EVF M rumoured

[Robert Blanko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 5 Stunden schrieb beewee:

Latest “leaked” photo looks unconvincing. Someone forgot to photoshop out the smaller rangefinder window.

https://leicarumors.com/2025/10/19/is-this-the-first-leaked-picture-of-the-rumored-leica-m-ev1-camera.aspx/

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!

Looks like the result of a Q3 and an M11-P that had sex…

[Advertisement]

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

[hexx]

Not entirely sure what the RF window is for. My brain can’t work out the purpose for it. On Q, you can move AF frame wherever you want in the frame and then zoom in to that area for fine tune of focus. So a bit confused by this RF “window” there 

[LocalHero1953]

Existing M owners who are used to EVF focusing will have no problems with a M-EV - probably a small proportion of prospective sales. Those who mainly use the RF will stick to that; as has been the case for the last few decades, they will remain in a niche.

The more relevant challenge for Leica is which version will new buyers go for? Unless they have done a bit of research to understand rangefinders, I suspect they'll go for the familiarity of EVF. Will they be disappointed or find it a natural way of focusing?

[pgk]

Just now, LocalHero1953 said:

Will they be disappointed or find it a natural way of focusing?

I have used RF and EVF cameras for years. I recently rebought a dSLR. The EVF cameras are great and versatile but, like any other, have limitations.The questions which really need addressing is whether an EVF which imposes more limitatations (MF, narrow lens throat, etc.), will be a viable photographic tool?

[IkarusJohn]

I’m not in the market for such a camera, but I do get it. 

I have no issue using an EVF (both my X2D II and my SL(601) are EVF cameras, and I use the Visoflex with both my TL2 and M10-D), and I’m more than happy using the OVF on my M cameras. 

I don’t really buy the technical challenges outlined in this thread, nor do I think the L mount, the Q cameras or any other innovations have anything to do with this camera (though anything is possible with Leica). 

It’s all about using M lenses in an M body, but with an EVF. It will have challenges and advantages, like any other M camera. 



 

[Smudgerer]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

I have used RF and EVF cameras for years. I recently rebought a dSLR. The EVF cameras are great and versatile but, like any other, have limitations.The questions which really need addressing is whether an EVF which imposes more limitatations (MF, narrow lens throat, etc.), will be a viable photographic tool?

In my personal experience a DSLR is by far the best compromise between a OVF camera and a EVF camera, it has the real advantage of seeing exactly what the lens is seeing with virtually true lighting and composition presentation, more so than what the OVF on a M can give you which is basically a close idea of what will be captured framing wise however you do see the lighting without any bias as there's nothing other than a couple of lenses between you and the scene/subject which is a significant step over an EVF because for me an EVF always lies, none are perfect no matter which camera they are bolted onto, close maybe at times but inconsistent and what you see through an EVF should be taken with a grain of salt.............I regret selling my Nikon D810 / D610, should have kept one or both. 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I’m not in the market for such a camera, but I do get it.

I too 'get' it, but there seems to be a determination by advocates of such a camera to ignore its potential shortcomings. If Leica announce an EVF-M I hope it succeeds, but I'm far from convinced that its a step in the right direction so it is a risk for Leica. I am nt interested, however an L mount M at an SL price would be potentially a useful body for me, and most likely for many others.

[Smogg]

For me, the most important factors are:

1. Time lag
2. Full-screen digital zoom to the next focal length (if the lens is 28mm, then to 35mm. If the lens is 35mm, then to 50mm)
3. Focus assist and, accordingly, focusing speed with the aperture closed
4. Magenta
5. Start-up time

I will make my purchasing decision based on them.

[pgk]

1 minute ago, Smudgerer said:

In my personal experience a DSLR is by far the best compromise between a OVF camera and a EVF camera ....

The word 'compromise' is the significant one. ALL cameras are compromises and some are better for specific tasks than others. The question which lurks behind this thread is whether an EVF-M is too much of a compromise which, after vast amounts of discussion, still fails to be addressed, although clearly to a few the answer is no. Whether sufficient numbers will buy such a camera will eventually be answered if Leica produce it. I'd like to know Leica's inner thinking on potential sales of such a camera. Perhaps they will compromise further and produce an EVF version of the film CL which would at least satisfy the desire for an M mount, small EVF camera😁. The only downside being that neither the film CL nor the M5 were the success stories Leica hoped they would be. I wonder if history might repeat itself once again?

[IkarusJohn]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

I too 'get' it, but there seems to be a determination by advocates of such a camera to ignore its potential shortcomings. If Leica announce an EVF-M I hope it succeeds, but I'm far from convinced that its a step in the right direction so it is a risk for Leica. I am nt interested, however an L mount M at an SL price would be potentially a useful body for me, and most likely for many others.

I can understand that - a smaller SL.  That would have nothing to do with an M camera, other than being able to take M lenses with an adapter.  We’ve been there already with the CL, TL2 and SL (in 5 different versions).  I’ve never seen any attraction in mounting an SL lens on my TL2 (about the same size as my M-A).  I don’t see the point, but what do I know.

[Smogg]

8 minutes ago, Smudgerer said:

In my personal experience a DSLR is by far the best compromise between a OVF camera and a EVF camera, it has the real advantage of seeing exactly what the lens is seeing with virtually true lighting and composition presentation, more so than what the OVF on a M can give you which is basically a close idea of what will be captured framing wise however you do see the lighting without any bias as there's nothing other than a couple of lenses between you and the scene/subject which is a significant step over an EVF because for me an EVF always lies, none are perfect no matter which camera they are bolted onto, close maybe at times but inconsistent and what you see through an EVF should be taken with a grain of salt.............I regret selling my Nikon D810 / D610, should have kept one or both. 

Everything is fine with the DSLR except for the weight and size.

[SrMi]

3 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Everything is fine with the DSLR except for the weight and size.

Also, some DSLRs have quite dim OVFs, especially if mounting a slow lens.

Using an OVF on S3 and H6D is unbeatable.

[evikne]

4 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Everything is fine with the DSLR except for the weight and size.

And the sound of slamming mirrors.

[pop]

13 minutes ago, pgk said:

there seems to be a determination by advocates of such a camera to ignore its potential shortcomings.

There also seems to be a determination by advocates of RF cameras to ignore their actual shortcomings.

People having used both (and other) cameras know perfectly well that in some situations an RF excels, in others an EVF or a SLR will be more useful and in a vast number of cases it's just a matter of personal preference or convenience.

I think parts of this discussion are perfectly ridiculous. Just fancy that Leica was to announce a - say - 43mm M lens. Would people also reason as if all 50mm lenses and all 35mm lenses would suddenly not be produced any more or even stop working? There's a use for 35mm, 50mm and presumably 43mm, just as there's a use for RF and for EVF and others.

[IkarusJohn]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

The word 'compromise' is the significant one. ALL cameras are compromises and some are better for specific tasks than others. The question which lurks behind this thread is whether an EVF-M is too much of a compromise which, after vast amounts of discussion, still fails to be addressed, although clearly to a few the answer is no. Whether sufficient numbers will buy such a camera will eventually be answered if Leica produce it. I'd like to know Leica's inner thinking on potential sales of such a camera. Perhaps they will compromise further and produce an EVF version of the film CL which would at least satisfy the desire for an M mount, small EVF camera😁. The only downside being that neither the film CL nor the M5 were the success stories Leica hoped they would be. I wonder if history might repeat itself once again?

I don’t think anyone can really know what’s going on inside Leica; but the question of compromise is very interesting.

There’s the obvious challenge (and benefit) with focusing and framing, but there’s also the seismic shift in what you see through the viewfinder.  My M-A has a beautifully uncluttered viewfinder; my M9 and M10-D (which has more eye relief with the improved viewfinder) stubbornly just have <.> and nothing else.

The Visoflex has exposure simulation (which I quite like, not using flash), and everything else you might want and more, including diopter adjustment, preview of the image you’ve just taken, horizontal line and live histogram, all of which I assume you can cycle through somehow.  What’s not to like? Unless you really like the uncluttered view through an M-A viewfinder. 

My suspicion is that the  “youth of today” - the Sony generation - will feel very comfortable with an M-EVF, without fretting about pixel count in the screen, or refresh rates. That’s a world they’ve grown up in.  It’s the EVF they’ll think is weird - no ISO, aperture, shutter speed or white balance in the viewfinder? And what’s that odd white patch in the middle and the funny little lines?
 

[FrozenInTime]

1 hour ago, hexx said:

Not entirely sure what the RF window is for. My brain can’t work out the purpose for it. On Q, you can move AF frame wherever you want in the frame and then zoom in to that area for fine tune of focus. So a bit confused by this RF “window” there 

If, big if, it is an optical imaging window, with deliberate offset and purpose similar to a obtaining a classic central RF overlay, then this view would have to be electronically combined and fed to the EVF. The modern solution would be a small secondary sensor ; the crazy solution would be to project onto a small corner of main sensor, think inverse Corfield Periflex, then cut and position this information into a visual focus aid. Both schemes seem complex and convoluted, so gated time of flight, lidar or other active, non visual distance sensing would seem more likely.

[pgk]

19 minutes ago, pop said:

There also seems to be a determination by advocates of RF cameras to ignore their actual shortcomings.

People having used both (and other) cameras know perfectly well that in some situations an RF excels, in others an EVF or a SLR will be more useful and in a vast number of cases it's just a matter of personal preference or convenience.

RF cameras certainly have a limited operating envelope but they do have advantages within that envelope and these will suit a small sector of photographers (myself included when I want to use them). EVF cameras have a much wider operating envelope, and in some cases wider than dSLR envelope. The difference is that there are very few makers of RF cameras so comparisons of RF cameras are pretty irrelevant, whereas there are many EVF camera makers and the cameras offer high specification and versatility. Launching an EVF-M into the marketplace will inevitably lead to comparisons and hobbling a camera with MF only, and a narrow lens throat, is hardly a way to help the situation. An L mount M camea on the other hand ......

[Smudgerer]

43 minutes ago, pgk said:

The word 'compromise' is the significant one. ALL cameras are compromises and some are better for specific tasks than others. The question which lurks behind this thread is whether an EVF-M is too much of a compromise which, after vast amounts of discussion, still fails to be addressed, although clearly to a few the answer is no. Whether sufficient numbers will buy such a camera will eventually be answered if Leica produce it. I'd like to know Leica's inner thinking on potential sales of such a camera. Perhaps they will compromise further and produce an EVF version of the film CL which would at least satisfy the desire for an M mount, small EVF camera😁. The only downside being that neither the film CL nor the M5 were the success stories Leica hoped they would be. I wonder if history might repeat itself once again?

All nicely considered and said.........

"Compromise"....Sure of course, there's many you have to make in this game especially so if you are a working/pro' photographer. My favourite camera system to use by far is the M series, both film and digital, but going out on a job I never took the M's alone, always had a Nikon kit there too, even ( ok, I will go to hell ), some AF lenses too. Belt and braces brings the job home.

Edited Monday at 09:22 AM by Smudgerer
Spelling

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

23 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

My suspicion is that the  “youth of today” - the Sony generation - will feel very comfortable with an M-EVF ..... That’s a world they’ve grown up in.

Except that they have also grown up in a world where AF rules and MF is for occasional, special purpose photography. A very few may appreciate MF but I doubt that many will. All the younger photographers I know see photography is ways I ever did. Its much more of a tool for use in ways unimagined years ago. The vast majority will see an RF, and certainly an EVF-M as quirky products. The future will be interesting no doubt and products which are compromises will face a marketplace which is vastly different from that of the past.

[pgk]

3 minutes ago, Smudgerer said:

My favourite camera system to use by far is the M series, both film and digital, but going out on a job I never took the M's alone, always had a Nikon kit there too, even ( ok, I will go to hell ), some AF lenses too. Belt and braces brings the job home.

Substitute Canon (in digital days) and that is exactly my experience too. I have shot professionally using Ms but always alongside other cameras. And I've sold images taken on Ms too, but far more from other cameras (many 10s of thousands). I still find my Ms the most pleasurable to use though.