EVF M rumoured

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M11 has an electronic shutter for those who like that but it has a mechanical shutter too. Suffice it to do the same in the EVF-M.

[FrozenInTime]

9 minutes ago, lct said:

The M11 has an electronic shutter for those who like that but it has a mechanical shutter too. Suffice it to do the same in the EVF-M.

That seemed a certainty when the rumours pointed to a M11 derived body.

Reworking to the Q3 to remove the lensor assembly, add a M mount with focus cam and 6 bit reader, a focal plane shutter, and create a new sensor board, seems like a larger task compared to replacing the M11 OVF with a EVF, so ominous suggestions arise of taking the shortcut of no mechanical shutter.

[lct]

A Q3 like camera would need an adapter to work with M lenses. Hard to believe it may happen. Is there any hint that the initial project of a M11 derived body has been abandoned?

[LanceR]

I have a question for those that are more oriented towards the physics side of things.  I have been thinking about possible ways they could actually implement rangefinder style shooting with this rumored camera.

If they added a second small sensor, positioned similarly to the second window on an actual M camera, is it possible for them to have enough offset between that window position and the sensor to implement a digital rangefinder function?  On a traditional M, you have the width of the camera offset of the optics, but I would not think that there is enough distance between the primary sensor in the middle and a second sensor to create the necessary effect.

While I am cautiously optimistic about this camera, if it just brings their standard focus peaking and auto-magnification, I am not sure I would find it more compelling than an SL3.  I traded my much loved M11 for an SL3, but kept all of my M glass.  While focusing M glass on an SL3 is slower for me than with a rangefinder, I rarely miss focus and get the benefit of IBIS.

Still, I put my name down at my local camera stores, including a Leica store in case it does arrive and delivers something very interesting.

 

[la1402]

1 hour ago, LanceR said:

If they added a second small sensor, positioned similarly to the second window on an actual M camera, is it possible for them to have enough offset between that window position and the sensor to implement a digital rangefinder function?  On a traditional M, you have the width of the camera offset of the optics, but I would not think that there is enough distance between the primary sensor in the middle and a second sensor to create the necessary effect.

 

 

Why would you want to do that ? Sensor based distance metering is so much easier, cost effective and maintenance free.

Edited Tuesday at 10:02 PM by la1402

[jaapv]

Still,Leica patented this system and then decided it was not good enough.

[-ph-]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With respect to electronic shutters: I use my OM-1 basically always with the electronic shutter. I never noticed any rolling shutter. So it is just a matter of speed. I would quite prefer any M I would buy in the future to have an usable electronic shutter. Once you got accustomed to the quiet operation, it is really nice. Perhaps the shutter button itself could be a bit more "clicky". 

Many modern cameras do phase-based AF using in-pixel structures. I wonder whether this could be utilized to give better focusing hints than the pure contrast based markers we have so far. May be great EVF focusing of manual lenses is just a bit of clever software away.

[LanceR]

11 hours ago, jaapv said:

Still,Leica patented this system and then decided it was not good enough.

I did not know that.  If the camera is real, I look forward to seeing if they have come up with something interesting as manual focus aid with the EVF, or just do the focus peaking and auto-magnification thing.  It would be great to see something like the Hasselblad X2D manual focusing aids.  I do not own that camera, but when I have shot it with it, I preferred and enjoyed the manually focusing with the newer V-Series lenses.

[-ph-]

vor 40 Minuten schrieb LanceR:

It would be great to see something like the Hasselblad X2D manual focusing aids.  I do not own that camera, but when I have shot it with it, I preferred and enjoyed the manually focusing with the newer V-Series lenses.

How does The Hasselblad system work?

[FrozenInTime]

3 hours ago, -ph- said:

With respect to electronic shutters: I use my OM-1 basically always with the electronic shutter. I never noticed any rolling shutter. So it is just a matter of speed. I would quite prefer any M I would buy in the future to have an usable electronic shutter. Once you got accustomed to the quiet operation, it is really nice. Perhaps the shutter button itself could be a bit more "clicky". 

Many modern cameras do phase-based AF using in-pixel structures. I wonder whether this could be utilized to give better focusing hints than the pure contrast based markers we have so far. May be great EVF focusing of manual lenses is just a bit of clever software away.

The OM-1 electronic shutter readout speed is a very good 1/125s.

The M-11 is amongst the slowest FF sensors at 1/10s 😞

The semi-stacked Z6III and S1II 1/69s

The very best stacked sensors ~ 1/250s 

https://horshack-dpreview.github.io/RollingShutter/

[rxj]

If you live in Tokyo, the invitations for an exclusive event on 23.10 have been sent out.

[charlesphoto99]

18 hours ago, LanceR said:

I have a question for those that are more oriented towards the physics side of things.  I have been thinking about possible ways they could actually implement rangefinder style shooting with this rumored camera.

If they added a second small sensor, positioned similarly to the second window on an actual M camera, is it possible for them to have enough offset between that window position and the sensor to implement a digital rangefinder function?  On a traditional M, you have the width of the camera offset of the optics, but I would not think that there is enough distance between the primary sensor in the middle and a second sensor to create the necessary effect.

While I am cautiously optimistic about this camera, if it just brings their standard focus peaking and auto-magnification, I am not sure I would find it more compelling than an SL3.  I traded my much loved M11 for an SL3, but kept all of my M glass.  While focusing M glass on an SL3 is slower for me than with a rangefinder, I rarely miss focus and get the benefit of IBIS.

Still, I put my name down at my local camera stores, including a Leica store in case it does arrive and delivers something very interesting.

 

The problem with this whole 'hybrid' model is that it takes one back to the reason many are (supposedly) clamoring for an M EVF in the first place - bad eyesight that can't focus the traditional rangefinder, plus need to see beyond the traditional fixed frame lines with wider lenses. Well, if one can't do that, focus a rangefinder patch, then one would also struggle (perhaps even more) with a mini-EVF overlay as a rangefinder patch (if I'm getting this concept right). Best to just stick with the traditional M and put a Viso on top for when needed. 

[-ph-]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb FrozenInTime:

The OM-1 electronic shutter readout speed is a very good 1/125s.

The M-11 is amongst the slowest FF sensors at 1/10s 😞

The semi-stacked Z6III and S1II 1/69s

The very best stacked sensors ~ 1/250s 

https://horshack-dpreview.github.io/RollingShutter/

 

Yes, what I wanted to say is: that if the camera is as fast as the OM-1, a pure electronic shutter would be acceptable for me.

[Planetwide]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto99 said:

The problem with this whole 'hybrid' model is that it takes one back to the reason many are (supposedly) clamoring for an M EVF in the first place - bad eyesight that can't focus the traditional rangefinder, plus need to see beyond the traditional fixed frame lines with wider lenses. Well, if one can't do that, focus a rangefinder patch, then one would also struggle (perhaps even more) with a mini-EVF overlay as a rangefinder patch (if I'm getting this concept right). Best to just stick with the traditional M and put a Viso on top for when needed. 

This is simply not true. An EVF is a definite improvement for poor eyesight, age related sight loss. Additionally, the keeper rate on an EVF is much higher due to focus confirmation being visible. I find it quite illuminating that the majority of rangefinder users seem to think that an (Industry Standard) EVF is somehow worse than the rf patch. The reality, is that the RF patch, and I have owned several M RF camera's, is yesterdays tech. It is limited by the fact that it only works with a small selection of lenses. I understand the desire, and thoughtful nature of photography, that an RF demands. But, and its a big but, EVF's work, and work well. They are more accurate, easier, and faster to use than the RF. I feel, that there is definitely a market for both systems of focussing within the Leica M ecosystem. This way Leica can provide a lower cost entry path for new users, who are very familiar with EVF's and traditional users will be serviced as well. I see no downside to introduction of an M - EVF...

IMHO.

[-ph-]

For me, it is not even the eyesight, but the fact that I wear glasses. I love to use a 50mm with the range finder, but struggle to see even the 35mm frame lines, not even talking about much shorter focal lengths. And of course with long lenses, the EVF helps a lot too.

[SrMi]

51 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

This is simply not true. An EVF is a definite improvement for poor eyesight, age related sight loss. Additionally, the keeper rate on an EVF is much higher due to focus confirmation being visible. I find it quite illuminating that the majority of rangefinder users seem to think that an (Industry Standard) EVF is somehow worse than the rf patch. The reality, is that the RF patch, and I have owned several M RF camera's, is yesterdays tech. It is limited by the fact that it only works with a small selection of lenses. I understand the desire, and thoughtful nature of photography, that an RF demands. But, and its a big but, EVF's work, and work well. They are more accurate, easier, and faster to use than the RF. I feel, that there is definitely a market for both systems of focussing within the Leica M ecosystem. This way Leica can provide a lower cost entry path for new users, who are very familiar with EVF's and traditional users will be serviced as well. I see no downside to introduction of an M - EVF...

IMHO.

It is well known and confirmed by experienced photographers, that manual focusing with rangefinder is faster and more precise than with EVF when using very wide angles. 

Using longer lenses, most M owners need to open the aperture fully to acquire precise focus quickly (no automatic aperture stop down with M lenses). This is annoying if your working aperture is not wide open.

[IkarusJohn]

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

It is well known and confirmed by experienced photographers, that manual focusing with rangefinder is faster and more precise than with EVF when using very wide angles. 

Using longer lenses, most M owners need to open the aperture fully to acquire precise focus quickly (no automatic aperture stop down with M lenses). This is annoying if your working aperture is not wide open.

This is true.

However, the reason I sold my X1D II was frustration over the AF and the terrible manual focus of the 4 lenses I had. Fine for landscape but just unworkable for anything else.  At my niece’s wedding, I think I got 4 useable images.  I bought back in with the X2D with its vastly improved AF and the XCD 38v, with its manual focus clutch.

The relevance to an EVF M is that, while there are challenges with EVF focusing wides, I haven’t experienced them with the 38v (30mm equivalent field of view).  It really is excellent.  My only hope is that, if this camera really does get released this month, they don’t include any of the nice to haves listed here.  Just improve on the EVF from the Visoflex and otherwise keep it as an M.  It will hopefully be little more than an EVF based camera optimised for M lenses.

Faint hope - in the Leica World more seems to be less.

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Planetwide said:

It is limited by the fact that it only works with a small selection of lenses. I understand the desire, and thoughtful nature of photography, that an RF demands. But, and its a big but, EVF's work, and work well. They are more accurate, easier, and faster to use than the RF.

I find that rangefinders work better and faster with M lenses in low light, especially for 50mm or less. In very low light, scale focusing is also preferable to EVF. The problem is that the EVF has to refresh at 60Hz (1/60 or shorter exposure time), so you are looking at a severely under-exposed and noisy image. Your final images won't be noisy, but the live view is. Worst-case is when shooting with a wide in very subdued light (night exteriors, restaurant, etc.). Sometimes you swing the focus ring from stop to stop and the EVF image barely changes. You won't notice focus errors until you see your images on a good screen.

Obviously, other photographer may have a different opinion. I'm sure it depends on your low-light eyesight, and also personal preference.

[Andrew Gough]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

It is well known and confirmed by experienced photographers, that manual focusing with rangefinder is faster and more precise than with EVF when using very wide angles. 

Using longer lenses, most M owners need to open the aperture fully to acquire precise focus quickly (no automatic aperture stop down with M lenses). This is annoying if your working aperture is not wide open.

It might be a well known fact in your mind, but as someone who shoots commercial architecture, using wide angles, I respectfully disagree. Any wide angle lens is going to have a depth of field that would negate any perceived value of your claim. Further to that the inability of the RF system to show the entire lend field of view is a severe limitation. How do you focus on a near subject? If you say focus and recompose, then your focus is at best: inaccurate. I have shot wides on the M, and without an electronic viewfinder composition is just guess work.

Critical focus at sub 20mm on a modern lens, stopped down is so easy - it's a joke. I could do it using hyperlocal distance, EVF zooming, or just plain guesswork. At 20mm, F11, subject distance of 5m everything from 1m to infinity is in focus.... At 14mm its 0.5m to infinity....

Edited 21 hours ago by Andrew Gough

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

The M system is not really considered to be suitable for this use, although it can be done with some concessions. Not even a EVF though, for framing there have been auxiliary viewfinders since Methuselah. Similar for tele lenses and Visoflexes. . RF focusing is indeed all that SrMi says, but like all things, within its use envelope. Being between 35 and 90 mm. Maybe 28 and 135.