EVF M rumoured

[FrozenInTime]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

So, tell us, how does that work with lenses like 90 or 135 where the frame lines are quite small, or an 18, 21, 24mm where there are no frame lines at all? Seems like this 'hybrid' model many are pining for would give us the worst of both worlds. That's why I'm almost 100% sure it will be a full EVF with no OVF window of ay kind. Otherwise it compromises using the very lenses it would be specifically best for. 

Have you used a X100 ? 
Here the optical window has a 35mm field of view. With longer lenses, just like the leica M11 etc. a smaller proportion of the view corresponds to the taking lens* view; at some point it is beneficial to switch to EVF. For wider than 35mm lenses the EVF is preferred. This direct vision window must be shuttered for a pure EVF view. ( * e.g. with the TCL100 or digital zoom etc. The X-Pro with interchangeable lenses may be a better example for this specific scenario, then it is a X-E5 vs X-Pro discussion )

The X100V and X100VI have in the corner of the direct view a small pop-up blind and sub-window, similar in size to a rangefinder patch, to show a magnified focus view from the EVF. 

Such a hybrid EVF + Optical system is very flexible, but obviously adds complexity and cost.

Edited September 1 by FrozenInTime

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

8 hours ago, pgk said:

That seems to be the concensus, but its a niche market share within an already small market share isn't it? Because being totally objective about the concept, is it going to attract many non-M users away from higher specified, very effective and cheaper EVF cameras from other makers? Honestly?

If we look at history and try to learn from it, there are two examples of deviating from the original M concept - the CL and the M5. Neither form survived. My guess is that the base, fundamental problem with an EVF-M is quite simply how many units will sell. I'm sure that there may be a flurry of initial orders but the concept of a manual focus EVF camera in today's world is anachronistic, in that its adherents will no doubt mostly come from an M background rather than anywhere else.

I could see such a body being quite useful personally, but not for use with M lenses, nor at the inevitably crazy high price it will probably demand. So I'm not anti it per se although I do think it would be a distraction and is unlikely to be a success.

Thoughtful post, Paul.

After over 113 pages, considering all permutations and flights of fancy, it might be worth considering what the putative camera would be.  We have clear indications from prior “departures” - the M2 & M4 (with the different viewfinders and framelines); the M6 (meter); the M-A (no meter); the M9 (full frame digital); the Monochrom  cameras (M9, M(240), M10 and M11 with no CFA); and the D series (again, base M cameras, but with the screen removed).  In each case, the change was singular, with just the changes required.

If we see an M11-V, my pick is it will be the M11-P, with “just” the rangefinder removed and the best EVF Leica can source installed.  Obviously, there will be significant internal, consequential changes, but for users it will appear to be nothing more (or less) than an M11-P but with an EVF - think an M11-P with the visoflex internalised.

Who would buy it?  Many current M users.  But, more critically, the newer, younger generation of photographers bored and disinterested in the latest spec offerings from Sony and others - complex and just another digital camera.  Call it the “hip crowd” if you like, but these potential buyers have money, are interested in photography and good design (the revival of vinyl LPs and turntables should give some indication).

Existing M owners will see it as a potentially useful variant. New users won’t care one way or the other about the loss of the OVF.  The SLR is pretty much gone. The EVF is a standard concept now which most photographers are comfortable with.  The intriguing thing about an M camera will be its quirky, old fashioned looks, its quality and the enormous range of fine lenses.  It’s also wonderfully understated.

I don’t think such potential buyers will give a toss about what has been covered in the proceeding pages.  They will revel in the challenges of manual focus.
 

[NightPix]

7 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Thoughtful post, Paul.

After over 113 pages, considering all permutations and flights of fancy, it might be worth considering what the putative camera would be.  We have clear indications from prior “departures” - the M2 & M4 (with the different viewfinders and framelines); the M6 (meter); the M-A (no meter); the M9 (full frame digital); the Monochrom  cameras (M9, M(240), M10 and M11 with no CFA); and the D series (again, base M cameras, but with the screen removed).  In each case, the change was singular, with just the changes required.

If we see an M11-V, my pick is it will be the M11-P, with “just” the rangefinder removed and the best EVF Leica can source installed.  Obviously, there will be significant internal, consequential changes, but for users it will appear to be nothing more (or less) than an M11-P but with an EVF - think an M11-P with the visoflex internalised.

Who would buy it?  Many current M users.  But, more critically, the newer, younger generation of photographers bored and disinterested in the latest spec offerings from Sony and others - complex and just another digital camera.  Call it the “hip crowd” if you like, but these potential buyers have money, are interested in photography and good design (the revival of vinyl LPs and turntables should give some indication).

Existing M owners will see it as a potentially useful variant. New users won’t care one way or the other about the loss of the OVF.  The SLR is pretty much gone. The EVF is a standard concept now which most photographers are comfortable with.  The intriguing thing about an M camera will be its quirky, old fashioned looks, its quality and the enormous range of fine lenses.  It’s also wonderfully understated.

I don’t think such potential buyers will give a toss about what has been covered in the proceeding pages.  They will revel in the challenges of manual focus.
 

Bingo! Nail on the head!

[FrozenInTime]

6 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Thoughtful post, Paul.

After over 113 pages, considering all permutations and flights of fancy, it might be worth considering what the putative camera would be.  We have clear indications from prior “departures” - the M2 & M4 (with the different viewfinders and framelines); the M6 (meter); the M-A (no meter); the M9 (full frame digital); the Monochrom  cameras (M9, M(240), M10 and M11 with no CFA); and the D series (again, base M cameras, but with the screen removed).  In each case, the change was singular, with just the changes required.

If we see an M11-V, my pick is it will be the M11-P, with “just” the rangefinder removed and the best EVF Leica can source installed.  Obviously, there will be significant internal, consequential changes, but for users it will appear to be nothing more (or less) than an M11-P but with an EVF - think an M11-P with the visoflex internalised.

Who would buy it?  Many current M users.  But, more critically, the newer, younger generation of photographers bored and disinterested in the latest spec offerings from Sony and others - complex and just another digital camera.  Call it the “hip crowd” if you like, but these potential buyers have money, are interested in photography and good design (the revival of vinyl LPs and turntables should give some indication).

Existing M owners will see it as a potentially useful variant. New users won’t care one way or the other about the loss of the OVF.  The SLR is pretty much gone. The EVF is a standard concept now which most photographers are comfortable with.  The intriguing thing about an M camera will be its quirky, old fashioned looks, its quality and the enormous range of fine lenses.  It’s also wonderfully understated.

I don’t think such potential buyers will give a toss about what has been covered in the proceeding pages.  They will revel in the challenges of manual focus.
 

As this is a first of a kind, I suspect Leica will take the least investment path, rather than engineering a perfect solution. With the mention of integrated diopter correction this may even reduce to lifting the Q3 EVF, rear protrusion and all.

[IkarusJohn]

26 minutes ago, FrozenInTime said:

As this is a first of a kind, I suspect Leica will take the least investment path, rather than engineering a perfect solution. With the mention of integrated diopter correction this may even reduce to lifting the Q3 EVF, rear protrusion and all.

I’m mindful of the SL(601) release - that camera was very well conceived and well resolved and lacked the release glitches of other Leica releases. Leica has had a long time to get this camera right.  My guess is that it has been through permutations, re-designs and refinement, and has been sitting on Andreas Kaufmann’s desk waitung for the go ahead for some time …

[pgk]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

I’m mindful of the SL(601) release - that camera was very well conceived and well resolved and lacked the release glitches of other Leica releases.

An interesting comment. However, I had one and went back to my flawed Sony A7 cameras. Its not a bad camera but cost, abilities and limitations all conspired against my retaining it. I hope I'm wrong about an EVF-M but I stll don't see it as a solution because I still see the 'problem' as ill defined.

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

Have you used a X100 ? 
Here the optical window has a 35mm field of view. With longer lenses, just like the leica M11 etc. a smaller proportion of the view corresponds to the taking lens* view; at some point it is beneficial to switch to EVF. For wider than 35mm lenses the EVF is preferred. This direct vision window must be shuttered for a pure EVF view. ( * e.g. with the TCL100 or digital zoom etc. The X-Pro with interchangeable lenses may be a better example for this specific scenario, then it is a X-E5 vs X-Pro discussion )

The X100V and X100VI have in the corner of the direct view a small pop-up blind and sub-window, similar in size to a rangefinder patch, to show a magnified focus view from the EVF. 

Such a hybrid EVF + Optical system is very flexible, but obviously adds complexity and cost.

And all this complexity and hacks that the Fuji's do is exactly why you won't see a hybrid EVF/OVF with the M. Nobody needs/wants an EVF focus patch when you already have the wonderful contrast based rf patch. What the EVF crowd wants from the M is what they want from other EVF cameras - and that's the 'what you see is what you get' and make it easy paradigm. Unfortunately, pop magnification focusing is fine for still objects, but entirely useless when action is happening. And squiggles are just plain annoying, and often hard to parse what is what.  

[raizans]

The shopping flowchart:

Rangefinder = faster

EVF = slower

[pgk]

13 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

The intriguing thing about an M camera will be its quirky, old fashioned looks, its quality and the enormous range of fine lenses.  It’s also wonderfully understated.

I don’t think such potential buyers will give a toss about what has been covered in the proceeding pages.  They will revel in the challenges of manual focus.

Just thinking, but there are a variety of alternatives out there (some of equally innovative form factor). Whilst the M shape is iconic, IMO that is all that an EVF-M will have going for it. I know from the multitude of preceding pages that some are prepared to pay highly for the form factor, but having used EVF cameras a great deal, often/mostly with manual focus (including Leica M), I still remain to be convinced that an EVF-M is a logical progression.

[LocalHero1953]

10 minutes ago, pgk said:

Just thinking, but there are a variety of alternatives out there (some of equally innovative form factor). Whilst the M shape is iconic, IMO that is all that an EVF-M will have going for it. I know from the multitude of preceding pages that some are prepared to pay highly for the form factor, but having used EVF cameras a great deal, often/mostly with manual focus (including Leica M), I still remain to be convinced that an EVF-M is a logical progression.

Logically, I agree, but perhaps you underestimate the draw of the brand name, the iconic look, and all those classic jewel-like lenses to those with more than enough cash in their pockets, but nervousness about the alien rangefinder focusing concept. Why not get all the attractions of Leica but without the uncertainty of whether you can use it? 

The demand I don't understand is from those who say they no longer have the eyesight for rangefinder patches; wouldn't manual focusing with an EVF be just as difficult? 

Edited September 2 by LocalHero1953

[JNK100]

3 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Logically, I agree, but perhaps you underestimate the draw of the brand name and of all those classic jewel-like lenses to those with more than enough cash in their pockets, but nervousness about the alien rangefinder focusing concept. Why not get all the attractions of Leica but without the uncertainty of whether you can use it? 

The demand I don't understand is from those who say they no longer have the eyesight for rangefinder patches; wouldn't manual focusing with an EVF be just as difficult? 

Yes, I agree RF focussing in daylight at least, would not be more difficult than using MF with an EVF.

One thing I love about the M11 is the battery-life. This will tumble with an EVF I imagine.

 

[Derbyshire Man]

14 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

Have you used a X100 ? 
Here the optical window has a 35mm field of view. With longer lenses, just like the leica M11 etc. a smaller proportion of the view corresponds to the taking lens* view; at some point it is beneficial to switch to EVF. For wider than 35mm lenses the EVF is preferred. This direct vision window must be shuttered for a pure EVF view. ( * e.g. with the TCL100 or digital zoom etc. The X-Pro with interchangeable lenses may be a better example for this specific scenario, then it is a X-E5 vs X-Pro discussion )

The X100V and X100VI have in the corner of the direct view a small pop-up blind and sub-window, similar in size to a rangefinder patch, to show a magnified focus view from the EVF. 

Such a hybrid EVF + Optical system is very flexible, but obviously adds complexity and cost.

You’re talking about the X-Pro line there really rather than the X100 (although I have both). The superimposed magnified patch is horrible however and I can only handle using the OVF in autofocus mode. The  M RF patch is infinitely preferable in a OVF setting. The EVF on the Fuji is roughly the same as the visoflex 2 and neither are detailed enough for manual focus without magnification and I find that hopeless for the sorts of photos I like to take. 
 

There is a risk that a Leica M EVF becomes a very very expensive X-Pro 3 without an OVF option if the Visoflex 2 is similar put inside the body. This is certainly the charge which will be levelled in every review.
 

Any EVF would need to be higher resolution and refresh rate. Leica also has a natural disadvantage with manual aperture control, with an electronic aperture camera the focus can be done with the lens wide open and the camera can stop down only at the moment of the shot, obviously this is impossible on the Leica and then issues around light gathering, gain and frame rate are going to come to the fore. 

As I’ve said before a revamp of the information display in the OVF and snappier start up/shutter response would do it for me probably better than a 5.8mp EVF but then I do like my Q3 and R5M2 experiences albeit the latter being much better. 

Edited September 2 by Derbyshire Man

[costa43]

My prediction is that the 35mm Noctilux will be released with this EVF M and it will be the first M lens with electronic coupling allowing some Nikon ZF style focus confirmation etc.

[pgk]

The debate rages on. From the posts in this thread it looks to me as though there are two simple alternatives. Either:

Leica invest heavily and produce an exceptionally good EVF camera with the form factor of an M. This may require some real innovation (and even 'intelligent' lenses; new 'M' range, both forward or backward compatible). This would be a bold shift for Leica and the market would need to be significant to support it. Or:

They simply replace the rangefinder with an elecronic viewfinder and couple everything so that it will at least work 'satisfactorily' with all existing lenses, allow focus zooming and optimise results for M lenses. A potentially 'cheap and cheerful' (certainly cheaper) solution which would at least satisfy the EVF-M adherents who already own rf-M camera and lenses, but a solution probably less likely to appeal to a significantly wider audience and so bring in new users to any extent due to lack of innovation, low spec and high cost.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[FrozenInTime]

33 minutes ago, Derbyshire Man said:

You’re talking about the X-Pro line there really rather than the X100 (although I have both). The superimposed magnified patch is horrible however and I can only handle using the OVF in autofocus mode. The  M RF patch is infinitely preferable in a OVF setting. The EVF on the Fuji is roughly the same as the visoflex 2 and neither are detailed enough for manual focus without magnification and I find that hopeless for the sorts of photos I like to take. 
 

There is a risk that a Leica M EVF becomes a very very expensive X-Pro 3 without an OVF option if the Visoflex 2 is similar put inside the body. This is certainly the charge which will be levelled in every review.
 

Any EVF would need to be higher resolution and refresh rate. Leica also has a natural disadvantage with manual aperture control, with an electronic aperture camera the focus can be done with the lens wide open and the camera can stop down only at the moment of the shot, obviously this is impossible on the Leica and then issues around light gathering, gain and frame rate are going to come to the fore. 

As I’ve said before a revamp of the information display in the OVF and snappier start up/shutter response would do it for me probably better than a 5.8mp EVF but then I do like my Q3 and R5M2 experiences albeit the latter being much better. 

I've never seen one, but the PIXII provides optical rangefinder and enhanced display information; maybe the M12 could include a similar sub-display.

The other big decision Leica needs to make is whether or not to include the lens-rangefinder cam-follower; this would be needed for parallax correction of frame-lines in a OVF as well as providing input for electronic EVF focus aids. This would distinguish a EVF-M using M lenses from all other EVF implementations. A resolver capable of accurately following the precision equivalent to the optical rangefinder sounds like an expensive part; something just capable of detecting helicoid movement or focus distance for parallax indication would be much more economical. 

The 60 Mpixel sensor seems to run counter to the idea of a fast refresh and frame rate - a lower resolution stacked sensor and pure EVF only M camera would make for a better M camera, lower cost and more reliable through reduced complexity, than one based on the M11. 

[JNK100]

55 minutes ago, costa43 said:

My prediction is that the 35mm Noctilux will be released with this EVF M and it will be the first M lens with electronic coupling allowing some Nikon ZF style focus confirmation etc.

I would be very surprised if an electronic coupling was added to either the camera or the lens. But let's see.
 

[evikne]

59 minutes ago, costa43 said:

My prediction is that the 35mm Noctilux will be released with this EVF M and it will be the first M lens with electronic coupling allowing some Nikon ZF style focus confirmation etc.

Sounds tempting. Of course, it must also be compatible with all older lenses, just without the new advantages. 

[jaapv]

48 minutes ago, FrozenInTime said:

I've never seen one, but the PIXII provides optical rangefinder and enhanced display information; maybe the M12 could include a similar sub-display.

The other big decision Leica needs to make is whether or not to include the lens-rangefinder cam-follower; this would be needed for parallax correction of frame-lines in a OVF as well as providing input for electronic EVF focus aids. This would distinguish a EVF-M using M lenses from all other EVF implementations. A resolver capable of accurately following the precision equivalent to the optical rangefinder sounds like an expensive part; something just capable of detecting helicoid movement or focus distance for parallax indication would be much more economical. 

The 60 Mpixel sensor seems to run counter to the idea of a fast refresh and frame rate - a lower resolution stacked sensor and pure EVF only M camera would make for a better M camera, lower cost and more reliable through reduced complexity, than one based on the M11. 

An EVF needs no framelines as the image is taken from the sensor. There is no parallax. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

50 minutes ago, FrozenInTime said:

I've never seen one, but the PIXII provides optical rangefinder and enhanced display information; maybe the M12 could include a similar sub-display.

The other big decision Leica needs to make is whether or not to include the lens-rangefinder cam-follower; this would be needed for parallax correction of frame-lines in a OVF as well as providing input for electronic EVF focus aids. This would distinguish a EVF-M using M lenses from all other EVF implementations. A resolver capable of accurately following the precision equivalent to the optical rangefinder sounds like an expensive part; something just capable of detecting helicoid movement or focus distance for parallax indication would be much more economical. 

The 60 Mpixel sensor seems to run counter to the idea of a fast refresh and frame rate - a lower resolution stacked sensor and pure EVF only M camera would make for a better M camera, lower cost and more reliable through reduced complexity, than one based on the M11. 

The SL3 seems to be doing fine with its EVF. 

[costa43]

31 minutes ago, JNK100 said:

I would be very surprised if an electronic coupling was added to either the camera or the lens. But let's see.
 

I think some real world improvements to the manual focus with EVF experience is paramount to the long term success of an EVF M. If not now then it is only a matter of time before Leica have some kind of electronic communication between camera and lens.