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

[DenverSteve]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pgk said:

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

"Realist" is not a tangible. It's meaningless without explanation. What is your reality?

[Advertisement]

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

[DenverSteve]

54 minutes ago, jaapv said:

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. 

To some degree however, I can take two photos, at the exact time, place and composition with proper/correct settings - with two different camera systems and see the difference between the two.  That's the Leica difference. It doesn't mean that difference will be seen by all and it doesn't mean one will be better to all, but there will be an undeniable difference.  Everyone gets to pick the one they prefer, and leave the rest to their choices.  Anyone who doesn't realize the difference shouldn't pay a premium for the difference - unless they choose to. The difference will be real and not due to any placebo effect. 

[IkarusJohn]

8 hours ago, pgk said:

Some reality. I have Sony A7 series cameras and lenses. I also have an adapter which allows me to use Leica M lenses on the Sony and a button set to magnify part of the frame for focus. Some of my M lenses work very well on the Sonys, however .....

I rarely use M lenses on the Sonys even though some work very well in terms of the image quality they produce. I have the same fixed focal lengths Sony lenses which, like it or not, are equally competent performers and are much simpler to use on the Sony bodies either in AF or MF modes. I had an SL which worked fine and was a lovely camera but decided that it was asystem too far and actually offered me nothing that the Sonys couldn't do.

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?

I can see that some people want such a camera, but does it really make sense given its drawbacks and marginal advantages? My own feeling is that pandering to a vocieferous subset of Leica M owners is only viable if there are a good percentage of them who will be inclined to buy such a camera. If it was cheap enough I might buy one for technical applications but cheap is rarely a word associated with new Leica products. I would suggest that sales outside existing M system owners would be low too.

So what you’re saying is, if you want an EVF based camera, buy a Sony, and Sony lenses?

I don’t want a Sony, and I like my M lenses - so, just stick with the rangefinder and external EVF, and stop complaining?  To refrain earlier discussions, the “armchair ceo’s” who opine that there’s no busines case aren’t really advancing the discussion - Leica is the only one who can make that decision with information we here can only guess at.

We already have an EVF based M camera.  So, doesn’t it come down to Leica’s knowing how many EVFs it sells, and the cost of developing a camera with that EVF inside the camera?  Only Leica can answer that question.

I see Leica considering a number of critical issues - (1) how difficult/expensive is it to develop such a camera? (2) how many would it sell? and (3) what would the impact of such a camera be on OVF based M sales?  The last being the sacred cow question which bothers many here.

It’s not about what Sony has to offer, nor is it about the L system.  It’s about using M lenses on an M body, but with an EVF built in.  There’s a certain lack of bravery in how difficult this question is proving to be.  If it doesn’t sell, then they just stop producing it - Leica has done that for years …

[pgk]

Just now, DenverSteve said:

"Realist" is not a tangible. It's meaningless without explanation. What is your reality?

Well, my undergraduate thesis was a comparison of Leica and Minolta lenses via a) MTF testing, which I carried out myself, and b) photographic prints which were analysed by myself and others. This was a long time ago but the result was that they were indistinguishable using a CoC acceptable for the prints of the time. This is my 'reality' and it still stands. There is no 'magic' about cameras and lenses, although there are numerous intangibles about their use. Photography is about creating images and the way you do so can have an enormous impact on the result. Which is why I like using the Leica M system which to me is as simplistic as it is possible to get and leaves control well in the hands of the user. Ergonomics and variability, precision feel and so on all help. But I have few illusions about being able to produce images equally as good from other systems which are extremely competent these days.

My Sony lenses are very, very good but of course my Leica M lenses will almost certainly long outlast them because their mechanics are far more robust and are repairable by a competent photographic technician, whilst the Sonys will no doubt be made obsolete by newer models, and parts availability will eventually prevent their repair, but that of course is a different discussion.

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

So what you’re saying is, if you want an EVF based camera, buy a Sony, and Sony lenses?

No, what I'm saying is that if you want to use rangefinder lenses buy an M rangefinder camera😁. I see so many compromises in using M lenses on EVF cameras including both Sony, and to a marginally lesser extent (te 6-bit coding) on the SL, simply because the lenses are being used in a way that they were never intended to be. I can use other, even less easy to use, lenses on EVF cameras and do so when there is no alternative (some 1860s lenses work surprisingly well) but, like using an M lens on them, it is a bit of a faff to do so and only works within specific parameters. My Sonys are workhorses used when I need their attributes. Whenever possible though I will use my rfMs in preference, if that is they are able to do what is demanded of them.

Just because you can do something does not mean that it is an effective solution for may situations and this is what many seem to fail to grasp. An EVFM is a compromise, like it or not, and will not work as effectively as an rfM. We've had this discussion numerous times and nothing has really changed.

[DenverSteve]

10 minutes ago, pgk said:

Well, my undergraduate thesis was a comparison of Leica and Minolta lenses via a) MTF testing, which I carried out myself, and b) photographic prints which were analysed by myself and others. This was a long time ago but the result was that they were indistinguishable using a CoC acceptable for the prints of the time. This is my 'reality' and it still stands. There is no 'magic' about cameras and lenses, although there are numerous intangibles about their use. Photography is about creating images and the way you do so can have an enormous impact on the result. Which is why I like using the Leica M system which to me is as simplistic as it is possible to get and leaves control well in the hands of the user. Ergonomics and variability, precision feel and so on all help. But I have few illusions about being able to produce images equally as good from other systems which are extremely competent these days.

My Sony lenses are very, very good but of course my Leica M lenses will almost certainly long outlast them because their mechanics are far more robust and are repairable by a competent photographic technician, whilst the Sonys will no doubt be made obsolete by newer models, and parts availability will eventually prevent their repair, but that of course is a different discussion.

Thank you for that. I would also like to thank this forum group as in many other platforms, this could have been a confrontational and contentious discussion.  Generally, this is a much more enjoyable platform for discussion than most others.

[raizans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Image quality is important, but I think the “Leica shooting experience” is the real draw.

[DenverSteve]

7 minutes ago, raizans said:

Image quality is important, but I think the “Leica shooting experience” is the real draw.

I agree that it should be part and parcel but I wouldn't buy a Leica for the shooting experience alone. For me it has to be married to the image quality. 

[pgk]

3 minutes ago, raizans said:

Image quality is important, but I think the “Leica shooting experience” is the real draw.

Yes. An M fitted with a 35/1.4 from Leica is a real pleasure to carry and use. A Sony and 35/1.4 is an altogether different beast and the view through the Electronic Viewfinder is to me a scondhand one, or perhaps third hand as the SLR view is probably more second😉. Even the Sony 35/1.8 feels enormous when you are used to a Leica M😊. And I have absolutely no doubt that using the Leica M system has taught me more about photography than any of the numerous other that I have used, especially about pre-visualising an image. Just my experience though.

[pgk]

Just now, DenverSteve said:

I agree that it should be part and parcel but I wouldn't buy a Leica for the shooting experience alone. For me it has to be married to the image quality. 

Do you not think that image 'quality' (an intangible if ever there was one - I refer to aesthetic IQ) is improved by using equipment which is both enjoyable and simple to operate? I do and I suspect that this has a greater influence on the final images than many of us appreciate.

[DenverSteve]

7 minutes ago, pgk said:

Do you not think that image 'quality' (an intangible if ever there was one - I refer to aesthetic IQ) is improved by using equipment which is both enjoyable and simple to operate? I do and I suspect that this has a greater influence on the final images than many of us appreciate.

That's what is meant by part and parcel. The two work together. I know that shooting experience is enhanced by process and results. One without the other is less enjoyable. If I had to separate the two, I would take image quality over enjoyable use any time.  In the end for me as a photographer, final result is the desired outcome.  System enjoyment is an added bonus.  If I didn't get superb results from a M Leica system, I wouldn't use it at all. Conversely, I shoot Sony for some work because of the results even though the experience isn't as rewarding as shooting Leicas.  I get as much enjoyment from my CL digital and Q2 even though they aren't M.  Why? Because all of them exude Leica AND provide results. 

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by DenverSteve

[jaapv]

19 minutes ago, pgk said:

No, what I'm saying is that if you want to use rangefinder lenses buy an M rangefinder camera😁. I see so many compromises in using M lenses on EVF cameras including both Sony, and to a marginally lesser extent (te 6-bit coding) on the SL, simply because the lenses are being used in a way that they were never intended to be. I can use other, even less easy to use, lenses on EVF cameras and do so when there is no alternative (some 1860s lenses work surprisingly well) but, like using an M lens on them, it is a bit of a faff to do so and only works within specific parameters. My Sonys are workhorses used when I need their attributes. Whenever possible though I will use my rfMs in preference, if that is they are able to do what is demanded of them.

Just because you can do something does not mean that it is an effective solution for may situations and this is what many seem to fail to grasp. An EVFM is a compromise, like it or not, and will not work as effectively as an rfM. We've had this discussion numerous times and nothing has really changed.

Actually it differs per lens. I prefer many M lenses on my M9 but the Summilux 24 is a far nicer experience on the SL. 

[lct]

39 minutes ago, pgk said:

[...] what I'm saying is that if you want to use rangefinder lenses buy an M rangefinder camera [...]

What's a rangefinder lens?  Is the WATE an RF lens, an LV lens, or both? What is sure it is not only an RF lens since it cannot be focused down to MFD (0.5m) with the RF. Same for the Summilux 35 FLE v2 (0.4m), the Summicron 35/2 apo (0.3m) and other lenses to come soon or late. Some people don't like rangefinders but like using M lenses on mirrorless cameras. Others, like yours truly, don't use M lenses because they are rangefinder lenses but because they like them on both rangefinders and mirrorless cameras. Besides photogs with aging eyesight, the EVF-M idea is intended for people like that.

[pegelli]

If it's the right tool for the job I get as much enjoyment from using my M2 vs my Olympus OM or Minolta Dynax 7. It all depends on subject and circumstances.

Same with digital, M rangefinders are special but I can imagine a few cases where the experience for me is far below par because it's not the right tool for the job, and going out with the right mindset gives me equal enjoyment from my non Leica DSLR and EVF mirrorless as compared to my digital M. 

Yes, Leica make great cameras that are fun to use and I wouldn't want to be without them, but for me that doesn't mean I can't get as much (or sometimes even more) fun from using a camera from another brand.

So as always, personal opinions and experiences differ, so YMMV.

Edited February 20, 2023 by pegelli

[IkarusJohn]

38 minutes ago, pgk said:

No, what I'm saying is that if you want to use rangefinder lenses buy an M rangefinder camera😁. I see so many compromises in using M lenses on EVF cameras including both Sony, and to a marginally lesser extent (te 6-bit coding) on the SL, simply because the lenses are being used in a way that they were never intended to be. I can use other, even less easy to use, lenses on EVF cameras and do so when there is no alternative (some 1860s lenses work surprisingly well) but, like using an M lens on them, it is a bit of a faff to do so and only works within specific parameters. My Sonys are workhorses used when I need their attributes. Whenever possible though I will use my rfMs in preference, if that is they are able to do what is demanded of them.

Just because you can do something does not mean that it is an effective solution for may situations and this is what many seem to fail to grasp. An EVFM is a compromise, like it or not, and will not work as effectively as an rfM. We've had this discussion numerous times and nothing has really changed.

I don’t disagree with any of that.  I like using M lenses.  I’ve tried them on other platforms, and for me they really only work on my M bodies and the SL(601) - I prefer manual focus over AF, and in terms of haptics, manually focusing M lenses is better than most.

But what you say about compromise applies equally to the OVF as to an M with EVF - specifically, vague framing (and no framing wider than 28mm and poor framing longer than 50mm), great focus accuracy wider than 50, but poor focus accuracy 50 and longer (without a magnifier (your cue, Jaap)) and difficult for glasses wearers, and poor dealing with lenses with focus shift.

Neither is perfect, but an EVF option does work for those who struggle with the above.  So, if you want to use the M lenses you own, and you prefer an EVF, the solution is buy a Visoflex and stop complaining?  If an avid M lens owner doesn’t like the OVF, it doesn’t mean they are any less committed to the M system.  Other EVF based cameras aren’t really the point.

[IkarusJohn]

25 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Actually it differs per lens. I prefer many M lenses on my M9 but the Summilux 24 is a far nicer experience on the SL. 

Same for me with the 21 Summilux, Noctilux 0.95 and 75 Summilux

[jaapv]

7 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

(your cue, Jaap)

🤣🤣

[pgk]

7 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Same for me with the 21 Summilux, Noctilux 0.95 and 75 Summilux

Ahh yes, the 'good eyes required' lenses😉.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[geotrupede]

For sure EVF in an interesting option for some. 

IF Leica decides to go EVF one would hope they will look for EVF technically equivalent to a Sony A1 and not to the Q or the M11.

The current EVF on the M11 is a good screen, but the gain used in the live view sucks in low light situations. SL2S is much better. Sony even better than SL2S. The lag when using EVF or live view in M11 is small but perceivable. I mean not the lag in the shutter actuation itself, but the lag in what one sees on the screen vs what is there to be seen. There is room to do better, have higher fps, etc. The sony A1 is state of the art for the EVF and shows (a friend who works as a photographer for a living shows it off every single time we meet and it is a fact he is right, perhaps annoying but true).

Electronic shutter is also terrible on the M11, which calls to serious improvements and the EVF camera could also work in that area. Nikon Z9 and Sony A1, much better and should be possible to match those cameras with the right components. Leica is not a beginner any longer and is capable of great stuff with the L2 partnership so...

Last but not least cost.  A Leica with M bayonet and EVF is not an M, it is not a classic camera.  It is something else, new. And as such should have a different designation and price point.

I do not see possible to price it in the region of the M11/M10R... rather the SL2S if a lesser sensor is used to help with lag, screen and fps.

But because it is a totally unproven idea, the risk may be too high to start with something new and M11 is likely to be used as the platform for this. Which is not great in my opinion. Maybe a SL2S based option could be better, but can it fit in a smaller body?

I think I could consider an SL2S reduced in size with M bayonet...  But the little joystick? Etc.  Will be cool to see how it evolves and also how M11 ends up in the history of leicas (let's hope well given how much we paid!).  

All the best to all.

G.

 

[IkarusJohn]

55 minutes ago, pgk said:

Ahh yes, the 'good eyes required' lenses😉.

Try focusing a 35 Summilux pre-asph wide open using the LCD on a TL2 with no other focusing aids … everything is a compromise.  I just happen to enjoy the compromises with an M, M lenses and the OVF.  Sometimes I need the EVF, a megnifier or an OVF (Monochrom with the 21 Summilux, but then I usually just guess).