Dazzajl Posted February 8 Share #21 Posted February 8 Advertisement (gone after registration) It’s a very difficult situation for Leica. If they add in all the possible new tech and make the M a camera that actually ‘works’ and is a capable modern camera, half their customer base is up in arms. If they keep the M simple and old school, they alienate the other half of their customers. If they split the M line in half to try accommodate everyone, can they make the numbers work and still be viable? As we are now, you could put M lenses on a Sony A and have a manual focus camera with better tech than Leica would be able to offer in such a niche camera. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 8 Posted February 8 Hi Dazzajl, Take a look here EVF M rumoured. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jipster Posted February 8 Share #22 Posted February 8 3 minutes ago, Dazzajl said: It’s a very difficult situation for Leica. If they add in all the possible new tech and make the M a camera that actually ‘works’ and is a capable modern camera, half their customer base is up in arms. If they keep the M simple and old school, they alienate the other half of their customers. If they split the M line in half to try accommodate everyone, can they make the numbers work and still be viable? As we are now, you could put M lenses on a Sony A and have a manual focus camera with better tech than Leica would be able to offer in such a niche camera. Oh, the 50,000 pictures I have taken in the last 3 years was with a camera that didn’t work? Damn. The M is not for everybody, just like a manual clutch is not for everybody. No need to say silly things. 1 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzajl Posted February 8 Share #23 Posted February 8 24 minutes ago, Jipster said: Oh, the 50,000 pictures I have taken in the last 3 years was with a camera that didn’t work? Damn. The M is not for everybody, just like a manual clutch is not for everybody. No need to say silly things. I’m clearly having a dense five minutes here (not for the first time this week) but your point has gone over my head. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 8 Share #24 Posted February 8 2 hours ago, Einst_Stein said: EVF M? What makes it different from, say SL2 or SL3? I have it now! Smaller and lighter, maybe some smart way to focus manually M lenses even though they do not have auyomatic aperture (focusing precisely with closed aperture is hard). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 8 Share #25 Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said: You mean, if it is rebadged Lumix S9 or Sony A7C? Then the rumored M EVF might be compete with Sony A7CR or the coming A7CRII. What M EVF should have, besides the Leica Red Dot? Leica ergonomics, simplicity, better interaction with M lenses. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phojomatic Posted February 9 Share #26 Posted February 9 Exciting news. If this camera happens, it's a great way to move all the M12 wishlist items from the other thread into one product, and keep the M rangefinder system EVF free (but maybe not IBIS). One thing I can't see is the use of AGAIN the triple resolution sensor as it would potentially compete against the M/Q/SL3. As posted above, it seems the SL line didn't quite take off as hoped, and the Q is the current best seller and a very mature camera not in need of any updates for a while...this could fill a huge sales gap and also give Leica time to get the M12 ready. One sticking point I think is that the M lenses don't have any way to communicate aperture....which would necessitate the new camera use M and A modes...which isn't a bad thing, because it could mean a more photographic design (versus video-enabled Q). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpark114 Posted February 9 Share #27 Posted February 9 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm not so sure about EVF M's commercial potential though. I think one of the reasons Qs are popular is AF, full frame AF with great optics in a nice relatively small package. As for SLs, they are inherently bound to compete against other major brands' top of the line. SLs don't offer uniqueness that Q & M offer. A M mount EVF Camera surely seems a niche product unless significantly cheaper than M & Q. Of course, I'm no expert in marketing strategy... Edited February 9 by jpark114 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted February 9 Share #28 Posted February 9 Compare Sony A7CR's feature, Leica would have a hard time to explain why they cannot put IBIS to M, and I am not asking video yet! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 9 Share #29 Posted February 9 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said: Compare Sony A7CR's feature, Leica would have a hard time to explain why they cannot put IBIS to M, and I am not asking video yet! I am guessing: There is 10mm difference in flange distance, which probably means that there is no space behind the sensor. Leica may be able to put it in the front, but the mechanical shutter is in the way. Edited February 9 by SrMi 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted February 9 Share #30 Posted February 9 32 minutes ago, SrMi said: I am guessing: There is 10mm difference in flange distance, which probably means that there is no space behind the sensor. Leica may be able to put it in the front, but the mechanical shutter is in the way. Some people work hard to explain why things cannot be done. Some make it already! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 9 Share #31 Posted February 9 1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said: Compare Sony A7CR's feature, Leica would have a hard time to explain why they cannot put IBIS to M, and I am not asking video yet! Technically, until the hardware has been miniaturized, it simply could not fit. The only solution would be a larger sensor and digital IBIS but the hat has its own problems. The A7CR is a bad example. That is a body designed from the ground up. Leica has to contend with with fitting modern technology in a vintage body. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 9 Share #32 Posted February 9 25 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said: Some people work hard to explain why things cannot be done. Some make it already! Some people expect the impossible. Shouldn't it just take a bit longer? 🤣 Based on what Leica has said so far, I have explained why Leica probably has a problem adding IBIS to M. Leica has said that they would like to add IBIS to M if they could. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted February 9 Share #33 Posted February 9 5 minutes ago, jaapv said: Technically, until the hardware has been miniaturized, it simply could not fit. The only solution would be a larger sensor and digital IBIS but the hat has its own problems. The A7CR is a bad example. That is a body designed from the ground up. Leica has to contend with with fitting modern technology in a vintage body. The light path distance does not need to be the same as the physical path distance. I do not pretend an expert, but I don't think it is a dead end yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted February 9 Share #34 Posted February 9 8 minutes ago, SrMi said: Some people expect the impossible. Shouldn't it just take a bit longer? 🤣 Based on what Leica has said so far, I have explained why Leica probably has a problem adding IBIS to M. Leica has said that they would like to add IBIS to M if they could. Impossible? sounds very familiar, I have heard many incapable project team members said that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 9 Share #35 Posted February 9 Unfortunately impossible ( at present) when said by an expert is often the case despite simplistic arguments by laymen I suspect that if Leica had stuck to the M240 body size there would be IBIS by now. There is no conceivable reason for Leica to leave it off if at all possible . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 9 Share #36 Posted February 9 14 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said: The light path distance does not need to be the same as the physical path distance. I do not pretend an expert, but I don't think it is a dead end yet. How do you visualize that? . Both the focal plane and IBIS are tied to the position of the sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDodkin Posted February 9 Share #37 Posted February 9 Sign me up - I'll take one - never use the RF any more, and having the Visoflex II on my M11 makes it bulky. It is 2025 after all - Leica need to get with it. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymoose Posted February 9 Share #38 Posted February 9 It would be fantastic if Leica offered an EVF M in addition to the RF M in terms of bringing in more revenue to fund more R&D and sustain the business. Hopefully they can use that money to speed up repair times! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevejack Posted February 9 Share #39 Posted February 9 8 hours ago, Dazzajl said: As we are now, you could put M lenses on a Sony A and have a manual focus camera with better tech than Leica would be able to offer in such a niche camera. Agreed, but not for wide lenses, there is an issue with the distance between the M lenses and the sensor - but yes 35/50mm lenses work brilliantly with Sony. Wide M lenses work great on the SL, but this needs an adapter and the SL is a tank of a camera. Also, it doesn't solve the manual focusing issue. Leica needs to give us a new way to use manual focus lenses on an EVF camera. It's not enough just to miniaturise the SL and give it an M mount... they need to work on making manual focus a pleasure when using an EVF. No-one else has solved this yet. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raizans Posted February 9 Share #40 Posted February 9 Let's pour one out for the late Erwin Puts, who envisioned the EVF-M in 2009: "The CRF concept" https://web.archive.org/web/20090507173945/https://www.imx.nl/photo/Analysis/page149/page149.html 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now