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

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One thing not to forget: an EVF uses quite a lot of (processing) power and produce more heat. I am not sure an M body can handle much more than the present Visoflex. 

[pgk]

Just now, IkarusJohn said:

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).

I stick to a set of lenses that I know I can focus fast and well on the M - 21/3.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 75/2.5 or 90/2.5. I have a 135/4 (E6) which will probably eventually go. Lovely lens, great results, but it does require an EVF to focus as far as I'm concerned and I'd rather use something purpose designed for EVF. I've used 153s on and off for 40 years on Ms and have never been entirely happy with their ability to focus. Another on the edge 'good eyes required; lens. As far as I am concerned, the rfM is superb within fairly tight limits.

[SrMi]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

One thing not to forget: an EVF uses quite a lot of (processing) power. I am not sure an M body can handle much more than the present Visoflex. 

The latest Visoflex is good enough (same resolution as Fuji GFX100S's EVF).

[Erato]

Kindly remind you that due to the endless growth rate and the burden of multiple product lines, the actual number of R&D resources for each product line may not be able to meet your unlimited better-have(not a must-have) requirements...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Le Chef]

If you do a small bit of analysis on published company data you get the sense that they're not spending enough on R&D to support all lines. If you go back to the original quote about a manual focus camera using the M-mount with an EVF, he said that if there was enough demand Leica would build it. This idea has been around for quite some time, yet Leica have not launched this camera, so one has to presume that to date the numbers don't make sense.

[geotrupede]

Prototypes and tests may be done well before products are put on the market. And sometimes tests and prototypes are abortive.

The M11 is a platform rather than one off product, like SL, and a number of components are shared between lines: dials, software, chips, sensors, batteries, etc. 

So who knows, it may be seen as an easy win, a means to increase sales to a new segment if done right. And with minimum investment as all bits and pieces do already exist.

 

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Prototypes and tests are ALWAYS done before products go to market. Some prototypes are abandoned because they do not meet the test criteria. It's SOP for most companies. The SL is also a platform with two models, has history hence the "2", a well developed lens mount and partner lens manufacturers. If you believe the P/R the next Leica L-mount camera will share a number of sub-structures with Panasonic/Lumix.

And I'm sure it will accept the M -> L converter for those who want to use M lenses and an EVF.

[Paul.S]

I think that it's likely to see an EVF M in the next few years, possibly instead of an M-R it'll be an M-E (and hopefully M-E/I) I see 2 issues with the current and moving forward M's.

Resolution and IBIS...60meg is showing me that IBIS and accurate focus needs to be improved. I would hate to lose the RF experience but with current technology there isn't room for IBIS, therefore moving forward with higher res cameras it's going to be an issue, only way round it is to lose the RF to free up room, but we know that would probably be the death of Leica, so why not bring out a EVF model within the line to cater for both sides of the fence? As for accurate focus on all lenes, well that's harder, some maybe lucky and have their range of lenes calibrated accurately and can see that focus patch alignment perfectly, I'm not in that class unfortunately. The EVF on my M11 trumps it. And I do go to 36meg when using RF. 

Yes I know that plenty of people are able to achieve nirvana focus and not shake, but if that's you, I believe you are in the minority.

 

Paul

[hdmesa]

5 hours ago, geotrupede said:

...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...

+1

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

The latest Visoflex is good enough (same resolution as Fuji GFX100S's EVF).

[Respectfully] Oh hell no. IMO, the 100S EVF is borderline acceptable for the shared pixel density of the 100S and the M11. An M with a built-in EVF is not competing with middle-of-the-road EVFs, but with the OVF.

Regarding comments about EVF needing some heat management, the M body should have plenty of room for cooling and air circulation once the densely-packed rangefinder gadgetry is removed.

[hdmesa]

4 hours ago, Le Chef said:

...if there was enough demand Leica would build it. This idea has been around for quite some time, yet Leica have not launched this camera, so one has to presume that to date the numbers don't make sense.

They know an M-EVF would be successful. Even the dimmest-witted corporate bean counter understands that after the stunning success of the Q.

IMO, they have been more concerned over saving the soul of the M up to this point.

[Le Chef]

If it were that clear cut they would have done it a while ago. Unless you know the ratio of Visoflex to M sales you will never know. There maybe a cross over point where Leica sells a declining number of M’s and and increasing number of them are sold with the Visoflex. Every successful manufacturer faces this dilemma at some point. You either figure out how to parallel path or there’s a real opportunity that you fail. In the end every successful business follows the money. It’s that simple. And at the moment the money for Leica is not in an M mount, manual focus camera with an EVF.

[hdmesa]

9 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

If it were that clear cut they would have done it a while ago. Unless you know the ratio of Visoflex to M sales you will never know. There maybe a cross over point where Leica sells a declining number of M’s and and increasing number of them are sold with the Visoflex. Every successful manufacturer faces this dilemma at some point. You either figure out how to parallel path or there’s a real opportunity that you fail. In the end every successful business follows the money. It’s that simple. And at the moment the money for Leica is not in an M mount, manual focus camera with an EVF.

Sales of the Visoflex for M have no correlation to how many people would buy an EVF-M. The Visoflex is something you resign yourself to buying and using. I had one with my first M11, but this time around I have no interest. I either want the EVF integrated or I don't want one at all. I can't be the only person who feels that way.

9 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

If it were that clear cut they would have done it a while ago...

That's your assumption, and it might hold water if this were Canon, Nikon or Sony. But this is Leica, and they have to take into account what losing the rangefinder on the M would/could mean to the image of the company.

[lct]

IMHO a good way to kill the idea of the EVF-M is to let believe that i will compete with current rangefinders. It is not intended to do that, only to complement the M11 currently and the M12 afterward. The EVF-M should then have exactly the same Visoflex as the corresponding rangefinder with the only difference that it would be built-in the body. No IBIS either until the M12 has it itself. Just my 2 cents.

[Le Chef]

This cannot be an emotional decision just because a handful of people here want this EVF camera. 

 If the EVF line supposedly represents a clear gap in the market then where will those customers come from? It needs to do more than be a complement to the M11 - it needs to make a healthy profit margin in its own right or it’s not worth investing in. If it cannibalizes M sales, or SL sales or Q sales then it will kill the business and should be killed off before it causes harm.  When Peter Schultz ran Porsche the plan was to launch the 928 and kill off the 911. He realizes there was space in the market for both, but they had to be positioned away from each other to avoid cannibalization. If there’s a new type of customer who has never owned a Leica and this EVF camera appeals or any number of current Leica owners want to add one then it can make money, but it can’t be an M with an EVF. It has to be something much more.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Le Chef

[hdmesa]

11 minutes ago, lct said:

IMHO a good way to kill the idea of the EVF-M is to let believe that i will compete with current rangefinders. It is not intended to do that, only to complement the M11 currently and the M12 afterward. The EVF-M should then have exactly the same Visoflex as the corresponding rangefinder with the only difference that it would be built-in the body. No IBIS either until the M12 has it itself. Just my 2 cents.

I agree, but I would still hope for at least the SL level of EVF. Surely the M11 processor is better than the 601 and could drive a high res EVF.

[hdmesa]

1 minute ago, Le Chef said:

This cannot be an emotional decision just because a handful of people here want this EVF camera. 

 If the EVF line supposedly represents a clear gap in the market then where will those customers come from? It needs to do more than be a complement to the M11 - it needs to make a healthy profit margin in its own right or it’s not worth investing in. If it cannibalizes M sales, or SL sales or Q sales then it will kill the business and should be killed off before it causes harm. 

I agree, I just think you’re selling short the potential for new users to migrate to an M if they build in an EVF. They didn’t think the Q would be a huge success, either.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

+1

[Respectfully] Oh hell no. IMO, the 100S EVF is borderline acceptable for the shared pixel density of the 100S and the M11. An M with a built-in EVF is not competing with middle-of-the-road EVFs, but with the OVF.

I have not seen any GFX100S reviewer or owner, even if they switched from high-res GFX100, considering the GFX100S's EVF as "borderline acceptable." But, of course, we could ask DPR's MF forum members ;-).

I do consider all Fuji EVFs borderline acceptable because of constant flickering.

BTW, Nikon's Z7 and Z6 cameras also have the same resolution as Visoflex 2. 

I do not feel my Sony A1's high-resolution EVF is a big deal. Also, its resolution drops quite a bit while focusing. The contrast and how the dynamic range and colors are handled is more important to me.

[SrMi]

4 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I agree, but I would still hope for at least the SL level of EVF. Surely the M11 processor is better than the 601 and could drive a high res EVF.

I'd rather have 3.7MDot if it means much longer battery life.

[SrMi]

33 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Sales of the Visoflex for M have no correlation to how many people would buy an EVF-M. The Visoflex is something you resign yourself to buying and using. I had one with my first M11, but this time around I have no interest. I either want the EVF integrated or I don't want one at all. I can't be the only person who feels that way.

Are you using top mounted OVF or rear LCD when shooting wider than 28mm?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Le Chef]

2 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I'd rather have 3.7MDot if it means much longer battery life.

 Buy a second battery.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Le Chef