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

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 minutes ago, Musky said:

I don’t understand your logic. The M is unique because nobody else is making digital rangefinders.

The M is unique because not many others make digital rangefinders.

Rangefinder cameras are very good at very few things.

Rangefinder cameras suck at many other things.

In order to do the things where rangefinder cameras are not best, you need another camera or other cameras.

Having spent a sound amount of money on an insanely good set of lenses, using those lenses on other cameras seems very sensible. Actually, it's mandatory if you want any kind of homogenity in your work. Using the lenses with the same sensor stack and camera software is nearly equally important.

Therefore, you'd need a camera with the same sensor stack and the same lenses but with a body and finders better suited to the task than the rangefinder one.

Which could be an EVF M.

 

[darylgo]

Would an evf model make our rangefinder models any less?  

Would an evf model be compelled upon those that own rangefinder models?

Aren't choices good?

If the images are improved with greater sensor capabilities, higher megapixels with binning, global shutter, would some of the "no's" change to "yes".  

 

[Advertisement]

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

[dpitt]

23 minutes ago, Musky said:

but it should be its own line of camera. Not an “M”. It can’t be an M without a rangefinder. 

100% agree. You can only appreciate how much this is true once you use the M for a while. If it suits you it feels like coming home. Its limitations even seem to inspire you and make you a better photographer. Its strong points make you realise that it is better than any other digital rangefinder in production now.

Of course there are hard limits that can not be crossed like tele work above 135 mm and macro work in most cases. Since I own a digital M, I have been looking for the perfect companion to my M. For me, it needs to be compact, relatively light and have an image quality that is as close as possible. Easier said than done...

Let's say I had an M11 and the money to buy an equally expensive kit alongside.

The Leica Q2 is a good companion, the form factor and IQ is what I am looking for. But an M11 + Summilux 28 is at least as good, and has a range finder, so I do not see what the Q2 can add, since it mostly 'only' does what rangefinders do best 😉 (no offense for the Q2 owners, but that is how I feel it)

The Leica Q2 would be perfect for me if it had a 100mm macro as compact as possible, no problem if it is F4.0 only. With cropping that would give me 100mm, 180mm and even 250 mm modes...

Just my two cents

[Cattoo]

35 minutes ago, dpitt said:

The Leica Q2 is a good companion, the form factor and IQ is what I am looking for. But an M11 + Summilux 28 is at least as good, and has a range finder, so I do not see what the Q2 can add, since it mostly 'only' does what rangefinders do best 😉 (no offense for the Q2 owners, but that is how I feel it)

Weather resistance.  That's what the Q2 adds that the M doesn't.    

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, dpitt said:

The Q3 makes some sense to me. I would even go further. Why not make it with interchangeable lenses

Because the essence of the Q is the integrated lens-sensor unit that makes it possible to have such a fast and good lens in a compact body. As soon as you remove the integration to create a lens mount, the camera would bloat to something like an SL.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, dpitt said:

The Leica Q2 is a good companion, the form factor and IQ is what I am looking for. But an M11 + Summilux 28 is at least as good, and has a range finder, so I do not see what the Q2 can add, since it mostly 'only' does what rangefinders do best 😉 (no offense for the Q2 owners, but that is how I feel it)

The Q2 adds weather sealing, image stabilisation, autofocus, shutter-priority autoexposure, integrated macro, video and a quieter shutter. Like the combo you refer to, it also has manual focus and aperture priority autoexposure. What is it again that rangefinders do best? 😉

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

39 minutes ago, Musky said:

sticking an EVF in an M the M will still “suck” at the things rangefinders suck

I'm not sure i follow you here. People who need an EVF-M expect it to work like a mirrorless camera, i.e. without the limitations of the rangefinder, while retaining the advantages of their M lenses. Most of them don't dislike rangefinders if i judge by our colleagues here. I would keep my M11 for example. But I want the best for my M lenses and on high res cameras that means IBIS for low shutter speeds and EVF for best focus accuracy.

Edited December 8, 2022 by lct

[jdlaing]

People do not need an evf M mount camera. They want an evf M mount camera. There comes a time when you can no longer use a rangefinder, or don’t want to use a rangefinder without all the do dads that mirrorless cameras have. All well and good to move on to something else. If you need a mirrorless camera with all the do dads so be it. The user base for Leica rangefinder bodies for M lenses has been fine for a long time and I suspect it will for a long time to come. Leica M doesn’t really compete with anything else on the market because, well, there is nothing else quite like it.

[THEME]

Of course, there is a market for everything.

Also for such a fantasized a Leica A camera, as there is for the Leica M Messucher cameras.

If I'd go A, there's already a myriad of offering. Wait, Leica offers 'em already, just not in the iconic M body shape and verse.

I go M because I like the old-school technique and mechanics, the handling of the visual object via manual inputs.

My senses and abilities don't have to be replaced yet by everything automatic. Am not shooting high-speed sports or car races.

Nah, no Leica A for me – and a Leica A will never be on par with the Sonys and Canons and Nikons in terms of speed. So better stay with your "own A" mode, that is your own senses mastering the photo.

Edited December 8, 2022 by THEME

[raizans]

I'm waiting for the EVF-M, mostly because I use both film and digital, and digital full frame is functionally equivalent to medium format film.

In other words, when I use my M-mount lenses on digital, I want a "medium format camera," not so much a 35mm rangefinder. There's a greater emphasis on image quality and slower methods of photographing.

But when I put the same lenses on a film M, we're in rangefinder-mode: faster, more casual.

Call me a weirdo, but a high resolution, full frame digital Leica M rangefinder doesn't make much sense to me at all. I am not compelled to buy one.

Give me a compact M-mount body with an EVF, no adapters, no accessory viewfinder, throw in IBIS if you can, and I'll be happy.

Edited December 8, 2022 by raizans

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

...Aren't choices good?...

Yes.

And one of those choices should always be a Meßsucherkamera.

[darylgo]

7 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

Yes.

And one of those choices should always be a Meßsucherkamera.

I can’t pronounce it, but agree 100% or  more. 

[raizans]

EVF-M + Karbe optics = nirvana.

[Erato]

LOL

[pegelli]

10 hours ago, lct said:

Indeed we've got M-Rokkor (Minolta M), M-Hexanon (Konica M), VM (Voigtlander M) and ZM (Zeiss M) lenses, why not M-Leikor or M-Leikon, sounds good for you? . Just kidding.

In the spirit of further kidding about a name for a camera that will probably never exist I would suggest "CM", as a successor to the Leica film CL which had a M-mount as well as a Messsucher but never acquired a full "M-series" designation. At least M comes after L in the alphabet so there is plenty of logic in that name for a successor to that other Leica orphan M-mount camera 😉

[LocalHero1953]

Mods.

Please develop an AI bot that collects up all these threads about an EVF-M, merges them into one thread and puts them down somewhere around, ooh, page 2474 of the list of threads with unread posts.

[jaapv]

7 hours ago, raizans said:

I'm waiting for the EVF-M, mostly because I use both film and digital, and digital full frame is functionally equivalent to medium format film.

In other words, when I use my M-mount lenses on digital, I want a "medium format camera," not so much a 35mm rangefinder. There's a greater emphasis on image quality and slower methods of photographing.

But when I put the same lenses on a film M, we're in rangefinder-mode: faster, more casual.

Call me a weirdo, but a high resolution, full frame digital Leica M rangefinder doesn't make much sense to me at all. I am not compelled to buy one.

Give me a compact M-mount body with an EVF, no adapters, no accessory viewfinder, throw in IBIS if you can, and I'll be happy.

I agree that digital will produce higher resolution, more DR and more precision than film, but I have yet to see a 135 format digital photograph which reproduces the look of medium format film. To begin with DOF and transitions. 

[Corius]

10 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The Q2 adds........ What is it again that rangefinders do best? 😉

 

Which 90mm lens do you use with your Q2?

I guess it's the SummiTinyCrop ? 😉

[lct]

6 hours ago, Musky said:

Adapt it to the SL2s. 

Why doing such a compromise for M lenses? Don't they deserve the best? I would never use any SL camera for a S-A 21/3.4, a Biogon 21/4.5 or even a SEM 21/3.4 to take an example. I have an old Kolari mod A7r2 that will do probably better thanks to its BSI sensor but it does not reach the level of the M11 anyway. Now did you see the bump of the Visoflex? Not that i dislike the latter but the M11 is not a compact camera anymore this way. As i said above i want the best for my M lenses and i hardly find a rational argument against that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, Corius said:

Which 90mm lens do you use with your Q2?

I guess it's the SummiTinyCrop ? 😉

Yes, I admit that M rangefinders do 90mm better than a Q2. Is that it?