EVF M rumoured

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That rumours article specifically states that the camera would be without a rangefinder window. How that would work for the optical rangefinder part of a hybrid viewfinder is not explained. 🤪

[costa43]

If it was a hybrid then my guess would be that the OVF will of course not have a rangefinder but some kind of digital overlay confirming focus. 

[evikne]

And what exactly is a rangefinder window? Here are at least two different explanations from the web. We cannot be entirely sure which window the author of the rumor meant.

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!

[costa43]

The rangefinder window to me is the ‘focus patch’  the viewfinder has not been mentioned as missing yet on anything ‘leaked’

Edited August 27 by costa43

[adan]

Well, the Illumination window is already a thing of the past in the M-digitals - eliminated after the M9, and replaced with an internal LED light source.

In a full-hybrid RF/VF, both of the other windows would still be needed, for the TWO images the rangefinder aligns when focusing. One without the other would be pointless, like "the sound of one hand clapping."

However the RF/"focus patch" window might be slightly more expendable, if all one wants is a pseudo-hybrid with "window-viewing-but-no-manual-focusing," overlaid with a transparent screen that displays LED framelines and a focus-confirmation light of some kind from a phase-detect sensor. Sorta-kinda how Fuji does it in the X-Pros - no actual RF focusing (because the X-Pro has no RF!) but you do get to view through the window.

But I'd suggest that would be very "Heath-Robinson🇬🇧 /Rube-Goldberg🇺🇸 Comic-Strip-engineering" for Leica. Not the simple essentials.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Heath_Robinson_Inventions_-_Page_034.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine#/media/File:Rube_Goldberg's_"Self-Operating_Napkin"_(cropped).gif

For a pure EVF camera, neither of those windows would be required - but as lct has occasionally mentioned, the RF roller cam in the top of the lens mount (right-hand picture above) would still be needed, possibly in very simplified form, to detect the motion of the lens cam ("ahh, the photographer is turning the focus ring!"), and activate/trigger "auto-magnification" when focusing via the EVF (same as it does now for the Viso add-on EVFs).

Edited August 27 by adan

[lct]

1 hour ago, evikne said:

And what exactly is a rangefinder window? [...]

What it has always been if memory serves:

Quote

A rangefinder camera has a viewfinder window built into its front and a second rangefinder window off to its side (link)

 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, evikne said:

And what exactly is a rangefinder window? Here are at least two different explanations from the web. We cannot be entirely sure which window the author of the rumor meant.

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!

The focus patch IS the rangefinder. The rest is the optical viewfinder. When we talk about a rangefinder camera it is shorthand for an optical viewfinder / rangefinder camera. 
See the diagram in Adan’s post. It is impossible to have a coincidence rangefinder with one window. Otherwise it is a telescope. Having an optical viewfinder with some digital information projected in is far less effective than a good EVF or real optical rangefinder/viewfinder. If Leica finds a better the existing less than optimal pseudo-RF system by Fuji I raise my hat to them. 

[costa43]

I totally agree that it’s a workaround and not as fluid as a rangefinder but having an OVF with some kind of focus confirmation will afford us the use of frame lines and the ability to see the world through a piece of glass, whilst being able to switch to a built in EVF if we choose to. This is all pie in the sky talk at this point but there is an element of appeal in its theory. 

[LocalHero1953]

6 hours ago, adan said:

Tech changes - but physics doesn't (at least at the scale of building viewfinder optics).

 

True, but the barriers look more like tech and engineering than physics. New materials, miniaturisation come along......

 

[jaapv]

Which is only refining, not changing the basics. Having better materials will not allow you to build a bicycle without wheels. 

[LocalHero1953]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Which is only refining, not changing the basics. Having better materials will not allow you to build a bicycle without wheels. 

Is that comparable to opto-electronic technology and materials science in 2025?

Edited August 27 by LocalHero1953

[lct]

23 minutes ago, costa43 said:

I totally agree that it’s a workaround and not as fluid as a rangefinder but having an OVF with some kind of focus confirmation will afford us the use of frame lines and the ability to see the world through a piece of glass, whilst being able to switch to a built in EVF if we choose to. This is all pie in the sky talk at this point but there is an element of appeal in its theory. 

The VF window can hardly be placed in the same location as the EVF. I sympathise with this idea, but using a built-in EVF makes it unnecessary to use both the VF window and the RF window. Hence the “clean front" mentioned in the rumor i guess. Is it ugly? Yes, perhaps, but the aesthetics of the digital CL could be worse, to be honest.

[jaapv]

Yes. You must differentiate between the immutable physics that determine the basic principles and the technology that allows you to build the actual tool that can be refined. 
The only thing you can do is replace one technology with another, like a focus confirmation LED  

 

17 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Is that comparable to opto-electronic technology and materials science in 2025?

 

[Kim Dahl]

Leica has no idea how an M-V will be received. The M11 series is almost over and I think Leica “just” puts a Q viewfinder where the RF module sits. (Q battery?) and otherwise no physical change other than that.

Then comes some smart / innovative software from Leica.

The next one (M12-V) can then correct errors and shortcomings.

I think it is very exciting with the new V and look forward to seeing it.

[costa43]

1 hour ago, lct said:

The VF window can hardly be placed in the same location as the EVF. I sympathise with this idea, but using a built-in EVF makes it unnecessary to use both the VF window and the RF window. Hence the “clean front" mentioned in the rumor i guess. Is it ugly? Yes, perhaps, but the aesthetics of the digital CL could be worse, to be honest.

I think it can be incorporated as a slide in option. It is likely the M11-D top plate will be used on this V model giving it a bit more room. I do think it will just be an EVF built in but I enjoy discussing any other possibilities too.

Edited August 27 by costa43

[LocalHero1953]

51 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Yes. You must differentiate between the immutable physics that determine the basic principles and the technology that allows you to build the actual tool that can be refined. 
The only thing you can do is replace one technology with another, like a focus confirmation LED  

 

 

So when a display material is developed that is variably transparent with applied electrical signal, taking up minimal additional space sitting in front of the OVF, is that a breach of immutable laws of physics or just another innovation in the rapidly changing technology of materials?

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

So when a display material is developed that is variably transparent with applied electrical signal, taking up minimal additional space sitting in front of the OVF, is that a breach of immutable laws of physics or just another innovation in the rapidly changing technology of materials?

No, that is applying a different principle. If you want it to display a true rangefinder digitally you would still need a second window to create a baseline for measurement. The alternative is to take an AF feed off the sensor and project it into the viewfinder. There a various ways to do so, the simplest being a LED display. 
I think the misconception here is that the rangefinder window's purpose is not solely to admit light to display it in the viewfinder ( like the frameline window was). It is not, its primary function is to provide a view of the subject at a distance from the viewfinder to create a baseline for a parallax measurement. 
BTW systems to project digital elements into an optical system are common technology and do not need to be invented. 

[Mahesh]

I am enjoying these technical discussions about engineering and possibilities. Seems like we have moved away from what an M should be and should not (relief!). 😅

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

No, that is applying a different principle. If you want it to display a true rangefinder digitally you would still need a second window to create a baseline for measurement. The alternative is to take an AF feed off the sensor and project it into the viewfinder. There a various ways to do so, the simplest being a LED display. 
I think the misconception here is that the rangefinder window's purpose is not solely to admit light to display it in the viewfinder ( like the frameline window was). It is not, its primary function is to provide a view of the subject at a distance from the viewfinder to create a baseline for a parallax measurement. 
BTW systems to project digital elements into an optical system are common technology and do not need to be invented. 

I wasn't arguing about the RF window, just challenging the statement (often repeated on this forum): "Stefan Daniel said we looked at this in 2018 and it can't be done well enough". My question was: how long should it be left before reviewing that decision? Another decade? Another century? Just because that was the right decision then, doesn't make it correct for all time.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

I am sure that such decisions will be reviewed permanently. It would not be very smart not to do so.  However, the question will tend more, I think, to be: given the recent developments in EVF quality, do we even want to go there?. And: If we should develop such a camera, would there be a market and would we recover the development costs?.