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

[raizans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

EVF's work great in shallow DoF situations, but suck in deep ones, assuming you care where the central plane of focus falls.

Focusing on an EVF with the aperture stopped down enough to have deep DoF is easy because the zone of focus is larger. Focus peaking is good enough at full view, and you can punch in to 100% on the focus point at any time. In addition, you can use scale focusing by feel (easiest on tabbed lenses, but workable with short focus throw rings), zone focusing, scale focusing, and hyperfocal focusing. Give it a try! EVFs are easy to use.

[IkarusJohn]

3 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

I'm fairly certain about this. Regardless, there is a clear and demonstrable difference in performance between M and SL with M wides.  I first published results somewhere around here a couple of years ago with the 35 ZM and 21 SEM which clearly showed why I was displeased with the SL2 with M wides comparing them to the Lumix 16-35 and SL-35. Outside of the central frame, M wides on the SL can't hold a candle to their native equivalents.  Recently, I duplicated that same result when comparing the M10-R to SL2.  Can you make credible photos with wides on an SL... of course, assuming you're closer focused or wide open and are happy to accept corner smearing as bokeh or simple OoF. But take the same shot with a native SL optic, even a pedestrian one like the 16-35 Lumix,  and you'll see just how flawed these lenses are. Here's one of the many examples I've posted. I'm not paying $4-9K for an optic that underperforms a $1500 zoom. 

I don’t know about the SL2.  I’ve been using the SL since it was released.

There’s no doubt that the SL lenses outperform the M equivalents on the SL - even the 50 APO Summicron-M.  Similarly, as I mentioned above, the first versions of the 28 and 35 Summicron ASPH performed badly on the SL, as did the 21 SEM and a few others.  Conversely, the 50 Noctilux (almost no purple fringing) and 28 Summilux perform better on the SL - all this was discussed in detail when the SL was released.  If you look at Jono’s review of the SL, he makes this clear.

I sold all but one of my SL lenses because I had equivalent focal lengths in M lenses which perform perfectly well on the SL.  I have said many times the 50 Summilux-SL is the best 50 Leica has made (I have 4 M mount 50s), and the 75 Summicron-SL is a fine lens (not sure I’m ready to say it’s better than the 75 Summilux-M).  Just because you get smeary corners with the 35 ZM and 21 SEM does not mean the SL was not designed for M lenses.  One swallow does not summer make.

I agree the SL lenses are fabulous on the SL, and sharper corner to corner than the equivalent M lenses on the SL.  But, my experience with some of those problematic M lenses on the SL was that I wasn’t that fussed with them on an M camera either.

Now, this discussion will actually get us nowhere in making absolute statements.  My experience with my M lenses does not mean that all wide M lenses are fine on the SL.  But that’s not what I’m saying …

[Planetwide]

M lenses did perform better on the SL than the SL2/SL2s. I do think that the original SL was better optimized. I have no facts to support this position, but I have shot both with the same M lenses. The 21SEM is an example the comes to mind.

[idusidusi]

4 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

M lenses did perform better on the SL than the SL2/SL2s. I do think that the original SL was better optimized. I have no facts to support this position, but I have shot both with the same M lenses. The 21SEM is an example the comes to mind.

In my case SL with Apo-Telyt 135mm worked well.

[Planetwide]

58 minutes ago, lct said:

It is meant as a threat by M users who fear that any EVF-M would kill the rangefinder. The M11 with Visoflex 2 is a Leica's response supposed to please anybody. It certainly won't please people needing a fast and modern EVF but how many are they actually? I suspect Leica will wait and see if the M11 is a success before deciding anything about the EVF-M but i have no info nor rumor about this.

The biggest threat to the M series is the price. By forcing users to shell out 3-4k for an unwanted RF unit, it will kill additional sales growth. An EVF M, would boost lens sales and reduce engineering costs per unit. 90% of the cam would be the same. Leica would be crazy not to do it.

[lct]

12 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

The biggest threat to the M series is the price. By forcing users to shell out 3-4k for an unwanted RF unit, it will kill additional sales growth. An EVF M, would boost lens sales and reduce engineering costs per unit. 90% of the cam would be the same. Leica would be crazy not to do it.

Leica would be crazy to sell an EVF-M for one dollar less than the M11 if you ask me. Otherwise bye bye M11 and any digital rangefinder but monochromes possibly. Exactly what M users are afraid of. Reason why it will never happen i suspect but i may be wrong needless to say . 

Edited March 13, 2022 by lct

[Planetwide]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, lct said:

Leica would be crazy to sell an EVF-L for one dollar less than the M11 if you ask me. Otherwise bye bye M11 and any digital rangefinder but monochromes possibly. Exactly what M users are afraid of. Reason why it will never happen i suspect but i may be wrong needless to say . 

Well, if its that bad that an EVF M would kill the current M, then it's dead already. I read that everyone loves the RF experience, but you are implying otherwise. Not sure that I understand the logic of this... It's only a matter of time before someone else does this, Kolari just has to offer a service to install an optimized microlens array on the SL series and viola.

Edited March 13, 2022 by Planetwide

[IkarusJohn]

12 minutes ago, lct said:

Leica would be crazy to sell an EVF-M for one dollar less than the M11 if you ask me. Otherwise bye bye M11 and any digital rangefinder but monochromes possibly. Exactly what M users are afraid of. Reason why it will never happen i suspect but i may be wrong needless to say . 

The converse might also be true - the MEVF would arguably be cheaper to make, and would draw more sales for those with M glass but failing eyesight and then those who love the M form factor (though lens prices may drive them off).

Let’s assume the heresy - Leica makes an MEVF, and it sells like hot cakes.*  It outsells the M11.  Then what?  Well, I assume that the M11 would still be profitable, even if the MEVF outsells it.  At worst, the M11 and subsequent rangefinder M cameras would continue, like the film M cameras.  To be honest, as a new M user, if I walked into a Leica store and had a choice of an EVF M or rangefinder, I’d buy the EVF version, but my second M might well be a rangefinder version.  As an existing M user, I’d probably also buy an EVF version (if I didn’t already have more than I need).

* and increases lens sales accordingly

Edited March 13, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[lct]

12 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

The converse might also be true - the MEVF would arguably be cheaper to make, and would draw more sales for those with M glass but failing eyesight and then those who love the M form factor (though lens prices may drive them off).

Let’s assume the heresy - Leica makes an MEVF, and it sells like hot cakes.  It outsells the M11.  [...]

How much would you bet on that scenario? The possible success of the M11 could well be the key. Anyway my own bet is we won't see an EVF-M before long, reason why with a heavy heart so to speak (i exaggerate a bit ) i decided to order an M11. 

 

 

[raizans]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Leica would be crazy to sell an EVF-M for one dollar less than the M11 if you ask me. Otherwise bye bye M11 and any digital rangefinder but monochromes possibly. Exactly what M users are afraid of. Reason why it will never happen i suspect but i may be wrong needless to say . 

This isn't the '70s or '90s when there were real concerns that rangefinders would no longer be produced. The Rangefinder Renaissance of the '00s proved that there was a market for them, and the success of Leica post-Kaufmann should have put these fears to rest.

The year is 2022. You don't need to worry about the death of rangefinders. An EVF-M poses no threat to the continued life of rangefinders. They are here to stay!

Edited March 13, 2022 by raizans

[lct]

1 minute ago, raizans said:

This isn't the '90s when there were real concerns that rangefinders would no longer be produced. The Rangefinder Renaissance of the '00s proved that there was a market for them, and the success of Leica post-Kaufmann should have put these fears to rest.

The year is 2022. You don't need to worry about the death of rangefinders. An EVF-M poses no threat to the continued life of rangefinders. They are here to stay!

I love your optimism. All that remains is to convince Leica. Ready, set, go .

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, raizans said:

Focusing on an EVF with the aperture stopped down enough to have deep DoF is easy because the zone of focus is larger. Focus peaking is good enough at full view, and you can punch in to 100% on the focus point at any time. In addition, you can use scale focusing by feel (easiest on tabbed lenses, but workable with short focus throw rings), zone focusing, scale focusing, and hyperfocal focusing. Give it a try! EVFs are easy to use.

Completely disagree. I've been shooting with the EVF on the M since the M240, so over 8 years and well over 150K captures. I have more than just a little experience in this area. 

Take any wide, focus at F5.6 or so, then open it wide and see just how far you missed your intended focus point. If you care about where maximum sharpness is, and I do, relying on focus peaking doesn't cut it with wides as every edge shows in focus (some claim Sony is miles ahead in accuracy the regard) when in fact they are soft.

Evidence, not conjecture. Focus peaking:

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!

Actual shot:

H

The peaking is lit up on the background window frames, despite the camera being set to .7M @ 21mm F8.  Do those window frames look sharp to you?

[raizans]

12 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

focus at F5.6 or so, then open it wide

You should focus with the lens wide open if you're going to take a photo with the lens wide open. Stopping down to focus and then opening up to take a photo is an odd thing to do, and I can't think of any reason to do that.

Edited March 13, 2022 by raizans

[raizans]

21 minutes ago, lct said:

All that remains is to convince Leica. Ready, set, go .

Just need to figure out how to buy 51% of the shares...

[lct]

17 minutes ago, raizans said:

You should focus with the lens wide open if you're going to take a photo with the lens wide open. Stopping down to focus and then opening up to take a photo is an odd thing to do, and I can't think of any reason to do that.

The best one: Do what grandpa told you . Edit: I do not refer to anybody here of course, as i'm a grandpa too. So this grandpa almost focus all his pics at working aperture thanks to image magnification and focus peeking if needed. Here on a 15mm lens (equiv. 22) at f/11.  Here on the same at f/8.

Edited March 13, 2022 by lct

[Pelu2010]

Hey to you all, 

I guess there will be always a M with glas. 

And If I am sure there will be an EVF M some day. 

My wish would be the combination. A very good EVF or OVF combined with glas. 

This camera once proven that it works will be very popular. 

I am very curious what Leica will come up with, that we cannot think of. 

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, lct said:

How much would you bet on that scenario? The possible success of the M11 could well be the key. Anyway my own bet is we won't see an EVF-M before long, reason why with a heavy heart so to speak (i exaggerate a bit ) i decided to order an M11. 

 

 

Nothing

[adan]

Raizans:

If something is out of focus wide-open - it will not be as sharp as it could be at f/5.6, either.

Depth of field is a poor substitute for accurate focusing (wide-open) in the first place. And then stopping down.

Unless one only prints at "drugstore" sizes.

Edited March 13, 2022 by adan

[archive_all]

3 hours ago, Planetwide said:

I'm kinda not getting the resistance to ANOTHER M mount model without an RF? If you agree with the poster above, just buy the CURRENT M model. Advocating for a different model with M mount, an optimized sensor, and a high resolution EVF, is in no way, a threat to the current M. In fact, it will help with M lens sales. Personally, I do not enjoy the RF experience, and there are lots of us out there who feel this way. I do like the EVF experience, and I would buy the EVF M in a heartbeat. We love Leica glass and the files from the cams - so no Sony, no canon, no whatever. I shoot the SL, SL2, and will continue to do so until the lightbulb goes off at Leica... Then I'll add the EVF M or whatever its called to my inventory. I just want the best out of my M lenses...

I'm one that would not buy an EVF M since the RF is why I use an M. That said I have no issue if Leica would offer an EVF M as long as the RF M stayed in production. However I think the price wouldn't drop just because it doesn't have an RF. I thought they mentioned the RF costs about $1K? I imagine a really high end EVF would cost what, $500 - $1K? Plus development and firmware? Am EVF M could be more actually. If they managed to use the same body and components then maybe the price could drop on both the RF M and EVF M though (dreaming). This is Leica though and I would imagine their prices will remain the same or increase but not drop for all M models.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

23 minutes ago, adan said:

Raizans:

If something is out of focus wide-open - it will not be as sharp as it could be at f/5.6, either.

Depth of field is a poor substitute for accurate focusing (wide-open) in the first place. And then stopping down.

Unless one only prints at "drugstore" sizes.

Too slow for me. Most if not all my EVF pics are focused at working aperture. Here at f/8, i had just one second for it.