costa43 Posted September 23 Author Share #2601 Posted September 23 Advertisement (gone after registration) 10 minutes ago, SrMi said: That image does not represent the real M11V but is a placeholder. Even less reason to blur it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 23 Posted September 23 Hi costa43, Take a look here EVF M rumoured. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted September 23 Share #2602 Posted September 23 (edited) 29 minutes ago, costa43 said: I wonder if an IBIS unit can be fitted without a size penalty now the top plate is free of the rangefinder. That addition alone would sell a lot of units. I agree, IBIS would provide a real step, and also give them a reason to keep price not inferior to M11😁 Edited September 23 by luigi bertolotti 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhQtQgraphy Posted September 23 Share #2603 Posted September 23 IBIS like in the Q3 is very useful on a 60MP Sensor. And obviously Leica is testing IBIS in M bodies: https://www.photografix-magazin.de/leica-m12-erste-tests-mit-bildstabilisierung-bestaetigt/ 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted September 23 Share #2604 Posted September 23 10 minutes ago, PhQtQgraphy said: IBIS like in the Q3 is very useful on a 60MP Sensor. And obviously Leica is testing IBIS in M bodies: https://www.photografix-magazin.de/leica-m12-erste-tests-mit-bildstabilisierung-bestaetigt/ Q3 has OIS. IBIS in M bodies would be more similar to IBIS in SL3. The rumor that Leica is testing IBIS in M bodies has not been confirmed yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted September 23 Share #2605 Posted September 23 5 hours ago, costa43 said: No idea why they bothered to blur this, it’s pretty obvious how they think it will look. If this is accurate then I don’t really like it, looks weird to me so plain. Maybe some adjustment time is needed, then again, I’ve never liked the look of the MD film cameras… So what is the blurry lever for, below where the viewfinder winday should be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted September 23 Share #2606 Posted September 23 (edited) Duplicate Post. Edited September 23 by pgk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
costa43 Posted September 23 Author Share #2607 Posted September 23 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1 minute ago, pgk said: So what is the blurry lever for, below where the viewfinder winday should be? I would hazard a guess that it is for digital frameline magnification/crops if this design is accurate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 23 Share #2608 Posted September 23 Assuming the M11-V a more affordable camera, it would leave IBIS to the M12 i guess. Stabilization i have on my Sigma FPL seems to work fine with M lenses so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted September 23 Share #2609 Posted September 23 35 minutes ago, lct said: Assuming the M11-V a more affordable camera, it would leave IBIS to the M12 i guess. Stabilization i have on my Sigma FPL seems to work fine with M lenses so far. sigma fp-l does not have stabilization for still photography, only for video (digital). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 23 Share #2610 Posted September 23 12 minutes ago, SrMi said: sigma fp-l does not have stabilization for still photography, only for video (digital). I have no experience with video but in spite of its 60mp, i have no camera shake blur issues with M lenses on the FPL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted September 23 Share #2611 Posted September 23 5 hours ago, costa43 said: Even less reason to blur it It's either a real (leaked) image, in which case they aren't allowed to use it, or it's a mock-up, in which case it isn't accurate. Blurring it makes sense in either case. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted September 23 Share #2612 Posted September 23 1 hour ago, lct said: I have no experience with video but in spite of its 60mp, i have no camera shake blur issues with M lenses on the FPL. I have no camera shake issues with M cameras either, though I have not checked whether the safe handholding shutter speed is the same on my fp-L and my M11. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted September 23 Share #2613 Posted September 23 45 minutes ago, BernardC said: It's either a real (leaked) image, in which case they aren't allowed to use it, or it's a mock-up, in which case it isn't accurate. Blurring it makes sense in either case. IIRC, someone on Reddit translated part of text saying that it is not a real image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 23 Share #2614 Posted September 23 3 hours ago, PhQtQgraphy said: IBIS like in the Q3 is very useful on a 60MP Sensor. And obviously Leica is testing IBIS in M bodies: https://www.photografix-magazin.de/leica-m12-erste-tests-mit-bildstabilisierung-bestaetigt/ If there are any grounds for these rumours, they mention a hybrid viewfinder M12, making an M-EVF obsolete before it is even launched. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
evikne Posted September 23 Share #2615 Posted September 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, SrMi said: IIRC, someone on Reddit translated part of text saying that it is not a real image. I hope it's not. But the web page seems to have been removed. The screenshot says “Welcome to pre-order, expected delivery in November.” Edited September 23 by evikne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 24 Share #2616 Posted September 24 (edited) 17 hours ago, jaapv said: If there are any grounds for these rumours, they mention a hybrid viewfinder M12, making an M-EVF obsolete before it is even launched. That's true... I have (from a quick test, to be honest) appreciated the Fuji solution, which dates to some years ago and surely could have been improved : IF M12 will have it and IBIS, an EVF-M with no IBIS would be a "minus" camera, so... 1) They will not make it 2) They will make it at a price point under M11 (at least some 100s €) 2a) Ditto, but with no M look (more "Q like" ?) 3) They will make it, M look but priced like/a bit over M11, and then (several months later) positioning M12 well above ... 🙄 IBIS, imho, is so important that an EVF M without would risk anyway to be a lemon. Unluckily, it would not be the first time in those years... I am accustomed to wait long to decide to buy... and was almost resolute to buy a CL when they discontinued it 🤒 Edited September 24 by luigi bertolotti 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 25 Share #2617 Posted September 25 On 9/24/2025 at 10:02 AM, luigi bertolotti said: IF M12 will have it and IBIS, an EVF-M with no IBIS would be a "minus" camera, so... 1) They will not make it 2) They will make it at a price point under M11 (at least some 100s €) 2a) Ditto, but with no M look (more "Q like" ?) 3) They will make it, M look but priced like/a bit over M11, and then (several months later) positioning M12 well above ... 🙄 I would bet # 2. Same as the Leica M1 60+ years ago, but contrary to the latter, the M11-V would have focus aids as expected. I would not expect a hybrid VF though. Just a guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 25 Share #2618 Posted September 25 (edited) 26 minutes ago, lct said: I would bet # 2. Same as the Leica M1 60+ years ago, but contrary to the latter, the M11-V would have focus aids as expected. I would not expect a hybrid VF though. Just a guess. I can agree someway... but there is an important difference with M1 : M1 was, let's say, a "low cost" project : eliminate a costly component (RF) and keep the rest almost "as is", using hundreds of ready parts and keeping also most of the manufacturing process : not difficult to make a camera that can have a lower factory cost. For the EVF_M I suspect it wouldn't be so easy and economical to simply embed a current component (the Visoflex EVF) into the current body (without RF , which indeed could be easily removed from the assembly) : but I can be wrong... we'll see... And thinking of those typical industrial matters, the 2a) hipotesis I made above is uneven... I think it would mean design a new camera (very costly task), for I strongly suspect that it would be difficult/impossible to simly use the Q body "modifying" it into an interchangable M lenses camera. Edited September 25 by luigi bertolotti 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 25 Share #2619 Posted September 25 1 hour ago, luigi bertolotti said: I can agree someway... but there is an important difference with M1 : M1 was, let's say, a "low cost" project : eliminate a costly component (RF) and keep the rest almost "as is", using hundreds of ready parts and keeping also most of the manufacturing process : not difficult to make a camera that can have a lower factory cost. For the EVF_M I suspect it wouldn't be so easy and economical to simply embed a current component (the Visoflex EVF) into the current body (without RF , which indeed could be easily removed from the assembly) : but I can be wrong... we'll see... M1 vs M11-V, both stripped down cameras sort of. Do you remember how much cheaper the M1 was compared to its sister M2? If the delta were similar between M11 and M11-V, the latter could be considered an entry camera into the M system but its built-in EVF would not be the Visoflex 2, i guess, rather that of the Q3 rumors say. We shall see indeed. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 26 Share #2620 Posted September 26 On 9/23/2025 at 10:46 AM, jaapv said: If there are any grounds for these rumours, they mention a hybrid viewfinder M12, making an M-EVF obsolete before it is even launched. Quite a feat if an M incorporates either or both a hybrid VF and IBIS, each of which has been ruled out by Stefan Daniel due to space issues and performance standards, at least based on then current tech. I’m glad that I’m not an early adopter or in need of a new M any time soon. Should be fun to see what emerges. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now