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

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, lct said:

Would you say that the M11 is obsolete then? The M mount is perfectly fitted for M lenses it is made for.

Well, actually it doesn't. It struggles to focus the longer, fast lenses which are built for it.

It has advantages, but these are difficult for the most part to quantify because they are mostly to do with the user's preferences, likes and dislikes. Where M-RFs shine is with wide angle lenses which they focus very easily and accurately.

Any mount which lacks electronic information transfer (6-bit does not transfer data, it simply tells the camera which lens is mounted) is effectively obsolete and so the M mount and RF cameras which use it are obsolete technically for the simple reason that they are a dead end. They survive because they work with M lenses acceptably enough for their users. They cannot really compete with other EVF systems because they cannot be updated and have to rely on pure optical excellence combined with sensors optimised to work with most of them.

This has been explained many times in this thread but all the disadvantages of the M-RF will transfer over to an M-EVF which will even lose some of the advantages such as accurate wide angle focusing. An M shaped L mount camera makes far better sense.

[Crem]

1 hour ago, lct said:

No but i have some experience with Sony cameras. Very good cameras with a common point: they are not made for M lenses. Reason why my A7s and A7r2 have been modded by Kolari Vision. The result is fine, especially on the A7r2, but it cannot compete with my M11 as far as M lenses are concerned. It is the key point here. I don't need a mirrorless camera for Sony lenses nor for Leica L or TL lenses, let alone for whatever AF lenses but for M lenses exclusively. This thread tells me that is i am not alone but i don't know if we are several enough for Leica.

Totally agreed that the Sony's aren't meant for M lenses. I've always wanted to try the Kolari modification, but never could justify the expense as I'm happy enough with it as is.

My main point is that the A7C + adapter + M lenses is about as close to a EVF only M experience as we can currently get. I think it gives a really good approximation of the weight/size and how much different the experience is vs putting M lenses on a SL2. I do think the market for a EVF only M is going to be significantly smaller than if Leica makes the equivalent of a Sony A7C with L mount. Do you really think you wouldn't buy that if it existed? To me it seems like the smarter business decision as it would appeal to both M users that want a EVF only M and SL users that want a compact body. I'm sure they could make it look reasonably close to the design of a M or Q, but with a bigger opening for the mount.

[lct]

3 minutes ago, Crem said:

[...] I do think the market for a EVF only M is going to be significantly smaller than if Leica makes the equivalent of a Sony A7C with L mount. Do you really think you wouldn't buy that if it existed? [...]

I would buy it if it could compete with the M11 when i put my M lenses on it. Which will never happen of course. Sony is interested in their own lenses, not Leica ones unfortunately.

[jaapv]

Well… A Swatch or any modern electronic watch will keep better time than a Patek Philippe.. 

 

18 minutes ago, lct said:

I have never seen a technically obsolete thing to be technically superior in anything so far but i will gladly learn from your explanations.

 

[jaapv]

3 minutes ago, lct said:

I would buy it if it could compete with the M11 when i put my M lenses on it. Which will never happen of course. Sony is interested in their own lenses, not Leica ones unfortunately.

Not to put you down but you and three friends is a pretty small market… 

[Crem]

16 minutes ago, lct said:

I would buy it if it could compete with the M11 when i put my M lenses on it. Which will never happen of course. Sony is interested in their own lenses, not Leica ones unfortunately.

Totally. I think there is a slight misunderstanding... this is what I'm proposing:

1. Leica designed body, rangefinder style, looks like a M or Q, but slightly different since it's L mount. Aluminum body to keep the weight down.
2. SL2 or M11 battery.
3. 60MP sensor (most likely the one in the Q3). I'm not sure what your thoughts are on this, but my assumption is a SL3 will use the Q3 sensor.
4. Ideally it has phase detect pixels (like the Q3 sensor) so that it can work well with auto focus L mount lenses.
5. High resolution Q3 style EVF.
6. Works great with L and M lenses (via adapter). 

So hopefully this clears up confusion. I'm in no way saying Leica should sell a Sony body. I think the above is way more likely to be a successful product for Leica and thus actually get approval. A true EVF M with M11 sensor, M mount (not L mount), etc seems like it will sell to a much smaller market and be way less likely to get approved.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Crem

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, pgk said:

[...] Rhis has been explained many times in this thread but all the disadvantages of the M-RF will transfer over to an M-EVF which will even lose some of the advantages such as accurate wide angle focusing. An M shaped L mount camera makes far better sense. [...]

This has been explained, and contested, many times indeed so  i won't bother you with repetitions. In one word, as i suggested above, the EVF-M would be a camera dedicated to M lenses exclusively. Using an L mount on it would make little sense then, let alone that the L mount is lacking auto-zoom capabilities.

[jaapv]

Ah -but M lenses are falling behind L lenses in excellence...for a simple reason. The restrictions of the mount are holding them back 

[lct]

16 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Not to put you down but you and three friends is a pretty small market… 

Leica said they need a couple thousand sales if i remember well. I have no idea if this goal can be reached in any way.

[jaapv]

Did they mention the price of such a limited edition? I’m sure they would even build a single camera if you trucked in enough Euros. 

[Crem]

30 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Did they mention the price of such a limited edition? I’m sure they would even build a single camera if you trucked in enough Euros. 

Couple thousand in sales. Assume $10,000 USD unit price. So what I’m hearing is I could get Leica to build me a custom one off camera for 20 million USD. Someone on this forum with the means should test out this theory 😂

[jaapv]

Logic dictates that it would be lct.

[IkarusJohn]

11 hours ago, jaapv said:

You did not understand my post.  Using the M mount on a full mirrorless camera is a technical absurdity. Either create a completely new  retro-compatible one for the existing M system or keep things nice and simple and use the existing L mount. What you are saying is like wanting acetylene  headlights on a Tesla. The M mount is obsolete.

Oh, I understood alright.  The point is that the M mount is still well and truly alive, absurd as that may seem.  Leica still makes M digital and M film cameras and expands the M lens line-up, as do other lens manufacturers.

What is absurd, to my mind, is not expanding the offering in what is a succcessful system.  Can’t see any point in adding a body to that system which has AF etc, which is not part of the M system.

PS - Please excuse the edit.

Having owned the 16-35, 24-90, 90-280, 50 Summilux and 75 APO Summicron lenses all in SL mount, I could think of nothing worse than mounting any of those lenses on an M sized camera.  It would be a hopeless arrangement.  You could mount TL mount lenses, but then you get APS-C format.

Either would be a truly absurd arrangement, as anyone familiar with the SL lenses will tell you.  Making the SL camera smaller only works to a certain extent, if you wish to hold the camera with an SL lens for any period of time.

Edited November 7, 2023 by IkarusJohn

[anbucco]

An EVF-M wouldn’t make any sense as is technically spoken useless, since all M-lenses do not have automatic diaphragm. Focussing in difficult situations would be almost impossible. The only solution would be to replace the rangefinder system with an electronic solution w/o ttl focussing.

[IkarusJohn]

Just now, anbucco said:

An EVF-M wouldn’t make any sense as is technically spoken useless, since all M-lenses do not have automatic diaphragm. Focussing in difficult situations would be almost impossible. The only solution would be to replace the rangefinder system with an electronic solution w/o ttl focussing.

So, using the Visoflex on an M10 or M11, or an M lens on an SL camera, is useless?  Not in my experience.

[evikne]

9 minutes ago, anbucco said:

An EVF-M wouldn’t make any sense as is technically spoken useless, since all M-lenses do not have automatic diaphragm. Focussing in difficult situations would be almost impossible. The only solution would be to replace the rangefinder system with an electronic solution w/o ttl focussing.

If you shoot manually (as an M is meant to be used), WYSIWYG in the viewfinder will be an advantage rather than a disadvantage.

[adan]

13 hours ago, pgk said:

Well, actually it doesn't. It struggles to focus the longer, fast lenses which are built for it.

Not mine.  

It is possible that some M users struggle to focus with it.

Some (most?) people struggle to get anything out of a violin except shrieks and squawks - is that any standard to judge the violin by?

[Derbyshire Man]

2 hours ago, evikne said:

If you shoot manually (as an M is meant to be used), WYSIWYG in the viewfinder will be an advantage rather than a disadvantage.

I agree.

 

My guess is I am probably part of a target market for future Leica sales. I started with Canon and their ever enlarging cameras and lenses, swapped to Fuji for size and portability. Happened upon Q2M and loved it because of the compact size and full frame sensor, considered M with OVF but as I like narrow DoF portraiture (often with offset subject) on 28/50/80 it became clear that focussing wide open, on a range finder, composed properly through the viewfinder (so many portraits on here of faces in the middle of the screen and acres of white space above) and eyes in focus was going to be a pretty sturdy challenge. A challenge I've been through before when I had a manual focus T90. I don't need £10,000 worth of frustration and missed opportunities!

 

I don't care about autofocus but whenever I see people discussing the difficulty of the above the answer is either take loads of photos and hope one is in focus, take loads of photos and eventually after missing lots of shots you may get the hang of it, shoot at F8 (doh!) and just use the visioflex.

 

That last answer demonstrates *to me* that for a super expensive camera which I would want to use with wide open lenses, unless it has an EVF I'm very likely to have post purchase buyers remorse = one sale lost.

 

Fully accept that if my thing was hyperfocal street photography, mostly landscape or expensive high quality snaps on holiday I'd feel differently!

 

I'm not arguing for the removal of the OVF M model, just for a version with integral modern high quality EVF. With manual focus lenses and the product aim of remaining compact and simple. Once I've got one of those I'll consider an OVF M for Landscape;-) For me currently the M is a thing of beauty but an impractical one for my use case.

[Derbyshire Man]

1 minute ago, adan said:

Not mine.  

It is possible that some M users struggle to focus with it.

Some (most?) people struggle to get anything out of a violin except shrieks and squawks - is that any standard to judge the violin by?

That's not a great analogy, there is only one violin, if one wants a camera which delivers a high number of keepers with narrow depth of focus there are a plethora of choices which deliver that. That equal loss of sales for Leica. I'll not repeat my post above but I refer you to the answer I've previously given;-)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, adan said:

Not mine.  

It is possible that some M users struggle to focus with it.

Some (most?) people struggle to get anything out of a violin except shrieks and squawks - is that any standard to judge the violin by?

75/1.24 & 90/1.5? I had an 85/1.2 which struggled on Canon AF cameras. These lenses would (are?) better using an enlarged portion of the EVF but slow. I had a 75/1.4 which I personally considered to be at the limit of viable RF focusing. Anyone using these lenses needs high visual acuity and a lot of practice and even then they require perfect RF alignment and technique. I remember talking to a sports photographer who worked for the national dailies. He cursed AF cameras because they could do what it took him 20 years to perfect - focus accurately on moving subjects.

I have said it before and I'll say it again; M-RF cameras excell with a limited range of focal length and apertures. Their viewfinder(s) view the 'real' world optically and do not rely on a projected (dSLR) or electronic (EVF) image. They are what they are and for some of us this is why they are used.

What they are NOT are cameras which produce the finest images technically although their optics are optically superb. Nor are they capable of many of the things that most dSLRs or EVFs are.

The problem with an EVF-M is quite simply that it risks damaging the RF-M because it will show up just how uncompetitive the RF system is compared with EVFs To some of us that limitation is why we use the RF system. Others seem to want a strange, highly limited camera back with a fixed M mount. I simply see this as a dead end and worse. 

As a last point I will ask those who want an EVF-M; do you think such a camera would actually improve your photography and the images that you create or would it be a different experience for taking similar images to those you take already? Personally I know that gear, whilst it needs to be fit for purpose, does not in itself improve photographic imagery, only we can do that for ourselves.😁.