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

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, pgk said:

…

As is being discussed, the problem of using an EVF at working aperture is how to specify the precise point of focus accurately enough.

…

The TL2 has a touch screen (a bit clumsy), the SL has the joystick (fantastic), and the M10-D the combination of the fn button and the thumb wheel (a bit awkward, but workable).  The real issue with using working aperture with an M lens is you are focusing with depth of field.  FOr that, I rely on the old fashioned approach of the first third, with the other 2/3 behind the subject.

[tashley]

On 3/16/2022 at 12:12 AM, Planetwide said:

I see your edit: Again, accurate focus with an EVF is no problem. Thousands and thousands of people are using it for stills & video. If you are having an issue, then perhaps you need to examine your methodology. I have no issues accurately focusing an EVF with M glass wide open or stopped down period.

Focus shift? Field curvature that changes when aperture changes? Accurate placement of DOF at medium apertures?

Edited March 18, 2022 by tashley

[Planetwide]

23 hours ago, tashley said:

Focus shift? Field curvature that changes when aperture changes? Accurate placement of DOF at medium apertures?

So I guess nobody with an EVF camera can accommodate these issues, and the viewfinder of the M can? I have yet to see field curvature for a lens shown in M viewfinder... Explain to me how do all the other EVF photographers do it? Seriously...

[pop]

17 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

So I guess nobody with an EVF camera can accommodate these issues

So I guess people who run afoul of those issues avoid certain M lenses like the plague.

[lct]

1 minute ago, Planetwide said:

So I guess nobody with an EVF camera can accommodate these issues, and the viewfinder of the M can? I have yet to see field curvature for a lens shown in M viewfinder... Explain to me how do all the other EVF photographers do it? Seriously...

I've got zero field curvature or focus shift issue with any of my EVF cameras in 5+ years from 16mm to 135mm M lenses. And this w/o doing the least effort to avoid them. So were are at least two .

 

[Planetwide]

I can even see the aspherical curvature in some M lenses on the focus plane on my SL2 in the peaking... Have shot all the M wides at F8 with super accurate focus placement for years. Makes you wonder why Leica made the Visoflex for every M camera since the M240...

Edited March 18, 2022 by Planetwide

[Planetwide]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, pop said:

So I guess people who run afoul of those issues avoid certain M lenses like the plague.

The opposite is true. One of my favourite lenses is the pre FLE 35mm lux Asph. Well known for its focus shift when stopping down. A great lens on the SL series, as you can easily assure accurate focus at any aperture using the EVF.

[IkarusJohn]

20 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

The opposite is true. One of my favourite lenses is the pre FLE 35mm lux Asph. Well known for its focus shift when stopping down. A great lens on the SL series, as you can easily assure accurate focus at any aperture using the EVF.

Well, that’s true.  There are famous focus shift lenses (both 35 Summilux ASPH, Noctilux f/1, Summicron ASPH) that can work well using an EVF, provided you focus on the subject using the working aperture.  But they are M lenses which, if you use the RF, still focus shift.  The whole point of the M system historically is the manual perfection of the cameras and lenses.  This is a challenge, particularly on digital Ms.

The one thing that an EVF doesn’t give you is the confidence of the best plane of focus at all apertures and all focal lengths.  The RF does, provided you don’t have focus shift.  For M users, you either avoided lenses with focus shift, or you avoided apertures f/2 - f/5.6.

I agree that the EVF gives you a better chance of best focus, but only if you’re focusing wide open - and that re-opens focus shift if you then stop down.  The alternative is, when you stop down, you’re happy with acceptable focus.  Mostly that’s fine … sort of … but perhaps not giving you the best your lens has to offer.

Edit - something to consider.  If you’re always focusing using your EVF with your lens wide open, then you’re basically in the same position as the RF user who only shoots wide open to avoid focus shift.  The RF user doesn’t stop down below f/8 to avoid focus shift; the EVF user doesn’t stop down as he or she is not sure what has happened to the plane of best focus.  So, whether conscious of it or not, the EVF user is comfortable with “acceptable focus” except when wide open.

Both RF and EVF have their advantages, but I’m not sure focusing is one of them, except for telephoto lenses (longer than 50mm) and when your subject is off centre.

Edited March 19, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[lct]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

The one thing that an EVF doesn’t give you is the confidence of the best plane of focus at all apertures and all focal lengths.

WYSIWYG. The best plane of focus is where i see it. I've just shot this masterwork with a CV 15/4.5 v2 on my CL in dark environment. Makes only 22mm equiv. FL but i have no FF camera handy. I just focused handheld at working aperture (f/11 ) with focus peaking on. Focus shift? Field curvature? I don't care because i see that the pic will be sharp where i want it to. Fast and easy. No need to focus at full aperture and recompose a la grandpa . 

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!

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, lct said:

WYSIWYG. The best plane of focus is where i see it. I've just shot this masterwork with a CV 15/4.5 v2 on my CL in dark environment. Makes only 22mm equiv. FL but i have no FF camera handy. I just focused handheld at working aperture (f/11 ) with focus peaking on. Focus shift? Field curvature? I don't care because i see that the pic will be sharp where i want it to. Fast and easy. No need to focus at full aperture and recompose a la grandpa . 

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!

Interesting you quoted me, then addressed two points I didn’t make …

[Planetwide]

11 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Well, that’s true.  There are famous focus shift lenses (both 35 Summilux ASPH, Noctilux f/1, Summicron ASPH) that can work well using an EVF, provided you focus on the subject using the working aperture.  But they are M lenses which, if you use the RF, still focus shift.  The whole point of the M system historically is the manual perfection of the cameras and lenses.  This is a challenge, particularly on digital Ms.

The one thing that an EVF doesn’t give you is the confidence of the best plane of focus at all apertures and all focal lengths.  The RF does, provided you don’t have focus shift.  For M users, you either avoided lenses with focus shift, or you avoided apertures f/2 - f/5.6.

I agree that the EVF gives you a better chance of best focus, but only if you’re focusing wide open - and that re-opens focus shift if you then stop down.  The alternative is, when you stop down, you’re happy with acceptable focus.  Mostly that’s fine … sort of … but perhaps not giving you the best your lens has to offer.

Edit - something to consider.  If you’re always focusing using your EVF with your lens wide open, then you’re basically in the same position as the RF user who only shoots wide open to avoid focus shift.  The RF user doesn’t stop down below f/8 to avoid focus shift; the EVF user doesn’t stop down as he or she is not sure what has happened to the plane of best focus.  So, whether conscious of it or not, the EVF user is comfortable with “acceptable focus” except when wide open.

Both RF and EVF have their advantages, but I’m not sure focusing is one of them, except for telephoto lenses (longer than 50mm) and when your subject is off centre.

Please re-read my post. 

[lct]

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Interesting you quoted me, then addressed two points I didn’t make …

Sorry if i misunderstood you when you said « The one thing that an EVF doesn’t give you is the confidence of the best plane of focus at all apertures and all focal lengths ». I just tried to explain that i feel the opposite. In most cases i have a total confidence of the best plane of focus with focus peaking and/or image magnification when i focus stop down. 

[pgk]

11 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

There are famous focus shift lenses (both 35 Summilux ASPH, Noctilux f/1, Summicron ASPH) that can work well using an EVF, provided you focus on the subject using the working aperture.  But they are M lenses which, if you use the RF, still focus shift.  The whole point of the M system historically is the manual perfection of the cameras and lenses.  This is a challenge, particularly on digital Ms.

The reason I don't understand the hankering after an M-EVF is that most who want one do so 'because of their M lenses'. But clearly some M lenses are flawed (jewels, maybe). Using a señor optimised for M lenses (in itself a compromise) will not compensate for all flaws. Ad alternative EVF cameras will show that they, together with electonically integrated lenses, are capable of technically 'better' results. An M-EVF will simply show up all the flaws in M lenses especially if it is of high Pixels. Caveat - I use M lenses on RF. SL & A7 series EVFs (including my favourite - the 35mm pre-FLE Summilux😊). I am quite aware of their usability and probably more aware of the real world acceptability of the results than most appear to be. My bafflement is about the desire for a limited and compromised MF EVF M system camera when there are plenty of alternatives.

A mid-twenties MPixel RF M camera is as good as 35mm RF cameras have ever been (better IMO). Why can we not accept that it is a very different system which works superbly within its limitations but that there are limitations? Trying to make it into something it is not, nor ever can be competitively, is just chasing the dream of a camera for all purposes (which doesn't and won't exist).

An L mount, M sized camera with a really well designed adapter which makes it look entirely like an M would make so much better sense .......

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Why can we not accept that it is a very different system which works superbly within its limitations but that there are limitations?

Because the limitations you claim are unacceptable regarding an Mevf are fine with any number of us and the ones which you say you can live with a non M-mount based camera aren't.  Why can't you accept that?

[harmen]

I wonder how customers will react.  A rangefinder has fairly obvious capabilities.  An auto everything EVF based machine is quite clear about its character too.  Will those who do not already have rangefinder experience be surprised by the limitations and trade-offs of this evf only m mount machine, however?

[lct]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

An L mount, M sized camera with a really well designed adapter which makes it look entirely like an M would make so much better sense .......

Problem is an L-mount camera would never look like an M camera. Smeared corners with WA and UWA lenses, lack of auto image magnification, all this would be avoided with an M-mount EVF camera. And this very simply. Suffice it to keep the M mount and the roller cam as is that's all. Now w've discussed this a thousand times already i believe but repetita placent .

 

[pgk]

8 minutes ago, harmen said:

I wonder how customers will react.  A rangefinder has fairly obvious capabilities.  An auto everything EVF based machine is quite clear about its character too.  Will those who do not already have rangefinder experience be surprised by the limitations and trade-offs of this evf only m mount machine, however?

Absolutely my point. A compromised system built by a quality orientated maker will not do them any good in the long term. 

[lct]

8 minutes ago, harmen said:

I wonder how customers will react.  A rangefinder has fairly obvious capabilities.  An auto everything EVF based machine is quite clear about its character too.  Will those who do not already have rangefinder experience be surprised by the limitations and trade-offs of this evf only m mount machine, however?

Those who have no RF experience have mirrorless cameras nowadays. If they are interested in M lenses they can use them through an adapter already. I used to do this on a Ricoh GXR A 12 and a Fuji X-E2 a couple years ago and i redo it currently on a Kolari mod Sony A7r2 and a digital CL, both with M lenses almost exclusively. This is this very experience which convinced me that the best way to get the most out of M lenses is to use them on a EVF-M camera. YMMV.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, lct said:

 This is this very experience which convinced me that the best way to get the most out of M lenses is to use them on a EVF-M camera. YMMV.

I use my M lenses on both the SL and Sony A7 series cameras and my experience has told me that I find them much better to use on RF-M cameras🤔. As I keep saying, and few will discuss, the problem with an EVF-M is not that it won't work, but that it is unlikely to work as well as other EVF cameras using their own lenses. And I would suggest that will even includes the resulting images being (nuances - its all nuances today) 'better' from other EVFs too (some Sony lenses on A7 cameras are very good indeed). This might not bother many users of M lenses here but the photographic world is full of reviews and comparisons by experts (and idiots) and for Leica to produce a camera only capable of what could be seen as sub-par results would leave them open to criticism. IMO they would be much better off with the M as a lower Pixel camera completely different in operation to any others - unique and not trying to compete. Time will tell.

Edited March 19, 2022 by pgk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

Just now, pgk said:

I use my M lenses on both the SL and Sony A7 series cameras and my experience has told me that I find them much better to use on RF-M cameras🤔. As I keep saying, and few will discuss, the problem with an EVF-M is not that it won't work, but that it wonis unlikely tot work as well as other EVF cameras using their own lenses.

Both A7 and SL cameras have the very flaws an EVF-M would not have with M lenses: Smeared corners with WA and UWA lenses and lack of auto image magnification. Therefore, what you're saying, with all due respect, can only be an argument for and not against the EVF-M . As for EVF cameras having their own lenses, it is not the problem of M lens users by definition. What they need is the best digital camera for their M lenses and the fact that monstrous SL lenses work fine on SL bodies is not their cup of tea, at least not mine at all.