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

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

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.

Most likely we all have a resolution/refresh tolerance for EVF that once it reaches a certain mark, we're ok with it. I don't think you hear complaints about the 100S EVF because it's a much better viewing experience than the 50S/R was. For me it's easier to achieve critical focus under full magnification with the SL2 cameras than it was with the 100S, but the 100S was at least adequate to the task. It's just that the higher res EVF is a more premium viewing experience that better fits the M flagship status and price point – IMO of course.

4 minutes ago, SrMi said:

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

I would still buy and EVF-M with that resolution if the refresh rate were high enough and we got the superior optics of the SL cameras. Not sure the SL EVF optics will fit inside an M body, though, and that may make more difference than the resolution.

2 minutes ago, SrMi said:

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

28 is currently my widest M lens, but in the past I have simply focused with the rangefinder and composed with the LCD.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

The rangefinder is the golden goose at Leica. Leica is not going to shoot itself in the foot by introducing an EVF-M that would have superior performance to the M11 today or the M12 tomorrow.

[Paul.S]

35 minutes 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.  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.

Why?

You have a M11 then M11P, M11D?, M11R gets replaced with M11 EVF model, M11M and lastly the limited editions. I don't see why you need a seperate line.

It also appears that you disregard the fact that as resolution goes up the need for IBIS and accurate focus also increases.

I'm sure Leica are well aware of this or they wouldn't have sent me a survey a couple of days ago asking about an EVF M.

Paul

[SrMi]

3 minutes ago, Paul.S said:

<snip>

I'm sure Leica are well aware of this or they wouldn't have sent me a survey a couple of days ago asking about an EVF M.

Paul

Did you get a survey from Leica about EVF M?  I got one from LSI, which is not Leica.

[Paul.S]

Sorry, this is my first leica, I thought they where part of the same company? Mine was from LSI.

But what I said, still holds true SrMi. I dont have any emotional investment in either RF or EVF, both have pros and cons, just observations I've noted over the last year of ownership.

 

Paul

[raizans]

We hear on a regular basis from Leica users that they would like an EVF-M for eyesight reasons, and they're constantly ignored or dismissed. That's insane considering that populations are aging worldwide. EVFs are also popular with younger audiences who greatly helped to make the Q a success.

As a diehard rangefinder fan who saw with joy that Leica survived the digital revolution and is now thriving, I have gone from being a purist to being ecumenical, and I think a lot of others are making or have made the transition. The results of the survey would have been much different if it happened in the early '00s. Let's take a moment to appreciate how much things have gotten better in the Leica community, despite new and remaining challenges.

 

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!

Edited February 21, 2023 by raizans

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

24 minutes ago, Paul.S said:

Sorry, this is my first leica, I thought they where part of the same company? Mine was from LSI.

But what I said, still holds true SrMi. I dont have any emotional investment in either RF or EVF, both have pros and cons, just observations I've noted over the last year of ownership.

 

Paul

LSI, Leica Society International, is an "independent, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to everything regarding the Leica camera." At a meeting with Leica representatives, its members voiced interest in an EVF-M.

[Paul.S]

Cheers for the heads up SrMi.

[pgk]

We never seem to learn from history do we? Messing about with the M has always ended badly. Of course many will say 'but things are different this time'. The cry of the unconvinced because in reality they are not. And there are alternative ways of achieving the same sort of camera with wider appeal - an M shaped L mount body which won't satisfy those clamouring for a native M mount, but which may well have much greater appeal to the Leice uninitiated who could have the 'best' of both worlds. Think about it. 

[Phil75]

Regarding eyesight problems: Integrating an eyepiece with higher magnification and 50-100% bigger sectional image for focusing would help already a lot. (And I don't mean the screw-on eyepieces.)

A pure EVF M would leave the entire RF experience behind, then one can buy directly a SL-equivalent camera (not talking about the handling of a M vs. SL in general, just regarding focusing). Such an approach also would promote the SL product line, where a smaller, simplified body is missing. I'd wish another SL lens line with much smaller dimensions prior to seriously considering it. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Phil75

[lct]

This reminds me of IBIS for CL. Making unrealistic demands is the best way to get nothing at all. I prefer the pragmatic approach of LSI from this point of view: « 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 [...] ».

[pgk]

30 minutes ago, lct said:

This would mean that it would have the same ......

..... price?

[LBJ2]

56 minutes ago, lct said:

This reminds me of IBIS for CL. Making unrealistic demands is the best way to get nothing at all. I prefer the pragmatic approach of LSI from this point of view: « 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 [...] ».

Those very words in the LSI survey are what made me think, parts on hand = this is very doable and maybe sooner than later. Whether it sells in sufficient quantities or not and how it might impact other product sales or not, is of course the 400 million dollar question. 

[lct]

27 minutes ago, pgk said:

..... price?

Same price as the M11 sans Visoflex, i would say yes but i'm no armchair CEO.

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, lct said:

Same price as the M11 sans Visoflex, i would say yes but i'm no armchair CEO.

Tat's a lot to pay for a highly restricted manual focus EVF camera (add the ability to use L lenses and it might have far greater appeal). It may appeal to the afficiandos but I would seriously doubt that it would attract many people into the M system. So it would be a niche market within a niche market. I suspect that it will come down to numbers needed to make it profitable.

[LBJ2]

9 minutes ago, lct said:

Same price as the M11 sans Visoflex, i would say yes but i'm no armchair CEO.

Isn't the -P model e.g., M10-P usually more expensive than the base M of the same series? Also wondering if the Visoflex tech/parts in a mass produced electronics industry is much less expensive than the unique low volume produced rangefinder tech/parts? 

Edited February 21, 2023 by LBJ2

[raizans]

12 minutes ago, pgk said:

So it would be a niche market within a niche market.

Rangefinders are the niche. EVFs have broader appeal.

[pgk]

14 minutes ago, raizans said:

Rangefinders are the niche. EVFs have broader appeal.

I can't say that I've seen many manual focus only EVF cameras on the market ...... definitely a (small) niche.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[raizans]

You’ve heard about manual focus lenses for mirrorless? Voigtländer, Zeiss Loxia, TTArtisans, etc.? Plus the large classic lens w/adapter community.

Edited February 21, 2023 by raizans

[pgk]

5 minutes ago, raizans said:

You’ve heard about manual focus lenses for mirrorless? Voigtländer, Zeiss Loxia, TTArtisans, etc.? Plus the large classic lens w/adapter community.

Yes, I use manual focus lenses on EVF cameras myself. These cameras are still able to use suitable AF lenses. There are no EVF manual focus only cameras on the market as far as I am aware.