If an M camera with an EVF was released, would it replace your SL?

[Sohail]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me, it's about the lenses. That's where I start. None of the M lenses or the Q 1.7 lens match the quality of the SL APOs or the SL 50 'lux.

[Stuart Richardson]

No, this would not be a replacement of the SL2 cameras for me. That said, I do find myself using the EVF on my M10M a lot. I think both for the super accurate focusing and for the B&W composition and the effect of exposure compensation on highlights. I find this a bit embarrassing, as I have used M cameras for nearly a quarter century by now. But unfortunately/fortunately the lenses and sensors are now so sharp that getting the most out of them requires more precision than the rangefinder can give, at least for me and especially with longer lenses like the 90mm APO M. So while I doubt I would get rid of the M10M, I think a smaller, purpose built EVF camera with L mount would be great. Honestly, the camera was the CL, but it missed two critical features (at least to persuade the market): full frame and stabilization. I would prefer Leica went that route, rather than keep shrinking the SL system. I think the SL2 was the perfect size for the bigger, heavier lenses that populate L mount. But a Q sized body with stabilization would be great for the M lenses, as well as Leica ASPH non APO primes and the Sigma and Panasonic lenses in L mount. I think Leica would sell a lot of these cameras, but I agree that they simply might not have the production capacity for it, or they might be afraid of it cannibalizing sales from other lines.

[RexGig0]

My long-term shopping list includes adding an SL-series camera. A future M-mount camera body, that has an EVF, but no optical-glass-only viewfinder, is something that I would have to evaluate, based upon the totality of its features, and its form factor. Sometimes, I do carry both an original M10, and an M Type 246 Monochrom, at the same time. Sometimes, I carry an M camera, and a high-resolution DSLR, with a relatively large SLR-mount lens. A camera body that is considerably smaller than an SL, and lacks a rangefinder, but has an M mount, might be something that I would use for specific types of images, such as landscapes or city-scapes, that would be less of a burden than the “high-res” Nikon D850 or Canon 5Ds R, and, of course, would not require bringing the large SLR-mount lens. An M camera body, that lacked a rangefinder, might be useful, in reducing my load. My aging body might appreciate a reduction in weight and bulk.

So, an “EVF-only M” camera might preempt my acquisition of an SL-series camera, except that one of my motivations for adding an SL body would be to use the APO Summicron-SL 35mm ASPH lens. I tend to see landscapes and some other ‘scapes at 35mm. 

Another personal motivation for acquiring an SL body would be that it could be used with “smart” adapters and some of my much-loved SLR lenses, including my quite important Canon EOS EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro, with in-lens Hybrid Image Stabilization. 

I doubt that Leica’s primary motivation to develop Close Focus M lenses is an imminent release of an “EVF-only M” camera. Close Focus makes such lenses desirable to a wider range of buyers, which includes those whose use M cameras with Live View and/or Viso Flexes, and those who adapt M lenses to other mounts. My eyes still allow me to use the rangefinder, and that is very much how I prefer to shoot with M cameras. Only rarely do I use Live View or a Viso Flex. (I have yet to experience the current Viso Flex 2.)

As I understand it, a very significant part of the production cost of M camera bodies is the manufacture and adjustment of the rangefinder system. I would hope that Leica would price a rangefinder-less M body accordingly. 

Edited April 26, 2024 by RexGig0

[Carrot]

Can't say whether it would replace my SL3 / SL2-S (and Q3) until seeing and holding it, but I'd very definitely be interested.  I have 5 of the SLO APO lenses (28, 35, 50, 75, 90) but have found the weight of them an issue, not just in carrying 2-3 of them around in the bag but also in taking pictures, despite the IBIS.  Over the last year I have invested in M lenses with the Leica M>L adaptor, and have found it both a lot easier to carry them around (my 5 M lenses weigh only 100g more than 2 SL lenses; or 650g less than 3 SL lenses) and I prefer primes to zooms, and a whole lot more comfortable to take photos as the balance of the whole setup just seems right. 

The latter point prompted me recently to try out an M11.  The form factor was a revelation and I really enjoyed the experience of taking photos with it, but being a glasses wearer I simply couldn't get on with it when using anything either side of the 50mm lens.  Yes, manual focusing on the SL3's EVF has slowed me down a bit, but for the majority of shots I take this isn't really an issue.  I use magnification rather than focus peaking to help me out, and I've also experienced that when the M lens comes into focus there is a slight 'shimmer' in the EVF ... though haven't heard anyone else ever mention this? 

On the magnification point, it would be nice if the joystick recalled the latest level of magnification used, rather than always go to Level 2 (of 3).  If you assign magnification to a Fn Button (say, one of the front two buttons) it does work that way, so why not the joystick since after all it's just another Fn Button?

If they could also squeeze IBIS into an EVF-M camera that would be a bonus, even if it gave less than a 5 stop gain, but it wouldn't put me off if they couldn't.  Interesting though that the Fujifilm X100VI incorporated IBIS (X100V didn't have it) without increasing the size of the body.

[Olaf_ZG]

 No. I do enjoy the AF.

[Jean-Michel]

I have an M-P(240) and an EVF2 for it. And an SL2.

I suppose that if one badly wanted a rangefinder style camera with both optical and digital viewer on could buy one of the Fujifilm X100. The latest iteration has an IBIS.

I primarily use the EVF2 when I have my Tri-Elmar (WATE) mounted on the camera. I use the EVF2 to frame and the rangefinder to focus since even wide-open the digital image is pretty much all in focus; the rf focusing, if needed, is way faster.

It is also neat to be able to mount non-m lenses, such as old Canon FD lenses for something different. I got some interesting images made with a Canon FD 70-210 zoom lens, but definitely not something to use frequently with an M.

I am not likely to be purchasing a newer M of any sorts as long as my M-P continues to function. At this stage of my life and career a single M and SL2 suffice for my work.

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's an interesting topic. I think it's the kind that Leica will read. They want to know what their base is thinking. I do know that the poll I started on the M forum over a year ago surprised them as they had thought the desire for an EVF camera for M lenses was low. It wasn't. Not to mention that other brands cameras are being used and Leica might want that market. The Nikon ZF for example.

If I can, I'll ask the question a bit differently. 

Currently, who is using the SL system exclusively as a body for M lenses? Are you completely happy with the SL styled body as an M lens holder?

Gordon

Edited April 26, 2024 by FlashGordonPhotography

[Planetwide]

I have done entire trips with an SL and M lenses only. For some travel photography, the lightness and quality of M primes is desirable. Sometimes local people respond very well to a small footprint camera vs a big mirrorless/SLR type. 

Edited April 26, 2024 by Planetwide

[Carrot]

8 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

If I can, I'll ask the question a bit differently. 

Currently, who is using the SL system exclusively as a body for M lenses? Are you completely happy with the SL styled body as an M lens holder?

Gordon

I posted earlier (#24), but in answer to your question I haven’t used my SL lenses at all in the past 9 months and have been monitoring prices for used SL lenses in case I decide to sell them. I’m ok with the SL3 body with M lenses, but would prefer an M style body, with the option of a handgrip as an accessory. I think all that’s been holding me back from selling the SL lenses already is that they are weather resistant, whereas the M lenses aren’t, but then again I could always take the Q3 instead on days when it’s a wet day.  

[dsalamena]

I’m waiting for a smaller L-mount body that I can use with SL, TL and M mount lenses (with adapter). Ideally it would have the same sensor of the SL3 and IBIS. That would be my perfect everyday-travel camera. 

Basically it would be an updated CL camera with full frame sensor, IBIS and hybrid autofocus. 

Not interested in a EVF M mount camera. 

Edited April 27, 2024 by dsalamena

[Simone_DF]

I occasionally use M lenses, so I’d buy a full frame CL/SL or whatever it is as long as it has a footprint smaller than the SL. 
I doubt it would cannibalise sales of other Leica cameras, quite the opposite, it would be a good reason not to switch to a S5 or Sony/Nikon

[Chaemono]

Am 26.4.2024 um 16:43 schrieb Sohail:

For me, it's about the lenses. That's where I start. None of the M lenses or the Q 1.7 lens match the quality of the SL APOs or the SL 50 'lux.

75 Noctilux does and more because in addition to f/2 it can also be shot at f/1.25

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-53KVDc/i-kpWtnzF

[Sohail]

35 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

75 Noctilux does and more because in addition to f/2 it can also be shot at f/1.25

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-53KVDc/i-kpWtnzF

If you get lucky and manage to get it to focus at 1.25, perhaps. Even still, it's a niche lens. Not the reason most people would invest in an M camera—with or without an EVF

Edited April 27, 2024 by Sohail

[Chaemono]

vor 11 Minuten schrieb Sohail:

If you get lucky and manage to get it to focus at 1.25, perhaps. […]

It can be easier than one might think. All shot at f/1.25 on the M10-P with the patch. https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-TGR75S

vor 14 Minuten schrieb Sohail:

[…] Even still, it's a niche lens. […]

With the SL3 sensor it‘s not a niche lens anymore. The SL3 works so well with M lenses now, it‘s as if the 75 Noctilux was made for it. 

vor 18 Minuten schrieb Sohail:

[…] Not the reason most people would invest in an M camera—with or without an EVF

Intentionally left out in the above quotes in order to suit my strawman argument. 😁

[Sohail]

I'll be honest the lens does tempt me. But even in the samples you shared, the Noctilux stopped down at 2.8 shows a fair amount of green fringing. The 75 APO SL doesn't.

[Chaemono]

The M10-P approximates the aperture. The Noctilux was shot at f/2 as well. Still, there is more green fringing than with the APO 75 Summicron-SL in the OOF areas at border of extremely dark and bright areas. It will be interesting to see how much green fringing there will be on the SL3. There is very little purple fringing with the 75 Noctilux for sure, much less than on other SL bodies. 

[AlanJW]

I would definitely buy an EVF M-mount camera.  They can call it an "E" or an "X" or anything else if an M must have a optical VF.  My eyes are aging rapidly and the EVF is easier and lets you see exposure on the fly too.   The Viso is clunky and awkward and what I'd like is the small form factor of the M and M lenses.  M mount is smaller than L and the L lenses are big and heavy.  Keep it simple with M mount and good evf and I will be first in line to buy.

Seeing outside the frame is not important to me. That only works well with 35 or 50mm lenses. Anything wider and there is nothing out of the frame and anything longer has a small VF patch and is harder to nail focus.  I understand that there are many who disagree and I would never suggest Leica get rid of the M OVF system.  They should just provide an alternative way to use M lenses without a big heavy body.

[jaapv]

Ah-but would you buy a M sized and shaped SL plus M adapter? 

[jankap]

So, simply a smaller SL? Interesting.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[AlanJW]

58 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Ah-but would you buy a M sized and shaped SL plus M adapter? 

Yes, an M sized and shaped SL would be fine.  Or something close.  That would be an easy choice.  I had assumed there was a reason for the hump on thhe SLs but electronics are getting smaller and smaller.  Of course miniaturization advances could also mean that there would be room in a M body instead of the optical viewfinder.  Either way would be okay with me.