Jump to content

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

FlashGordonPhotography

By FlashGordonPhotography
in Leica M11

 Share

Survey: Would you buy an EVF only camera with an M mount?  

473 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Leica make a manual focus EVF camera?

    • Absolutely. I'm second in line after Flash.
      191
    • Never! It's the work of the Devil.
      77
    • Hmmm? Not sure. I'd want to see it first.
      106
    • I want one of each. M11 and this new wonder camera!
      30
    • Not for me but I'd be happy if it exists.
      61
    • Does it come in Monochrom?
      8

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

evikne

evikne

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

A few mm flange protrusion? “The whole camera bulky”? Really?  Actually it is the opposite: If you have a native M mount the total sensor-flange distance is exactly the same as an L mount plus adapter, making the L mount version with adapter the sleeker option. 

Probably just a feeling I have because I have an aversion to adapters. And to me, an M camera that can't natively take M lenses, would be stupid.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

LUF Admin
LUF Admin

Was the umpthieth account of this guy. Banned again… Andreas

shirubadanieru
shirubadanieru

Rangefinder is still the best system ever made for manual focus. Much better than an SLR, much better than an EVF, much better than anything else out there. That’s the reason why I use Leica, because

charlesphoto99
charlesphoto99

It's sad to see how many users buy into the M system but don't understand the working ethos of it. The M is, and should always be, about the OVF and rangefinder focusing. It's what makes it unique, es

Posted Images

jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, evikne said:

Probably just a feeling I have because I have an aversion to adapters. And to me, an M camera that can't natively take M lenses, would be stupid.

That is why many have said that an M camera with EVF would not be an M (esssucher) camera…

Adapters are very “Leica”. In the past the joke was that Leica was a producer of adapter rings who happened to make a lens or a camera occasionally  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
otto.f

otto.f

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Camaro5 said:

I got the questionnaire from LSI and have mixed feelings about an EVF M.  I'm assuming that you would have to use focus peaking (or nothing) and I'd have to see how accurate the focusing is and how easy it is to use.  

I'm heavily invested in the SL system right now and also have an M246 Monochrom and a Q2.  At this point I don't think I'd really be that interested in an EVF M, and I don't know if many M purists would be either.  

Yes, I don’t see it. Instead of spoiling the M imago, why don’t they develop the CL line further out to a poor man’s EVF M. If they can build SL’s much cheaper than an M, why not build a CL+ ?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
cboy

cboy

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, SrMi said:

Leica has evaluated a hybrid EVF/OVF like X-Pro's but found that it would diminish the rangefinder experience and therefore is unacceptable.

So it's unacceptable for Leica to make a hybrid EVF/OVF, but there's consideration for just an EVF M? The former at least makes the attempt to innovate what the future concept of a 'M' could possibly be in the digital age whilst the latter has already has been done with the Fuji GFX-R. So does it suggest  tech similar to the GFX-R/xpro3 to be somewhat inferior?? That's hard to believe when the x100v is just as popular or perhaps more than the Q. Wouldn't it lose the meaning of what an 'M' stands for by just having just an EVF?

Ok then if it's just an EVF why not take an existing SL , add a builtin techart adapter that takes advantage of PDAF and then allow the extra flange distance for a hybrid EVF/OVF. Sure it'll be bulky, firsts of any system are never small, but at least it's proof of concept and shows Leica's willingness to be innovative; hopefully slimming the tech down like the SL2s.Why not have a global shutter to further reduce bulk? Perhaps in the future incorporate a true digital rangefinder system without mechanical parts and just an electronic overlay?

But hey even Epson beat Leica to making the first digital rangefinder so I don't expect much from Leica being innovative in respect to camera tech.

If Leica doesn't make the first digital hybrid EVF/ OVF rangefinder I hope some company will before I die...

Edited by cboy
Link to post
Share on other sites
lct

lct

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, evikne said:

Probably just a feeling I have because I have an aversion to adapters. And to me, an M camera that can't natively take M lenses, would be stupid.

Stupid i don't know but the whole idea of an L mount using exclusively M lenses sounds strange to say the least. People interested in an EVF-M are not after autofocus the L mount is made for. I don't want any adapter for my M lenses anyway, i have a digital CL for that, so i'm glad LSI is on the same line from this stand point. FWIW. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Photoworks

Photoworks

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, cboy said:

So it's unacceptable for Leica to make a hybrid EVF/OVF, but there's consideration for just an EVF M? The former at least makes the attempt to innovate what the future concept of a 'M' could possibly be in the digital age whilst the latter has already has been done with the Fuji GFX-R. So does it suggest  tech similar to the GFX-R/xpro3 to be somewhat inferior?? That's hard to believe when the x100v is just as popular or perhaps more than the Q. Wouldn't it lose the meaning of what an 'M' stands for by just having just an EVF?

 

I am all for innovation, and Leica should try to think outside of the box.
The Fuji cameras that have the hybrid viewfinder are primarily AF, they don't do so well with AF.

I am for maintaining the M just like it is, to me it is clunky to use both, it is what it is and I can live with it since I mostly use Rangefinder.

to me the power of M system are the lenses. 

If Leica revisits the CL in full frame and innovates with a M adapter like techart I would probably go for it as 2nd camera, next to the M11

Link to post
Share on other sites
SrMi

SrMi

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, cboy said:

So it's unacceptable for Leica to make a hybrid EVF/OVF, but there's consideration for just an EVF M? The former at least makes the attempt to innovate what the future concept of a 'M' could possibly be in the digital age whilst the latter has already has been done with the Fuji GFX-R. So does it suggest  tech similar to the GFX-R/xpro3 to be somewhat inferior?? That's hard to believe when the x100v is just as popular or perhaps more than the Q. Wouldn't it lose the meaning of what an 'M' stands for by just having just an EVF?

Fuji cameras do not have rangefinders in their OVFs; the widest lens supported by their OVFs is 35mm (FF equivalent). As a result, Fuji's solution does not look workable for a digital M.
While I like the X-Pro3 and X100V for their hybrid viewfinder (I prefer OVF to EVF), many Fuji owners are using the cameras as EVF-only (my impression from forums).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Henners

Henners

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Phil75 said:

Why so complicated? Makes it only more expensive and faulty. I'd say either or. As small company you cannot satisfy every customer and all niche desires. Who wants an M with additional EVF can buy it already today. No real need to increase offer complexity.

Instead an EVF M, I'd go for a "small body SLx". Ideal combination with AF for those who want one or with M lenses for those who prefer MF and a smaller package.

If they brought it out then I would look at it but a lot of the joy of a Leica comes from it being as simple as possible. I have an M11 and there's already too much going on with it imo. Personally I think I'd prefer to just continue with the shortcomings and keep it simple.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
jpto

jpto

Posted
Posted

I'd be super interested in a Q style L mount body. Keep AF for the smaller L mount glass and the adapter for M glass. I find the focusing on the SL2 easy to use and I have to imagine Leica could work out some more manual focusing aids beyond peaking and zooming. Didn't Fuji have some form of split imaging and microprisms built into their earlier X bodies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
IkarusJohn

IkarusJohn

Posted
Posted

I don’t know why this idea has to become so complicated.

M camera, preferrably an M10-P, M10-D or M10-M, unchanged, save for an EVF rather than an OVF.  It might look a bit strange without the viewfinder windows (not sure I like the M-D look), but otherwise unchanged, for use with M lenses.  

Why all this suggestion that it should have an L mount?  Sure, it has a bigger throat, but the M sensor copes well with the tight fit of the original mount.  With an L mount, you’d be able to use L mount lenses - autofocus, video and a whole lot of stuff which just makes the entire exercise pointless.  Some of us already use EVFs with our M cameras - they’re still M cameras in such a case.  If you want the rest, put an adapter on an SL or TL/CL.  That’s not what this is about.

I appreciate that for many the OVF is the whole point of the M camera.  For others it isn’t - it’s the whole M system gestalt of direct control, everything manual, and the fabulous lenses.  If Leica ultimately expands the range to an M12, M12-P, M12-M, M12-D and M12-E, what’s lost?  It has done this in the past, with the rangefinder-less M cameras, Visoflexes with the own lenses, external view finders …

Seems a no-brainer to me.  That said, I’m not sure I’d buy one as the M11 is a step in the wrong direction for me.  I don’t think there will be another new M in my bag, unless Leica returns to a base model more akin to an M10 upgrade.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
otto.f

otto.f

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, SrMi said:

AFAIK the request for EVF M came from long-time owners whose deteriorating eyesight made rangefinder use hard. With EVF, Leica owners could continue enjoying M Leicas in their old age.

No, in my view there are a lot of youngsters coming from Sony and a few from Canon and Fuji who are attracted by the myth of Leica and are oblivious about the principles of a rangefinder. In this thread for instance the problem (until today) that an EVF always has a delay is hardly taken into account.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jipster

Jipster

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I don’t know why this idea has to become so complicated.

M camera, preferrably an M10-P, M10-D or M10-M, unchanged, save for an EVF rather than an OVF.  It might look a bit strange without the viewfinder windows (not sure I like the M-D look), but otherwise unchanged, for use with M lenses.  

Why all this suggestion that it should have an L mount?  Sure, it has a bigger throat, but the M sensor copes well with the tight fit of the original mount.  With an L mount, you’d be able to use L mount lenses - autofocus, video and a whole lot of stuff which just makes the entire exercise pointless.  Some of us already use EVFs with our M cameras - they’re still M cameras in such a case.  If you want the rest, put an adapter on an SL or TL/CL.  That’s not what this is about.

I appreciate that for many the OVF is the whole point of the M camera.  For others it isn’t - it’s the whole M system gestalt of direct control, everything manual, and the fabulous lenses.  If Leica ultimately expands the range to an M12, M12-P, M12-M, M12-D and M12-E, what’s lost?  It has done this in the past, with the rangefinder-less M cameras, Visoflexes with the own lenses, external view finders …

Seems a no-brainer to me.  That said, I’m not sure I’d buy one as the M11 is a step in the wrong direction for me.  I don’t think there will be another new M in my bag, unless Leica returns to a base model more akin to an M10 upgrade.

What do you mean by "a base model"? I don't particularly care for the M11 (too many megapixels for me, diffraction and low light worries), but I don't know whether that's what you have in mind or something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SrMi

SrMi

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, otto.f said:

No, in my view there are a lot of youngsters coming from Sony and a few from Canon and Fuji who are attracted by the myth of Leica and are oblivious about the principles of a rangefinder. In this thread for instance the problem (until today) that an EVF always has a delay is hardly taken into account.

The request for EVF Leica was raised at the LSI meeting with Stefan Daniel (link), and the LSI questionnaire was the result. I do not think youngsters coming from Canon and Fuji attended that meeting in Dublin last year. LSI members are quite familiar with rangefinders. See also this comment from LSI VP and treasurer: link.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, otto.f said:

No, in my view there are a lot of youngsters coming from Sony and a few from Canon and Fuji who are attracted by the myth of Leica and are oblivious about the principles of a rangefinder. In this thread for instance the problem (until today) that an EVF always has a delay is hardly taken into account.

SL/CL users, raise your hand if you ever had an issue with a viewfinder delay…

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...