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

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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. 

[Kwesi]

The fact that people use M lenses on EVF cameras is no reason for Leica to create an EVF-M without first addressing the need for communication between the lens and body. Quite frankly, to be done properly Leica will have to introduce a new line (generation) of M lenses built with the necessary electronics while maintaining compatibility with existing M bodies. This is not impossible but not to do so would be the height of stupidity.

Good news is that Leica knows this.

[Advertisement]

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

[raizans]

Camera companies love any excuse to make you buy new lenses, so be careful what you wish for!

[IkarusJohn]

5 hours ago, pgk said:

… 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 …

But this has nothing to do with other EVF cameras.  If one prefers other EVF cameras with their native lenses, then that’s what one should buy.  The entire discussion is about M lenses on M cameras.  Not automation, not changing the lenses.  Just an M camera, but with an EVF built in, rather than clipped on the top.  The experience would be entirely the same, save that the EVF would hopefully be at least as good as the new Visoflex.

Surely, therefore, the only issue is the loss of the optical rangefinder on one version of the M camera.  Why is this a problem?  If it’s the M11, we already have the RF version.  We also already know what the EVF version would be like, it’s just not built in … yet.

[IkarusJohn]

8 hours ago, Planetwide said:

Please re-read my post. 

I did.  Not sure you really read mine.  Here’s the short version - closed down, you will get accurate focus within the depth of field.  You won’t easily and reliably get the best plane of focus at that aperture as quickly as with the RF.  This is especially the case with wides.  Try your 35 Summilux FLE at f/8, focus at say 4 metres, and work out, within the 12.5 metres of depth of field, where the best plane of focus is.

Now, this might not be important to you, and that’s fine.  Most of the time it isn’t important to me.  But, using the wide M lenses I have (21, 28 & 35) on my SL and TL2, it is immediately apparent that the optical rangefinder gives me fast, accurate focus quickly and reliably in a way the EVF can’t.  Acceptable, yes.  Focus peaking?  A mess.

[pgk]

54 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

But this has nothing to do with other EVF cameras.

Yes it does. Comparisons will inevitably be made and the risk for Leica is that as a company trading on quality, they will be seen as producing an inferior product. Electronically integrated lenses on AF EVF systems aren't just good today, they are very good (I have some).

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, pgk said:

Yes it does. Comparisons will inevitably be made and the risk for Leica is that as a company trading on quality, they will be seen as producing an inferior product. Electronically integrated lenses on AF EVF systems aren't just good today, they are very good (I have some).

So, you’re saying that an MEVF would be compared and competing with the Sony A7 some Fuji, the Z9 and a Canon?  So, let’s look at the Z9 - the buyer then has a very clear choice - the latest and greatest, all singing, all dancing camera from Nikon.  It really seems to be the best fully electronic full frame camera on the market.  If that is what a photographer wants, why would they look at an MEVF?  I certainly wouldn’t.

So, why do I have 3 M cameras and 9 or so lenses, when I could buy a Z9 and all the best lenses to go with it and have change to fund some travel?

This is really where you and I differ - I like the RF, but it isn’t why I bought into the M system.  With an EVF, the M would still have everything I like and want in an M - direct control, beautiful compact lenses, form factor that looks like a camera, no electronic stuff that is included because it can be, but because it is essential (this rather excludes the M11, but that’s another issue).

[raizans]

I've got an idea. 😁

Put one of these on the EVF-M's hot shoe:

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!

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

So, you’re saying that an MEVF would be compared and competing with the Sony A7 some Fuji, the Z9 and a Canon?  So, let’s look at the Z9 - the buyer then has a very clear choice - the latest and greatest, all singing, all dancing camera from Nikon.  It really seems to be the best fully electronic full frame camera on the market.  If that is what a photographer wants, why would they look at an MEVF?  I certainly wouldn’t.

<snip>

Actually, Z 9 is meowing.

[lct]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Yes it does. Comparisons will inevitably be made and the risk for Leica is that as a company trading on quality, they will be seen as producing an inferior product. Electronically integrated lenses on AF EVF systems aren't just good today, they are very good (I have some).

But the EVF-M would be the best digital camera for M lenses. It does not need to compete with AF cameras at all. Why would it? AF bodies have nothing to do with M lenses, they can just try to mimic what would be a true M lens camera for the simple reason that they don't have the right mount nor the right sensor for that. Saying that the EVF-M would compete with AF cameras is like saying that a Stradivari violin would compete with an electric guitar. Different worlds.

[Planetwide]

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I did.  Not sure you really read mine.  Here’s the short version - closed down, you will get accurate focus within the depth of field.  You won’t easily and reliably get the best plane of focus at that aperture as quickly as with the RF.  This is especially the case with wides.  Try your 35 Summilux FLE at f/8, focus at say 4 metres, and work out, within the 12.5 metres of depth of field, where the best plane of focus is.

Now, this might not be important to you, and that’s fine.  Most of the time it isn’t important to me.  But, using the wide M lenses I have (21, 28 & 35) on my SL and TL2, it is immediately apparent that the optical rangefinder gives me fast, accurate focus quickly and reliably in a way the EVF can’t.  Acceptable, yes.  Focus peaking?  A mess.

I did read it, and I actually went out and tested several m wides. In all cases, I was able to set focus accurately. As I mentioned, on my 24mm Elmar, I could even see the aspherical curvature in the focus plane. Hyperfocal distance at 4 meters on my 35mm at F8 is 5.14m, and I can see this area of focus on my EVF. FYI, I set peaking to low.

I do understand what you are saying. On your M viewfinder, if the calibration is correct, then you can focus at any aperture more easily than with an EVF. It is the accuracy of this focus that we are really debating. For you it is an M, for me it's an EVF - horses for courses... I just don't understand the resistance to an Mevf, that's all. I think that it is inevitable for all the reasons posted above, and I doubt that it will impact Mrf sales at all.

I would like to mention that almost all lenses have some amount focus shift stopping down,  including Leica's. The amount of shift usually falls within the "acceptable plane of focus"for the lens, and is therefore not really visible. Here is an example of the 90APO.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/another-medium-tele-test-batis-and-cron-focus-shift

Edited March 19, 2022 by Planetwide

[pop]

10 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

Here is an example of the 90APO.

Yes, you're entirely right. Those graphs and the text are sharp as sharp can be.

[IkarusJohn]

57 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

I did read it, and I actually went out and tested several m wides. In all cases, I was able to set focus accurately. As I mentioned, on my 24mm Elmar, I could even see the aspherical curvature in the focus plane. Hyperfocal distance at 4 meters on my 35mm at F8 is 5.14m, and I can see this area of focus on my EVF. FYI, I set peaking to low.

I do understand what you are saying. On your M viewfinder, if the calibration is correct, then you can focus at any aperture more easily than with an EVF. It is the accuracy of this focus that we are really debating. For you it is an M, for me it's an EVF - horses for courses... I just don't understand the resistance to an Mevf, that's all. I think that it is inevitable for all the reasons posted above, and I doubt that it will impact Mrf sales at all.

I would like to mention that almost all lenses have some amount focus shift stopping down,  including Leica's. The amount of shift usually falls within the "acceptable plane of focus"for the lens, and is therefore not really visible. Here is an example of the 90APO.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/another-medium-tele-test-batis-and-cron-focus-shift

I’m not opposed to an MEVF at all.  I use the EVF on three of my cameras, with M lenses.

[IkarusJohn]

12 hours ago, lct said:

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. 

No, I understand that, and your image of your book case shows your experience well.

Out cycling with my TL2 and 28 Summaron-M, I’ve given up trying to focus with any accuracy, relying instead on the scale on the lens.  It works fine, and the images are in focus.  I suspect my concerns, in practical experience, is that I have become somewhat particular about getting the best focus.  It comes fro having so many out of focus images; that, and Leica lenses really do reward focus accuracy, in my experience.

Hyperfocal images are okay, and relying on depth of field is also fine.  But getting the sweet spot of bang on focus is better …

[harmen]

If an M-EVF is created, it will then be necessary to manage expectations and highlight to prospective customers that it’s meant for manual aperture and manual focus.  Some tag-line may be necessary, e.g., a modern view camera: enjoy crafting your image by choosing your focus and depth of field while seeing what you will get.

While we’re at it, let’s do a square sensor for the complete view camera experience.   Be there or be square.  Be there and be square?

Someone with a marketing background may do better ☺️

Edited March 20, 2022 by harmen

[pgk]

8 hours ago, harmen said:

If an M-EVF is created, it will then be necessary to manage expectations .....

Thank you. Someone understands. Absolutely. Marketting an M-EVF with its inherent limitations (including optical) when there are much higher specified, and potentially more capable (in terms of final output image quality) is going to be a risk for a company that has always traded on being a 'quality' brand. Its one thing producing a camera which misses its mark unintentionally, its quite another producing a niche witin a niche product which isn't up to expectations. Much as I like my M lenses, only a few are truly' class leaders' (or should that be 'focal length leaders'?). In fact most lenses from 'good' makers today are extremely good. Older lenses show flaws (which some like), so an M-EVF would be all about satisfying a few M users with a camera using a modified sensor and presumably an inbuilt EVF. Sound like a very expensive compromised camera to me, but if people are prepared to pay top $ and live with the trade offs, and if Leica can deliver, make a profit and market in ways which avoid comparisons ('an EVF caera for historic lenses might be a suitable tagline) then so be it. I won't buy one and I'd guess a lot on M users wouldn't so Leica will have to assess the market carefully to determine viability/profitability.

Paradoxically, I would actually welcome a camera built on the lines of the old MD/MDa/MD-2 but preferably with a larger sensor and output to computer screen. But it would need a very straightforward, non-modified sensor. I can see many uses for such a unit though not an M FF version as a scientific tool which is what the original rangefinderless Ms were intended to be.

[idusidusi]

On 3/16/2022 at 1:36 AM, IkarusJohn said:

As you say, Paul, the M works because it has a very clear paradigm.  You say it’s the optical rangefinder, I think it’s the M mount (flawed as it might be) and the lenses, with an otherwise totally manual interface.  If it didn’t have an LCD, I might be tempted …

I say it is both M-Mount and RF, those two make the M as unique as when it first came out. If an M-EVF is born I hope it is a separate line, I don't think I would be interested, but I would hope it sells well so Leica remain in business. In my view though the SL made smaller and lighter, keeping its current capabilities and excellent EVF, and given a native M-Mount, Leica would already have their M-EVF with stabilisation for those that crave that as well!

[Tailwagger]

9 hours ago, harmen said:

If an M-EVF is created, it will then be necessary to manage expectations and highlight to prospective customers that it’s meant for manual aperture and manual focus.

When, not if 😉.  

No camera system ever created has universal appeal, least of all the M itself.  Consider the monochoms.  Despite having come close to buying one several times, I continue to struggle with the idea of laying out so many $$$ for a 10-M or QM.  Yet despite the limited appeal to the vast majority of photographers, an expensive, manual focus only, B&W only camera has cultivated a rabid following over the years.  It quite literally is a cult within a cult.  If you're not a member, you either see it as really cool or a signpost on the road to dementia. And speaking of dementia, recall at its intro the 10-D and others of its bare backed ilk managed to engender as much suspicion as the notion of a mirrorless M mount camera has.  Why get rid of the screen... just don't look at it, turn it off, tape over it, how are you going to change settings, why on earth would you pay a premium to lose the rear display?  Yet those that have swear by the experience. Is it for everyone? Of course not. 

An Mevf, beyond leveraging the vast array of optics available, is, unlike its predecessors, completely free to explore all the possibilities that present themselves when one breaks free of the M's RF gravitational field and jettisons all the tacit expectations for any new M body.  And as with the 10M or D, while the result will be more limited in some dimensions, it will be completely unique in a whole set of others.  Yet another variant in the Leica stable that takes on the challenge of championing a radical minority view;  one equally rife with critics and cultists. 

From the history, it's hardly surprising that there those that can't fathom why such a camera should exist. But I've little doubt... all the banter here of the years supports this assertion... that there is a group of serious photographers who see possibility and value in such a camera given what they shoot and the way they work. And a whole host of others who won't. Nothing the least bit new in that.  No need for special marketing tricks or any hand holding. Those that get it, get it, those that don't, won't.

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Tailwagger

[pgk]

3 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

An Mevf, beyond leveraging the vast array of optics available, is, unlike its predecessors, completely free to explore all the possibilities that present themselves when one breaks free of the M's RF gravitational field and jettisons all the tacit expectations for any new M body.

But there are plenty of options to do just this already. The only difference beingthis would be an M sized body and have a sensor optimised for some M lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[harmen]

On my road to dementia I am thoroughly enjoying the Q2M.  Its deliberate ‘limitation’ is in fact where it excels.  Rather than trying to do everything it does one thing well.  I appreciate the desire for an EVF camera for m-mount glass.  What I am trying to put my finger on is what it excels at.  How can it be the best at a specific - if narrow - approach to photography?  I’m coming back to saying it’s like a view camera.  It’s more than a Rolleiflex, as it shows what you will get at your chosen aperture.  It’s also going to be very different from a range finder.  I use manual focus on my Q 95% of the time, but rarely half-press to see what happens at my selected aperture.  Having little experience using m glass on anything but an M, I’m wondering what you all would say the M-EVF would be optimized for?  I don’t mean that it has a good sensor for M lenses.  I mean, what is operationally unique and excellent about it?