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

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, raizans said:

Confidence is based on visual feedback, and yeah, you get less of it when DOF is deeper. But when .86m-infinity is in focus, it’s academic to worry if you’re out of focus. That’s not a difficult to focus situation....

It's not academic AFAIC, your standards are clearly not up to mine in that regard, so lets simply agree to disagree on this point. 

 

3 hours ago, lct said:

I have not my WATE on hand but focusing this 15mm snap with auto zoom could hardly be faster (M11, Visoflex 2, CV 15/4.5 v2, f/5.6, 2m).

Yeah... the leaves are the top of the frame are sharp as a tack. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Planetwide]

The idea that an EVF cannot critically focus a lens, is well preposterous. It would mean that EVERY manufacturer of mirrorless cameras is unable to obtain critical focus manually. This is categorically BS. We routinely use mirrorless cameras with TS lenses in manual mode, and critical focus is absolute must - without any issues. EVF's are more accurate, faster and flexible than any optical system period. The idea that you "critically" focus using the RF patch and then switch to the franken finder to compose is slow, less accurate and tedious - and yes, I have been there.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Planetwide

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, raizans said:

When you’re taking photos quickly in low light, you’re stopping the lens down rather than opening up? Why? Are we talking night street photography?

Who said anything about any of that? I shoot in blue and yellow period all the time, scenes of high contrast where one has to average things out in one's head and rely on the DR of the camera to be able to successfully pull things back in post. In such scenarios, I have enough on my plate without having to wonder whether about or not I've nailed the focus point I've chosen. One often has concerns around near, mid and far field elements where such precision of focus is critical. Not a speed to shot issue for me, it's about avoiding the introduction of any semblance of cognitive dissonance when I'm far, far, far more concerned with other matters related to the capture.

[pop]

1 hour ago, Planetwide said:

EVF's are more accurate, faster and flexible than any optical system period.

... speaking about BS.

 

[lct]

38 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Yeah... the leaves are the top of the frame are sharp as a tack. 

The point of focus is sharp but the leaves at the top of the frame are softer being closer.

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!

[raizans]

I'm trying to find out what situations you've having real world difficulty with, in case I find myself in similar situations and end up regretting an EVF-M.

How large do you print? Maybe that's what puts extraordinary demands on the CoC and DOF?

And I still don't understand in what situations you'd have difficulty focusing wide angles with the aperture stopped down. That situation produces the most DOF of any lens, and is not hard to focus with basic techniques that overcome "typically" having less visual feedback from TTL focusing. With an EVF zoomed out to full view, and not enough resolution, I could see how it might be hard to focus if you rely completely on the viewfinder image, and don't utilize other techniques.

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, raizans said:

I'm trying to find out what situations you've having real world difficulty with, in case I find myself in similar situations and end up regretting an EVF-M.

How large do you print? Maybe that's what puts extraordinary demands on the CoC and DOF?

Typically up to 20x30, but occasionally larger, a few times substantially so. 

As for difficulties, I think to be any more specific than I've already been, you'd have to be out shooting with me to grok the scenarios. Now in fairness to your and others assertions in this space, I will say I've yet to revisit this topic with the V2.  My methodology has been a response to dealing with problems encountered throughout several previous iterations of the M.  As they work for me, I've felt no need to revisit them. But perhaps things have improved sufficiently with the V2 to give it another go.  I'm certainly open minded enough to go back and reconfirm my views in light of the newer finder. If I change my mind, I'll let you know. 

Regardless, theres no need to rely on my belief or experiences in any way on this particular topic. Assuming you have an M and an EVF, it's pretty simple to test RF vs EVF by using them concurrently in a variety of conditions while out shooting.  Using the EVF, throw the focus to infinity, stop down to f8, use what ever aids you care to, focus on your point, note how long it took and take the shot. Move to the RF and if it's telling you something different readjust, take the shot and then compare the results and draw your own conclusions. Just make sure over time to test near, mid, far at apertures large and small.  And make things a little stressful in terms of lighting and angles. Don't merely shoot a flat, well lit scene, but things with depth or difficulty as well. What might be a marginal difference under more benign conditions gets amplified in others.  I've concluded that the VFs compliment, not compete, with each other and provide a greater range of capability than either one can on its own. YMMV, of course. I'm cool with that. You life, your work, your money, your call. 

And as there is no M-EVF or EVF-M or mEvF, what have you, there's plenty of time to cement beliefs or shatter them.  Where I had thought such a camera would have shown up by now, so far all remains crickets. Perhaps the pandemic has set such a project back, or perhaps Leica has concluded that its simply not viable for technical or economic reasons. If and when it shows, I certainly will take a hard look at the reality of it. But to bite, it will either have to provide something truly significant I don't currently possess or cost a helluva lot less than the M. In the meantime, I'm very happy using what I already have.

 

[Jeff S]

AFAIK, the alternative VF experimentations that Leica has conducted for the M have involved either hybrid (combined) RF/EVF viewing and/or some form of optoelectronic RF (a patent was reported by the Rumors site). The former was ruled out by Stefan Daniel due to unacceptable compromises resulting from the limited available space (he called it a “no-go”). I haven’t heard anything else about the latter.  

More recently, Stefan said that they were open to an EVF-based M (presumably with no RF), provided there was some evidence that the market was sufficiently large (apparently on the order of several thousand or more).  It didn’t seem as if there had been any significant efforts in this direction.

Jeff

Edited December 17, 2022 by Jeff S

[Erato]

I don't think that the C-Level will be stupid enough to chasing the wind and forget the series pain of after services relevant to fancy features.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Erato

[lct]

4 hours ago, Musky said:

That wouldn’t be a rangefinder issue. That’s more of an auto focus issue. Which is why the natural progression of EVF is giving the M auto focus. It’s just making another mirrorless camera that says Leica on it. Not interested. There are so many great mirrorless cameras out there with superior AF and great lenses. I can just pick one of them. 

Matter of tastes and practice i guess. I have a couple AF lenses that i use from time to time but i prefer M lenses by far. YMMV.

[cirke]

I will never buy a RF again, the M240 was my last one, so YES ill buy a M EVF or a Q 50mm and nothing else

[UliWer]

Am 6.9.2022 um 21:27 schrieb Karl Heinz Marschner:

So the EVF will always be a crutch as long as you do not make photos with open aperture.

Which is recommended by the designers of Leica M-lenses.

 

Btw: I noticed it only after I had already posted. Is there any reason to run this survey in English in the German speaking part of the Forum? Perhaps because the English speaking part already has so many threads about this topic? 

17 Forum pages here:

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by UliWer

[pop]

I would have bought an EVF M, but certainly not instead of a 'real' M with its rangefinder. We all know that the rangefinder camera excels for some kind of work, not so much for others.

As it is, I have a (digital) rangefinder camera with a limited set of focal lengths for the occasions where I prefer the rangefinder and a (digital) CL for other work and both cameras use the APS-C format. Good enough for me.

[lct]

If I had to bring either my M11 or an EVF-M on a desert island, I would take the latter as much as I like the M11. What matters most to me are M lenses and a high-end EVF would be unbeatable for macro and telephoto, let alone that with a Visoflex on, the M11 is not really a compact camera anymore.

[Stef63]

2 hours ago, lct said:

What matters most to me are M lenses and a high-end EVF would be unbeatable for macro and telephoto, let alone that with a Visoflex on, the M11 is not really a compact camera anymore.

Exactly how I think about this too.  I first make a (M or R) lens choice and then decide between the M11 - eventually with the Visoflex - or the SL2.  The latter offers a better EVF experience and IBIS, but is not as pleasantly compact as an M body.  But the lens dominates, not the body. So, if Leica would come up with a EVF M without rangefinder, I’m not the die hard nostalgic or purist guy to let it pass.  

[jaapv]

6 minutes ago, Stef63 said:

But the lens dominates, not the body

Not quite, the reason that M lenses are small is that they have to clear the rangefinder. Thus there is a compromise in optical quality. SL lenses are designed without this restriction and are objectively better. Thus, to be really versatile, such a camera would need to have both an L mount, and perfect adaptation to M lenses with the adapter, plus be M size and shape in order fulfill its function optimally. Not being able to use the full range of Leica lenses would cripple the camera from the start.

[jaapv]

On 12/16/2022 at 1:54 PM, pgk said:

Similar with pets. Personally I use the 'phone😆. Horses for courses.

You mean like this? Monochrom 1.

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!

[SrMi]

If and when an EVF-only M launches, I am confident that many will complain about how much harder focusing is with the EVF than with the rangefinder (slow, no AASD). However, Leica could have some great focusing help (beachball?), and since everybody shoots M lenses wide open anyway ;-), AASD would not be a problem (AASD = automatic aperture stop down).
The question may be why we want to use an EVF M instead of an RF M and apply all the answers to an L-mount camera (e.g., manual focusing and small camera and lenses).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Stef63]

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Not quite, the reason that M lenses are small is that they have to clear the rangefinder. Thus there is a compromise in optical quality. SL lenses are designed without this restriction and are objectively better. Thus, to be really versatile, such a camera would need to have both an L mount, and perfect adaptation to M lenses with the adapter, plus be M size and shape in order fulfill its function optimally. Not being able to use the full range of Leica lenses would cripple the camera from the start.

Two things here :

- what I was saying is that in my case I first choose the lens and then the body when I go out.  But I get you regarding the design compromise of the M lenses.  Although one cannot say M lenses are inferior quality lenses 😀

- am I correct that what you are describing as a versatile EVF based M is a sort of compact SL2?  Would be an interesting camera, but what about IBIS an AF then?  Most M users would probably prefer the, first but would be less interested in the latter.

[pgk]

22 minutes ago, jaapv said:

You mean like this? Monochrom 1.

I suspect you of having taken this by the technique known as 'anticipation' which is of course, possible with most cameras. If, on the other hand, you actually focussed this mid-leap then I'm VERY impressed.