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

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pop said:

This would require the addition of an electric connection to the lens socket as electronics, sensors and actuators (motors) need power, unless you want to add a battery compartment to each lens, in which case an optical connection might suffice, but the battery life time might be but short.

If the aim is some form of auto aperture, but I suspect we can agree that this level of alteration is as much of a non-starter as is a whole new line of lenses.  And of course this path fails to address the 70 years of existing ones, which is the whole point of the exercise to begin with. One might as well propose a new line of battery powered OIS M lenses. Again, aint happening.

If we drop AA as a requirement, one can postulate that what's needed is a reliable and accurate way of telling the body what the current working aperture is such that the EVF can brighten or engage/adjust alternate focusing aids for actual conditions.  Off the top of my head, there are two ways this might be doable.  One way this could be accomplished with 100% accuracy and no new physical connections whatsoever is via RFID position sensing.  Much as with 6 bit encoding, extent lenses would require a retrofit, to take advantage of the feature, but new lenses could be equipped with it as standard and operate on existing Ms with no issue. The furthest any aperture ring is from the body is only a few inches which is well within the general operating range of non-powered RFIDs. 

The more palatable solution however would be improving on the existing software based aperture calculation via ML. I doesn't strike me as impossible to train a model that could be far more accurate in estimating the working aperture.  One might even be able to implement an in camera training mode which would enable owners to teach the camera about their own set of lenses to optimize things.  And as a bonus, this same technology could be included in the M as well so we could finally get accurate F-stop info there as well.  

Edited March 20, 2022 by Tailwagger

[Kwesi]

1 hour ago, pop said:

I sense a number of misunderstandings here.

im not suggesting a specific technological path forward. So I’m not sure why you think I am misunderstanding anything.

All I am saying is that simply shoving a visoflex into an M and bringing it to market is not going to cut it in an extremely competitive mirrorless camera market. 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Kwesi

[Advertisement]

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

[Kwesi]

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

We already have an M with an EVF - the Visoflex.  And many people use it happily.  Simply putting the EVF inside the camera isn't such a huge step.

I’m not against an EVF M. Quite frankly as I have stated before, I think it’s an inevitable step forward. The problem, as you yourself have stated , is that simply shoving a visoflex in an M is an incredibly small step in an intensely competitive mirrorless camera market. 
Now if you are willing to preorder this “visoflex shoved in an m” solution at Leica’s price for all 46 of you as Adan has state then of course by all means have at it.. heck for a run of 46 it can’t help but appreciate in value. 

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

If we drop AA as a requirement, one can postulate that what's needed is a reliable and accurate way of telling the body what the current working aperture is such that the EVF can brighten or engage/adjust alternate focusing aids for actual conditions.  Off the top of my head, there are two ways this might be doable.  One way this could be accomplished with 100% accuracy and no new physical connections whatsoever is via RFID position sensing.  Much as with 6 bit encoding, extent lenses would require a retrofit, to take advantage of the feature, but new lenses could be equipped with it as standard and operate on existing Ms with no issue. The furthest any aperture ring is from the body is only a few inches which is well within the general operating range of non-powered RFIDs

The SL and TL2 already compensate for aperture, so I can’t see any of this is needed.  I leave both these cameras in exposure simulation (I don’t use a flash), so the EVF lightens or darkens automatically depending on aperture.

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

The SL and TL2 already compensate for aperture, so I can’t see any of this is needed.  I leave both these cameras in exposure simulation (I don’t use a flash), so the EVF lightens or darkens automatically depending on aperture.

As does the SL2 and I'd wager pretty much every mirrorless camera on the market. But these cameras aren't an M.   They always view the scene wide open and the cameras know the user selected aperture. The M does neither of these.  However it occurred to me after I wrote this that perhaps you were referring to using M lenses on these cameras. As you know, I have an SL2, so I went and checked and I learned something new. 

Its been a while since I've been in the SL2 menu system, so perhaps I've just missed it, but it has no item named exposure simulation.  What it does have is termed Enhanced Live View, perhaps what you were referring to, which attempts to compensate for the brightness level in low light situations if it is set to on and the M lens is manually stopped down.  The thing I noticed going through this, as my config had this set to on, is that you really only want to have this enabled when you're in low light situations as the noise levels can become debilitating. I have to assume that some of my issues focusing wides in normal light when stopped and zoomed was related to having this feature turned on which introduced unnecessary noise, making things more difficult.  

Regardless, I believe you are correct, they do seem to be able to simply amplify things to a presumed brightness level independent of knowing the aperture. The implementation currently clearly has it limitations and I believe that in order for an Mevf to be viable, it would need to get far cleaner in lower light (or again add in some alternate focusing aids to assist), but it does appear that the aperture need not be known.  Danke, learned something new.  

Edited March 21, 2022 by Tailwagger

[IkarusJohn]

I haven’t used it in a while (I’m back using my M cameras).  When the SL was released, there was a discussion about this.  Gordon was also posting about it.  What I liked with this feature is that I didn’t need to use the meter so much - by looking at the image in the viewfinder, I could judge the exposure I wanted.  It’s a nice feature.  I’m not so keen on the EVF brightening up to maintain an even level of illumination.

If I’m using, say a 28mm M lens on my SL, and I stop down, I want to see the exposure at that aperture.

[boojum]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For an M240 with a Pentax-SMC 50mm f/1.4 there is a simple choice:  EVF or zone focus.  I chose EVF.  I find it works well with all other lenses on the M240 also.  This is not rocket surgery.

[pop]

7 hours ago, Kwesi said:

im not suggesting a specific technological path forward. So I’m not sure why you think I am misunderstanding anything.

All I am saying is that simply shoving a visoflex into an M and bringing it to market is not going to cut it in an extremely competitive mirrorless camera market. 

Silly me. I should have realised right away that  "simply shoving a visoflex into an M and bringing it to market is not going to cut it"   is exactly the same as "update its lenses with electronics at time of introduction. "

[pgk]

To convince myself of the advantages and/or disadavantages of RF and EVF I took an M9 and an SL out yesterday with 21/3.4, 35/1.4 and 90/2.8 lenses. I then tried shooting to determine which I thought enabled me to take the images I wanted, focussed where I wanted and with an unambiguous experience looking through the viewfinder. I should perhaps add that the conditions were very bright sunny and blue sky.

My observations (as I strongly suspected they would be) are that for precision focus with 21 and 35 lenses, the M9 and RF were easier, quicker and more accurate with a bright and easy view through the viewfinder(s). The SL was on a par using the 90 in terms of precision focus wide open, but trickier stopped down, and the viewfinder image was nowhere near as comfortable to work with in the bright conditions. The SL was inevitably slower, and less precise with the wider lenses. Both cameras yielded good images of course.

To me an EVF only M still doesn't make sense in that it loses the benefits associated with the RF and wide lenses an struggles in very bright conditions. Where an EVF works best for me is in conditions where the M is not effective and whist I do accept that there are plenty of such situations, I question the logic of using M lenses in them on an EVF M mount camera.

Perhaps I am unique in not seeing the potential for an M mount EVF only camera but somehow I very much doubt it. The question we all need to ask about an M sized, M mount EVF camera is whether there will be sufficient sales to justify a hamstrung if desirable digital camera and whether Leica can produce such a camera which meets expectations of those who want it whilst not resulting in reputational damage from those who will inevitably compare it with other EVF cameras. Lastly, producing such a camera with a builtin in electronic viewfinder is not as simple as fitting a monochrome sensor and software and will cost in R&D. The camera will not be cheap (I would say it most likely would be priced the same as an RF version to make sense).

[pop]

Part of this discussion seems to presume that the prospective owner of an EVF-only M camera would have but one camera and - of course - one or more M mount lenses. This seems somewhat unlikely to me. Rather, I think that an owner of a 'real' M camera (with rangefinder) would seek an addition to the existing kit, extending its capabilities in a direction where the M was too limiting. That extension would require

• a small size and weight for the camera; otherwise, the SL would presumably meet the requirements and
• a full format sensor; otherwise, the CL would presumably meet the requirements.

In any event, I can see no particular advantage to restricting an EVF camera to an M mount. The only advantage of an orientation on the particulars of M lenses would seem to be the sensor stack. I think the SL would be quite good enough in that respect, and the CL with the cropped sensor would avoid the problem of the poorly lit corners.

As I wrote earlier, adding extra functions to the M lens series does not seem attractive, neither for Leica nor for the customers.

[lct]

2 hours ago, pop said:

Part of this discussion seems to presume that the prospective owner of an EVF-only M camera would have but one camera and - of course - one or more M mount lenses. This seems somewhat unlikely to me. Rather, I think that an owner of a 'real' M camera (with rangefinder) would seek an addition to the existing kit, extending its capabilities in a direction where the M was too limiting. [...]

Such Leica owners do exist of course but think also of Canon, Nikon, Panasonic and Sony owners having their sensor modded by Kolari Vision, for instance, and other mirrorless users who are not interested in rangefinders but use their M lenses through an adapter. Those people are not interested in SL cameras which add little to their current camera in a larger package. What could interest them is a mirrorless camera giving them what they don't have i.e. a perfect compatibility with M lenses including lack of smeared corners on UWA and WA lenses and auto image magnification.  

[adan]

6 hours ago, pgk said:

My observations (as I strongly suspected they would be) are that for precision focus with 21 and 35 lenses, the M9 and RF were easier, quicker and more accurate with a bright and easy view through the viewfinder(s). The SL was on a par using the 90 in terms of precision focus wide open, but trickier stopped down, and the viewfinder image was nowhere near as comfortable to work with in the bright conditions. The SL was inevitably slower, and less precise with the wider lenses. Both cameras yielded good images of course.

Sure - this is why working journalists would carry at least two cameras (usually more) in the 1960s-70s. Leica M for lenses 50mm and shorter, and a heavier SLR for an 85/105 and 180/200 (or longer).

Fortunately, most SLRs in the pre-AF era also provided a "split-image" focus aid in the viewfinder. Analogous to a rangefinder patch. Which improved speed and precision with wide-angle lenses. I happily used only SLRs for 30 years due to that aid - snap two images together and shoot, with any focal length.

I only moved to Leica M once auto-focus "deleted" such fast manual-focus aids in most SLRs - for me, trying to focus on a plain screen, or missing moments zooming in and out to focus, or trying to see the picture through a pattern of crayon-scribbles (peaking) are all recipes for static, boring photographs.

But there is a solution, with increasing computing power and phase-detection sensors. I might commend to your attention my post #83.

[pgk]

17 minutes ago, adan said:

Sure - this is why working journalists would carry at least two cameras (usually more) in the 1960s-70s. Leica M for lenses 50mm and shorter, and a heavier SLR for an 85/105 and 180/200 (or longer).

I cannot see any working journalist or photographer using an EVF camera with manual focus lenses which focus at the working aperture and require focus magnification to ensure a reasonable (although inevitably imprecise) plane of focus. Yes, I have used both Leica RF plus various SLRs professionally over the last 40 years and now EVFs. I use an A7IIR with a Sony 20/1.8 nd its pretty good but not always as precise as I might want unless I start to adjust point of focus, etc. which takes time. On the other hand the Leica RF with the 21/3.4 SEM is fast and accurate. The thing is that no doubt an M-EVF is or will be possible but its a hybrid which raises a lot of questions about 'why?'.

[mujk]

20 hours ago, pop said:

I sense a number of misunderstandings here.

'Lenses with electronics' is in itself a meaningless phrase. In terms of the ongoing discussion, it would be understood to mean lenses with sensors for aperture and/or distance, actuators for either or both and the associated communication between camera and lens.

This would require the addition of an electric connection to the lens socket as electronics, sensors and actuators (motors) need power, unless you want to add a battery compartment to each lens, in which case an optical connection might suffice, but the battery life time might be but short. There have been reports of light entering through the lens mount. Adding electrical contacts to the lens mount risks exarcebating the issue.

Solid state diaphragms have not been invented yet, I believe. Hence, setting the aperture would require some kind of motor and mechanical gears of some sort. The motor would have to be pretty strong in order to operate the diaphragm before releasing the shutter. Also, it must not compromise the manual operation of the lens on bodies which do not provide electrical power to the lens.

Adding autofocus to an M lens would be quite counter-intuitive; simply motorising existing M lenses would most certainly not perform adequately. Modern autofocus lenses must be designed from the beginning for this mode of operation.

So, let's presume that Leica converted an appreciable part of its M lens range to auto-aperture mode.  I don't think there would be many users of rangefinder cameras who would use that. Hence, they would pay for an addition they neither want nor need. New customers whose first M camera would be EVF cameras would think twice about buying into system with native lenses with an obvious kludge. Also, they would shortly find out that their EVF cameras only worked as advertised with the lastest lenses, not with any of the many legacy lenses available in the market.

This does not seem to be a sensible development for the M mount.

 

Fully agree. Although it would probably be possible there would be no sense in doing so, particularly when Leica already has electronically coupled, autofocus lenses in the L mount. An SL in the M form factor with a sensor that works well also with adapted older M mount wide-angles would be the solution. And, if possible, a few compact L primes.

[Kwesi]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

The thing is that no doubt an M-EVF is or will be possible but its a hybrid which raises a lot of questions about 'why?'

The Monochrom and "D" series of digital M's were bold, groundbreaking products by Leica.

The EVF-M shouldn't be a whimper

[IkarusJohn]

12 hours ago, pop said:

Part of this discussion seems to presume that the prospective owner of an EVF-only M camera would have but one camera and - of course - one or more M mount lenses. This seems somewhat unlikely to me. Rather, I think that an owner of a 'real' M camera (with rangefinder) would seek an addition to the existing kit, extending its capabilities in a direction where the M was too limiting. That extension would require

• a small size and weight for the camera; otherwise, the SL would presumably meet the requirements and
• a full format sensor; otherwise, the CL would presumably meet the requirements.

In any event, I can see no particular advantage to restricting an EVF camera to an M mount. The only advantage of an orientation on the particulars of M lenses would seem to be the sensor stack. I think the SL would be quite good enough in that respect, and the CL with the cropped sensor would avoid the problem of the poorly lit corners.

As I wrote earlier, adding extra functions to the M lens series does not seem attractive, neither for Leica nor for the customers.

I agree that the obvious choices are the CL/TL2 and the SL for M lenses on an EVF camera, but an M camera with optional EVF is better, surely.

The CL/TL2 are APS-C and apparently unlikely to make it to CL2/TL3.

The SL(601) is great with M lenses, including wides. From other posts on the forum, it appears the SL2 sensor is not as well optimised for M lenses?  That aside, the SL cameras are large (compared to the M cameras) and optimised for SL lenses (cheaper and generally better).

Where the M cameras fill a very strong, but niche, market, I’m surprised that the potential for an internal rather than external EVF gives rise to so many suggestions that an MEVF should have so many other functions that are not part of the M ecosystem. We’ve had an EVF M camera since the M(240) in 2012; the M10 and now M11 cameras all have capability for the external EVF, and both those series cameras showed a return to the traditional M paradigm, dumping video, slimming down and retaining the “essential” controls of aperture and focus on the lens, shutter and ISO on the camera.

@pgk’s excellent post #337 above encapsulates the issue exactly, though “hamstrung” applies equally to RF and EVF - people want an M camera, either with an RF or EVF (or both, as @pop points out). 

[pgk]

9 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

We’ve had an EVF M camera since the M(240) in 2012; the M10 and now M11 cameras all have capability for the external EVF.....

Playing Devil's advocate😇. e've had SLR possibilities with the original Visoflex since its introduction. It too was 'hamstrung' in that it did its job, but clearly an SLR did the same job and progressed so that it did it much, much better. Time wll tell😊.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 3/21/2022 at 1:17 PM, Tailwagger said:

As does the SL2 and I'd wager pretty much every mirrorless camera on the market. But these cameras aren't an M.   They always view the scene wide open and the cameras know the user selected aperture. The M does neither of these.  However it occurred to me after I wrote this that perhaps you were referring to using M lenses on these cameras. As you know, I have an SL2, so I went and checked and I learned something new. 

Its been a while since I've been in the SL2 menu system, so perhaps I've just missed it, but it has no item named exposure simulation.  What it does have is termed Enhanced Live View, perhaps what you were referring to, which attempts to compensate for the brightness level in low light situations if it is set to on and the M lens is manually stopped down.  The thing I noticed going through this, as my config had this set to on, is that you really only want to have this enabled when you're in low light situations as the noise levels can become debilitating. I have to assume that some of my issues focusing wides in normal light when stopped and zoomed was related to having this feature turned on which introduced unnecessary noise, making things more difficult.  

Regardless, I believe you are correct, they do seem to be able to simply amplify things to a presumed brightness level independent of knowing the aperture. The implementation currently clearly has it limitations and I believe that in order for an Mevf to be viable, it would need to get far cleaner in lower light (or again add in some alternate focusing aids to assist), but it does appear that the aperture need not be known.  Danke, learned something new.  

It's called Exposure Preview (under live view) and you can't turn it off in the SL2. The option is to have off in manual exposure mode. Im P A &S it is always enabled. It does not require a L mount lens. It works perfectly fine with M mount lenses because the sensor simply measures an EV exposure directly off the sensor.

AN EVF M wouldn't need to know the aperture except for EXIF. Exactly like the M11 does now in live view.

Really what you'd get is the SL2 with the M11 sensor in an M11/Q styled body. You'd be free to make it a bit different and add IBIS. You can even have a virtual RF in the EVF like Fujifilm do.

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

53 minutes ago, pgk said:

Playing Devil's advocate😇. e've had SLR possibilities with the original Visoflex since its introduction. It too was 'hamstrung' in that it did its job, but clearly an SLR did the same job and progressed so that it did it much, much better. Time wll tell😊.

Time seems be up for the SLR …

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

2 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Time seems be up for the SLR …

I no longer use one, but ..... there are times when I think one would be more suited to certain types of photography. Not sure whether this is because I am used to them or whether they genuinely would be better. Being used in strong sunlight is still a problem with EVFs in my experience so far

 

7 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

It's called Exposure Preview (under live view) and you can't turn it off in the SL2. The option is to have off in manual exposure mode. Im P A &S it is always enabled. It does not require a L mount lens. It works perfectly fine with M mount lenses because the sensor simply measures an EV exposure directly off the sensor.

It is a real pain with flash forcing exposure to be put into manual and relying on experience yet again. For some of my photography flash is the main/fill illuminant .....