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

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Leica is perfectly capable of doing their own market research. These forum surveys are fine for signaling interest amongst their existing customers but would be disastrous to base decisions on. 

Leica will do what they want with those surveys but i would not anticipate disasters neither you nor me have the least idea about.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

One model not coming up to expectations is hardly a disaster. 

[raizans]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

An EVF-M would offer a MF Leica M lens based body but its only real plus is that it would have the body form of an M. [...] And does blurring the lines between the systems Leica offers make good sense?

No system offers both rangefinder cameras and TTL viewfinder cameras that share the same lens mount. Complementing the M11 with the EVF-M would be revolutionary. It would make Leica M the ultimate lens mount.

[jaapv]

24 minutes ago, raizans said:

No system offers both rangefinder cameras and TTL viewfinder cameras that share the same lens mount

Maybe for a good reason?

[raizans]

All of them were designed as autofocus mirrorless or SLR mounts, too wide or deep for rangefinders. Voigtländer and Olympus have been making lenses whose barrels are narrower than the mount because they are so big.

[Le Chef]

I’m watching this thread from the sidelines and simply do not see a viable business case for such a camera unless it adds some 60% of is total sales from new customers to Leica, with the remaining 40% of sales coming from existing owners without cannibalizing the SL and Q lines. I also don’t see it as a priority business case. Surely Leica should be committing funding to finalizing the development of the M12, initiating the design development for SL4 and Q4, finalizing more lightweight L-mount lenses, before considering an EVF M camera.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not aware of full- frame Panasonic SLRs. Only the new S series, which uses the L mount, playing very well with M mount lenses.

[DenverSteve]

7 hours ago, pgk said:

Some reality........

My point is that an EVF-M is really only viable as a camera if it offers something that cannot be achieved otherwise. The current M rangefinders do offer rangefinder focus and are a world away from EVF cameras and have the advantage of providing fast, accurate wide-angle focus and image 'quality'. An EVF-M would offer a MF Leica M lens based body but its only real plus is that it would have the body form of an M. The idea that it could deliver marginally improved performance using microlenses is fine, but I can obtain excellent image 'quality' using similar wide Sony lenses on a Sony camera body so what does this actualy achieve other than a smaller lens being used (not sure about lighter)? How would this drive Leica's aspirations to be a manufacturer offering the highest quality products forward? And does blurring the lines between the systems Leica offers make good sense?

Some more reality. 🤭This argument could also be used for EVERY camera, including the M11 as it is.  The reality is that every camera in the top-tier of its brand offers the same shooting experience in final imagery and ease of use (sharp, contrasty, colorful...) - great pictures. There is complete overlap all over the industry, except for Leica M.  However, the rangefinder doesn't add the Leica-magic to the Leica image quality.  Leica brings the "magic" with a combination of its lenses and electronic tuning/color management.  As a professional photographer, I can get sellable tack-sharp images from any brand. I can tweak the colors to be the same from every brand.  However, what you can't get from your/my Sony/Canon/Nikon is the total package of the Leica M lenses mated to the Leica "machine".  That's why putting other glass on a Leica M or Leica glass on a Sony makes no sense, to me.  It loses the "the plus", the total Leica package. 

Personally, I don't shoot Leica M because of it being a rangefinder. I shoot it because it IS unique in its final product.  Some  clients see this, some strangers see it, some photographers and non-photographers see it. They don't know why they see it, but they recognize the "plus" that Leica M with Leica glass provides.  That "something" that just looks unique (and to many of us, better).  I also shoot and enjoy, most of Leica's cameras and lenses - because of the "look" (plus) they provide.  Not because it's rangefinder.  Rangefinder is always slower and less accurate (percentage of perfect focus).  If you don't see that a Leica M, with or without an EVF, provides a "plus" then, for you, shooting M makes no sense. That's the different between - a shooter that uses Leicas, and a "Leica shooter".  A "Leica shooter" sees the difference.  I shoot Leica manual-focus, auto-focus, Leica compact, Leica full-frame.... Leica.  If one doesn't "see" the difference in images from a M11 w/ Summicron 50 (or any other Leica lens) than Sony A7c or A7r V.... then it's a total waste of money to own Leica.  However, a "Leica shooter" understands the "plus" (even feels the difference) to shooting Leica M whether rangefinder or EVF, and, for some of them, adding EVF makes perfect sense.  While I couldn't care less, many "Leica shooters" long for an EVF M, or even, auto-focus M.  Why? Who cares? They do.  Will they/we ever see a M camera with EVF? Time will tell.  For me, the only reason to own any "luxury-priced" anything is that you perceive a substantial difference.  Those who don't should save money, spend less and buy something else. 

Edited February 20, 2023 by DenverSteve

[pgk]

3 minutes ago, DenverSteve said:

However, what you can't get from your/my Sony/Canon/Nikon is the total package of the Leica M lenses mated to the Leica "machine". 

So would you like to define exactly what this is please?

[DenverSteve]

42 minutes ago, pgk said:

So would you like to define exactly what this is please?

That's the deal - you can't universally "define" it.  You don't "define" art. You SEE it. If one can't see, or feel, the difference, there's no reason to belabor the conversation.  Those who can't see the difference between Bob Ross and Rembrandt - shouldn't shop at a gallery, they can shop at Ikea. If one doesn't feel the difference between a Toyota and a BMW, buy the cheaper and be happy.  If one can't feel or appreciate the difference between a Rolex and a knock-off that looks the same, buy the knock-off.  If one can't see a difference between a 20x30 print made from a Leica M with Leica glass and one made with Nikon, buy a Nikon.  If one doesn't see the difference in image quality between a 35mm print and one from a 4x5 camera, then they likely won't see the image "quality" difference between Sony and Leica - so buy Sony.  I shoot other brands, including Sony, but when I want the Leica M look, I tolerate/enjoy the slower, plodding, thoughtful, time-consuming use of a manual-focus camera with rangefinder focus because - there is a difference.  I can explain the difference between Titian and Monet but if YOU (universal you) can't SEE it, it doesn't matter.  Likewise, if you don't SEE the difference between the overall result of Leica M + Leica glass, then it won't matter how much one tries to show you because they still won't see it.  For the person who can't see, or feel, the difference, they will be perfectly happy with a cheap Chinese lens on a Leica M, or CL and say "it's good enough" or...."it's okay". But for those of us who get it - it's the sole reason to pony $9000 for a camera and $5000 for lenses, plus all the other Leica cameras and lenses we own.  There's a "value" to those who see/feel/appreciate the best.  It's not meant to be universally understood. There's a reason painting on velvet sells - those buyers obviously don't care.  Top-quality is for those who appreciate, see, can afford, top quality. For everyone else there are other brands, models and price points.  Those who don't, can't or won't see the difference, will be perfectly happy with their choices.  

Edited February 20, 2023 by DenverSteve

[pop]

18 minutes ago, DenverSteve said:

That's the deal - you can't universally "define" it.  You don't "define" art. You SEE it. If one can't see, or feel, the difference, there's no reason to belabor the conversation.  Those who can't see the difference between Bob Ross and Rembrandt - shouldn't go to an art museum, they can shop at Ikea. If you don't feel the difference between a Toyota and a BMW, buy the cheaper and be happy.  If you can't feel or appreciate the difference between a Rolex and a knock-off that looks the same, buy the knock-off.  If you can't see a difference between a 20x30 print made from a Leica M with Leica glass and one made with Nikon, buy a Nikon.  If you don't see the difference in image quality between a 35mm print and one from a 4x5 camera, then you likely won't see the image "quality" difference between Sony and Leica - so buy Sony.  I shoot other brands, including Sony, but when I want the Leica M look, I tolerate/enjoy the slower, plodding, thoughtful, time-consuming use of a manual-focus camera with rangefinder focus because - there is a difference.  I can explain the difference between Titian and Monet but if YOU can't SEE it, it doesn't matter.  Likewise, if you don't SEE the difference between the overall result of Leica M + Leica glass, then it won't matter how much one tries to show you because you still won't see it.  For the person who can't see, or feel, the difference, they will be perfectly happy with a cheap Chinese lens on a Leica M, or CL or..... But for those of us who see it - it's the sole reason to pony $9000 for a camera and $5000 for lenses, plus all the other Leica cameras and lenses we own.  It's not meant to be universally understood. Top-quality is for those who appreciate, see, can afford, top quality. For everyone else there are other brands, models, price points.  Those who don't, can't or won't see the difference, will be perfectly happy with their choices.

Yes, quite. Paris is much better a city when I go there with a Beamer than with a Toyota, and the time spent there is much better when I wear a Rolex. Those who don't just see it should stick with their Toyotas and Swatches.

[jaapv]

23 minutes ago, DenverSteve said:

That's the deal - you can't universally "define" it.  You don't "define" art. You SEE it. If one can't see, or feel, the difference, there's no reason to belabor the conversation.  Those who can't see the difference between Bob Ross and Rembrandt - shouldn't go to an art museum, they can shop at Ikea. If one doesn't feel the difference between a Toyota and a BMW, buy the cheaper and be happy.  If one can't feel or appreciate the difference between a Rolex and a knock-off that looks the same, buy the knock-off.  If one can't see a difference between a 20x30 print made from a Leica M with Leica glass and one made with Nikon, buy a Nikon.  If one doesn't see the difference in image quality between a 35mm print and one from a 4x5 camera, then they likely won't see the image "quality" difference between Sony and Leica - so buy Sony.  I shoot other brands, including Sony, but when I want the Leica M look, I tolerate/enjoy the slower, plodding, thoughtful, time-consuming use of a manual-focus camera with rangefinder focus because - there is a difference.  I can explain the difference between Titian and Monet but if YOU (universal you) can't SEE it, it doesn't matter.  Likewise, if you don't SEE the difference between the overall result of Leica M + Leica glass, then it won't matter how much one tries to show you because they still won't see it.  For the person who can't see, or feel, the difference, they will be perfectly happy with a cheap Chinese lens on a Leica M, or CL and say "it's good enough" or...."it's okay". But for those of us who get it - it's the sole reason to pony $9000 for a camera and $5000 for lenses, plus all the other Leica cameras and lenses we own.  There's a "value" to those who see/feel/appreciate the best.  It's not meant to be universally understood. There's a reason painting on velvet sells - those buyers obviously don't care.  Top-quality is for those who appreciate, see, can afford, top quality. For everyone else there are other brands, models and price points.  Those who don't, can't or won't see the difference, will be perfectly happy with their choices.  

That is: assuming that appreciation has anything to do with hardware branding - not.

[DenverSteve]

23 minutes ago, pop said:

Yes, quite. Paris is much better a city when I go there with a Beamer than with a Toyota, and the time spent there is much better when I wear a Rolex. Those who don't just see it should stick with their Toyotas and Swatches.

I get the tongue-in-cheek. However, those who appreciate it, get it. Those who don't .... wear Swatch. 😘  But you are correct, Paris is much better in a BMW than a Renault. 😜

Edited February 20, 2023 by DenverSteve

[DenverSteve]

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

That is: assuming that appreciation has anything to do with hardware branding - not.

No. It's assuming the appreciation has "nothing" to do with the branding.  If you shoot Leica, or use any other luxury brand, because of branding, then you're missing the mark and paying too much.  It only works if you are using the top-tier because of what makes that product - better.  If it isn't better to the consumer, then it's a total waste to purchase that product. 

[pgk]

7 minutes ago, DenverSteve said:

If it isn't better to the consumer, then it's a total waste to purchase that product. 

Better in what way though? Sometimes its not about the results per se, its about the journey which leads to the results and how it enhances them - aesthetically perhaps, and not technically. That said I have images I'm delighted with from many different cameras and lenses and whilst my preference is to use a Leica M this is often impossible. But trying to distinguish between a Leica shot photograph and one from a different camera/lens is absolutely impossible most of the time.

[DenverSteve]

10 minutes ago, pgk said:

Better in what way though? Sometimes its not about the results per se, its about the journey which leads to the results and how it enhances them - aesthetically perhaps, and not technically. That said I have images I'm delighted with from many different cameras and lenses and whilst my preference is to use a Leica M this is often impossible. But trying to distinguish between a Leica shot photograph and one from a different camera/lens is absolutely impossible most of the time.

The 3-dimensionality, crispness, separation, ... isn't impossible to distinguish.  It's readily obvious.  Unknowing viewers don't see a "Leica" difference, they see a wonderful image that's "different" somehow from what they've previously experienced. They recognize "something" different between the images not knowing it's the "Leica" plus that makes them different.  This, of course, only matters if the image is better.  If you take a bunch of kids birthday pictures, you likely won't see a/the difference.  Again however, if one doesn't see a Leica difference, one can save a lot of money buy buying something cheaper that provides the same satisfaction.  To me, anyone shooting Leica who doesn't see & appreciate an overwhelmingly-obvious difference between Leica M and other brands/models, should shoot something MUCH cheaper and take their wife/husband out to a really nice dinner..  I'm really surprised that anyone on this forum would need to be explained the Leica difference.  If I didn't see, realize, appreciate the clear difference, I would have sold my first Leica and moved on and never would have purchased a second, third, fourth..... Leica system

Edited February 20, 2023 by DenverSteve

[pgk]

Just now, DenverSteve said:

I'm really surprised that anyone on this forum would need to be explained the Leica difference. 

Some of us actually look at a lot of photgraphs and are realists.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, DenverSteve said:

...If one doesn't see the difference in image quality between a 35mm print and one from a 4x5 camera, then they likely won't see the image "quality" difference between Sony and Leica - so buy Sony...

No offence intended but the main reason I've been shooting with Leica M cameras since 1980 (and Barnack cameras prior to that) is not because of their optics.

Philip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

4 minutes ago, DenverSteve said:

The 3-dimensionality, crispness, separation, ... isn't impossible to distinguish.  It's readily obvious.  Unknowing viewers don't see a "Leica" difference, they see a wonderful image that's "different" somehow from what they've previously experienced. They recognize "something" different between the images not knowing it's the "Leica" plus that makes them different.  This, of course, only matters if the image is better.  If you take a bunch of kids birthday pictures, you likely won't see a/the difference.  Again however, if one doesn't see a Leica difference, one can save a lot of money buy buying something cheaper that provides the same satisfaction.  To me, anyone shooting Leica who doesn't see & appreciate an overwhelmingly-obvious difference between Leica M and other brands/models, should shoot something MUCH cheaper and take their wife/husband out to a really nice dinner..  I'm really surprised that anyone on this forum would need to be explained the Leica difference.  If I didn't see, realize, appreciate the clear difference, I would have sold my first Leica and moved on and never would have purchased a second, third, fourth..... Leica system

I think these differences are totally eclipsed by the artistic value of the photograph. Personally I would never let the placebo effect prevail. Of course there is a pleasure in using good tools, but Leica is certainly not the only company providing them. Some Leica lenses are unique, there is a special feeling in handling their equipment but the skill of the photographer defines the result. 

[DenverSteve]

51 minutes ago, pippy said:

No offence intended but the main reason I've been shooting with Leica M cameras since 1980 (and Barnack cameras prior to that) is not because of their optics.

Philip.

No offense could be taken. You (everyone) should shoot whatever, however they choose. 🙂