EVF M rumoured

[newtoleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

40 minutes ago, jaapv said:

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. 

Many of us shoot mostly with a 24… you just get used to estimating the frame edges. ‘A bit beyond the absolute edge of the finder’ 

[Derbyshire Man]

18 minutes ago, newtoleica said:

Many of us shoot mostly with a 24… you just get used to estimating the frame edges. ‘A bit beyond the absolute edge of the finder’ 

I’m the same with 21, if I can see the core of my image here in the VF I’ve got what I need. People get too het up. Well for digital or B&W anyway, it’s easy to crop. No need for an external VF just the image in your minds eye and some experience with the lens. 
 

Appreciate that’s not going to work for a building for a client! Luckily not something I need to do!

Edited 18 hours ago by Derbyshire Man

[charlesphoto99]

6 hours 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.

You didn't read what I wrote - the concept of an EVF patch the same size as the rf patch won't necessarily be better for poor eyesight. This is in response to the hypothetical hybrid finder. A full EVF may be better for many than the tradional rangefinder. I'm not of them - EVF's seem to make me prone to seizures. Might just need to slowly train my eye on one to overcome that. EVF's also seems, for me, to 'get in the way' in a way an optical viewfinder doesn't. Of course useful for many purposes, especially commercial related.

[DadDadDaddyo]

Yeah, it's probably too late for me to see the "sweet spot focal length range" of "35-90, or maybe 28-135", as something that limits me in a way I need to challenge in my own work. That focal length range has been with me so long that it's impossible for me to separate it's influence on my seeing from the way my seeing developed on its own with that focal length range. 

I can certainly understand it as something that might prove too confining for others, especially if they come to the M from other systems. If they're already used to an EVF,  it makes sense they might want an M body thus equipped. If they like swinging a 70-200 zoom around, it makes sense they'd like a camera with Autofocus and Image Stabilization. And therefore, I guess it makes sense they'd like to see any development that moves the M closer to their envelope of comfort. An EVF M might seem like a low-threshold move for them. It might even be difficult to understand why anyone else might not want one. 

That's fine. If Leica perceives that segment as being better served by bringing out an EVF M, that's great. 

I doubt I'll buy one. The M isn't the only camera I use; the stable still has Medium and Large Format gear for when the mood strikes, but really, the Leicas have been with me the longest, and they're what I keep coming back to. 

I mean, when I started using a rangefinder Leica there were Studebakers on the road. They're mostly iron oxide now. I'm glad the Leicas are still around... 

Edited 16 hours ago by DadDadDaddyo
... small typo

[pgh]

2 hours ago, newtoleica said:

Many of us shoot mostly with a 24

Would be pretty surprised if that’s the case. No one I know personally does, and it’s generally too wide for general use because the focal length draws attention to itself in a way that a 35 or 50 doesn’t. Even a 28 is slightly less conspicuous and has been wielded well as a primary lens by only a handful of photographers. 

People usually figure this out in time and use it more sparingly when they do. I can think of very few skilled photographers - actually, maybe none - who have used something so wide as their primary lens. It can have its place, but shooting mostly? Even the Q is too wide most of the time. 

[beewee]

7 minutes ago, pgh said:

Would be pretty surprised if that’s the case. No one I know personally does, and it’s generally too wide for general use because the focal length draws attention to itself in a way that a 35 or 50 doesn’t. Even a 28 is slightly less conspicuous and has been wielded well as a primary lens by only a handful of photographers. 

People usually figure this out in time and use it more sparingly when they do. I can think of very few skilled photographers - actually, maybe none - who have used something so wide as their primary lens. It can have its place, but shooting mostly? Even the Q is too wide most of the time. 

The 24/3.8 is my most used M lens but I’m also mostly shooting landscapes in the mountains. I would happily shoot a 24mm prime as my only lens in the mountains.

If Leica would finally get around to shipping the 24 APO SL, I’d buy it in a heartbeat. Right now, on the SL3, sometimes the 21 APO SL is a little too wide and sometimes the 28 APO SL is a little too tight. A 24 APO SL would be perfect for me.

For my M kit, I will never sell my 24/3.8.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pgh said:

Would be pretty surprised if that’s the case. No one I know personally does, and it’s generally too wide for general use because the focal length draws attention to itself in a way that a 35 or 50 doesn’t. Even a 28 is slightly less conspicuous and has been wielded well as a primary lens by only a handful of photographers. 

People usually figure this out in time and use it more sparingly when they do. I can think of very few skilled photographers - actually, maybe none - who have used something so wide as their primary lens. It can have its place, but shooting mostly? Even the Q is too wide most of the time. 

Not sure about that.  I use wides more than teles.  There’s something a bit one dimensional about the once ubiquitous Canon 70-210 zoom.

For me (I can’t speak for anyone else), the 75 is my preferred portrait lens, and often for landscape; my 50s are my standard lenses, along with my 28s; but my 21 is a lens I love and should use more.  Wides make me think and have the benefit of introducing drama in skies and the surrounding environment.  The challenge is often to actually have a subject, and compose in a way which really works.

I always try to find the best plain of focus, even though the depth of field is huge.  I almost never use hyperfocal focusing (or should that be not focusing?). I did rely on depth of field with my 15/2.8 Distagon, but then that wasn’t coupled and pretty much everything was in focus regardless of what you set on the lens.  Sold that lens because of the Italian flag, and I couldn’t justify using it only for B&W.  I still regret that decision.

[algrove]

150 pages and we still do not truly know what will be released in a few weeks!

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, Andrew Gough said:

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....

I was talking about focusing with an M with an EVF handheld. Sean Reid mentioned the issue and the solution (using a rangefinder for focusing and the EVF/LCD for framing). I also found it to be quicker and more precise than using EVF for focusing, and it also avoids the issue of closed working aperture.

[newtoleica]

6 hours ago, pgh said:

Would be pretty surprised if that’s the case. No one I know personally does, and it’s generally too wide for general use because the focal length draws attention to itself in a way that a 35 or 50 doesn’t. Even a 28 is slightly less conspicuous and has been wielded well as a primary lens by only a handful of photographers. 

People usually figure this out in time and use it more sparingly when they do. I can think of very few skilled photographers - actually, maybe none - who have used something so wide as their primary lens. It can have its place, but shooting mostly? Even the Q is too wide most of the time. 

Well I do, and so does Leica Ambassador Alan Schaller. We both do B&W urban and street photography. I met him earlier in the year on London’s south bank, both of us with our M10 Mono and 24 summilux. LOL. Using a 24 and especially the Lux in mono draws in a particular way and captures street photography in a way that takes the eye in a story around the image. Alan tends to urban abstracts with deep shadows and lonely figures, while I tend to get in close in demonstrations and crowded streets. I was influenced at a young age by the work of Tony Ray Jones and Gary Winogrand and have developed that style over several decades. So please don’t dismiss a style that isn’t yours as ‘something you work your way out of’….. a tad arrogant perhaps 🤔 even if unintended? 

[newtoleica]

Going back to the EVf issue. Although I have had a Q2 for two years as a ‘light causal’, holidays and wet weather camera, I don’t use it seriously and to be honest there is nothing I take with it that an iPhone couldn’t do…. I hugely dislike the ‘distance from the subject’ that the EVF creates as compared with the nice clear VF of my M. In fact it’s time to sell it on and get a colour M again to complement my mono. Questions is which M10-P again, or an M11-D? I didn’t get on with the 10-D for the oft cited reasons, but am wary of the 11… I need to try one…

Edited 9 hours ago by newtoleica

[frame-it]

4 hours ago, algrove said:

150 pages and we still do not truly know what will be released in a few weeks!

could be a new watch that activates the coffee machine.

[pgk]

15 hours ago, Planetwide said:

An EVF is a definite improvement for poor eyesight, age related sight loss.

The greatest advantage that EVF cameras to help those with eyesight issues is to have is an adjustable dioptric correction and high eye relief, unlike the M. The M's rangefinder is, as I keep having to restate, very effective with wide angle lenses because its focusing ability is not dependant on difficult assessment of the precise point of focus from the image created by the lens - it has an independant focus system. And this includes EVF cameras which in this respect are not as precise as rangefinders can be. Again I will say that rangefinder M cameras are very effective within their optimum operating envelope that is. An EVF can be more versatile as can a dSLR, but neither are as good as an M can be with wide-angles. The real problem is that there is no perfect camera, camera type nor camera system. An EVF-M would increase versatility in some respects but reduce precision in others and the narrow M mount is, IMO, not at all versatile for an EVF camera so in actuality an EVF-M would probably be optimised at 50mm and above so again, I qury its validity because many users seem to think that it will be great due to the sensor being optimised for wide-angles.

We go around in ever decreasing circles. I think it best to accept that there are some to whom form factor usurps photographic viability and, if that is the case, and they are happy to pay good (or at least a lot of) money for such a camera then so be it.

[LocalHero1953]

4 hours ago, algrove said:

150 pages and we still do not truly know what will be released in a few weeks!

S4. Those in the other thread are also awaiting a new camera.

The M-EV1 is vapourware. Believe me.

You heard it here first.

[willeica]

On 9/22/2025 at 3:35 PM, pedaes said:

Of course it would not be inferior, just different. However, if the old fashion concept of there being some relationship between cost and price is in play will a EVF M sans rangefinder be 'cheaper' than standard M?

It might well be cheaper based on some rumoured prices I have seen and the fact that the rangefinder is expensive to make. We should get to see the new model at the LSI meeting in Montreal on 23rd October and I assume that a price will be announced by then. One issue that may arise is battery life. Anyone who has used an add on EVF on an M will know how they eat up battery life, so a new battery type may be on the cards.

 

On 9/22/2025 at 3:53 PM, pgk said:

I'm actually intrigued as to what the eye relief of an EVF-M could be. Is there sufficient room within the area of an M viewfinder to provide a great EVF within the existing confines of an M viewfinder and so that there is no external difference in comparison to current cameras?

I doubt if they can use framelines with an EVF as it will 'see' through the mounted lens. The framelines have been one of the most attractive features of the M design since 1954, but seeing in the corners with a 28mm lens has been difficult. Another issue has been lens incursion into the field of view. There will be a series of trade offs and for a lot of people their enthusiasm for the new model will depend on how well these have been handled.

Two weeks to go.

William 

[TeleElmar135mm]

vor 26 Minuten schrieb LocalHero1953:

(...)

The M-EV1 is vapourware. Believe me.

You heard it here first.

I'm afraid they're serious ...  

[pedaes]

20 minutes ago, willeica said:

We should get to see the new model

There is certainly some 'stuff' being announced on 23rd with UK dealer events in place, but is a M-EVF a given at this time? 

[willeica]

18 minutes ago, pedaes said:

There is certainly some 'stuff' being announced on 23rd with UK dealer events in place, but is a M-EVF a given at this time? 

Give it 2 weeks, Keith. As you might guess, I have a lot more on my mind in the run up to our Montreal meeting. 

William 

 

 

[pedaes]

13 minutes ago, willeica said:

I have a lot more on my mind in the run up to our Montreal meeting. 

Good luck with all that of course, and yes, the whole world will know along with the LSI on 23rd.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[costa43]

12 hours ago, newtoleica said:

Many of us shoot mostly with a 24… you just get used to estimating the frame edges. ‘A bit beyond the absolute edge of the finder’ 

This is exactly how I do it with my 24mm. I find you can get used to anything after some time and it then becomes second nature.

Edited 6 hours ago by costa43