Would you buy an EVF only camera with an M mount?

[raizans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, SrMi said:

We should also address the elephant in the room. What would happen to Leica's rangefinder line if Leica launched an EVF M-mount camera? I assume that many would abandon rangefinder models for the new EVF-based one. For the rangefinder enthusiasts, the better solution may be a hybrid viewfinder instead of a separate model line.

I imagine a sizable proportion of current users would switch to the EVF M, joined by a lot of new buyers.

A smaller proportion of current users would stick with the rangefinder, but not so small that the line would be terminated. The Leica brand and appeal of rangefinders is strong enough to withstand the addition of an EVF M-mount camera.

[Advertisement]

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

[rramesh]

We already have the SL line which accepts M glass. What some really need is a more compact version of this along the dimensions of the Sony a7.

Anyway, if I want a FF digital camera with EVF, I would  purchase the Nikon Zx. May keep one or two M lenses for nostalgia and buy glasses from Nikon to tap its full electronic capability.

[IkarusJohn]

8 hours ago, SrMi said:

We should also address the elephant in the room. What would happen to Leica's rangefinder line if Leica launched an EVF M-mount camera? I assume that many would abandon rangefinder models for the new EVF-based one. For the rangefinder enthusiasts, the better solution may be a hybrid viewfinder instead of a separate model line.

Two scenarios for you to ponder, Srdjan:

(1) When the M8 was released, how many said “I wonder what this will do to the film M cameras?“  The M9 was the camera which saved the company, by all accounts.

Leica continued the M7, the MP and released the M-A, and they have said more than once that they will keep making film M cameras for as long as there is demand.

(2) When the M Edition 60 was released, it was met with scorn and mockery, but the M-D and M10-D sold well, niche cameras though they were.  Similarly, the Monochrom, M246 and M10-M - strange to many, but I suspect profitable.

My pick would be somewhere between the two.  

What we can be sure of is that for so long as it makes cameras, Leica will make an M with an OVF rangefinder and Leica is the best company to make an M lens compatible EVF camera; and the combined total of M cameras sold (OVF and EVF, digital and film) will be more than what Leica sells now.  If you like an OVF (as I do), then that combination - OVF cameras continuing to be available and to; and Leica selling more M cameras - has to be a good thing.  My cameras won‘t be any worse off if Leica releases an EVF version, and I have faith that developments in the EVF cameras will benefit the OVF cameras.

I trust none of the naysayers want Leica to miss an opportunity to sell more cameras; more profits; more M lenses … what‘s not to like?

[david strachan]

EVF only wouldn't be an M.

I just don't see the confusion having a good EVF to focus, exposure, DOF,  off the sensor... as an add-on.  And keep the essential M as an optical rangefinder.

Which is what we have since the M240.

Far too many lenses, Leica and others, have poor focus when using just Optical rangefinding. Due to close focusing problems at different apertures, or lenses not tuned to the rangefinder.

...

A combined EVF and RF just doesn't work...a poor workaround and worst of two worlds.

 

[SrMi]

What would be the advantage of an eM (EVF only, M-mount) camera vs. M11 with Visoflex 2? Probably it would be lighter, smaller, and cheaper.
The disadvantages would be no tilting EVF, no OVF (for those who prefer it), and slower and less precise focusing than a rangefinder/EVF combo.

I would likely buy a lighter, smaller, and cheaper M-mount camera, though Pixii is already that.

[lct]

39 minutes ago, Artin said:

My opinion?  What we have now with the Viso on the M11 is just perfect and works well, one thing you have to understand EVF with manual focus lenses is really not a great way to work. Try using the evf on the Leica M on a full days shoot focusing with the magnified portion of the image all the time it can get pretty annoying after a while. It’s fine using long lenses for a short time , macro work, and wide angle, but imagine if that was the only option you had ?

EVF is my only option with M lenses when i don't use rangefinders and i don't find this annoying at all. Not to rain on your parade but is it possible that the Visoflex 2 is too slow or has too much lag and/or blackouts to be comfortable? Just curious.

[rramesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, lct said:Not to rain on your parade but is it possible that the Visoflex 2 is too slow or has too much lag and/or blackouts to be comfortable? Just curious.

It’s also too expensive. 

[robert_parker]

I must admit that something with the form factor and viewfinder of the Q and the ability to have interchangeable lenses, using an M mount, was something I had speculated on over the last couple of years of using my Q camera; I wonder if it really could be that hard to produce a camera of that type.

As an alternative, Leica have made lenses for the CL and T, so why not lenses for a Q camera.. 

[raizans]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Two scenarios for you to ponder, Srdjan:

(1) When the M8 was released, how many said “I wonder what this will do to the film M cameras?“  The M9 was the camera which saved the company, by all accounts.

Leica continued the M7, the MP and released the M-A, and they have said more than once that they will keep making film M cameras for as long as there is demand.

(2) When the M Edition 60 was released, it was met with scorn and mockery, but the M-D and M10-D sold well, niche cameras though they were.  Similarly, the Monochrom, M246 and M10-M - strange to many, but I suspect profitable.

Thanks for the historical perspective. The arguments people are making against the EVF M-mount camera are the same ones that people made about Leica making a digital rangefinder.

Leica will keep on expanding their market and moving toward the future (with an eye on the past).

Edited January 29, 2022 by raizans

[lct]

23 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The disadvantages would be no tilting EVF, no OVF (for those who prefer it), and slower and less precise focusing than a rangefinder/EVF combo.

No tilting EVF OK but i prefer tilting LCDs by far, no OVF yes of course, slower focusing, sometimes yes sometimes no but EVFs are always more precise than rangefinders. Not that i dislike the laters i've been using them for 30+ years but if one intends to nail focus, a good EVF with focus magnification is simply unbeatable, let alone on high res sensors. Besides, the advantage of a mirrorless M would be the lack of Visoflex of course hence a more compact camera and possibly room enough for IBIS thanks to the lack of rangefinder.

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, lct said:

No tilting EVF OK but i prefer tilting LCDs by far, no OVF yes of course, slower focusing, sometimes yes sometimes no but EVFs are always more precise than rangefinders. Not that i dislike the laters i've been using them for 30+ years but if one intends to nail focus, a good EVF with focus magnification is simply unbeatable, let alone on high res sensors. Besides, the advantage of a mirrorless M would be the lack of Visoflex of course hence a more compact camera and possibly room enough for IBIS thanks to the lack of rangefinder.

Since no Leica (SL2, Q2, CL) has a tilting LCD, I assume an eM would also not have a tilting LCD. 
I am comparing an OVF/EVF combo vs. an EVF-only camera. With the combo, you use whichever is more appropriate or efficient.
Because of the large DOF, it is very hard to focus precisely with EVF when using wide angles. The inverse is true for long lenses.
It is not a given that removing the rangefinder would allow for space for IBIS. AFAIK, it is the increased thickness, not height that would cause a problem.

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, Artin said:

I like a fat camera , for my large hands the M240 was way better fit then the M10 or the M11 .. in fact I can’t wait to get the grip for the M11 because it is way too thin and not comfortable to hold for me. So make em fatter and stick the IBIS in there 

Maybe an eM would be allowed to grow in thickness (it is not a real M), and an IBIS could be added :).

[SrMi]

7 minutes ago, Artin said:

Yaaa an EM5. 2 lugs please big and bad ass.  By far my favourite M Camera ever made the M5. 

Erwin Puts wrote that M5 had only one problem: it does not feel like a classical Leica. Would an eM need to feel like a classical Leica? Maybe not.

[lct]

6 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Since no Leica (SL2, Q2, CL) has a tilting LCD, I assume an eM would also not have a tilting LCD. [...] It is not a given that removing the rangefinder would allow for space for IBIS. AFAIK, it is the increased thickness, not height that would cause a problem.

The future is never a given of course but it would be a mistake to give up tilting LCDs in my humble opinion. Leica asked us about this recently and it was a good question. As for IBIS all cameras having that are not obese as far as i know. Not counting handgrips, camera mounts and LCDs, the body of my old Sony is slightly thinner than that of my M240 so all hope is not lost .

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Let's call it the N11. *N* for "Not an M"  The M didn't start with the M1 so neither should the N.

The N11 could have a picture in picture focusing system as well as the full screen magnification we have now. That'd improve the user experience. Because it's not an M the N11 could have a slightly different shape, like the Q2 or CL. It could have IBIS. Video! Leica could use the N11 to experiment and test the market.

It'll need to be noticably smaller than the SL2 or what's the point. I'd like the Q2 shape and M11 battery but the CL enlarged would work as well.

The M would stay. There's definitely advantages of the M (seeing outside the frame) and major differences in the user experience.

What else should  the N11 have?

Gordon

[harmen]

And who would be keen on an ND11? 🤔

[SrMi]

13 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Let's call it the N11. *N* for "Not an M"  The M didn't start with the M1 so neither should the N.

The N11 could have a picture in picture focusing system as well as the full screen magnification we have now. That'd improve the user experience. Because it's not an M the N11 could have a slightly different shape, like the Q2 or CL. It could have IBIS. Video! Leica could use the N11 to experiment and test the market.

It'll need to be noticably smaller than the SL2 or what's the point. I'd like the Q2 shape and M11 battery but the CL enlarged would work as well.

The M would stay. There's definitely advantages of the M (seeing outside the frame) and major differences in the user experience.

What else should  the N11 have?

Gordon

N is too close to M phonetically, and also visually and on the keyboard. Bound to cause confusion.

[gbpost]

I consider two scenarios:

Walking in a city at daytime with some wideangle lenses, say 21 mm to 35 mm, used stopped down: I would choose an M with its OVF, which is superior over an EVF ins this scenario.

Going to dinner in the evening, maybe at dusk, doing inside portraits, in the city at night, normal to longer lenses, say 50 mm to 90 mm, used wide open: I would choose Gordon's "N" or SrMi's "Letter he likes" with the EVM, which is superior in this scenario.

The Visoflex is a makeshift in my opinion. It makes the M with Visoflex even taller than the SL. Thats why I would prefer an M with internal EVF as an additional option to the M line with internal OVF.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rramesh]

Don’t understand how hard it will be make the LCD screen tilt up 90. It might just add a couple of millimetres to the camera width (as much as the leather half case), as opposed to the rather huge Visoflex. It would also be less introduce for street photographers. And it will free up the hot shoe. 

If this were an M11-P, it might well tempt me. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by rramesh

[aristotle]

The engineer in me never likes to couple the technique with the requirement.  Personally, I'm not sure why we'd care if was an EVF, OVF, MVF (magnetic), GVF (gravitational) or any of the other forces in nature that is underlying the technique.

The gaps that folks seem to want to close are:

* Easier to focus accurately in low light

* Easier to focus accurately at very wide apertures

* Eliminate lens blockage of finder field of view for larger lenses

The features that folks don't want to see degraded are:

* Ability to see outside of the frame with the same field of view offered by the existing finder

* Accurate control of focus when the lens is stopped down and at wide focal lengths

* Real-time view (no discernable degradation in view-lag)

* M11 size

So, if the question is if I'd by an M mount camera that fills the gaps and doesn't degrade anything, then sure.