EVF M rumoured

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, JNK100 said:

Yes- RF mechanisms are very expensive.

Actually, now that I’ve thought about it some more, I did once request a quote from Leica for changing my early vintage M7 (with the “flare”) into a non-flare MP viewfinder, and was surprised at just how much $$ it was for that add-on (beyond just a CLA).

For people like me, I love the size and weight of the M bodies, and same for the mechanical M lenses, but I’m finding - for me - that the rangefinder is something that has been superseded in use by my EVF-2 ….the latter providing very accurate framing, a histogram (which I find immensely helpful for subjects such as landscapes, and especially on the Monochrom to avoid blown highlights), and use of Leica Perspective Control, and of course the EVF benefit of dialled-in focusing. In many ways, I’m probably an ideal candidate for an M EVF.

 

 

[NightPix]

I’m enjoying the spirited conversation happening here. Personally I doubt that the RF-M camera is in any real jeopardy. From a purely business perspective it makes sense that Leica decided to produce something like the rumored M11 with EVF because their marketing folks detected there was demand for such a product. If no one buys it, or those who do don’t like it, that may be the end of it (collector’s item). For those who love the RF I see no need for them to switch, or get into a lather. Personally I can’t wait to see what technical innovations Leica has in store. In the meantime I’m pretty darn happy using my m-lenses on my SL’s. 

[Derbyshire Man]

3 hours ago, brickftl said:

thanks, I go the LAL (light adjustable lenses). The amazing thing about these lenses is that the correction of each lens can be changed/fine tuned AFTER implantation. I just had my second eye done Tuesday of this week, and as things stand now, I'm thrilled how well I see - both distance and reading, and I have absolutely no more need of glasses/contact lenses. And yet apparently not only did I have astigmatism in my old lenses but still have it in my corneas. And in 3 weeks when the doctor "dials in" further adjustments, he'll be able to correct for my cornea astigmatism which he says will result in even better vision (I can't imagine how it will be better but we'll see).

Further on the topic of the M11V, not having read the many responses in this thread, if in addition to having an EVF it retained a rangefinder and other attributes of my M11P (which I doubt will be the case), I could possibly be interested. But not having a rangefinder now that I have eyes to appreciate how it's intended to work would be a deal breaker for me.

Fascinating, really pleased it’s working out for you!

[DadDadDaddyo]

I'll echo the congratulations on coming through with the new lenses for your eyes. 

I also went through this a couple of years ago and was similarly astonished at the improvement. The most telling was the one-week period during which I had one new lens and one old born-with lens, enabling me to compare. The new one was clear, bright, and brilliant. The old one was like peering through wet parchment paper, stained, yellow-brown, and dim. My brain had been working overtime for years doing a white balance on that!

Folks who've gone through lens replacement will likely find their view through the rangefinder has improved significantly afterwards. 

I mention all this just to lend a word of encouragement to anyone who's been told such lens replacements due to cataracts are in their future. Do not shy away from the procedure. Don't put it off just because it sounds kind of weird. Embrace it! You'll most likely be amazed by the results.

Edited August 28 by DadDadDaddyo

[beewee]

I vaguely recall back in the M10 days, the rangefinder assembly made up about 15-30% of the manufacturing cost of the camera. The only other component that is at a similar level is the imaging sensor.

Edited August 28 by beewee

[raizans]

I suspect Leica will make lenses that are better suited for use with an EVF, and people will end up with both RF-M and EVF-M. Cha-ching!

[Gavin G]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, raizans said:

I suspect Leica will make lenses that are better suited for use with an EVF, and people will end up with both RF-M and EVF-M. Cha-ching!

It is, just look at the latest lens that supports close focusing.

[JNK100]

2 hours ago, raizans said:

I suspect Leica will make lenses that are better suited for use with an EVF, and people will end up with both RF-M and EVF-M. Cha-ching!

They already have some lenses that focus closer than the RF limit of 0.7m.

[pgk]

On 8/27/2025 at 12:12 AM, jrichie said:

I also don't think the rangefinder is going anywhere.

Where can it go? It is what it is. You either appreciate its characteristics or don't. It has however survived in its present form for ~70 years, seen the rise and fall of the SLR as the absolutely dominant 35mm/FX camera type and RF M cameras still sell for ridiculously high prices. The rfM may not be 'going anywhere' but then it doesn't need to. An EVF camera on the other hand faces a lot of extremely sophisticated and highly capable competition.

[lct]

32 minutes ago, pgk said:

Where can it go? It is what it is. You either appreciate its characteristics or don't. It has however survived in its present form for ~70 years, seen the rise and fall of the SLR as the absolutely dominant 35mm/FX camera type and RF M cameras still sell for ridiculously high prices. The rfM may not be 'going anywhere' but then it doesn't need to. An EVF camera on the other hand faces a lot of extremely sophisticated and highly capable competition.

+1 except that the EVF camera will have little to no competition with M lenses.

[jaapv]

Yes, but other manufacturers and Leica have advanced to a point that there is serious competition in lenses. The SL lenses, for instance, are optically better than M lenses. 

[pedaes]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The SL lenses, for instance, are optically better than M lenses. 

Primarily because they are bigger!

[lct]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Yes, but other manufacturers and Leica have advanced to a point that there is serious competition in lenses. The SL lenses, for instance, are optically better than M lenses. 

The strength of M lenses is... M lenses. I could not care less about SL lenses that cannot be used on an M-mount camera , and even if they could, i would not want such monster lenses on my M cameras. YMMV.

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 27 Minuten schrieb lct:

+1 except that the EVF camera will have little to no competition with M lenses.

Don't forget adapters.

[jaapv]

26 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Primarily because they are bigger!

Of course. 

[pgk]

38 minutes ago, lct said:

+1 except that the EVF camera will have little to no competition with M lenses.

Deends on what you consider competition. I have current EVF lenses which are fabulous and optically are certainly competitive. And Leica aren't the only maker of M fit lenses and many are good. So an M mount EVF camera does have competition in terms of lenses. Having use M leses on Sony cameras I can accept that they are not as good as on M cameras but despite all the discussion I've seen, I would say that they are not at all bad either and certainly for the most part 'fit for purpose' if 'acceptable' imagery is the primary goal of using an M lens on an EVF camera.

24 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Primarily because they are bigger!

Whilst many are bigger they are still light, and they feature things like AF too. And they are optically excellent and isn't this one reason why people supposedly buy Leicas, for their optical characteristics?

The 'problem' here is that an EVF-M would have few real competitive attributes and in all liklihood these may actually be narrowed down to one; it being a native M mount Leica made camera. Beyond that I honestly see little to recommend it. I'm sure it would sell, but whether it would make Leica a profit or drive sales to other Leica made equipment I am very unsure. No doubt Leica have done some market research though and perhaps they will deem it viable. 

[costa43]

I am a casual photographer and have no need for specialist lenses so size is everything with the M. Small, full frame camera that I can take anywhere. If I wanted a camera just for technical output I would skip full frame altogether and go with one of the medium format options from Hasselblad or Fuji. The differences between the highest performing lens on an M11 vs the difference of an APO on the SL3 is definitely evident but not enough for the size/weight penalty for my type of shooting.

Edited August 28 by costa43

[Jipster]

18 hours ago, RF’sDelight said:

Until today this thread had a performance of approx. 350 comments per month. And now six months later there are only very few facts, if any. Much "EVF-M rumored" about nothing I’d say. And now it also turns out that term and technique of a rangefinder needs explanation. 🤪

I recommend Leicas latest video with Peter Karbe explaining how the first rangefinder came to be and how it works. Perhaps it revives the appreciation for a mechanical rangefinder instead of begging for a Fuji–esque EVF.

https://leica-camera.com/en-US/blog/photography/the-leica-rangefinder-explained

The video you referenced is basically laying the groundwork for a Leica M-mount with integrated EVF as the next evolution. IMHO it clearly hints at EVF as the next step and I suspect the video was released as a pre-pre-teaser for the rumored Leica M-mount with EVF. The traditional Leica M will stay for as long as people buy it and it is financially viable.  By pursuing two parallel lines, Leica will let the market decides or not decide (if both lines make financial sense, they will coexist for the foreseeable future). Smart move from a business perspective. 

[pgk]

36 minutes ago, costa43 said:

I am a casual photographer and have no need for specialist lenses so size is everything with the M. Small, full frame camera that I can take anywhere.

A sony with an M adapter and M lens is not significantly bigger than an M camera and lens, and probably similar in weight (I have both but haven't weighed them). So the question is really about why I prefer to use the M? And the answer to me is absolutely clear: because I prefer the OVF and rangefinder focus. The Sony/M lens combination offers much that an EVF-M would offer so the question remains about how many would buy an EVF-M at a premium price given that it would be completely uncompetitive with any other EVF cameras? I fully understand the arguments raised in support of such a camera but I see its flaws, which are myriad, and given that it will not be a cheap camera (unless Leica have a sudden, massive policy shift) then is it a risk worth taking both financially and reputationally?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[costa43]

3 minutes ago, pgk said:

A sony with an M adapter and M lens is not significantly bigger than an M camera and lens, and probably similar in weight (I have both but haven't weighed them). So the question is really about why I prefer to use the M? And the answer to me is absolutely clear: because I prefer the OVF and rangefinder focus. The Sony/M lens combination offers much that an EVF-M would offer so the question remains about how many would buy an EVF-M at a premium price given that it would be completely uncompetitive with any other EVF cameras? I fully understand the arguments raised in support of such a camera but I see its flaws, which are myriad, and given that it will not be a cheap camera (unless Leica have a sudden, massive policy shift) then is it a risk worth taking both financially and reputationally?

I feel the same way. If I want an EVF I pick up the SL2-S, I can also use my Visoflex 2. My curiousity will only be peaked if it brings something new to the table. A hybrid viewfinder or a type of focus confirmation we have not seen before that really improves the shooting experience. To go and drop 7k or whatever it comes out at just because of the design does not make much sense to me. Granted it is a native M mount but that is not enough on it's own to warrant it, for me.