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

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, LocalHero1953 said:

Why wouldn't the same sensor work just as well in such a camera as I describe?

Would be another jack-of-all-trades sensor made for both M and L-mount lenses then. Déjà vu with SL cameras.

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

10 minutes ago, lct said:

Would be another jack-of-all-trades sensor made for both M and L-mount lenses then. Déjà vu with SL cameras.

What's wrong with that? The sensor for the M11 fitted to the such a camera? I'm not disagreeing, just trying to understand what you mean.

Edited February 19, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[raizans]

It’s important to remember that there has been protest at every step that got us from the Leica I to the M11. We are participating in a 100 year old tradition!

[hdmesa]

44 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

This topic is getting old.  Stefan Daniel talked about hybrid VF attempts, talked about the Fuji implementation, and concluded by saying it’s “a no-go.”

Jeff

Or they just need to try harder and come up with a better, more creative solution to the hybrid OVF/EVF.

[evikne]

…

Edited February 19, 2023 by evikne

[Jeff S]

6 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Or they just need to try harder and come up with a better, more creative solution to the hybrid OVF/EVF.

Or not.  Customer wants and Leica needs are different issues.  Stefan Daniel has most recently stated that hybrid efforts are finished at this point, but that if enough customers want (would buy) an EVF-based M, then that might be considered.  I have no reason to doubt either of these stated positions. But I don’t care to waste energy on ‘vaporware’ in any case; already enough real choices to contemplate. YMMV.

Jeff

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Or not.  Customer wants and Leica needs are different issues.  Stefan Daniel has most recently stated that hybrid efforts are finished at this point, but that if enough customers want (would buy) an EVF-based M, then that might be considered.  I have no reason to doubt either of these stated positions. But I don’t care to waste energy on ‘vaporware’ in any case; already enough real choices to contemplate. YMMV.

Jeff

His quote was a year and a half ago. Sometimes brilliant things never happen because people are not pushed hard enough. They got stuck on how Fujifilm did it, and they should reset and try again. There's no way in Hades a hybrid OVF/EVF would be more complicated to develop than the 1900s mechanical automaton they have living in there right now.

[pop]

3 hours ago, lct said:

The EVF-M would not be more compromised than the M11 if it works with the same sensor on the same M lenses.

Yes, quite, but it would be not less compromised, either.

All 'classical' Leica M lenses have been designed for use with film. The angle at which the light arrives on the film does not matter, within reasonable limits, because film is flat.

In a digital sensor the light receptor are recessed. This is acerbated by the color filter array which sits in front of the sensor, making the individual receptor sites actual pits. The amount of light reaching the receptor therefore greatly depends on the angle at which the light enters each pit. No doubt you have known all that for some time.

In the M8 this would not matter so much because the M8 has a small sensor. Not many M lenses were constructed such that the angle of incidence mattered greatly. With the M9, things became ugly and many lenses produced images where the dependence on the angle of incidence became quite apparent, and the M (Typ 240) improved the matter only to a degree.

With the M10 Leica found a compromise, but still only most of the classical M lenses can be used with the camera without producing the dreaded artefacts. Most of the effect could be controlled by the shape of the micro lenses in front of the sensor pits and presumably by shallower pits in the sensor itself. The remaining artefacts are corrected by the processor within the camera and can therefore not be called purely optical solutions.

That's the compromise which makes classical M lenses useable on digital cameras.

I remember the hue and cry when many here became aware of the fact that with the modern lenses for the modern digital cameras the geometry of the image was not accomplished by optical means but 'merely' corrected using computer power. Why should corrections of the resulting image by computing power be acceptable in one case and not in the other? I don't know. But calling those corrections 'compromises' does not seem unfair.

[lct]

49 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

What's wrong with that? The sensor for the M11 fitted to the such a camera? I'm not disagreeing, just trying to understand what you mean.

I can't seem to recall if you own an SL camera already. If so, may i ask if you happened to try UWA M lenses on it, especially legacy ones? Not trying to escape your question but last time i tried such lenses on a SL 601 i got inferior results compared not only to my M's but also to my Kolari mod Sony.

[Jeff S]

5 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

His quote was a year and a half ago. Sometimes brilliant things never happen because people are not pushed hard enough. They got stuck on how Fujifilm did it, and they should reset and try again. There's no way in Hades a hybrid OVF/EVF would be more complicated to develop than the 1900s mechanical automaton they have living in there right now.

As he said, Fuji doesn’t have a real RF, and that Leica would only do this if they could still have a stellar RF as well as an EVF up to their standard.  This couldn’t be done, without unacceptable compromises, in the space provided.  Sure, circumstances and technology can change (as Leica has amply demonstrated), but it seems that current priorities have shifted to other challenges.  Your priorities may not coincide, regardless of what’s technically possible. Or maybe you’ll get your wish one day.  I won’t be holding my breath.

Jeff

[hdmesa]

2 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

As he said, Fuji doesn’t have a real RF, and that Leica would only do this if they could still have a stellar RF as well as an EVF up to their standard.  This couldn’t be done, without unacceptable compromises, in the space provided.  Sure, circumstances and technology can change (as Leica has amply demonstrated), but it seems that current priorities have shifted to other challenges.  Your priorities may not coincide, regardless of what’s technically possible. Or maybe you’ll get your wish one day.  I won’t be holding my breath.

Jeff

Oh, I'm definitely not holding my breath, nor do I want an OVF/EVF hybrid if it will be like Fujifilm's. I hated the OVF in the X100V I owned, which was like the OVF from a 1980's point and shoot film camera. I always used the EVF with the X100V. I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate by saying they should engineer a new solution. Dust off their hands and try again.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, raizans said:

It’s important to remember that there has been protest at every step that got us from the Leica I to the M11. We are participating in a 100 year old tradition!

And sometimes that tradition has been a loss making one too. Generally speaking most businesses prefer to produce products which will sell sufficiently in order to make a profiyt after delelopment and production costs. Leica seem to operate this way currently, even axing models which some people do like, probably because they aren't sufficiently profitable. As I have already said, an EVF-M would need sufficient guaranteed sales to make a profit. I will be interested to see if these are ever considered likely by Leica and we will know this only if they do build and market such a camera. Im not holding my breath though.

[jaapv]

19 hours ago, SrMi said:

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."

Highlight mine. That is precisely the rub.

[jaapv]

36 minutes ago, lct said:

I can't seem to recall if you own an SL camera already. If so, may i ask if you happened to try UWA M lenses on it, especially legacy ones? Not trying to escape your question but last time i tried such lenses on a SL 601 i got inferior results compared not only to my M's but also to my Kolari mod Sony.

Super Elmar 18 is fine on the SL 601.  You sure love your hacked Sony.  

[lct]

6 minutes ago, pop said:

[...] With the M10 Leica found a compromise, but still only most of the classical M lenses can be used with the camera without producing the dreaded artefacts. Most of the effect could be controlled by the shape of the micro lenses in front of the sensor pits and presumably by shallower pits in the sensor itself. The remaining artefacts are corrected by the processor within the camera and can therefore not be called purely optical solutions. [...]

The BSI sensor of the M11 does much better, to the point that i can't seem to see significant compromises on UWA photos taken with lenses like S-A 21/3.4, ZM 21/4.5 or CV 15/4.5 v2. I want the same on the EVF-M, so i'm on the same line as LSI presenting it like a mere M11, so to speak, with a built-in Visoflex in the place of the rangefinder.

[jaapv]

Ah yes, we all have our dreams and wishes...

[SrMi]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Ah yes, we all have our dreams and wishes...

I am mainly dreaming about CL2 with IBIS

[Jeff S]

1 minute ago, SrMi said:

I am mainly dreaming about CL2 with IBIS

Might as well add weather sealing to your dream camera.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Erato]

History repeats itself, first as tragedy like CONTAX, second as farce.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, lct said:

I can't seem to recall if you own an SL camera already. If so, may i ask if you happened to try UWA M lenses on it, especially legacy ones? Not trying to escape your question but last time i tried such lenses on a SL 601 i got inferior results compared not only to my M's but also to my Kolari mod Sony.

No, I never have. The only M lenses I have are Summilux-M 75 and Thambar. I have the SL2-S and have previously had the SL.

But it was the M11 sensor you said (or implied) would not be good enough. Why would it be good in the M11 but not with a L-mount in front of it? That is what I was asking you to explain. What am I missing?

Edited February 19, 2023 by LocalHero1953