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

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

But with no Visoflex, once anyone who tried spot or multi realized the rear display had to be on continuously the entire notion was, quite reasonably, dismissed as unusable.  

Multi-field works in RF mode with rear display off for me (M11). Exif say "multi-segment" but i don't know what this means exactly.

[Advertisement]

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

[Tailwagger]

42 minutes ago, lct said:

Multi-field works in RF mode with rear display off for me (M11).

Of course, as all metering is done off the sensor. I was referring to the family of M10s, with the obvious exception of the M-D whose display is permanently off (somewhere in the hinterlands). 

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, Corius said:

Having recently come from the Q2 to the M11, and using a 35mm lens I have had no need to use the EVF, either screen or Visoflex 2. I find it really awkward using the manual focus, focus highlights, and focus "zoom" together. The whole process is confused.

Of course, but mount a 135 or a WATE and you'll might feel differently.  If you're shooting with a 35 or 50mm and not overly concerned about framing or level precision, both of which can be easily dealt with in post, the EVF doesn't provide huge value beyond exposure previewing, waist level finding and close focusing wide open with lenses that exceed the RF limits. Regardless, as you're new to the M, I'll mention that if do find you are using the EVF on occasion, its best to choose either focus peaking (I find it too inaccurate, but others claim success with it) or zoom, but not both.  As you note, with all the aids turned on, things get a little ugly.

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, Corius said:

Having recently come from the Q2 to the M11, and using a 35mm lens I have had no need to use the EVF, either screen or Visoflex 2. I find it really awkward using the manual focus, focus highlights, and focus "zoom" together. The whole process is confused.

With EVF mounted or LCD on, I often still use the rangefinder to focus. When using EVF/LCD to focus, I magnify with a button press. My only problem with EVF focusing is that I need to open wide to be precise (others do not have that issue).

[charlesphoto99]

18 hours ago, jaapv said:

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

Not sure about 'delay' but I do know I have an unused CL sitting in a case because I found the whole thing slowed me down compared to my M's. And in the end is not that much less bulky than just carrying an M (and sometimes more so). Stupid impulse buy I need to sell...

[lct]

4 hours ago, Corius said:

Having recently come from the Q2 to the M11, and using a 35mm lens I have had no need to use the EVF, either screen or Visoflex 2. I find it really awkward using the manual focus, focus highlights, and focus "zoom" together. The whole process is confused. [...]

Different feelings here. Easy process on my Sony and CL's EVF, even easier on the M11's Visoflex thanks to the auto zoom feature of M-mount cameras. I focus mainly at working aperture, though, contrary to other posters of this forum.

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No reason we can't have all these at the same time:

• M-mount Optical Rangefinder
• M-mount EVF
• L-mount smaller camera that looked like an M with flat top and left side EVF in place of where the rangefinder would be on an M
• L-mount the size of the current SL2

For the M-mount EVF, might as well go all the way:

• Ultra-fast readout stacked sensor w/out a mechanical shutter (like the Nikon Z9)
• IBIS
• Built-in ND filter (like the Fujifilm X100)
• Dual internal memory with single SD card

Re: comments about the differences in flange distance. Yes, M flange distance is longer than SL, but SL cameras require a decent amount of space behind the sensor, so if you measure from back to front thickness, the SL plus M adapter is much thicker than an M. On the M, the sensor is jammed right up against the LCD, but on the SL it's closer to the mount.

My personal desire for an EVF-M would be adding an EVF to the M11 body as-is without IBIS but with the 24mp BSI sensor from the SL2-S.

Edited February 18, 2023 by hdmesa

[fleeja]

Keep it as an optical viewfinder but instead of lining up the rangefinder patch mechanically make a small area read directly off the sensor with phase detect pixels. Give me a green dot or something showing when that area is in focus. You could have green arrows outside the red exposure arrows showing which way you need to focus and then a green dot in the middle when it’s in focus. 

This leaves the exact same user experience as we have now but eliminates mechanical inaccuracies in the lenses, camera/rangefinder as it’s read off the sensor itself. This also allows ‘rangefinder type’ focusing to be used with adapters and alternate mount lenses. It’s easy to see in low light and allows people with glasses or aging eyes to still use the M system as intended. It’s simple to implement as there’s nothing really to add, it’s just removing the rangefinder and adding a few more indicators to the viewfinder window. They already have sensors with phase detect pixels. Hell, even leave the rangefinder and give me that as a second confirmation to it. Although, I’d rather have the rangefinder space filled with an internal flash or something else. 
 

I don’t want a full time EVF. The dual Fuji X-Pro type would be best but I don’t see any way leica implements that without lots of compromises that make it a step backwards 

Edited February 18, 2023 by fleeja

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

No reason we can't have all these at the same time:

• M-mount Optical Rangefinder
• M-mount EVF
• L-mount smaller camera that looked like an M with flat top and left side EVF in place of where the rangefinder would be on an M
• L-mount the size of the current SL2

For the M-mount EVF, might as well go all the way:

• Ultra-fast readout stacked sensor w/out a mechanical shutter (like the Nikon Z9)
• IBIS
• Built-in ND filter (like the Fujifilm X100)
• Dual internal memory with single SD card

Re: comments about the differences in flange distance. Yes, M flange distance is longer than SL, but SL cameras require a decent amount of space behind the sensor, so if you measure from back to front thickness, the SL plus M adapter is much thicker than an M. On the M, the sensor is jammed right up against the LCD, but on the SL it's closer to the mount.

My personal desire for an EVF-M would be adding an EVF to the M11 body as-is without IBIS but with the 24mp BSI sensor from the SL2-S.

We can assume that Leica would use M sensor geometry in an M type body. 

[jaapv]

36 minutes ago, fleeja said:

Keep it as an optical viewfinder but instead of lining up the rangefinder patch mechanically make a small area read directly off the sensor with phase detect pixels. Give me a green dot or something showing when that area is in focus. You could have green arrows outside the red exposure arrows showing which way you need to focus and then a green dot in the middle when it’s in focus. 

This leaves the exact same user experience as we have now but eliminates mechanical inaccuracies in the lenses, camera/rangefinder as it’s read off the sensor itself. This also allows ‘rangefinder type’ focusing to be used with adapters and alternate mount lenses. It’s easy to see in low light and allows people with glasses or aging eyes to still use the M system as intended. It’s simple to implement as there’s nothing really to add, it’s just removing the rangefinder and adding a few more indicators to the viewfinder window. They already have sensors with phase detect pixels. Hell, even leave the rangefinder and give me that as a second confirmation to it. Although, I’d rather have the rangefinder space filled with an internal flash or something else. 
 

I don’t want a full time EVF. The dual Fuji X-Pro type would be best but I don’t see any way leica implements that without lots of compromises that make it a step backwards 

A few years ago Leica looked into this idea, they even filed a patent, but concluded that is was not good enough. 

[pop]

51 minutes ago, fleeja said:

the exact same user experience as we have now

This is not the case.

The user experience as we have now includes seeing exactly which part of the scene is in focus. The focus confirmation tells that something within the focusing area is exactly in focus. Not the same.

[lct]

22 minutes ago, jaapv said:

We can assume that Leica would use M sensor geometry in an m type body. 

Same sensor and same everything but a built-in Visoflex 2 replacing the OVF. According to LSI: 

Quote

« What we are discussing here is a camera based on a current M digital body but incorporating an EVF with characteristics like the current external Visoflex 2 instead of the optical viewfinder. This would mean that it would have the same resolution as the current Visoflex 2, the same frame rate and blackout time. It would also have the same eyepoint for spectacle wearers and the same viewing angle. Battery life would be equivalent to the current M11 with the Visoflex 2 attached »

The whole idea of the EVF-M is not to compete against the M11 but to complement it. In the same spirit, IBIS would be for the M12 and the corresponding version of the EVF-M. Just a guess.

[jaapv]

I still doubt the economic viability of such a camera. See what happened to the APS C  cameras. Leica has changed, such sidelines do no longer  fit in their business structure. 

[lct]

We shall see. The results of the LSI survey should be interesting, to begin with. 

[evikne]

Why are the LUF members not worthy of participating? Are they too motley a bunch? 😄

Edited February 18, 2023 by evikne

[Kiwimac]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

A few years ago Leica looked into this idea, they even filed a patent, but concluded that is was not good enough. 

However, EVF quality is much better by orders of magnitude than it was a few years ago. 
 

I had the GFX100 with 5 million + Pixel EVF and it was really really good. 
 

I’m not advocating for hybrid particularly - merely saying that as the technology improves, what wasn’t good enough can soon become good enough. 

[Kiwimac]

57 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I still doubt the economic viability of such a camera. See what happened to the APS C  cameras. Leica has changed, such sidelines do no longer  fit in their business structure. 

Really? A camera company that makes cameras that only shoot in black and white doesn’t do ‘sidelines’?! 🤣

[jaapv]

That is a simple modification with minimal  development costs. Basically a model variant. An M shaped EVF camera is a whole new design. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

I still doubt the economic viability of such a camera. See what happened to the APS C  cameras. Leica has changed, such sidelines do no longer  fit in their business structure. 

Stefan Daniel "surprised the audience by saying that if there were sufficient demand, Leica would consider producing an M with EVF."

Comment from LSI audience: "He left the audience in no doubt as regards the EVF M concept that if enough people would buy it, the company would produce it."

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

A few years ago Leica looked into this idea, they even filed a patent, but concluded that is was not good enough. 

7+ years…. we’re getting old fast…

Jeff