EVF M rumoured

[costa43]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently picked up a Q3 for curiosity whilst my 35mm Summilux is at the doctors and I find it harder to work with autofocus than manual focus. It frustrates me and I tend to use the Q in MF now more often than not. There are things I dislike about manual focusing with an evf but what I do love is being able to compose my frame as I see it and then focusing without having to recompose. As you turn the focus you see the scene change and come alive, the layers evolve and I really enjoy having that tactile control. It’s a good benefit of the evf, especially when critical focus on a certain spot is not a priority.

Edited February 13 by costa43

[Smudgerer]

6 minutes ago, costa43 said:

I recently picked up a Q3 for curiosity whilst my 35mm Summilux is at the doctors and I find it harder to work with autofocus than manual focus. It frustrates me and I tend to use the Q in MF now more often than not. There are things I dislike about manual focusing with an evf but what I do love is being able to compose my frame as I see it and then focusing without having to recompose. As you turn the focus you see the scene change and come alive, the layers evolve and I really enjoy having that tactile control. It’s a good benefit of the evf, especially when critical focus on a certain spot is not a priority.

Yes, agreed with using the Q with manual focusing. I have the Q2-M that I really do like, that camera I use 80% of the time in manual focus mode. I still vastly prefer an OVF over a EVF but the way that the Q2-M's EVF functions is still pretty good and for a B&W shooter the B&W EVF is a treat.

[Smogg]

10 minutes ago, Smudgerer said:

Yes, agreed with using the Q with manual focusing. I have the Q2-M that I really do like, that camera I use 80% of the time in manual focus mode. I still vastly prefer an OVF over a EVF but the way that the Q2-M's EVF functions is still pretty good and for a B&W shooter the B&W EVF is a treat.

I have exactly the same feeling. EVF is good as an additional tool (it's nice to have in some cases), but not as a primary one.

[costa43]

10 minutes ago, Smudgerer said:

Yes, agreed with using the Q with manual focusing. I have the Q2-M that I really do like, that camera I use 80% of the time in manual focus mode. I still vastly prefer an OVF over a EVF but the way that the Q2-M's EVF functions is still pretty good and for a B&W shooter the B&W EVF is a treat.

The SL2s is even more of a joy, it has a better evf and a much better dial for exposure comp etc. 

[Derbyshire Man]

1 hour ago, Smudgerer said:

Yes, agreed with using the Q with manual focusing. I have the Q2-M that I really do like, that camera I use 80% of the time in manual focus mode. I still vastly prefer an OVF over a EVF but the way that the Q2-M's EVF functions is still pretty good and for a B&W shooter the B&W EVF is a treat.

Yes, the resolution in the Q2M is really good and with or without focus peaking it’s pretty easy to see where you are on manual focus. It too preferred manual when I had one. Due to the high res EVF in the R5 mk2 it’s easy there without focus peaking. On my visoflex 2? No way! I’m much better with the RF patch but that of course means compulsory focus and recompose which is what it is. 

[evikne]

2 hours ago, costa43 said:

As you turn the focus you see the scene change and come alive, the layers evolve and I really enjoy having that tactile control. It’s a good benefit of the evf, especially when critical focus on a certain spot is not a priority.

This is exactly the kind of situation where I would like to have an EVF as well. The rangefinder is the best option when I know where I want the focus to be. But if, for example, I'm photographing a flower meadow with a shallow depth of field, it's great to be able to see how the focal plane travels when you turn the focus ring.

Edited February 13 by evikne

[costa43]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, evikne said:

This is exactly the kind of situation where I would like to have an EVF as well. The rangefinder is the best option when I know where I want the focus to be. But if, for example, I want to take a picture of a flower meadow with a shallow depth of field, it's a fantastic feeling to see how the focus plane moves when you turn the focus ring.

Yes, I’m exactly the same. On the flip side, what I dislike very much about most evf manual focus implementations is zoom to focus, especially on non static scenes. I’m an instinctive photographer so I like to click when I see a moment, when the camera zooms in I lose that moment and the experience is painful to say the least. I much prefer being able to see the scene as it is and having some kind of confirmation of focus. 

[lct]

Did you try to turn focus aid off? Autozoom is disabled this way but it can be enabled manually if needed.

 

[costa43]

1 minute ago, lct said:

Did you try to turn focus aid off? Autozoom is disabled this way but it can be enabled manually if needed.

 

Yes, it’s always turned off. On the SL2s I have it mapped to the joystick for the odd occasion I want critical focus on a still scene.

[Stevejack]

11 hours ago, TeleElmar135mm said:

I think the main problem with the M cameras is that many people can't get used to the principle of the rangefinder or don't understand it, but want an M camera. The reasons for "wanting to have" could be discussed in great detail here, but ultimately it is not productive.

Rather, it seems that if someone cannot cope with the "rangefinder" principle, the camera has to be changed until the wishes are fulfilled. Unfortunately, there are many different “wishes” that cannot all be reconciled. Many people say that company xy has this and that and please build it into an M. For this group I can only say: The model already exists at company xy, then use it  - or who wants a Rolex with a digital display or a fully assembled Ikea cabinet?

You've got to stop thinking of EVF-M proponents of trying to change the rangefinder M. It's the exact opposite. We are literally asking Leica to stop messing with what I would say is a perfect camera system, and offer a separate model instead.  I love the rangefinder M, I don't want Leica to keep adding more features to it because it's starting to ruin the experience, and I'm worried for where they will take it in the future if they keep going down that road. 

And I can assure you company xyz doesn't offer what we want or I would have already bought it. The M camera has more going for it than just the rangefinder - that is only a small part of why people love the M. Size, layout of controls, ergonomics, lens choice. 

 

 

[lct]

12 hours ago, TeleElmar135mm said:

[...] Many people say that company xy has this and that and please build it into an M. For this group I can only say: The model already exists at company xy [...]

This is not the case, in the sense that nobody makes M-mount cameras without rangefinder so far. There is no reason why people who prefer M-mount lenses should be forced to use an RF rather than an EVF to take photos with them. As has been said many times on this forum, there isn't just one group of M lens users, but at least two, those who prefer the RF experience and those who prefer the EVF experience. These two groups, not to mention people like me pertaining to both, are united by the same interest in M lenses and all have, or at least should have, a place at Leica IMHO.

[mikeamosau]

Not sure why you’d buy an M if you want an EVF. Whole point of the camera is the optical rangefinder, hence the meaning of the M name. 
 

Leica might make something in a similar form/size with a built in EVF and no rangefinder. But it’s not an M.
 

To me, the M11 has already gotten too digital for its own good - going even further just makes it more and more like every other camera on the market. 

[adan]

1 hour ago, lct said:

These two groups, not to mention people like me pertaining to both, are united by the same interest in M lenses and all have, or at least should have, a place at Leica IMHO.

Why?

What was "the place at Leica" for every single M user - when Leitz (as was) pulled the plug (briefly) on the entire M system in 1976, after the M5 fiasco?

What was "the place at Leica" for every single R user - when Leica pulled the plug (permanently) on the entire R system in 2009?

What is "the place at Leica" for every digital TL/CL user - now that Leica has pulled the plug on the TL/CL systems?

Leitz/Leica is a business. It stays in business by making business decisions to maximize the return on profitable products. And NOT make less profitable ones.

It does not stay in business by making unprofitable or marginally-profitable products just so that persons x-y-z can "have a place at Leica"

Now, the usual response is "But - but - but, lens sales!" And maybe that is the case - and maybe not.

I'm not so sure an EVF-M will actually generate that many "new from Leica" M lens sales. Not with the competition from:

- already-owned lenses
- used Leica lenses
- lenses from (going by the hot threads in the M Lenses forum): Voigtlander, Thypock, 7A, TTA, LLL and so on.

None of which earn Leica a single 1/10th€ coin.

In any event, I am sure Leica is always looking at the business case and the engineering case and the manufacturing case and the marketing case for an EVF-M.

But I am not persuaded at all that the posters here have actually done their homework.

[grahamc]

If most camera users prefer/want EVF and Leica can build it cheaper into an M variation (than the rangefinder), then they would be crazy not to do it. Obviously charging the same (or even more) than the rangefinder due to the prestige of the brand. 
 

 

Edited February 14 by grahamc

[Smogg]

I'm sure this will hurt their lens sales. Many people don't buy third-party lenses that are just as good, but a bit bigger and block the OVF a lot (sometimes just because of the hood design). But Leica's marketers know better, of course.

[raizans]

1 hour ago, adan said:

What was "the place at Leica" for every single M user - when Leitz (as was) pulled the plug (briefly) on the entire M system in 1976, after the M5 fiasco?

What was "the place at Leica" for every single R user - when Leica pulled the plug (permanently) on the entire R system in 2009?

What is "the place at Leica" for every digital TL/CL user - now that Leica has pulled the plug on the TL/CL systems?

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Also, a lot of people at Leica put their heart and soul into making those products. Deciding to end a product line must have been a difficult and sad moment. The least we can do as customers is appreciate and acknowledge the human aspects of the companies we support. Leica is not a faceless, heartless machine.

Edited February 14 by raizans

[costa43]

48 minutes ago, Smogg said:

I'm sure this will hurt their lens sales. Many people don't buy third-party lenses that are just as good, but a bit bigger and block the OVF a lot (sometimes just because of the hood design). But Leica's marketers know better, of course.

On the flip side It may help with sales of the recent closer focusing lenses. More may be tempted to upgrade/purchase if they can be used natively without Visoflex.

Edited February 14 by costa43

[Chris W]

4 hours ago, lct said:

This is not the case, in the sense that nobody makes M-mount cameras without rangefinder so far. There is no reason why people who prefer M-mount lenses should be forced to use an RF rather than an EVF to take photos with them. As has been said many times on this forum, there isn't just one group of M lens users, but at least two, those who prefer the RF experience and those who prefer the EVF experience. 

There are multiple cameras that can use M lenses. I used mine with a Sigma FP for years.

As has been said multiple times in the debate....the whole point of the M system is the rangefinder focussing. Many times people use Zeiss or Voigtlander with their M body.

I have older M lenses and can't afford £2000-£5000 for some of the new M lenses. In reality I think the numbers of people who MUST have a Leica M to use M lenses is a very small group. The majority have an M camera because of the simplicity and focussing method. Many others use their M lenses on Sigma, SL....probably Nikon too.

[Markey]

I think that the M may well go the way of the Barnack models.

They are just taking a more considered approach this time .

Staffing and manufacturing costs are at an all time high and if they want to stay in business they need to take a hard look at sales.

That is going to be the only thing which informs their strategy going forward .

The rest is just window dressing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Derbyshire Man]

3 hours ago, mikeamosau said:

Not sure why you’d buy an M if you want an EVF. Whole point of the camera is the optical rangefinder, hence the meaning of the M name. 
 

Leica might make something in a similar form/size with a built in EVF and no rangefinder. But it’s not an M.
 

To me, the M11 has already gotten too digital for its own good - going even further just makes it more and more like every other camera on the market. 

When I first turned up here I was sure I'd buy an EVF version. I'm now not so sure, if I did I think it would most likely be a monochrome EVF version, a niche in a niche. However, I'd not be buying it to get rid of the OVF M's, I suspect I'd keep them. I love the form factor and the methodology most of the time, but for off centre focus without recompose an EVF M would have some advantages if it had a high enough res EVF (vital!) while remaining the same form factor. The reason it makes sense of some of us who already have an M (or in most cases a small fleet!) is that we already have a stack of lenses, I don't like adapters, I do love the compact form factor and largely simple operation.

One final thing; change the damn firmware so the shutter speed is displayed on a momentary basis in the viewfinder on manual shutter speed mode in EVF and OVF models! Did I mention that before?

Edited February 14 by Derbyshire Man