EVF M rumoured

[chrismuc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Smogg said:

It seems to me that when you discuss the use of different focal lengths, you are missing the fact that the M11 has a fairly high magnification factor, which makes it difficult to even use a focal length of 35, let alone 28. Perhaps it would be worth releasing not an EVF version of the M11, but a version with a noticeably reduced magnification factor?

I started to use a Contax rangefinder (film) camera, actually the Contax IIa from around 1950. From the 1930s to the 1950s most rangefinders just had a 50mm viewfinder and all other (shorter or longer) focal length lenses were first focused using the rangefinder viewfinder and then the image was framed through an external cold shoe viewfinder. I have for that purpose a Contax 21 35 50 85 135 mm viewfinder (matching the focal length lenses I have for that system), and working that way taking pictures is perfectly fine for me. Using viewfinders with wider view angle and adding frame lines for different focal lengths came later, and is a compromise in its own way, as we know (... only to be 'solved' by the M EV1 😆).

Btw., the viewfinder of the Zeiss Ikon is such a delight (bright & large viewfinder, big rangefinder field with excellent focus precision, single 35 + 50 mm frame lines) compared to my M9, plus other favourable features (very precise TTL exposure, combined exposure time and exposure compensation wheel, lightweight camera).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

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

[costa43]

2 hours ago, Smogg said:

It seems to me that when you discuss the use of different focal lengths, you are missing the fact that the M11 has a fairly high magnification factor, which makes it difficult to even use a focal length of 35, let alone 28. Perhaps it would be worth releasing not an EVF version of the M11, but a version with a noticeably reduced magnification factor?

I would be interested in a slightly lower magnification factor or larger OVF. My preference is for 35mm so a little more room around the frame lines would be nice, not too much but just a bit more than there currently is.. 50mm works so well on an M for this reason. You can so easily see what to include/exclude on the periphery. I go against the grain and prefer the 0.72 with a 50mm than the M3 lines for this reason. 

[Carrot]

I have a couple of SL2-S, and despite having the SL APO lenses I now mainly use a range of M lenses with the Leica adaptor, and mainly use magnification (and sometimes peaking) to help me focus.  This is primarily due to wanting to carry less weight around, so my interest in an M-EVF would mainly be around a further weight saving.  Anticipating that the M-EVF probably won't have IBIS, this morning I tested all my M lenses (21mm to 90mm) on the SL2-S with IBIS on and off, and whilst I was pretty happy holding the camera steady with IBIS turned off to take photos, I found it very difficult to gain focus with magnification turned on, I just couldn't hold the camera still.  So my initial interest in an M-EVF has significantly subsided.  If I had an M-EVF I'd probably think about using it with a grip, but that would diminish the weight saving ... by my reckoning an M with grip only saves around 284g over an SL2-S with M>L adaptor.  

[lct]

Lowering the magnification factor of the OVF would reduce the accuracy of the rangefinder. Not by much if the OVF is lowered to 0.68x, as it used to on M8, M9 & M240, but the gain in lisibility would not be high either then i suspect. 

[costa43]

2 hours ago, lct said:

Lowering the magnification factor of the OVF would reduce the accuracy of the rangefinder. Not by much if the OVF is lowered to 0.68x, as it used to on M8, M9 & M240, but the gain in lisibility would not be high either then i suspect. 

I think a little less than 0.68 would be nice, or a slightly larger viewfinder if possible. I've tried a 0.58 film M and found it perfectly adequate for focusing a 35mm. I preferred it for composing the shot too. I guess the market is small for this type of thing but a choice would be well received. I would also want to remove the 135mm framelines that pair with the 35mm. I never use a 135mm and do not think I ever will on the M.

[lct]

Problem is the RF must be accurate enough to fit difficult lenses such as 90/1.5 & 75/1.25. If you reduce VF magnification there is little choice but to lower hit rates with those lenses, in RF mode at least, or to enlarge the physical baselength of the RF.

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, costa43 said:

I would be interested in a slightly lower magnification factor or larger OVF. My preference is for 35mm so a little more room around the frame lines would be nice, not too much but just a bit more than there currently is.. 50mm works so well on an M for this reason. You can so easily see what to include/exclude on the periphery. I go against the grain and prefer the 0.72 with a 50mm than the M3 lines for this reason. 

interesting - my m6 is a .85 and I actually quite like it for 35mm even. So the .72 of my M10s (I think m11 is the same) I feel could actually go a bit the other way, though I never had a complaint with them, but then I am a 35-50 shooter almost exclusively so it is the sweet spot. Guess it's different for everyone. Maybe I take my eyes for granted in middle age. 

[costa43]

16 minutes ago, pgh said:

interesting - my m6 is a .85 and I actually quite like it for 35mm even. So the .72 of my M10s (I think m11 is the same) I feel could actually go a bit the other way, though I never had a complaint with them, but then I am a 35-50 shooter almost exclusively so it is the sweet spot. Guess it's different for everyone. Maybe I take my eyes for granted in middle age. 

I do see the appeal of a higher magnification, I prefer it for nailing the eye on a portrait for instance but overall, I feel my compositions are better when I can see a bit more around the scene when the camera is to my eye. It also means larger lenses do not eat into the view as much. Horses for courses,..Overall I'm happy with the 0.72 as the middle ground as I do not just use a 35mm lens but the convo came up so eh..

Edited yesterday at 01:18 PM by costa43

[costa43]

49 minutes ago, lct said:

Problem is the RF must be accurate enough to fit difficult lenses such as 90/1.5 & 75/1.25. If you reduce VF magnification there is little choice but to lower hit rates with those lenses, in RF mode at least, or to enlarge the physical baselength of the RF.

I'm being quite inconsiderate as I do not tend to use these focal lengths often 😂

[lct]

29 minutes ago, costa43 said:

I'm being quite inconsiderate as I do not tend to use these focal lengths often 😂

Same here but Leica is supposed to take into account people using such lenses. Another, more affordable, example is the Apo-Telyt 135/3.4.

Edited yesterday at 01:50 PM by lct

[FrozenInTime]

4 hours ago, Carrot said:

I have a couple of SL2-S, and despite having the SL APO lenses I now mainly use a range of M lenses with the Leica adaptor, and mainly use magnification (and sometimes peaking) to help me focus.  This is primarily due to wanting to carry less weight around, so my interest in an M-EVF would mainly be around a further weight saving.  Anticipating that the M-EVF probably won't have IBIS, this morning I tested all my M lenses (21mm to 90mm) on the SL2-S with IBIS on and off, and whilst I was pretty happy holding the camera steady with IBIS turned off to take photos, I found it very difficult to gain focus with magnification turned on, I just couldn't hold the camera still.  So my initial interest in an M-EVF has significantly subsided.  If I had an M-EVF I'd probably think about using it with a grip, but that would diminish the weight saving ... by my reckoning an M with grip only saves around 284g over an SL2-S with M>L adaptor.  

Electronic image stabilisation of the EVF punched in image solves this; any M11 owners want to jump in to say how effective it is.

[TheEyesHaveIt]

One of the things that bothers me about the Visoflex 2 is the zoom tiers - I wish they could add one more that zoomed in further. My Sony EVF allows for much closer zooming and it can really help nail fine focus.

When I had the Q2, I loved it and shot 90% of the time in manual. Given my collection of M lenses, I'd be very interested in the EVF model as a different type of experience to my M11 / MP. Especially for wide (18, 21) and my Macro-Elmar 90 in macro mode. I don't think it would replace the M11 for me, just a different experience.

[Stef63]

Gents, can we please focus on the main theme of these 154-and-something pages? You know… the endless, highly scientific speculations about the… well… about what again?

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, FrozenInTime said:

Electronic image stabilisation of the EVF punched in image solves this; any M11 owners want to jump in to say how effective it is.

It is very helpful.

[la1402]

I just got invited to my Leica Store for the „Introduction of a new Milestone“ on October 23rd 😉😎

Edited 22 hours ago by la1402

[adan]

4 hours ago, Stef63 said:

Gents, can we please focus on the main theme of these 154-and-something pages? You know… the endless, mostly highly unscientific speculations about the… well… about what again?

Fixed that for you! 😁

[tappan]

WE are (probably) just another 13 days from the BIG announcement of the much anticipated __________ !
 

[Tseg]

Knowing the Visoflex 2 is made in China, I’m guessing other EVF components would be made there also.  There goes the M11-V discount for the US.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[algrove]

12 hours ago, pgh said:

interesting - my m6 is a .85 and I actually quite like it for 35mm even. So the .72 of my M10s (I think m11 is the same) I feel could actually go a bit the other way, though I never had a complaint with them, but then I am a 35-50 shooter almost exclusively so it is the sweet spot. Guess it's different for everyone. Maybe I take my eyes for granted in middle age. 

I have both the 0.58 and 0.85 and I use the 35mm on the 0.58 and a 50 on the 0.85. I have never tried reversing them.

[algrove]

10 hours ago, Stef63 said:

Gents, can we please focus on the main theme of these 154-and-something pages? You know… the endless, highly scientific speculations about the… well… about what again?

Is this a Leica speculation thread? 

So perhaps 23 October is also speculation?