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

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, pgk said:

One of my most used lenses on a Sony A7ii/R is the 20/1.8. Accurate MF is much slower if you want accuracy. On an RF it is much faster and more precise.

I don't use my Sony lenses anymore, mostly Leica M and R lenses that i use in manual focus mode, sometimes in AF mode too. Whatever, it depends upon circumstances. Focus-recompose takes some time and focusing at full aperture on RF is a good way to get trapped by field curvature and focus shift if any. In the kind of my pic above i would never focus with an RF if i can avoid it but YMMV.

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

The singular certainty, in my view, is that electronics will continue to replace mechanics whenever and where ever possible. 

Indeed it will. And in some ways it already has. But an M mount EVF is wedded to the past and cannot, if it uses existing M lenses, ever be anything but an electronic compromise. If electronics are to continue to replace mechanics then the whole concept of the M is clearly doomed. However, there are already highly competent fully electronically integrated alternatives to the M. So how is it that the M still exists? Should the M adopt its competitor's technology (to whatever extent it can) or offer something different. In the past it has survived by offering something different and attempts to bolt on bits (visoflex = SLR) have failed. Do we never learn from history?

[Tailwagger]

42 minutes ago, lct said:

With all due respect folks, it seems that some of you are underestimating image magnification as focus aid on electronic viewfinders.

With equal respect, perhaps, though I have experienced quite a few misses when focusing near field, stopped down, that contravene this assertion. Regardless, I'd argue, given the shooting parameters of your example, that there was virtually no need to focus whatsoever other than slam to infinity and press the shutter. One has to consider more than just where these things work, but where they don't.  Low light shooting indoors perhaps?

[pgk]

6 minutes ago, lct said:

In the kind of my pic above i would never focus with an RF if i can avoid it but YMMV.

I do it all the time without any problem, even with the pre-FLE Summilux. 

[Tailwagger]

25 minutes ago, pgk said:

The digital M was a move forward.

A reasonable opinion, but like most opinions, my own especially, hardly a universal one. It was a necessary step certainly, but given all the problems, forward is debatable. The M11 somewhat mirrors that for many. 

27 minutes ago, pgk said:

An EVF M is a move sideways. It offers a compromise which is far less effective than an EVF camera without AF and much more.

You've seen one?  Perhaps judgement is best reserved for if and when an actual camera appears. I'm already on record here as expressing a level of high skepticism around an EVF only M due to the lack of auto-aperture and electronic lens coupling. Outside of the cost, I personally find the combination of OVF/EVF to be close to ideal.  If one didn't have to switch between finders while shooting, I'd wager that other than as a result of pricing, most calls for an Mevf would dissipate... assuming a similar form factor, something we already have been told is not currently possible. 

31 minutes ago, pgk said:

At the same time an EVF only M would do away with the very thing that makes the M unique and offers a very different way to take photographs.

That very thing, assuming you're referring to seeing beyond the frame, is already on offer electronically with the M11. And if the flawed APS-H M8 was a step forward, then the zoomed 38Mpx and 18Mpx modes of the M11 certainly should be considered so as well. Unlike with the OVF with a 28mm lens where there is no beyond the frame, the M11 provides margins regardless of focal length and is consistent about it from 16mm to 135mm.  Now, no need for bile. I get that you and many others might not enjoy the experience, but that's an entirely different argument from uniqueness. 

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!

[lct]

57 minutes ago, pgk said:

I do it all the time without any problem, even with the pre-FLE Summilux. 

Yes but perhaps you don't try to get maximum sharpness at a precise point near the edge of your pic as i did above whatever the reason. As Tailwagger said above on can focus at infinity and everything is sharp enough as long as you don't need to nail focus here or there. I just feel less limited with an EVF than with an RF but shooting a-la grandpa is something i like much too . Just kidding again, just to debate with some good old (and young) Real Leica Men here .

Edited March 14, 2022 by lct

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

32 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

A reasonable opinion, but like most opinions, my own especially, hardly a universal one. It was a necessary step certainly, but given all the problems, forward is debatable.

You've seen one?  Perhaps judgement is best reserved for if and when an actual camera appears.

That very thing, assuming you're referring to seeing beyond the frame

The M9 is a 'better' image producing camera than 35mm film cameras were when used within its limitations (low ISO). I have produce much better landscape prints (technically) from my M9s than from Kodachrome transparencies. Very much a step forward.

The Sony A7 series are complicated computers but in size are not so far off an EVF-M but with innumerable, if you want them, added features.

No its far from being just the view beyond the frame. The whole way a rangefinder operates requires a different technique in order to operate it. From selecting the absolute point of focus to operting manually with simplistic controls. Its simply not possible to reproduce the way a rangefinder M can be operated with an EVF camera. I will say that the SL is a little better but it is still too unintuitive and I use both my Sonys and SL very differently to how I use my Ms.

My aim with a camera is to be able to pick it up and use it without it getting in the way. Of all the film cameras I've used the Ms were best in this respect although some SLRs such as the Nikon FM were pretty good. Of digitals there is nothing simpler than an M. Pick it up with preset shutter and aperture on a known ISO and adjust any that need it, focus and shoot until the light changes. An EVF gives a view which IMO creates something of a barrier to working like this and I operate mine very differently. The problem/advantage of an EVF-M will be exactly that. It may operate like an M in some ways but very unlike an M in others and still will have very limited functionality relative to other EVF cameras. I see it as a betwixt and between idea, neither one thing nor the other, unable to provide a better solution to the existing Ms and equally or more unable to compete with other EVF cameras. I can see the logic of an M sized L mount camera but not an M sized EVF-M.

[lct]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

[...] I can see the logic of an M sized L mount camera but not an M sized EVF-M.

The logic could be the best digital back possible for M lenses w/o the limits of the rangefinder. Imagine an M11 with IBIS and a built-in EVF the same class as the SL2's. Already salivating but i don't hold my breath...

[pgk]

1 hour ago, lct said:

The logic could be the best digital back possible for M lenses w/o the limits of the rangefinder. Imagine an M11 with IBIS and a built-in EVF the same class as the SL2's. Already salivating but i don't hold my breath...

Given that it would only work for coded Leica M lenses or if the lens was set manually, don't you think that it would be a niche product within a niche?

[raizans]

I googled around and found Tailwagger's problem: the M240 doesn't let you change the threshold for focus peaking! Apparently it's set very high so there's peaking everywhere.

Has Leica added a sensitivity adjustment on later models? That will solve a lot of problems.

[raizans]

10 hours ago, adan said:

His test was also to demonstrate exactly what you are saying - to another member who said that focusing when stopped down was easy.

It is, if you keep the lens stopped down (especially if your camera has a not so great implementation of peaking).

[lct]

56 minutes ago, pgk said:

Given that it would only work for coded Leica M lenses or if the lens was set manually, don't you think that it would be a niche product within a niche?

Indeed but it could interest non only M lens lovers and ageing RF users but also Sony, Nikon etc. owners who are currently using a mirrorless camera with an adapter the same way as i do with my A7s and A7r2. Not a big market i guess but how large is the market for black and white digital rangefinders as a comparison?

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, raizans said:

I googled around and found Tailwagger's problem: the M240 doesn't let you change the threshold for focus peaking! Apparently it's set very high so there's peaking everywhere.

Has Leica added a sensitivity adjustment on later models? That will solve a lot of problems.

Ahh... No you haven't.  You might have found my problem back in 2014.  We're 8 years on. The demo I showed was from a brand spanking new M11. Unlike previous M's, the 11 does indeed have a high and low setting for peaking. Unfortunately that amounts to a childless papa and mama bear. Too hot or too cold.  At least with my example, if set to low, nothing shows in focus, if set to high, everything does. Perhaps yet another bug to be addressed; time will tell. The 10-R with its single setting does generically a bit better, but it still is a crap shoot in determining the precise point of focus. The RF suffers no such problem; even the most out of whack one is infinitely more precise than M focus peaking when dealing with wides. 

Here's raizans problem: The M isn't a Sony with state of the art AF algorithms and PD sites. It isn't an SL2 with its DFD CD system.  It isn't even a first gen Fuji X with a functional, if primitive, CD system. The FP implementation on the M is virtually useless for wides on every M I've owned and if you searched these pages for other users who've had experience with it and wide angle lenses, perhaps you begin to understand the situation. Or go test one for yourself. From my test under ideal conditions, the M11 doesn't move the bar.  That said, I'd not be surprised to hear that those fortunate enough to own either Nocti or the 90 'lux find FP indispensable. And frankly, I suspect its inclusion was expressly for those folks when shooting wide open, not for the more general use case. 

Now, back to the Mevf question. Could an Mevf improve on the M implementation?  To be viable, it will have to in some way, as our collective experience with FP and the M shows that it isn't workable in a host of scenarios. Equally, the camera will have to provide far higher EVF resolution than current Ms as even with 10x zoom, focusing PRECISELY can be very difficult with wides even in the best of conditions, particularly in the deeper mid field. Factor in low light situations, ISO 12500 anyone? Hahahaha... Fagedaboutit.  Focusing wides reliably on an M is best accomplished via the RF, confirming, if you care to via the EVF, preferably zoomed.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Tailwagger

[IkarusJohn]

I concur with Mr Wagger on this.

The solution I have found with the TL2, SL and M10-D (with the EVF) is to move the magnification point.  Focus peaking is something I would love to be able to turn off on the M10-D.  The rangefinder is a quick and reliable method for focusing wides, save for the fact that the focal point is in the middle of the frame. 

All that said, most of the time, near enough focus is good enough with most wides.  Even a fast wide, like the 21 Summilux-M ASPH, is relatively forgiving - at 2 metres, f/1.4 the depth of field is 780mm; even at the minimum focusing distance of 700mm, you get 90mm depth of field.  The 28 Summilux-M ASPH gives a workable 50mm at 700mm wide open.

I understand all the theoretical concerns over focusing M lenses with an EVF, but having used M lenses with EVFs for many years (NEX, T, TL2, SL, M10-D), those concerns are simply that - theoretical.  I have never had the need to focus wide, then stop down with any of these cameras.  I enjoy having exposure simulation, and have no difficulty focusing with the EVF.  I would just like to turn off focus peaking - it looks nice in theory, but it has been rubbish on every camera I’ve used that has had it.

The hardest lenses I’ve had to focus using an EVF were the 28 Summaron-M on the TL2 and the Distagon 15/2.8, but that was because just about everything was actually in focus … 🙄

[raizans]

 

4 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

At least with my example, if set to low, nothing shows in focus, if set to high, everything does.

Sounds like Leica needs to add a medium setting for those situations.

Edited March 15, 2022 by raizans

[harmen]

If the sticking point with EVF only is the focusing, then would there be an opportunity to use the fact that the lens mechanically indicates the distance it is focused at?  The starting point here is that the camera can know the distance that the lens is focused at.  However, the photographer then needs to know what distance they want to focus at.  What is the distance towards the object that must be in focus?  Is there a way for the camera to know what distance the items within its view are at?  If it could, then focus peaking can be done in a novel way: highlighting everything that is exactly at the distance that the lens is focused at.  Neither aperture nor contrast would matter anymore.

A LiDAR, like Apple’s, might be able to do this.  How else could it be done?

Edited March 15, 2022 by harmen

[Planetwide]

17 hours ago, tashley said:

You are 100% right of course but this does go to the heart of the problem: you can only focus accurately wide open but that has two consequences....

1) You can no longer shoot very spontaneously because you have top open up, focus, stop down. That's not a great recipe for classic Leica shooters

2) Focus shift on many lenses, particularly some of the older ones, means that you have to really know your lens to focus this way because with some lenses you need a bespoke approach. For example the classic pre-asp 35 Cron would really require to to focus wide open if you wanted to shoot wide open, but to focus at f2.8 and F4 if you wanted to shoot at those apertures. whereas by F5, depending on subject distance, you could revert to focusing wide open and then stopping down....

Focus shift is a huge problem on your rangefinder cam. Good luck trying to shoot it wide open. This is a non issue on a EVF. I think that you are implying that you stop the lens down and focus using the RF, and I get what you are saying. However, an EVF can zoom while stopped down and focussing is super accurate. I think that you are trying to find a problem where none really exists. If an RF cam works for you, excellent! Please continue to shoot it. I have used both, and I quite simply prefer a high quality EVF - for many of the reasons posted. For me it is just faster, more accurate, works great in low light, on wide angle lenses, etc... Most shooters that I know focus wide open and stop down, or if doing street work, just zone focus. 

[IkarusJohn]

33 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

Focus shift is a huge problem on your rangefinder cam. Good luck trying to shoot it wide open. This is a non issue on a EVF. I think that you are implying that you stop the lens down and focus using the RF, and I get what you are saying. However, an EVF can zoom while stopped down and focussing is super accurate. I think that you are trying to find a problem where none really exists. If an RF cam works for you, excellent! Please continue to shoot it. I have used both, and I quite simply prefer a high quality EVF - for many of the reasons posted. For me it is just faster, more accurate, works great in low light, on wide angle lenses, etc... Most shooters that I know focus wide open and stop down, or if doing street work, just zone focus. 

Not really.

The suggestion is you focus wide open using the EVF, wherever your focus point is - you use focus peaking, magnification, whatever is your preferred option.  The point is, you set the focus on your lens with the aperture wide open.  This gives you the thinnest of depth of field, and therefore the plane of best focus.  You leave the focus setting where it is, and you then stop down to your preferred aperture and take the shot.  The theory is that even though you’ve stopped down, the plane of best focus has remained where you set it.

Why do this?  Because many people want to know that the core part of their subject is in the best focus it can be in, rather than relying on depth of field.  With the EVF, you don’t know where the best plane of focus is, unless you first focus wide open; unlike the optical rangefinder which gives you the best plane of focus in the centre of the viewfinder, regardless of your aperture.

The problem with this approach?  (1) two steps, which frankly is impractical for me, if not most, and (2) if your lens has focus shift, then you place of best focus moves when you stop down.

Before EVF, we had lots of talk here about whether your lens should be optimised for wide open or stopped down, etc etc.  The point being that focus shift was a problem with digital sensors.  Your rangefinder would give you the best plane of focus regardless of aperture, but if the lens suffered from focus shift, it was a problem.  So, people with problematic lenses (35 Summilux-M ASPH and the f/1 Noctilux) got them optimised wide open, and then didn’t use them between wide open and somewhere around f/8.

With the EVF, focus shift isn’t a problem, provided you don’t follow LCT’s grandpa, and focus at anything other that the aperture you’re going to shoot at.

[Tailwagger]

13 hours ago, raizans said:

Sounds like Leica needs to add a medium setting for those situations.

In the context of the Mevf, sure. M? To quote Icarus, 'Not really'. 

While the core of an M is MILC, it is neither seen that way by most owners, nor, at least up to present, by Leica. Despite the grousing about the M11 leaning ever more toward being an EVF based experience rather than the traditional RF one, this notion is BS, AFAIC. The only thing that truly changed in that regard from 10-R to 11 has been the loss of shutter based metering which in turn necessitated that the all users experience what us EVF users have for years... namely the clack on startup and the more complicated shutter dance when shooting. 

Why do I call BS on this point? Because, while RF purists might see each little EVF improvement as an erosion of the M's raison d'etre, from a mirrorless users perspective the EVF implementation level is, at the very best, several generations behind on virtually all fronts, from resolution and refresh rate straight through to focusing aids. While I believe Leica is waking up to the inevitable, I've come to believe that at least until recently they really haven't given two poops about making the M a serious platform when it comes to pure EVF shooting.  And frankly, I'm not faulting them for that. It wasn't designed to be one and likely never will or should be. This discussion here on the limitations of focus peaking, human-initiated auto aperture, lack FP centering reset etc, provides all the proof one needs that from an M perspective the EVF continues to be seen as an accessory.  An increasingly important one, but in no way a core piece of the M proposition.

We are all prisoners of personal experience, Leica no exception. External optical VFs have been used with the M for decades. When viewed historically, the use of an external finder with wides has been solely to aid with framing, wheres, optical aids for telephotos (think goggles, screw in magnifiers) have been provided to aid with focusing. I'd submit that after 80+ years, this model of usage is so deeply ingrained in the company/M DNA that the notion of focusing a wide through the EVF never fully entered their consciousness.  The primary agenda was merely to replace all the optical add-ons with a single electronic one to fulfill the traditional set of agendas. I.E. permit more accurate focusing with long lenses and more accurate framing with wider ones.  More evidence that focusing via EVF is seen only as an issue for longs? Consider the single real innovation in this latest generation of M EVF... image stabilization. Not a very useful feature when shooting with a SEM, but for focusing a 90mm 'cron or 'lux, it makes complete sense.

Given all this, why wouldn't Leica feel that in the context of the M they have all bases covered?  When it comes to ultra wides, they certainly know what I know. Focus with the RF, frame with the EVF.  One never needs to act as an auto-aperture surrogate because, just as it was with the M3, if you mount a 21mm and want more accurate framing you either zone focus or use the RF,  then frame via the external finder.  Same as it ever was, the only substantive difference being the external finder is now implemented via silicon instead of glass. Thus, assuming you can acclimate to the multifinder model, the VF capability of the M is a very complete solution.  It has zero issues focusing any sort of optic, be they long or short. All bases are covered and by the way several that conventional mirrorless cameras can have trouble with. Low light noise bothering you... use the OVF.  Bright sun making it too difficult to see detail via the EVF... use the OVF.  So all good right?

Sure, but the moment we begin to muse about an Mevf where there is no RF to rely on any more, the whole model goes to hell in a hand basket.  If all an Mevf represented was removing the RF optics and internalizing a Viso2, there would be a debilitating gap in functionality on the wide end.  As I remarked earlier, the M is not an A1; it neither has the hardware nor the algorithmic support currently to satisfy critical users when is comes to focusing wides.  It's possible that in the context of an Mevf and given the Sony connection, they might employ PD sites to solve the problem. But if not due ot IQ concerns, they have the SL2's DFD CD algorithms in house, which hopefully can suffice. Regardless, for such a camera to be successful, there's more work to be done that simply jettisoning the RF. 

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Tailwagger

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[raizans]

Leica is developing their EVF and focusing technology, but they clearly have more work to do. You might be feeling frustrated, but the last time people were extremely pessimistic about Leica technology (full frame M), things turned out well and all of that pessimism was for nothing.

BTW, if you have the time to focus wides in the RF, then switch to the EVF for composition, you’d have the time to magnify the view in an EVF, then zoom out to compose. It’s not as fast and seamless as peaking might be if they added a mid setting, but it looks like it would still fit your work style.

Edited March 15, 2022 by raizans