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

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

one to quickly re-confirm focus accuracy.

And confirm composition slowly... I  notice that you split your infinitive - does that mean that you still had your split image patch in mind?  

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

And confirm composition slowly... I  notice that you split your infinitive - does that mean that you still had your split image patch in mind?  

Imagination confirmation takes whatever time required regardless of the VF type. After so many years of doing the VF two step, it is barely a conscious act whose overhead takes well under 1/2".  Too slow for some perhaps, but as a % of my process it's in the noise. 

I'd rather miss a shot altogether than get even more pissed off at having blown it due to loss of critical edge content.  And then there is at least one other scenario where the EVF is critical... parallax.  I vividly recall being out with the 240 and 90 Elmarit struggling to shoot a bird perched on a telephone wire with set of intersecting power lines underneath.  I shot at least a dozen frames, chimping all the way, all in a failed attempt to position the subject precisely within the checkerboard. Eventually we both gave up and went our separate ways.  Ordered an EVF the next day.  I've since been shocked to discover that chimping for confirmation is quite a bit slower than just moving over to the EVF in the first place. Who knew?

 As for the pendanticism...

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Even if you came to these pages perfectly sane and well adjusted...

point made. 🤣

[Advertisement]

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

[Jipster]

8 hours ago, jaapv said:

Still I think Leica dropped the  CL prematurely. First run a campaign to counter the Full Frame marketing machine- there is nothing remotely full frame about the 135 format. Full frame means a size that allows a decent contact print, like 18x24. 
More importantly, APS brings out higher performance in M lenses as one avoids the small size compromise that restricts a rangefinder lens.  
The solution to the discussion in this thread is : bring out a M mount CL. R&D is minimal: superglue to stick the adapter on and firmware changes to remove all references to AF. Barnack size and shape and and philosophy: maximum quality with minimum size.  

I find this thread perplexing. It’s like somebody complaining that a bike has only 2 wheels and does not protect against rain and snow. If only it was a car! Sure, but then buy a car! If people like EVF and autofocus so much, there is the SL system or Nikon Z, or countless others. There is only one manual focus rangefinder, but people want to make it like others. That seems bizarre to me.

[lct]

2 hours ago, Jipster said:

I find this thread perplexing. It’s like somebody complaining that a bike has only 2 wheels and does not protect against rain and snow. If only it was a car! Sure, but then buy a car! If people like EVF and autofocus so much, there is the SL system or Nikon Z, or countless others. There is only one manual focus rangefinder, but people want to make it like others. That seems bizarre to me.

Why is it that bizarre to prefer M lenses? It sounds even more bizarre to ignore the preference of Leica users for them. In the film days, we had to use bulky Visoflex housings for that. Only non Leica users could find bizarre to use the optical cell of a Summicron 90/2 or a Tele-Elmar 135/4 in reflex mode on them. Nowadays those Visoflex housings are becoming as compact as optical OVF's more or less. Nobody found bizarre to use them since the thirties either. Did i say bizarre? .

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by lct

[Jipster]

51 minutes ago, lct said:

Why is it that bizarre to prefer M lenses? It sounds even more bizarre to ignore the preference of Leica users for them. In the film days, we had to use bulky Visoflex housings for that. Only non Leica users could find bizarre to use the optical cell of a Summicron 90/2 or a Tele-Elmar 135/4 in reflex mode on them. Nowadays those Visoflex housings are becoming as compact as optical OVF's more or less. Nobody found bizarre to use them since the thirties either. Did i say bizarre? .

 

But there are visoflex for those who want them. The request is to provide only an EVF. And that has never been part of the M ecosystem, as far as I know, the M stands for rangefinder. Not that it’s bad to want whatever you want, but it ain’t going to be an M.

[lct]

1 minute ago, Jipster said:

But there are visoflex for those who want them. The request is to provide only an EVF. And that has never been part of the M ecosystem, as far as I know, the M stands for rangefinder. Not that it’s bad to want whatever you want, but it ain’t going to be an M.

Call it as you like it is just a matter of words but i like EVF-M. EVF based M-mount camera. So good a name that i won't even claim for royalties if Leica keep it .

[Jipster]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

50 minutes ago, lct said:

Call it as you like it is just a matter of words but i like EVF-M. EVF based M-mount camera. So good a name that i won't even claim for royalties if Leica keep it .

The good thing os that it already exists, it’s called the SL. They even given you a rebate at times AND when you want autofocus, you can use SL lenses. 😉 

 

[lct]

8 minutes ago, Jipster said:

The good thing os that it already exists, it’s called the SL [...]

Give it an M mount with auto image magnification, make it take a weight loss cure, give it a BSI sensor designed for M lenses only and i could buy it to replace my old Kolari mod A7r2, provided it has IBIS if course .

[Tailwagger]

21 minutes ago, Jipster said:

The good thing os that it already exists, it’s called the SL. They even given you a rebate at times AND when you want autofocus, you can use SL lenses. 😉 

There have been literally hundreds of pages here devoted to arguing this subject over the past half decade or more.  In every single one, at least one detractor, often dozens, has proclaimed the SL as a suitable substitute.  It isn't.  Suggesting otherwise is akin to telling anyone interested in an M with IBIS that they should just buy an SL and an adapter. 

For those highly desirous of such a camera... and for the record I'm not particularly... the SL is of little interest as an M glass platform.  Why? Well there is the form factor, the non-native mount and all the annoyances that introduces, the demonstrated problems with SL sensor when mounting wide angle M lenses, the presence of dozens of unnecessary controls as well as menu items to navigate, the lack of auto-zoom, etc, etc, etc.  Few are interested in a compromised, afterthought of a solution particularly when the M itself exists.  What needs to be understood, agree or disagree, is that proponents of a native M mount mirrorless camera wish to have a body whose sole point is to support M glass optics; a camera that has thoughtfully embraced the notion of a compact, manual focus only camera in the context of modern mirrorless technology.   That is not, nor will it ever be, the SL.  And though much closer to the mark, neither, to the relief of many, is the M.  Whether this so far mythical member of the Leica FF triumvirate be unicorn or coelacanth, only time will tell. 

[pgk]

5 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

There have been literally hundreds of pages here devoted to arguing this subject over the past half decade or more.  In every single one, at least one detractor, often dozens, has proclaimed the SL as a suitable substitute.  It isn't.  Suggesting otherwise is akin to telling anyone interested in an M with IBIS that they should just buy an SL and an adapter. 

Having tried the SL I would fully agree. Good camera as it is, it actually offers me little that I can't achieve in other ways and this includes using M lenses via adapters.

5 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

What needs to be understood, agree or disagree, is that proponents of a native M mount mirrorless camera wish to have a body whose sole point is to support M glass optics; a camera that has thoughtfully embraced the notion of a compact, manual focus only camera in the context of modern mirrorless technology.

And as you say there have been many threads on this subject already and over probably the last decade. Given this and the fact that it is likely that the technology exists to produce such a camera then I am absolutely certain that Leica have or are looking into this and are weighing up the pros and cons (which I won't go ito because they hae been discussed at length) of producig such a camera. There remain two risks. One is whether such a camera would produce a profit (te bottom line) and whether the compromises involved (only the blinkered will not understand that these exist) may be reputationally damaging.

Lastly, there is something stragely fascinating about these threads. They recurr regularly and some seem to believe an EVF-M to be a holy grail whilst other of us enjoy the simplicity and different experience provided by the RF-M. I suspect that this is the real bone of contention, not the potential camera itself, along with some degree of belief in the sanctity of the M lenses as being the 'best' rather than anything else (they're good but so are many other lenses too).

[LocalHero1953]

7 hours ago, Jipster said:

The good thing os that it already exists, it’s called the SL. They even given you a rebate at times AND when you want autofocus, you can use SL lenses. 😉 

 

This sort of post - and I could have picked a similar one by many other contributors in many other threads - tells you far more about the person posting than it does about the options under consideration. It is not intended as a genuinely helpful suggestion.

[lct]

30 minutes ago, Musky said:

I hope you get one. They should take the lens out of the Q and there. You have your M Mount Q. I really hope you get it so we don’t have to read these threads ever again.

I wonder if a good way to avoid such redundant threads would be to avoid unintentional let alone deliberate confusions between M-mount and L-mount cameras or between each of them and fixed lens cameras. Nothing personal of course .

[LocalHero1953]

42 minutes ago, Musky said:

I hope you get one. They should take the lens out of the Q and there. You have your M Mount Q. I really hope you get it so we don’t have to read these threads ever again.

You have my deepest sympathy - being forced unwillingly to read the thread - and being forced to contribute to it. 

[LocalHero1953]

4 minutes ago, Musky said:

Or reply to someone who isn’t talking to you. 🤷🏻‍♂️

judging by the rating on this thread, it’s going great. People are really enjoying it. Great job. 

Apologies - I overlooked the forum rule about only replying to posts addressed to you.

Well, 15 pages and counting - and your contributions have been plentiful - someone must be enjoying it.

[lct]

2 minutes ago, Musky said:

You think I don’t know the difference between the M, the SL, and the fixed lens Q? 

I don’t get your post.

If we are dreaming up cameras then, make an M Mount Q. Isn’t that basically what everyone is asking for? 

I did not say nor think this, i don't know you enough for that. I just wanted to say that the Q is a fixed lens camera so if you give it an M mount or an L mount it cannot be a Q camera anymore. It would be either an M-mount or an L-mount camera depending upon the camera mount Leica would choose for it. Different topics obviously. Those interested in fixed lens cameras would discuss about what unique focal length to choose for example. Those interested in L-mount cameras would discuss about the SL3 or possible substitutes to the digital CL. Those interested in an M-mount camera would discuss about different things like auto zoom, roller cams, etc.

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, Musky said:

...They should take the lens out of the Q and there. You have your M Mount Q.

Again, a rather stale suggestion... though perhaps somewhat worth revisiting at this point. What continuously is overlooked by those who suggest this approach is that the Q employs a leaf shutter built into the lens assembly.  If you wanted to reuse a few of your S CS lenses... silly, but okay... such a design clunky could possibly work.  For M lens support, however, this notion is a non starter.

That said, in the past year or so, we've seen the emergence of more sophisticated e-shutters with the near certainty that the tech will improve rapidly in the next few years. This development suggest that a shutterless M-Mount camera the size of, as I remarked a few pages back, a Rollei 35mm might have potential.  The notion of a pocketable M mount camera around the size of a pack of smokes is quite appealing to me and I suspect more than just a few others. 

Now, if I could have just one wish granted in this space, I'd use it to conjure up a pact between Leica and Sigma to create such a camera. Sigma has already shown that it has both capability and interest in small form factor cameras with its fp series.  A camera, btw, that has already embraced the notion of losing the mechanical shutter entirely. Sigma also has a long history of working with multiple mounts, so no stretch there. And on the business side, they already have a relationship with Leica under the L-Alliance.  It's not hard to imagine, similar to the 24-70L, that if Sigma did produce such a camera, the cost would be half or better than what Leica would have to charge for it. And finally, unburdened by Leica's baggage, they could produce a camera with profiles that supported all M mount lenses, affording built-in correction for Zeiss, CV, etal in addition to the extensive crop of Leica produced glass. 

But best of all, those who for years have vehemently rejected the notion of an M-Evf would be able to finally rest easy given that an fp-M, Leica badged or otherwise, is no longer an existential threat to the M.  With that meme eliminated, we might indeed be able to send all these threads to their grave.

[charlesphoto99]

13 hours ago, lct said:

Why is it that bizarre to prefer M lenses? It sounds even more bizarre to ignore the preference of Leica users for them. In the film days, we had to use bulky Visoflex housings for that. Only non Leica users could find bizarre to use the optical cell of a Summicron 90/2 or a Tele-Elmar 135/4 in reflex mode on them. Nowadays those Visoflex housings are becoming as compact as optical OVF's more or less. Nobody found bizarre to use them since the thirties either. Did i say bizarre? .

 

Hmmm, I've shot M's for decades now and never once used a Visoflex, analog or digital, with both of the lenses you mention. IMO the original Visoflex was for amateur tinkerers, as is much of the photo 'accessories' business. Name one famous Leica photo or photographer that used a Visoflex to create their images? Of course one can't, as it isn't the main purpose/purview of the camera. If one has to start adding gizmos externally or internally to try and make better or more interesting photos, then one has already lost the plot imo. Best to get a purpose built macro camera or whatever it is outside the M's raison d'être one is needing to do, as they will do it better. Sure, in certain situations a Visoflex might be nice to have, but imo it's more of a distraction than anything else. 

[Planetwide]

18 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Hmmm, I've shot M's for decades now and never once used a Visoflex, analog or digital, with both of the lenses you mention. IMO the original Visoflex was for amateur tinkerers, as is much of the photo 'accessories' business. Name one famous Leica photo or photographer that used a Visoflex to create their images? Of course one can't, as it isn't the main purpose/purview of the camera. If one has to start adding gizmos externally or internally to try and make better or more interesting photos, then one has already lost the plot imo. Best to get a purpose built macro camera or whatever it is outside the M's raison d'être one is needing to do, as they will do it better. Sure, in certain situations a Visoflex might be nice to have, but imo it's more of a distraction than anything else. 

 

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!

[Planetwide]

27 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Hmmm, I've shot M's for decades now and never once used a Visoflex, analog or digital, with both of the lenses you mention. IMO the original Visoflex was for amateur tinkerers, as is much of the photo 'accessories' business. Name one famous Leica photo or photographer that used a Visoflex to create their images? Of course one can't, as it isn't the main purpose/purview of the camera. If one has to start adding gizmos externally or internally to try and make better or more interesting photos, then one has already lost the plot imo. Best to get a purpose built macro camera or whatever it is outside the M's raison d'être one is needing to do, as they will do it better. Sure, in certain situations a Visoflex might be nice to have, but imo it's more of a distraction than anything else. 

Horst Faas - "The Dean of Vietnam War photographers"

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 15, 2022 by Planetwide

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

9 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

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!

Caption competition?😆

There are always exceptions. The Visoflex was what it was - a rather clunky solution for which there were far better options. Bit like an EVF-M really😉.

Edited December 15, 2022 by pgk