EVF M rumoured

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Without wishing to derail this fascinating thread (😄) I would like to ask some pertinent questions about the M11/EVF-M viewfinder.

From Leica the current spec of the M11's viewfinder are:

Large, bright-line rangefinder with automatic parallax compensation, suitable for -0.5 dpt; optional corrective lenses available: -3 to +3 dpt.

The use of 'optional corrective lenses' is a pretty archaic way of adjusting for vision in today's world to be honest. So to me one of the most effective ways of improving any M camera would be to have built in dioptric correction, like that in most other cameras (dSLR and EVF). So I wonder just how feasible this is in either an rfM of EVF-M? If it required enlarging the viewfinder at the rear, in the way most other cameras have a slightly protruding and larger rear section, would this be acceptable for the gain of an easier and clearer view through the viewfinder?

[Advertisement]

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

[pedaes]

8 minutes ago, pgk said:

have built in dioptric correction,

All the electronic Visoflexes have this without a  obvious increase in size.

[pgk]

30 minutes ago, pedaes said:

All the electronic Visoflexes have this without a  obvious increase in size.

Indeed, I'm not sure why the M viewfinder does not or cannot, but I would say that it would make an M much more user friendly to have in-built dioptric correction.

[Stephen.s1]

Leica is running a huge,multi-page  on line ad.  And the feature?   RANGEFINDER Ms. 

[BernardC]

Someone explained this in another topic at some point. If I remember correctly, it's because the elements in the viewfinder (rangefinder patch, masks, LEDs, subject) are not at the same optical distance.

Leica is very familiar with diopter correction, LTM cameras had an adjustable diopter on the rangefinder (but not the viewfinder) in the 1930s, as do the current Q and SL variants.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

Someone explained this in another topic at some point. If I remember correctly, it's because the elements in the viewfinder (rangefinder patch, masks, LEDs, subject) are not at the same optical distance.

They must all be at a coincident virtual distance or they would never all be in focus. I suspect that the problem is physical size and the need to retain a specific viewfinder physical opening at the rear. An EVF might be somewhat different but I'm not well enough into such optics to figure this out. A built in dioptric correction would be a real progression but if its possible within the confines of the M's existing design I am sure it would already feature in the later cameras.

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, pgk said:

They must all be at a coincident virtual distance or they would never all be in focus.

SLRs have a similar issue. The image is focused at the bottom side of the focusing screen, but informational displays are closer, and any image overlays are on the top side of the screen. Many photographers made the mistake of adjusting their dioptre for the wrong thing, especially for the fresnel pattern which is visually closer than the image. 

[catacore]

5 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

"I have sources that actuallt test the camera..." 🙃

I bet you don't believe him, but I can tell you that I know and I have spoked (via e-mail) with a guy who saw and got to play with one of these M-EV cameras. He's a Leica dealer.

[3D-Kraft.com]

Am 3.10.2025 um 17:12 schrieb FrozenInTime:

The reason I bought into rangefinders was for the quality and because they were small, as were the lenses. SLR and full frame mirrorless cameras and especially AF lenses still cannot compete on size.

May be true, if you compare with Leica SL, Lumix L-Mount, Nikon and Canon, but not for Sony. A7CR with 40/2.5 or 35/1.8 ist smaller and lighter than a M11 with 35mm Summicron, but has AF, IBIS, Video...

Edited 3 hours ago by 3D-Kraft.com