/or experience i guess. ..... the whole shooting with the Visoflex at f/4.5 and f/8. 

Not really. Wide-angle lenses are notorious for being tricky to focus in low light because their depth of field can be too deep and the precise point of focus not well enough delineated. Try at f/11 or f/16 and you may see what I mean. Focus maginifcation will help of course, but the RF is not aperture dependent and as such will focus correctly at all apertures with wide lenses. I have the Sony 20/2.8 and SEM and both work surprisingly well on the cameras that they were intended for. If I'm honest about it I think that the Sony lens focuses better on the Sony cameras than the SEM will using focus magnification. The SEM is the better lens but I would have difficulty criticising the Sony 20/1.8 in the vast, vast majority of circumstances. I prefer to use the SEM on a rangefinder if possible though.

The problem with trying to hybridise a fairly dumb (6-bit coded) MF lens system into a genuinely effective EVF only body is that the alternatives will feel far better integrated, because they will be. Of course there are those who believe M lenses to be so far superior that they are worth the effort of using them on a body which utilises technologies that they were never intended for. I'm just not one of them. To me M lenses are exquisite, small, high quality lenses which work superbly for the purpose for which they were intended - rangefinder photography. Many other lenses are now extraordinarily good if larger. As the SL has been used to illustrate, this is the trade off for a more versatile EVF camera and high quality lenses which are integrated into its design.

[lct]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Not really. Wide-angle lenses are notorious for being tricky to focus in low light because their depth of field can be too deep and the precise point of focus not well enough delineated. Try at f/11 or f/16 and you may see what I mean. [...]

Why not really? I just reported what i did with the M11 in this instance and i could add what i've been doing with my mirrorless cameras since i have them. I have shown that focusing a 21mm lens at f/8 as working aperture is perfectly and easily(for me) done with the Visoflex 2 of the M11. I can do it at f/11 as well and it is even easier in macro mode. Here with a 35mm LTM lens by example (digital CL).

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!

Edited December 12, 2022 by lct

[lct]

48 minutes ago, pegelli said:

M cameras indeed do this with M-lenses, but Sony/Nikon/Canon also do this with their native lenses on their mirrorless bodies so I think the aspect of auto-magnification M-lenses on an M-body is not unique nor superior.

The auto zoom feature of digital M cameras is not only superior but indeed unique with M lenses. Only lenses that matter on an M-mount camera by definition. 

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, lct said:

Why not really?

All focus systems work well enough in good conditions. But is limiting a camera to good conditions only really viable?

[lct]

46 minutes ago, pgk said:

All focus systems work well enough in good conditions. But is limiting a camera to good conditions only really viable?

Just shot this masterwork at 0.5m focus distance with M11, Visoflex 2 and ZM 21/4.5. Focused in a snap at f/16 thanks to the auto zoom feature of the M11. Good or bad conditions? Not that good for a rangefinder anyway unless it can focus down to 0.5m which the M11 cannot do yet.

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!

 

[pgk]

I really can't be bothered going over this old ground yet again. The only way we will ever know if such a camera will be a success is if Leica make one. I wait with bated breath😉.

In the meantime I'll carry on using both RF and EVF cameras as usual.

[Planetwide]

4 hours ago, pgk said:

I suggest that you use the search function here. You will find that the concept of an EVF-M has been discussed here for years. Oddly enough, Leica still haven't made such a camera despite people like yourself telling them about the viable market which exists for an EVF-M camera. This is worth pondering.

And for the record, wide-angle focus is where the RF is exceptionally good; for accurate, none aperture dependant focus. I see NO advantage in an EVF for wide-angle M lenses other than perhaps framing, although in practice this is not a real issue, for me at least, and probably many RF users too. An EVF-M would be most effective at mid to long focal lengths which is where there are less issues with other camera systems. Jaapv's post shows just this.

Actually, they have made an EVF M, it's just an add on. I would also postulate, the most users buy and use the EVF as add on for critical focus. What we are debating here is not the value of an EVF, as that has already been well established, we are debating a camera without the RF system. It seems that most M users wish to keep it - something that I do understand. Also, I have not advocated for changing the current M, only adding an EVF version to the line up. The current add-on EVF is a poor solution, as it adds bulk, weight, and cost. A pure EVF M would be lighter, cheaper, and smaller. What I wonder about, and don't understand, is why the resistance?

[Planetwide]

On 12/7/2022 at 5:34 PM, pop said:

The M is unique because not many others make digital rangefinders.

Rangefinder cameras are very good at very few things.

Rangefinder cameras suck at many other things.

In order to do the things where rangefinder cameras are not best, you need another camera or other cameras.

Having spent a sound amount of money on an insanely good set of lenses, using those lenses on other cameras seems very sensible. Actually, it's mandatory if you want any kind of homogenity in your work. Using the lenses with the same sensor stack and camera software is nearly equally important.

Therefore, you'd need a camera with the same sensor stack and the same lenses but with a body and finders better suited to the task than the rangefinder one.

Which could be an EVF M.

 

100% agree

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[goodbokeh]

19 hours ago, SrMi said:

I assume that S5 II will be as adequate for M lenses as S5. I am not sure that S5 is any better than a7rV or Z 7 II for working with M lenses.

Yes, the point of my post was that the Lumix S5 II could provide the design platform for the upcoming Leica SL-3. The SL-3, with L-M adapter and Leica's own sensor stack design better optimized for M lenses, will continue to be Leica's answer for a Leica M EVF model. A smaller and lighter SL-3 (based upon the S5 II) will encourage M owners to embrace the SL-3 more than previous larger SL models.

[Cattoo]

23 hours ago, Planetwide said:

Very few new users are buying it, instead, they are buying the Q, and that says it all.

Just curious.  What's your source?  Can you show us some marketing data?  I don't mean to argue but have to ask how you know this.  Or are you speculating?