EVF M rumoured

[3D-Kraft.com]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 32 Minuten schrieb davidmknoble:

@jaapv is exactly right.  In addition, the M lenses - new ones - have increased contrast in pretty incredible ways.  The APO 50 summicron is incredibly tight and the APO 35 is so good they made an SL lens that is about the same.

More importantly, there is not a camera system on the planet besides the M that will let you interchange 1950 lenses and bodies with new lenses and bodies.

No, he was only right with "as small as possible" - and meanwhile not even that, if you compare latest designs from Cosina Voigtländer with comparable focal lengths/apertures to Leica's pendants.

Almost any other camera system can also still use these lenses (Sony and Nikon even with autofocus). So the limitation is only on the side of the M-body which currently isn't able to use modern features.

vor 23 Minuten schrieb davidmknoble:

To create a ‘lens’ that doesn’t have a 6 bit coding means it is not compatible with any other digital M.  With electric contacts (think back to R ROM lenses) you still could not use them on older M’s of any type without destroying the contacts. And all of that is if the mount is the same.

And in reality, there has to be a mechanical linkage to the f/stop to keep it smaller even if slightly larger than existing lenses.

No. Compatibility could be maintained, as I explained earlier and the rest is also wrong. But I think the only agreement we can find here, is that we disagree...

Edited February 9 by 3D-Kraft.com

[raizans]

The market for an EVF-M is either so small it may struggle to be viable, or it is so large that it threatens to make Leica abandon the rangefinder altogether. Which one is it?

[DadDadDaddyo]

I keep thinking of Volkswagen and the "New Beetle," which is a Beetle only in its approximation of the nostalgic shape.

Why do people choose it? Do they find it charming? Do they like to be seen with it? Do they think it says something important about them, stylistically? Do they think it's a Beetle because VW calls it a Beetle?

Beneath that charming shape, it's a modern, water cooled, fuel injected, computer governed, front wheel drive automobile, essentially based on the Jetta platform. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's fundamentally a different automobile from the original which inspired it. 

How is the "M" camera being discussed here different from an SL?

How much resemblance to the M is required to enable folks to claim that the camera they're using is the "New M"? And why is that even important to them, to say it's the "New M"?

As it happens, I own an aircooled Beetle. It's 50 years old. It has a horizontally opposed 4 cylinder engine in the rear, driving the rear wheels. The gas tank is in front, in the trunk. It has a carburetor. There's not a computer chip anywhere to be found, not even a transistor, except a few in the ancient mechanical push button radio. 

I drive it because I like it, for fun. It's not my primary vehicle and I certainly don't claim it's a modern car in any respect. It's not my daily driver. 

The vast majority of modern drivers would find my 1974 Beetle unusable. It has a manual transmission. The steering wheel is huge by modern standards, to offer a little leverage to turn the wheels in the absence of power-assisted steering. At standstill, the steering effort is high enough to make you grunt. It's a workout. The brakes? You actually have to push, hard, harder than you first expect, to slow it down and bring it to a stop. Again, no power assist. 

Indeed, not much could be done to it that would make it modern. During its rebuild, one concession I made to the present was having the front brakes converted to disk brakes from the appalling drum brakes that were original. They don't show, and I tell myself it's still a Beetle, because it is, despite the updated front brakes. 

I don't begrudge VW calling upon the friendly shape of the Beetle for its New Beetle. Who better? But saying it's a Beetle doesn't make it a Beetle. 

OK. Back to Leica.

When I put the Visoflex 2 on my M because I want it or need it for a particular situation, it's still an M.

When I put an M lens on an SL, it's still an SL.

Where the problem?

For my photography, the M is simply the most comfortable, natural system for me. If my work was such that I regularly needed wider or longer focal lengths, or wanted Autofocus, or Image Stabilization, I might very well choose an SL for my primary system. 

But I wouldn't call on Leica to transform the M into something it's not. 

Edited February 9 by DadDadDaddyo

[raizans]

Meanwhile the Contax G system was introduced in 1994.

[jgeenen]

Looking into my crystal ball … the „EVF-M“ will be the Panasonic S9 with the finder of the Q3. There is still some fog hiding the shutter mechanism, but I can clearly see a smaller battery to create some space to incorporate the M shutter…

My Tarot cards however (they never lied at me) show a new „camera cube“ design that will astonish the world of photography.

Edited February 9 by jgeenen

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 18 Minuten schrieb raizans:

The market for an EVF-M is either so small it may struggle to be viable, or it is so large that it threatens to make Leica abandon the rangefinder altogether. Which one is it?

I would ask a different question:

Who will buy an M with today's limitations in 2030 or 2040, when those who still have this romantic connection to the analog rangefinder are no longer with us? When Leica still wants to be on the market then, they either would have to find a way to modernize the M system or they have to be convinced deep enough that the SL system will be a viable basis. But as long as this is just technology from Panasonic and Sigma, embellished with a red dot to justify double the price, I don't believe it.

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Stunden schrieb lct:

May i ask where this info comes from? I may have missed something but the EVF-M we've been discussing about here was the opposite of this i.e. a mere M-mount camera with an EVF in lieu of the RF, so the only lenses it is supposedly made for are M lenses and converted LTM ones, the same way as for any other M-mount camera.

No information involved. Just drawing the consequences from suggestions here to implement electronics in the lenses for the „EVF-M“.

Though I don‘t understand why the discussion is so fixed to the „old“ M. If you just want the outward form and size but an EVF instead of of the optical rangefinder - you already have it in principal with the Q. Now imagine a Q with interchangable lenses: would it have the small lens mount diameter for the M? This would be unreasonable as the small diameter is the most severe limitation of these lenses. So use the L-mount on a Q. You could use M-lenses with it as well as all L-mount lenses. 

Though of course they won‘t offer such a camera as it would cannibalize all of their existing systems. 

[Alberti]

1 hour ago, davidmknoble said:

So, I go back to my initial preface, why would Leica add a new lens line that is incompatible with everything else they make?

A new identification? One that can't be applied/copied externally like the 6-bit, if that 'id-contact' is embedded (invisible 8/10-bit code such as containing a resistor array: there are high security keys with just that to prevent copying). 

haha 🤩 after that no third party or historical  lenses will have the same profile processing. We all spend € 15K - € 50K to get the new versions of our favorite lenses. 💵

[raizans]

People like M-mount lenses because they are small. L-mount lenses are too big.

[Ralf]

vor 50 Minuten schrieb DadDadDaddyo:

I keep thinking of Volkswagen and the "New Beetle," which is a Beetle only in its approximation of the nostalgic shape.

Why do people choose it? Do they find it charming? Do they like to be seen with it? Do they think it says something important about them, stylistically? Do they think it's a Beetle because VW calls it a Beetle?

Beneath that charming shape, it's a modern, water cooled, fuel injected, computer governed, front wheel drive automobile, essentially based on the Jetta platform. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's fundamentally a different automobile from the original which inspired it. 

How is the "M" camera being discussed here different from an SL?

How much resemblance to the M is required to enable folks to claim that the camera they're using is the "New M"? And why is that even important to them, to say it's the "New M"?

As it happens, I own an aircooled Beetle. It's 50 years old. It has a horizontally opposed 4 cylinder engine in the rear, driving the rear wheels. The gas tank is in front, in the trunk. It has a carburetor. There's not a computer chip anywhere to be found, not even a transistor, except a few in the ancient mechanical push button radio. 

I drive it because I like it, for fun. It's not my primary vehicle and I certainly don't claim it's a modern car in any respect. It's not my daily driver. 

The vast majority of modern drivers would find my 1974 Beetle unusable. It has a manual transmission. The steering wheel is huge by modern standards, to offer a little leverage to turn the wheels in the absence of power-assisted steering. At standstill, the steering effort is high enough to make you grunt. It's a workout. The brakes? You actually have to push, hard, harder than you first expect, to slow it down and bring it to a stop. Again, no power assist. 

Indeed, not much could be done to it that would make it modern. During its rebuild, one concession I made to the present was having the front brakes converted to disk brakes from the appalling drum brakes that were original. They don't show, and I tell myself it's still a Beetle, because it is, despite the updated front brakes. 

I don't begrudge VW calling upon the friendly shape of the Beetle for its New Beetle. Who better? But saying it's a Beetle doesn't make it a Beetle. 

OK. Back to Leica.

When I put the Visoflex 2 on my M because I want it or need it for a particular situation, it's still an M.

When I put an M lens on an SL, it's still an SL.

Where the problem?

For my photography, the M is simply the most comfortable, natural system for me. If my work was such that I regularly needed wider or longer focal lengths, or wanted Autofocus, or Image Stabilization, I might very well choose an SL for my primary system. 

But I wouldn't call on Leica to transform the M into something it's not. 

Couldn't agree with you more, your Beetle analogy is perfect.

[pgk]

37 minutes ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

I would ask a different question:

Who will buy an M with today's limitations in 2030 or 2040 .....

The oldest lens I use frequently dates from 1862. If you'd asked the designer and maker (who used ray tracing, not in the way we do today via software but by actually drawing the rays on paper) how long his lenses would be used for I doubt he would have thought that anyone would use them 160 years on. As for my 'romantic attachment' well I'm not sure that actually has any relevance since I'm not even sure who my acestors were back then.

[pgk]

7 minutes ago, Ralf said:

Couldn't agree with you more, your Beetle analogy is perfect.

Not really. The original beetly doesn't have the performance of a modern one. The last few Ms can still produce, and do produce, great images.

[lct]

39 minutes ago, UliWer said:

No information involved. Just drawing the consequences from suggestions here to implement electronics in the lenses for the „EVF-M“.

Though I don‘t understand why the discussion is so fixed to the „old“ M. If you just want the outward form and size but an EVF instead of of the optical rangefinder - you already have it in principal with the Q. Now imagine a Q with interchangable lenses: would it have the small lens mount diameter for the M? This would be unreasonable as the small diameter is the most severe limitation of these lenses. So use the L-mount on a Q. You could use M-lenses with it as well as all L-mount lenses. 

Though of course they won‘t offer such a camera as it would cannibalize all of their existing systems. 

It is just that such cameras exist already. I own one of these, a Sigma FPL (below), it works well with M lenses but it cannot communicate with them and i can hardly magine Leica competing at Leica prices with cameras like that. The Leica variant would look nicer i guess but the digital CL was not ugly either and it is another story.

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!

 

 

Edited February 9 by lct

[phojomatic]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

Not really. The original beetly doesn't have the performance of a modern one. The last few Ms can still produce, and do produce, great images.

Perhaps not a coincidence, but both Beetles and Ms stem from German design and engineering  that created cult followings…and also strong attachment to variants: Split-Window, Oval window, Super Beetle, etc. 
 

But both the Beetle and New Beetle outlasted their economic sales forecasts and discontinued. I think the M is reaching this point as much as we are all dedicated and passionate M enthusiasts. I was told by a Leica tech manager the only “problem” with sales is that the core group is “aging out.”  
 

The M does one thing beautifully…it’s a small manual focus rangefinder camera. That is the bedrock of M (I’d like to insert the German word here but can’t spell it). Any change to that no longer makes it an M. Period. 
 

But a design variant makes just as much sense as the MD or Monochrom. These are very specific, niche use cases. And I do think Leica will be bold enough to take the chance. Bold like taking the chance on the first Leitz which we now celebrate 100 years. 

Perhaps Leica is employing the New Cole strategy…when it was released, it was disliked so much old Coke was brought back  if the EVF-M is a dud, at least we have the M12 to fall back on  

 A last interesting tidbit is that when the SL was launched and at the Leica booth in nyc for a photo show, all the German team was there.  I stood next to a guy who asked a designer when will an M get the SL EVF? The designer was very matter of fact, and it sounded like a smokescreen answer the  but makes sense now, and said, M12 earliest, but more like the M13.
 

So clearly Leica has been thinking about this for a long time and my guess is if the EVF-M is coming, it’s already designed, in production and at the firmware testing in the field stage. 

[LocalHero1953]

I've been away for the weekend with family, while this thread has grown from one to five pages. I thought of weighing in with some persuasive observations, but reading back there are too many posts starting "I am not an expert, but......", and I don't think I could compete with them. However, I asked my nine-year-old grandson about one of the more tricky technical issues discussed here, how to implement IBIS in a camera with a register distance and a body thickness fixed by history. He is an intelligent boy, and although he tends to hallucinate in the manner of ChatGPT, I find his arguments persuasive. He said that we should get away from the concept of the analogue sensor (that lump of silicon and rare earths that clogs up the inside of the M11). It should be replaced by a virtual sensor that could be placed wherever we want it: he suggests out of the way behind the photographer's head. This would create ample space for IBIS. He said that, as others have pointed out, we must think outside the box, and while the the difficult can be done quickly, the impossible only takes a little longer, and while Leica's engineers always repackage competitors' cameras and lenses as their own, they should have no trouble breaking the mould and designing such a product.

Edited February 9 by LocalHero1953

[JNK100]

8 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I've been away for the weekend with family, while this thread has grown from one to five pages. I thought of weighing in with some persuasive observations, but reading back there are too many posts starting "I am not an expert, but......", and I don't think I could compete with them. However, I asked my nine-year-old grandson about one of the more tricky technical issues discussed here, how to implement IBIS in a camera with a register distance and a body thickness fixed by history. He is an intelligent boy, and although he tends to hallucinate in the manner of ChatGPT, I find his arguments persuasive. He said that we should get away from the concept of the analogue sensor (that lump of silicon and rare earths that clogs up the inside of the M11). It should be replaced by a virtual sensor that could be placed wherever we want it: he suggests out of the way behind the photographer's head. This would create ample space for IBIS. He said that, as others have pointed out, we must think outside the box, and while the the difficult can be done quickly, the impossible only takes a little longer, and while Leica's engineers always repackage competitors' cameras and lenses as their own, they should have no trouble breaking the mould and designing such a product.

Excellent idea but the sensor would need need some some of casing of course to protect it from the elements.

[jaapv]

Let's summarize the thread: The original wish by some members was an EVF-only M. say an M10 with the windows replaced by a little screen. I assume this would be quite possible technically but highly doubtful commercially. 
This resulted in technological flights of fantasy up to and including a completely new range of electronic M lenses with a different mount. 
Does anybody think that Leica is willing to risk an M5 type of fiasco?  I for one not.
Remember - the M5 nearly killed off the M line and it was only saved by a group of dedicated fans and the fact that Leica had to find something for the Canada factory to, as it had only been implemented because of the risky international situation - West Germany was designated a nuclear battlefield, the USA might get hit hard as well and Leica wanted to survive in some form. Producing traditional Ms and M lenses in Canada was not a bad solution.

[SrMi]

An excerpt from this 2.5-year-old article on MacFilos, bolding is mine (link)

Inevitably, the much-discussed M with EVF raised great interest among LSI members in the room. This had even been raised four years ago at the LSI meeting in Wetzlar, when there had been a call for a hybrid viewfinder, and it has remained a hot topic ever since.

Stefan assured LSI members that the factory had conducted extensive trials of a hybrid system, combining both rangefinder and EVF. However, they had reached the conclusion that the result would be the worst of both worlds and would risk upsetting rangefinder fans. So the project had been shelved.

The alternative was to produce a camera with an EVF instead of the rangefinder. While it was possible from a technical point of view, Stefan said he was not a big fan of the idea, believing that the M should remain in its pure form. After all, as he said, M stands for Messsucher (range-viewfinder), and it would always remain the hallmark of the range.

Several audience members pointed out that while they preferred the small size and weight of the M — which ideally complements the small M optics — they were experiencing difficulty working with the rangefinder because of eyesight problems.

The prospect of a light mirrorless camera with a native M mount was attractive. And, as someone else pointed out, an M body with built-in EVF instead of the rangefinder would probably be welcomed as a second body, even by rangefinder diehards.

In response to this, Stefan surprised the audience by saying that if there were sufficient demand, Leica would consider producing an M with EVF. Asked how many they would need to sell in order to make such a decision, he estimated “a couple of thousand”. This news was well received, and after a show of hands, the LSI agreed to poll members on whether or not they would be interested in buying an M body with EVF without compromising the established rangefinder camera.

 

[jaapv]

Exactly. If there is enough interest Leica could risk it. Bit Mr. Daniel said nothing about electronic couplings, different mounts, dedicated lenses etc.,

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[raizans]

Hardly seems to be more than an imagined risk, more an opportunity to grow the market (see the success of the Q) and sell a lot more lenses.