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

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Much like @Tailwagger, I was an enthusiast for an M mount evf camera.  I tried Sonys (meh), and I use my M lenses on my SL and TL2, and I use the EVF on my M10-D.

Here’s the thing, from my experience over many years of using M lenses with EVF based cameras:

• there are huge advantages in the EVF - framing, exposure simulation and zooming in for focus accuracy, and dealing with problematic lenses (long, wide and focus shift)
• is it faster? No.  The coupled rangefinder is way faster, once you have worked it out.
• is it more accurate?  Not for wides.  For 50mm and longer, the EVF is reliably accurate, but only if you zoom in.
• focus peaking is a dud - it might work in the future, but even if you focus wide open, then stop down, the focus peak almost disappears with super fast lenses like the Noctilux of 75 Summilux, and you’re then dealing with focus shift.  With wides, the rangefinder gives an accurate placement of the best plane of focus (with properly adjusted lenses), but focus shift remains an issue.
• AF?  No, I have a TL2 and SL for that.  I want to use my M lenses.

So, would I buy an MEVF?  Probably.  I have an M9 based Monochrom (black & white? Why, when you can convert in post?); an M10-D (ever heard of gaffer tape?); and an MA (accurate meters have been around for years, and film?).  

I could continue to use my SL and TL2 with M lenses, and the EVF with my M10-D, and I do.  But I would prefer an M camera - size and purity of purpose.  The M10-D with EVF is awkward (I prefer the clean lines of the M camera), SL is bigger and heavier (though it is fabulous with the 21 Summilux, 50 Noctilux and 75 Summilux), and the TL2 is cropped - I like my lenses to have the framing I’m used to, and to achieve the wide field of view I like, I need to use my 21 Summilux to achieve “only” 32mm field of view.  I do use it with my 35 Summilux pre-asph, but then it’s a fixed 53mm or so.

Many reasons given here for not making an EVF based M camera, or for shrinking the SL; for me, the point is I want an M camera - M mount, all manual, same form factor, but with an EVF.  Nothing mre than that.  

[lct]

54 minutes ago, jaapv said:

[...] to be really versatile, such a camera would need to have both an L mount, and perfect adaptation to M lenses with the adapter [...]

Thanks no thanks, impossible to do auto zoom this way and i'm not interested in L lenses. There are SL cameras for that. YMMV.

[jaapv]

48 minutes ago, pgk said:

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.

I was focus-following; I could not anticipate where he would leap.

[jaapv]

50 minutes ago, lct said:

Thanks no thanks, impossible to do auto zoom this way and i'm not interested in L lenses. There are SL cameras for that. YMMV.

EVFs are what SL cameras are for as well...

 

[lct]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I was focus-following; I could not anticipate where he would leap.

Suffice it to blow a firecracker behind the dog. Just kidding i like your shot Jaap

[sinjun]

It's amazing how perennial this topic is. Most contributors have probably expressed the same thing a number of times in different threads, so I will also take the opportunity to repeat myself. I would like an EVF camera with the M form factor. I do like rangefinder focussing but a significant proportion of my lenses (e.g. 90mm tele elmar, 35mm nokton f1.2, 35mm summilux pre-asph, 50mm summarit f1.5) are out of calibration in various directions and I must compensate by tweaking focus so the patch is misaligned, which I do with varying degrees of success. When I know accurate focus will be critical I use an EVF camera. I don't see the problem with focus peaking if used to its strengths - it's fine for say 75% of my needs. The rest of the time I rely on zoom.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To add: I really dislike auto-zoom; it gets in the way of fast shooting as you lose your framing. I much prefer the SL way of pressing the perfectly placed controller.

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

To add: I really dislike auto-zoom; it gets in the way of fast shooting as you lose your framing. I much prefer the SL way of pressing the perfectly placed controller.

+1

[sinjun]

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

To add: I really dislike auto-zoom

Agree. I have zoom on button press.

[lct]

25 minutes ago, jaapv said:

To add: I really dislike auto-zoom; it gets in the way of fast shooting as you lose your framing. I much prefer the SL way of pressing the perfectly placed controller.

I much prefer the function button of my Sony which is similar to the M11's BTW. Both are well placed but too slow for me. Beauty of auto zoom the right finger can stay on the shutter release while focusing.

 

[pegelli]

37 minutes ago, jaapv said:

To add: I really dislike auto-zoom

Same here, button press works better for me. I would not buy such a camera if the auto zoom cannot be disabled.

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Much like @Tailwagger, I was an enthusiast for an M mount evf camera.

Indeed, my enthusiasm has cooled considerably.  I've come to believe after nearly ten years of shooting an M with the EVF that having both the optical and electronic view finder in the same package is ideal.  Each method back fills the weaknesses of the other.  Would I still consider an Mevf?  Sure, but it comes down to value. If, as I've mentioned in the past, Leica was to expand its partnership with Sigma to produce such a camera... ie one that was far more reasonably priced than an M... and gave us IBIS, I'd could be a customer.  But my cost formula needs to be something like:

24-70MM / 24-90MM  == Mevf / M11  or in hard numbers $2895 / $5795 is roughly 50% so with the M11 at $9K... $4500.  And they ain't going there, I'd wager.

But for me, much more coin than than that and I really don't see the point.  If, as the rumor suggests, we're looking at the M12 time frame, anything much above $6k and I'd be far more inclined to just buy a used M over an Mevf.  Especially if Leica refuses to incorporate a flip out screen or flip up finder.  The waist level finding capability of the 020/V2 is crucial AFAIC (and a huge drawback of the SL2).  Like many others, I had hoped that Leica might embrace the M mount as the only given and then think seriously about what a manual focus EVF based camera might look like in the modern context. Perhaps they'll get there someday, but if so, I fear it will likely be too late for me to get very excited about it. 

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by Tailwagger

[Tailwagger]

Each to his own. I really like auto zoom as I focus with the RF, move to EVF to confirm focus and quickly kill it via a half press.  What does suck when zoomed is the focus pointer implementation which when relocating is far too slow/fine grained, IMO.

[jaapv]

24 minutes ago, lct said:

I much prefer the function button of my Sony which is similar to the M11's BTW. Both are well placed but too slow for me. Beauty of auto zoom the right finger can stay on the shutter release while focusing.

 

So it can with the SL. The button falls under your thumb in that case.

[SrMi]

24 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Indeed, my enthusiasm has cooled considerably.  I've come to believe after nearly ten years of shooting an M with the EVF that having both the optical and electronic view finder in the same package is ideal.  Each method back fills the weaknesses of the other.  Would I still consider an Mevf?  Sure, but it comes down to value. If, as I've mentioned in the past, Leica was to expand its partnership with Sigma to produce such a camera... ie one that was far more reasonably priced than an M... and gave us IBIS, I'd could be a customer.  But my cost formula needs to be something like:

24-70MM / 24-90MM  == Mevf / M11  or in hard numbers $2895 / $5795 is roughly 50% so with the M11 at $9K... $4500.  And they ain't going there, I'd wager.

But for me, much more coin than than that and I really don't see the point.  If, as the rumor suggests, we're looking at the M12 time frame, anything much above $6k and I'd be far more inclined to just buy a used M over an Mevf.  Especially if Leica refuses to incorporate a flip out screen or flip up finder.  The waist level finding capability of the 020/V2 is crucial AFAIC (and a huge drawback of the SL2).  Like many others, I had hoped that Leica might embrace the M mount as the only given and then think seriously about what a manual focus EVF based camera might look like in the modern context. Perhaps they'll get there someday, but if so, I fear it will likely be too late for me to get very excited about it. 

 

A Mevf without the rangefinder mechanism, no mechanical shutter, and IBIS (at least 100g lighter than M11 black) would be attractive regardless of price. Mevf could be Leica's IBIS experiment and have a thicker body if necessary. After all, it is not a real M.

[lct]

7 minutes ago, jaapv said:

So it can with the SL. The button falls under your thumb in that case.

My right thumb is stuck on the thumb rest. Nothing moves but the right index finger and the left hand. Too late to change if i wanted and i don't want at all. The simple idea of my poor thumb wriggling to touch the SL controller makes me smile. One of the reasons why i bought my first Sony at the launch of the SL BTW. 

[cboy]

Fuji did an GFXR which has a rangefinder-like form factor. I'm guessing people just want something similar done to the SL but with m mount.  SL-R? SL-M? lol. But it kinda reduces the versatility of having an EVF  which is supposed to pair with AF. I think Stefan Daniel mentioned this before

However I don't think this realisation would ever be made without having a global shutter included as screen blackout and rolling shutter would simply kill the experience imo of a supposedly rangefinder styled camera that inherently has none of those disadvantages. Z9 is a case in point

But if thats what it takes to use ones fast glass so be it.😄 Just expect a premium for the privilege of a SL to look like an M.

 

 

[Tailwagger]

9 minutes ago, SrMi said:

A Mevf without the rangefinder mechanism, no mechanical shutter, and IBIS (at least 100g lighter than M11 black) would be attractive regardless of price.

For some, just not for me. AFAIC, IBIS on the M is a nice to have, not a necessity. Rare that I shoot over 75mm in the first place and even rarer that I need to do so in low light. That sort of duty falls to other cameras.  As mentioned before, I have no issue shooting the M11 at 1/2 focal length speeds. Equally, I have no issue carrying the M with the WATE, 28, 50 and 75mm 'luxes. For me, dropping a 100g is really a non-issue.  Trading the RF for the above for a different body at a similar price point to a full M is not something I'd likely be interested in. YMMV, of course.

[lct]

I have always used both RF and TTL cameras since the seventies so the EVF-M would simply replace my Sony in this instance but would keep an M11 or M12 for the RF experience anyway.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

13 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

For some, just not for me. AFAIC, IBIS on the M is a nice to have, not a necessity. Rare that I shoot over 75mm in the first place and even rarer that I need to do so in low light. That sort of duty falls to other cameras.  As mentioned before, I have no issue shooting the M11 at 1/2 focal length speeds. Equally, I have no issue carrying the M with the WATE, 28, 50 and 75mm 'luxes. For me, dropping a 100g is really a non-issue.  Trading the RF for the above for a different body at a similar price point to a full M is not something I'd likely be interested in. YMMV, of course.

Are you comfortable shooting with a 50mm lens at 1/25sec or 1/100sec? I am typically shooting at 1/100 (1/(2f)), but IBIS would allow me to shoot static subjects at 1/10 sec, i.e., using at least a 3 stops larger exposure (ISO 200 instead of ISO 1600). There is not much help from IBIS when shooting moving subjects unless motion blur is desired.