EVF M rumoured

[Smudgerer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Dr. G said:

I’ve been an SL shooter since the beginning, using APO Summicron SL lenses and the 50 Lux SL, and have had almost every Q variant.  I recently picked up the Nikon zf only for use with the Voigtlander Norton 50 f/1 and 40 f/1.2.   I’ve tried these lenses on my SL2-S and SL3 in the past and my hit rate for critical focus was fairly low.  In fact, the SL3 zoom function, for some reason, doesn’t have the clarity that my SL2-S did - so it’s even more difficult to get good focus on an eye at really fast apertures.  With the zf manual focus confirmation with eye detect, it has become one of my favorite manual shooting experiences.  If Leica currently had a M camera with an EVF and a similar focus confirmation system available already I would have bought it without a second thought.  
 

But that also makes me wonder if Leica did implement such manual focus aids in an EVF M camera, would they make it exclusive to that body in order to get some SL and Q users to purchase another camera for that experience?

Excuse my ignorance, but what is " the zf manual focus confirmation with eye detect......" on the Nikon? Is it as it used to be in the film F4/5/6's a dot of a green light that illuminates when a chosen segment is in focus?...........If so, yes that would be a very handy feature to have in a prospective EV-M, even a SL too I would guess.

[Advertisement]

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

[evikne]

If the EVF M is successful, I think all digital M's in the future (not in the immediate future though) will have an EVF. The rangefinder will only be found in the film M's. I think this is a natural evolution of the M system.

[Lee S]

Thinking about the EVF, how good can they actually make the EVF within the size constraints of an M Body?

Lots of people complain about the A7C variant EVF’s with its x 0.7 magnification and 2.36M dot resolution.

The Visoflex 2 is 3.7dot resolution and people still say that’s not enough, unsure in magnification. 

[lct]

11 minutes ago, Lee S said:

The Visoflex 2 is 3.7dot resolution and people still say that’s not enough [...]

I would not bet on more resolution than the V2's for the first EVF-M,if any, but i have no info about that.

[Markey]

3 hours ago, Chris W said:

In the 1980's hardly anyone was shooting with an M6. It was wall to wall Nikon and Canon.

I think since the internet people have really discovered the M and even Leica in general.

I think they took a look at their future a few years ago and launched the Q, then entered the mirrorless market with the SL.

I'm sure they sell way more Q's (1, 2 or 3) than they've ever sold M's. Between the Q and SL series they are making a lot more money than they ever would with an M.

 

They`re caught between a rock and a hard place with the M .

Alter it any more and it ceases to be an M (so they lose that market) but it can never be as versatile as the new cameras because of its inherent design constraints .

It will be interesting to see what does eventually happen.

[MRJohn]

4 hours ago, Dr. G said:

I’ve been an SL shooter since the beginning, using APO Summicron SL lenses and the 50 Lux SL, and have had almost every Q variant.  I recently picked up the Nikon zf only for use with the Voigtlander Norton 50 f/1 and 40 f/1.2.   I’ve tried these lenses on my SL2-S and SL3 in the past and my hit rate for critical focus was fairly low.  In fact, the SL3 zoom function, for some reason, doesn’t have the clarity that my SL2-S did - so it’s even more difficult to get good focus on an eye at really fast apertures.  With the zf manual focus confirmation with eye detect, it has become one of my favorite manual shooting experiences.  If Leica currently had a M camera with an EVF and a similar focus confirmation system available already I would have bought it without a second thought.  
 

But that also makes me wonder if Leica did implement such manual focus aids in an EVF M camera, would they make it exclusive to that body in order to get some SL and Q users to purchase another camera for that experience?

Would be great to have manual focus eye detect for the SL3/SL3-S when using M or R lenses. In the interim it might teach Leica how such a feature would work on an M EVF.

[Steve Ash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 1 Stunde schrieb evikne:

If the EVF M is successful, I think all digital M's in the future (not in the immediate future though) will have an EVF. The rangefinder will only be found in the film M's. I think this is a natural evolution of the M system.

I cannot see anything natural in that logic. Natural is that the market will decide.

 

Edited February 14 by Steve Ash

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, evikne said:

If the EVF M is successful, I think all digital M's in the future (not in the immediate future though) will have an EVF. The rangefinder will only be found in the film M's. I think this is a natural evolution of the M system.

Some may buy the M for the lenses, though they can also use them with adapters on non-M cameras. I assume that most buy the M because of the rangefinder. If that is the case, a speculated EVF M could replace the real M.

[pgk]

Its interesting that the only other M mount digital camera (Pixii) is also a rangefinder. It could so easily have been an EVF, or could it?

[3D-Kraft.com]

Am 13.2.2025 um 15:10 schrieb Smogg:

Well-known professionals do not use them, but photos taken at f1.0 look professional in the eyes of an inexperienced viewer. That's why they are popular. I bought such a lens, blurred the background into dust and showed my friends how cool I am😂

Another silly prejudice. The "Noctilux wide open" thread shows enough examples - also, but not only - from professionals where it is more than just an effect lens. Usually, however, on an SL, because an M without an EVF is simply overwhelmed by it.

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb mikeamosau:

Not sure why you’d buy an M if you want an EVF. Whole point of the camera is the optical rangefinder, hence the meaning of the M name. 

Wrong (again and again). "Messsucher" only means "rangefinder". it does not necessarily mean an optomechanical implementation. This was only the case in the past due to a lack of alternatives. Don't mix up tradition with definition.

[Carrot]

Yes, the SL cameras can take an M lens and they work fine (mine certainly does), but the SL cameras are large and heavy because they have to support L mount lenses.

A lot of posts have said that if the RF doesn’t give you what you want, go buy a different make of camera.  But those who have invested in M lenses for their quality, simplicity, weight and size naturally want to use them on a camera best designed for them.

How many diehard RF users, upset at the ever increasing technology and functionality in each generation of M camera have nonetheless bought into each new version?  How many calling for Leica to go back to basics have bought the M6, and sold or locked away their M8/9/10/11?

Don’t care what it’s called, but Leica will go the way of Blackberry if they don’t bring out an EVF camera that’s the size and weight of an M.  An M (or XYZ) with EVF (and IBIS) is inevitable.

[sebben]

I hope they do so that the M can become more minimal again. The bloat in price and focus on having a live view/EVF camera is making the M worse.  

 

 

[lct]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Its interesting that the only other M mount digital camera (Pixii) is also a rangefinder. It could so easily have been an EVF, or could it?

As clear as i recall the author wanted a rangefinder in the first place. Question to ask our colleague @loloboubou1 if he's still interested in the Pixii camera.

Edited February 14 by lct

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Its interesting that the only other M mount digital camera (Pixii) is also a rangefinder. It could so easily have been an EVF, or could it?

They would have to invent a better way to focus quickly if they went the EVF route.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, lct said:

As clear as i recall the author wanted a rangefinder in the first place.

But why, given all the clamour for an evfM? [🤔😆]

[Steve Ash]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb 3D-Kraft.com:

Wrong (again and again). "Messsucher" only means "rangefinder". it does not necessarily mean an optomechanical implementation. This was only the case in the past due to a lack of alternatives. Don't mix up tradition with definition.

I do not know which current alternative solution you have in mind. Especially, I do not know of any solution that can replace an optomechanical rangefinder as it is implemented in the current Leica M system. There is more to the rangefinder than measuring the distance to the focus plane. For those who love the M system as it is it is very essential to have the surrounding of the frame in the viewfinder. I suppose it will take some time until we can frame an image within an EVF M in the same manner as in the current M system. Until then,  an EVF M is not a full replacement.

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb Steve Ash:

I do not know which current alternative solution you have in mind.

There were already several suggestions described in this thread. Won't repeat it here.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[UliWer]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb 3D-Kraft.com:

Wrong (again and again). "Messsucher" only means "rangefinder". it does not necessarily mean an optomechanical implementation. This was only the case in the past due to a lack of alternatives. Don't mix up tradition with definition.

You shouldn't cry "wrong" (again and again) when you are not right.

"Messsucher" doesn't mean rangefinder. The word for rangefinder in German is "Entfernungsmesser". While the Barnack cameras had separated rangefinders and viewfinders a "Messsucher" integrates a rangefinder in the viewfinder. An EVF doesn't measure the distance by triangulation and indicates the result in the viewfinder. It is a screen on which the picture the sensor takes from the lens is projected. So the EVF has much more in common with a mirror reflex system than with a rangefinder. 

Though all this doesn't say anything about whether an M-body with EVF is realistic or not. Just look at the price. An EVF-M with the price of the M would be totally nuts. Rip the M of its "Messsucher" fetish and it becomes  ridiculous. You get better and much more elsewhere for much less.

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

Some may buy the M for the lenses, though they can also use them with adapters on non-M cameras. I assume that most buy the M because of the rangefinder…

Not really.

When I walked into a camera shop after my Nikon kit was stolen (F5 and lenses), I was in the rare position of having money and looking for a new system.  I was new to digital.  Now, you could say that my background was the elegant simplicity of FEs and FMs, But my interest was photography.  The Canon 5D Mk II was the latest and greatest.  Nikons were not quite up there.  Holding a 5D II in my hands with I can’t remember which lens - menus, random buttons and huge AF lenses - I put the camera down and walked out of the shop.

Further research, I found the M9 - manual focus, lovely lenses and direct control.  The rangefinder was most certainly an afterthought .

The whole point of the M system is its quality, very careful thought and simplicity of its operation.  Not any one thing.