EVF M rumoured

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looks like a fake. The RF window is useless on a camera without RF.

[mjw3]

I'm of the opinion that the new ILC camera will follow the design language of the D-Lux 8 or the Q. There's no point in making it look like an M since all of that space above the lens is useless without the rangefinder and ovf. I also think it will have an L mount.

[o2mpx]

If the heritage of Leica M is based on the rangefinder, guess tradition will be broken with the EVF. However, if Leica’s heritage also means designing products that adheres to a mission, along with listening to customers input, then the M11 with an EVF isn’t sacrilegious after all. My concern is how robust is the M11 platform itself, given the early electronic issues, although subsequent firmware may have patched things over, but the inherent design might still be problematic. 

[IkarusJohn]

12 minutes ago, o2mpx said:

If the heritage of Leica M is based on the rangefinder, guess tradition will be broken with the EVF. However, if Leica’s heritage also means designing products that adheres to a mission, along with listening to customers input, then the M11 with an EVF isn’t sacrilegious after all. My concern is how robust is the M11 platform itself, given the early electronic issues, although subsequent firmware may have patched things over, but the inherent design might still be problematic. 

Hopefully, that’s why it has taken so long for this camera to be released …

[pgh]

If you take the idea down to the studs, so to speak, you have rumors of a design centric camera company using new tech to work (only) with old tech lenses. Leica has an evf camera already in the SL series.

It’s just hard for me to understand a market out there that rejects putting m lenses on an sl camera (despite negligible size/weight difference imo) but would get an EVF if it were shaped like an M. The SL cameras may seem big, but that’s largely the lens line up. Put a 35mm summicron on it and put it in your camera bag and tell me the bag feels different than when a digital m is in there. I don’t feel it, personally. No, it’s not the same form but then it’s actually a better form for what an EVF camera can do. 

I hope if Leica is making this I’m wrong and it does well but who is really asking for this thing? have those who want it ever shot extensively using only manual focus using an EVF? It’s a highly unpleasant experience to sustain. Live view is nice to have in a pinch and all, but the M without an optical viewfinder is nothing. 

[beewee]

26 minutes ago, pgh said:

have those who want it ever shot extensively using only manual focus using an EVF? It’s a highly unpleasant experience to sustain. Live view is nice to have in a pinch and all, but the M without an optical viewfinder is nothing. 

In the past, I’m guilty for wishing for an EVF centric M. But after shooting several hours with the 50 APO M on an SL3, it made me miss having a rangefinder.

What I realized from this experience is that the rangefinder and EVF are complementary. I’m very doubtful that the mythical M11-V will have a hybrid EVF that provides both a rangefinder and EVF through the same eye piece, but I hope they do one day pull it off. Maybe that will be on the M13.

If I have to guess, there’s a better chance of us getting a stacked or partially stacked sensor with IBIS on an M12 than a hybrid EVF.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

46 minutes ago, pgh said:

[...] have those who want it ever shot extensively using only manual focus using an EVF?
[...] It’s a highly unpleasant experience to sustain.
[...] the M without an optical viewfinder is nothing. 

• I have, as other people using M lenses with mirrorless cameras.
• A more than pleasant experience, to the point that i use the RF less and less in spite (or because) having used it for 40+ years.
• The M without OVF is what it has always been, an M-mount camera.

 

Edited August 26 by lct

[40mm f/2]

9 hours ago, lct said:

Looks like a fake. The RF window is useless on a camera without RF.

What if that RF window would be a Lidar sensor (like the Hasselblad X2D II will have). Even if there is no AF it would help with focus precision!

[S Maclean]

On 8/24/2025 at 3:02 PM, LocalHero1953 said:

It will eliminate ALL the magic of the M viewfinder: there will not be a M viewfinder. But unlike a Q, it will not have AF, P-mode or S-mode, iris shutter, IS, or a Q body.

What is the essence of a M camera? The optical viewfinder? The rangefinder? The body shape? The M lenses? The bottom plate?
(ducks and runs for cover, placing an order for popcorn)

It’s an interesting question. The M at inception, was an improvement on the limitations of early 20th century cameras. Of EVF existed then, they would have implemented it.

the M, now, is a call for crafted photography. It’s not practical, it’s not best in class, but, it gives you a chance to take the picture, to be the photographer, without any bridge….. and then it gives you , on the digital versions, a choice to get technological aid…. But it’s all within you control.

It will not give you better pictures, but it may inspire you to take better pictures.

the Q is a jewel. It’s just the absolute opposite to the M.  It will do anything by itself, but it does give you the chance to take control… you donforego the directness of the rangefinder, but everything else it attainable. ( you also forego lens changes.

The SL is a beast. It’s just the tool for a Proffesional under pressure ( of course there are better competitive choices depending on what type of Proffesional you are) 

if an EVF M comes along I don’t see a future for the Q. Why would I limit myself to one lens?

[o2mpx]

3 hours ago, pgh said:

If you take the idea down to the studs, so to speak, you have rumors of a design centric camera company using new tech to work (only) with old tech lenses. Leica has an evf camera already in the SL series.

It’s just hard for me to understand a market out there that rejects putting m lenses on an sl camera (despite negligible size/weight difference imo) but would get an EVF if it were shaped like an M. The SL cameras may seem big, but that’s largely the lens line up. Put a 35mm summicron on it and put it in your camera bag and tell me the bag feels different than when a digital m is in there. I don’t feel it, personally. No, it’s not the same form but then it’s actually a better form for what an EVF camera can do. 

I hope if Leica is making this I’m wrong and it does well but who is really asking for this thing? have those who want it ever shot extensively using only manual focus using an EVF? It’s a highly unpleasant experience to sustain. Live view is nice to have in a pinch and all, but the M without an optical viewfinder is nothing. 

Own a SL3 using exclusively for use with M lenses and don't own any L mount lenses. Still would consider a M with EVF seriously exactly for reducing bulk. The grip on the SL3 no doubt helps with large lenses but with M lenses, the size of the SL3 is a bit on the large side along with rest of body. 

[chris7273]

1 hour ago, S Maclean said:

It will not give you better pictures, but it may inspire you to take better pictures.

Nicely said

1 hour ago, S Maclean said:

if an EVF M comes along I don’t see a future for the Q. Why would I limit myself to one lens

Because of IBIS 🙂

[FrozenInTime]

3 hours ago, 40mm f/2 said:

What if that RF window would be a Lidar sensor (like the Hasselblad X2D II will have). Even if there is no AF it would help with focus precision!

LIDAR makes sense in the long term; though for eye-hand focus operation,  it is advantageous  that the EVF-M retains the rangefinder coupling cam to feed back to focus indicator the distance the lens is set to.

The next logical step would be to drive MOD 0.8 geared lenses ( or so adapted ), then an external focus motor could be used. A Leicavit like base could house the motor and drive cog. While going down this path, might as well give the EVF-M video capability and IBIS 😉 

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, S Maclean said:

if an EVF M comes along I don’t see a future for the Q. Why would I limit myself to one lens?

Autofocus, image stabilisation. These are the reasons I would not swap my Q3 43 for a EVF M11.

Edited August 26 by LocalHero1953

[costa43]

16 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Autofocus, image stabilisation. These are the reasons I would not swap my Q3 43 for a EVF M11.

I’d also like to throw in weather sealing. A key reason I will consider a Q3 43 as a second camera heading into winter and not this V version.

Edited August 26 by costa43

[3D-Kraft.com]

It makes absolutely no difference whether you define the identity of this system by its opto-mechanical rangefinder or - as also Peter Karbe recently said in an interview - by its M-mount. The fact is that such outdated technology will be so rarely in demand in future generations that Leica won't be able to make a significant contribution to its survival.

No one is taking anything away from the romantics who believe they can take better photos through self-flagellation and limitations to 28-50mm, or in exceptional cases, perhaps sometimes 75mm. But it also makes no sense for them to stand in the way of progress, which will be unstoppable even in this system.

[Smudgerer]

20 minutes ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

It makes absolutely no difference whether you define the identity of this system by its opto-mechanical rangefinder or - as also Peter Karbe recently said in an interview - by its M-mount. The fact is that such outdated technology will be so rarely in demand in future generations that Leica won't be able to make a significant contribution to its survival.

No one is taking anything away from the romantics who believe they can take better photos through self-flagellation and limitations to 28-50mm, or in exceptional cases, perhaps sometimes 75mm. But it also makes no sense for them to stand in the way of progress, which will be unstoppable even in this system.

Oh dear, I guess I wasted the past 60 odd years fruitlessly using the Ms, I should have waited for the digital Golden Age to dawn...........

[S Maclean]

1 hour ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

It makes absolutely no difference whether you define the identity of this system by its opto-mechanical rangefinder or - as also Peter Karbe recently said in an interview - by its M-mount. The fact is that such outdated technology will be so rarely in demand in future generations that Leica won't be able to make a significant contribution to its survival.

No one is taking anything away from the romantics who believe they can take better photos through self-flagellation and limitations to 28-50mm, or in exceptional cases, perhaps sometimes 75mm. But it also makes no sense for them to stand in the way of progress, which will be unstoppable even in this system.

I don’t think any serious photographer thinks they can take better “technical” photos with an M, it’s more about the different ( not better or worse) feeling an M brings as a camera, which may affect how one feels when using it as a tool.

how you feel using a specific instrument does affect how you work.  This is why musicians may like one specific instrument, artists a specific medium or brush etc.

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Autofocus, image stabilisation. These are the reasons I would not swap my Q3 43 for a EVF M11.

True. Actually i would take stabilization over evf on an M.

That said I do have the SL and the Q43 and love them. I use the SL less than the Q.

if i travel and I know I want to take photographs I take the M’s . If it’s family travel, light travel or work I often just take the Q.

weather sealing is also important…. But I have never had an issue with that as of yet.

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor einer Stunde schrieb S Maclean:

I don’t think any serious photographer thinks they can take better “technical” photos with an M, it’s more about the different ( not better or worse) feeling an M brings as a camera, which may affect how one feels when using it as a tool.

how you feel using a specific instrument does affect how you work.  This is why musicians may like one specific instrument, artists a specific medium or brush etc.

Yes, it's undeniably a different experience shooting with an M, which is why I still occasionally pull out my M9. But many people actually argue that they take better photos with it because they have more control or are more "conscious" in their shooting.

It could equally be argued that you take better photos with a more automated camera because it takes care of many things that computers usually do better these days, allowing you to focus more on the subject, composition, etc., and the chance of capturing the "best moment" is simply higher.

The M11-V will be a step into this direction and will make it easier to use, for example, a 90/2 or a Noctilux 75/1.25 on the M.

Edited August 26 by 3D-Kraft.com

[IkarusJohn]

57 minutes ago, S Maclean said:

I don’t think any serious photographer thinks they can take better “technical” photos with an M

I’m not sure about that.  Not sure I quality as a “serious photographer”, but I certainly take better photos with an M than other cameras for the simple reason that it is constrained by its manual evereything nature and its focal length limitations.  Even more so with my Monochrom!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[costa43]

We are all different people and it is ok for us to have different opinions. It's great that we have this choice with Leica.  I'm one of those that actually finds using an EVF with manual focus, slower than using a rangefinder in a lot of scenarios, and a less rewarding experience. I'm also one of those that thinks if you love using something, you will use it more often, this increases the keeper rate of pics for me. The M without a rangefinder and OVF has little appeal to me. I'd rather have a Q for this type of everyday shooting.