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

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No. Never. Not on your life. No way. 

Rangefinder M forever!

[idusidusi]

On 2/12/2022 at 9:00 PM, Planetwide said:

Just give me the M body, M mount, the M11 sensor, shutter etc... Dump the rangefinder, and add a high resolution EVF in the same location as the M viewfinder. Tilt screen would be nice.

SOLD...

Tilt screen yes, can be very useful. Yes: M body, M mount, the M11 sensor, shutter etc..., no I prefer the rangefinder. No EVF.

[Franka373]

Yes… but then I realized I can get that with just about any other camera.  So, no,  I want the rangefinder M. 

[Camaro5]

Since M lenses are manual focus you would be stuck with either using no focus aids or focus peaking.  Might as well just use one of the SL's with an adapter.  

[FlashGordonPhotography]

3 hours ago, Camaro5 said:

Since M lenses are manual focus you would be stuck with either using no focus aids or focus peaking.  Might as well just use one of the SL's with an adapter.  

There are lot's of focus aids besides peaking. Picture in picture. Digital split screen. Even Digital RF. Many more options in cameras from Fuji than there are with Leica.

Gordon

[Tailwagger]

3 hours ago, Camaro5 said:

Might as well just use one of the SL's with an adapter.  

No.  First, SL corner performance for any number of M lenses is poor. The M has specific micro lensing to compensate for the acute angle of incidence of M wides, the SL doesn't. Second, the SL interface is designed for AF applications and over complicates the shooting experience for MF lenses. Third, there's no coupling, hence auto-zooming for focusing is not possible. Fourth, the SL2 is a larger, less discrete body. Finally, adapters, as a first order solution, suck and AFAIC, are an expensive hack.  Pay $15K+ for a body and lens and have to use an adapter?!? No thanks. 

 

[raizans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica users are split into two camps:

1) The picky ones who only want the best.

2) The mellow ones who DGAF.

[Kwesi]

15 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

No.  First, SL corner performance for any number of M lenses is poor. The M has specific micro lensing to compensate for the acute angle of incidence of M wides, the SL doesn't. Second, the SL interface is designed for AF applications and over complicates the shooting experience for MF lenses. Third, there's no coupling, hence auto-zooming for focusing is not possible. Fourth, the SL2 is a larger, less discrete body. Finally, adapters, as a first order solution, suck and AFAIC, are an expensive hack.  Pay $15K+ for a body and lens and have to use an adapter?!? No thanks. 

 

Just out of curiosity, do you focus and shoot at working aperture when using M lenses on the SL? If so does the EVF brightness automatically increase to compensate. 

[Tailwagger]

6 minutes ago, Kwesi said:

Just out of curiosity, do you focus and shoot at working aperture when using M lenses on the SL? If so does the EVF brightness automatically increase to compensate. 

Perhaps other's are more adept at such things, but when I've focused at working aperture and then checked how accurate the result was by opening up fully, I find that I am almost always quite a way off of ideal. The M, in that regard is no different. Very early on using the 240 with the SEM 21 convinced me that I couldn't rely on what I perceived as in focus when stopped down. As for auto comp, yes, while there's a bit of a lag, the SL2's EVF does react to the change in aperture, but that might be configuration/setting dependent, can't recall off hand. 

Focus accuracy is my largest concern with any Mevf.  EVF's work great in shallow DoF situations, but suck in deep ones, assuming you care where the central plane of focus falls. As such, 99% of the time, I focus with the RF, frame (and confirm focus) with the EVF.  Perhaps, with a BSI sensor, Leica will be more amenable to including PD sites to provide feedback as focus confirmation or they'll come up with some clever way to build an E-RF, but AFAIC, accurate focusing, without having act as a human auto aperture mechanism, is the biggest challenge to Mevf adoption, at least for those of us interested in such a camera.

[Kwesi]

Thanks Tailwagger, 

I think for me an EVF would at introduction, have to overcome at the very least the human auto aperture the issue that you mention.  
In addition for it to not lag behind the legion of EVF mirrorless cameras currently available, it would have to provide aperture aware focus confirmation via something like a green dot. Perhaps the red exposure dot turns green to confirm focus. 
Lastly, I would like an actual aperture readout out in exif as part of the package. I’m not sure that my wishes are achievable without introducing some sort of electronic communication between the body and lens. Ideally this solution can be retrofitted to at least current M lenses. 

[Michiel Fokkema]

It already exists, it's called Sony A7C with an adapter.

[IkarusJohn]

17 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

No.  First, SL corner performance for any number of M lenses is poor. The M has specific micro lensing to compensate for the acute angle of incidence of M wides, the SL doesn't. Second, the SL interface is designed for AF applications and over complicates the shooting experience for MF lenses. Third, there's no coupling, hence auto-zooming for focusing is not possible. Fourth, the SL2 is a larger, less discrete body. Finally, adapters, as a first order solution, suck and AFAIC, are an expensive hack.  Pay $15K+ for a body and lens and have to use an adapter?!? No thanks. 

 

The first isn’t quite accurate - the SL sensor is optimised for M lenses …

[Tailwagger]

30 minutes ago, Michiel Fokkema said:

It already exists, it's called Sony A7C with an adapter.

Argh. Care to address post #178 above? 

[Tailwagger]

1 minute ago, IkarusJohn said:

The first isn’t quite accurate - the SL sensor is optimised for M lenses …

Thinner cover glass, not M specific microlensing, AFAIK. 

[IkarusJohn]

1 minute ago, Tailwagger said:

Thinner cover glass, not M specific microlensing, AFAIK. 

That’s not my recollection.  Do you recall all those discussions about which lenses were better on the SL than the M, and some that were worse?  I thought there were very few in the latter category (28 & 35 Summicrons were upgraded).  I’d have to find it, but my recollection was that Leica made the point that the SL was optimised for M lenses.

It hasn’t been an issue for me (21 & 28 Summiluxes), but then I haven’t looked for it.

That’s an aside.  I agree that for wides, the rangefinder is the most accurate focusing mechanism.  Focus peaking is the worst, any focal length, any aperture.  I’ve found that Jono’s approach of just relying on the EVF, and magnifying if necessary, works best.  I enjoy exposure simulation, and never play the human auto-stop-down game,  The EVF is fine for me without focusing wide, then stopping down, and exposure simulation rather frees me from reliance on the camera’s metering …

[Tailwagger]

37 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

That’s not my recollection.  Do you recall all those discussions about which lenses were better on the SL than the M, and some that were worse?  I thought there were very few in the latter category (28 & 35 Summicrons were upgraded).  I’d have to find it, but my recollection was that Leica made the point that the SL was optimised for M lenses.

It hasn’t been an issue for me (21 & 28 Summiluxes), but then I haven’t looked for it.

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. 

Edited March 13, 2022 by Tailwagger

[lct]

Not sure what the point would be in purchasing an expensive camera that needs an adapter to work with M lenses, which cannot do auto image magnification and shows smeared corners with wides like 21/3.4 or 28/2 at f/5.6 and below. I'd rather keep my old Kolari mod Sony that can use close focus and AF adapters in a compact package with IBIS and a handy tilt screen. 

Edited March 13, 2022 by lct

[Planetwide]

On 3/12/2022 at 11:03 AM, idusidusi said:

Tilt screen yes, can be very useful. Yes: M body, M mount, the M11 sensor, shutter etc..., no I prefer the rangefinder. No EVF.

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...

Edited March 13, 2022 by Planetwide

[idusidusi]

26 minutes 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 am not resisting but I just like the RF way. The SL was fantastic also with my M glass, but too big and heavy for my liking. IF there is a fork in the future road, RF M and EVF M, you are probably right, it would hopefully boost sales.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

16 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

Advocating for a different model with M mount, with an optimized sensor, and a high resolution EVF, is in no way, a threat to the current M.

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.