EVF M rumoured

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 minutes ago, Rick in CO said:

Yes, one can see the area surrounding the frame lines without any magnification.

I don't know if this topic has been addressed (couldn't read thru all 48 pages of this apparently popular post), but the big advantage of the EVF is to avoid VF blockage by large lenses.  Especially true for large aperture and wide angle lenses.  This has prompted me back to a TL2 for wide angles.  

Umm no. You can't see paast the native angle of view on any Q camera. To see these lines requires a digital crop. When shooting at the native 28mm there are no framelines visible.

The main advantage of an EVF M is for old tired eyes. VF blockage is a small bonus for a few lenses.

Gordon

[Rick in CO]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Wide angle lenses are less wide on the TL2... 

Per actual focal length, yes, but my 18mm Elmarit-TL covers a true 27mm field.  This was the major disadvantage of Leica APS-C using the T-M adapters.  To get a true wide angle using an M lens, one had to buy an 18mm (or wider) M lens whose cost was prohibitively expensive to most (of course, there was Sigma).  Except for the 18mm TL, the lenses were relatively large, if not huge, eliminating the natural compactness of the system.  The elimination of VF blockage is a big advantage of EVF.

Off topic, but I recently tested the 43mm on my Q3 43 and compared it to my 18mm Elmarit TL and guess what?  The performance of the Q 43mm was better across the frame except into the extreme corners at comparatively open apertures - at f2.8 and f4.0 the 18mm Elmarit-TL was better.  Stopping the Q 43mm down to f5.6 to f8.0 and it came into its own (now again, at the extreme edges of the frame).  I was impressed with the resolution of the Q 43mm lens at f11 & f16, especially into the corners, however with an easily observable loss in overall contrast.  It is a great lens, as is the 18mm Elmarit TL quite remarkable.

[costa43]

1 hour ago, tappan said:

Does it seem correct that Leica executives have been internally trying to address how and when they will cross the $10,000.00 USD line for an M camera?
I mean they omitted the more expensive brass from the top of the M11 black (for saving$?), and the M11-D flirted with 10K. This will ease them over the 10k mark and then the M12 will be similarly priced. My guess. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Mark

I’m not sure if the aluminium was for cost saving but it warrants a spot in the M line up and is my preferred option unless it’s black paint. With the hardened chrome plating it makes sense to save the weight if it’s not going to brass and look pretty. 

The prices will always go up. I think the M12 might still sneak in under at release but with the incremental increases it could take it over. I actually think this new camera will be a bit lower in cost than the standard line. 

[SrMi]

3 minutes ago, Rick in CO said:

Per actual focal length, yes, but my 18mm Elmarit-TL covers a true 27mm field.  This was the major disadvantage of Leica APS-C using the T-M adapters.  To get a true wide angle using an M lens, one had to buy an 18mm (or wider) M lens whose cost was prohibitively expensive to most (of course, there was Sigma).  Except for the 18mm TL, the lenses were relatively large, if not huge, eliminating the natural compactness of the system.  The elimination of VF blockage is a big advantage of EVF.

Off topic, but I recently tested the 43mm on my Q3 43 and compared it to my 18mm Elmarit TL and guess what?  The performance of the Q 43mm was better across the frame except into the extreme corners at comparatively open apertures - at f2.8 and f4.0 the 18mm Elmarit-TL was better.  Stopping the Q 43mm down to f5.6 to f8.0 and it came into its own (now again, at the extreme edges of the frame).  I was impressed with the resolution of the Q 43mm lens at f11 & f16, especially into the corners, however with an easily observable loss in overall contrast.  It is a great lens, as is the 18mm Elmarit TL quite remarkable.

It does not make sense to compare an 18mm with a 43 mm lens. The design constraints are very different.

[raizans]

Crossing my fingers for a tilting screen!

[Rick in CO]

16 minutes ago, SrMi said:

It does not make sense to compare an 18mm with a 43 mm lens. The design constraints are very different.

Perhaps true, but I am interested in how my lenses perform.  I should mention that my comparisons are not of a test chart, but of a color poster with objects placed both at and in front of the focus plane.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

24 minutes ago, SrMi said:

It does not make sense to compare an 18mm with a 43 mm lens. The design constraints are very different.

And an APS-C lens with a full-frame one, and an optical lens with a hybrid one...

[LocalHero1953]

Cue a new series of Leica ultra wide and telephoto M lenses.

(FWIW There may be a cue, but I don't see this happening from Leica - they have shown little appetite for new lens designs recently, either L or M mount).

[lct]

55 minutes ago, Rick in CO said:

Dispensing with the rangefinder an EVF-M would be more Q-like, if not in appearance, then in function.

Having an M mount and using interchangeable M lenses, the EVF-M would be just another M-mount camera as i assume, but again i have no information on this.

Edited March 23 by lct

[SrMi]

17 minutes ago, Rick in CO said:

Perhaps true, but I am interested in how my lenses perform.  I should mention that my comparisons are not of a test chart, but of a color poster with objects placed both at and in front of the focus plane.

Sounds good, but you are mainy comparing different focal length, not different lenses.

[SrMi]

As I mentioned in another thread, it could make sense to travel with both M11 and M11-V, a 50mm on M11 and a 24 or 21mm on M11-V.

[raizans]

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Cue a new series of Leica ultra wide and telephoto M lenses.

(FWIW There may be a cue, but I don't see this happening from Leica - they have shown little appetite for new lens designs recently, either L or M mount).

Wouldn’t it be ironic if there was an adapter for L-mount lenses that allowed for aperture control?

[MediaFotografie]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb raizans:

Wouldn’t it be ironic if there was an adapter for L-mount lenses that allowed for aperture control?

not possible because L lenses are nearer to the body

[raizans]

Oh yeah, stupid me!

[Robert Blanko]

I think the M11 EVF will be a great success, considering that it should sell roughly for the price of a Q3 minus the price of a 28mm f1.7 Summicron, thus in Germany for 6250,- € minus 3500€ ... 🤔

Ah, and I just forgot that one would also have to discount the autofocus.

[evikne]

3 minutes ago, Robert Blanko said:

I think the M11 EVF will be a great success, considering that it should sell roughly for the price of a Q3 minus the price of a 28mm f1.7 Summicron, thus in Germany for 6250,- € minus 3500€ ... 🤔

Ah, and I just forgot that one would also have to discount the autofocus.

You also forgot that in the Leica world, less is more. 😄

[adan]

6 hours ago, Smogg said:

I don't quite understand how this effect was achieved. Is there really another camera with a micro lens in the front that produces a second image and is positioned offset like a rangefinder?

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!

It is possible with computer-graphics wizardry.

Although as FlashGordonPhotography says - this specific "artist's rendering" is a Photoshop mock-up.

.........

Use a sensor with phase-detect off-the-sensor AUTOFOCUS capability.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/09/15/sony-mirrorless-cameras-will-soon-focus-as-fast-as-dslrs-if-this-patent-bec

Which can tell not only if the image is sharp or fuzzy - but whether it is back- or front-focused, and by how much.

Essentially that works as a "rangefinder on a chip" - not two separate windows or cameras, but two separate pixels (or arranged groups of pixels) on the same sensor, that "view the incoming image" from different angles by way of a mask.

Once the phase detection figures out if the lens is front or back focused (which phase is left or right of the other), and by how much, it just takes computer math to "simulate" a double-image that can be moved around by focus changes -  as though it was an RF patch.

Fuji already does this in their X-series, in a low-rez, slow, fuzzy kind of way. Produces a zoomed-in "focus patch" in the EVF (or on the back LCD) that looks about like this simulation - as you focus the lens manually, the out-of-alignment on-screen "bars" shift left or right until aligned.

 

With more sophisticated drawing routines, a higher-resolution EVF screen, a higher-resolution sensor (does 60 megapixels sound familiar? 😆 ),"picture in picture" overlay capability, and a faster, more powerful CPU, it wouldn't be that hard to get more elegant, and realistic-looking, "simulated doubled RF patches." As meta-simulated by LeicaRumors.

The question remains - just how "pretty and accurate" Leica's solution will REALLY be (if at all). At least with today's sensor - screen - CPU capabilities.

They are going to have to make a BIG ADVANCE on Fuji's version to be acceptable for me.

Edited March 23 by adan

[Smogg]

32 minutes ago, adan said:

It is possible with computer-graphics wizardry.

Although as FlashGordonPhotography says - this specific "artist's rendering" is a Photoshop mock-up.

.........

Use a sensor with phase-detect off-the-sensor AUTOFOCUS capability.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/09/15/sony-mirrorless-cameras-will-soon-focus-as-fast-as-dslrs-if-this-patent-bec

Which can tell not only if the image is sharp or fuzzy - but whether it is back- or front-focused, and by how much.

Essentially that works as a "rangefinder on a chip" - not two separate windows or cameras, but two separate pixels (or arranged groups of pixels) on the same sensor, that "view the incoming image" from different angles by way of a mask.

Once the phase detection figures out if the lens is front or back focused (which phase is left or right of the other), and by how much, it just takes computer math to "simulate" a double-image that can be moved around by focus changes -  as though it was an RF patch.

Fuji already does this in their X-series, in a low-rez, slow, fuzzy kind of way. Produces a zoomed-in "focus patch" in the EVF (or on the back LCD) that looks about like this simulation - as you focus the lens manually, the out-of-alignment on-screen "bars" shift left or right until aligned.

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!

 

With more sophisticated drawing routines, a higher-resolution EVF screen, a higher-resolution sensor (does 60 megapixels sound familiar? 😆 ),"picture in picture" overlay capability, and a faster, more powerful CPU, it wouldn't be that hard to get more elegant, and realistic-looking, "simulated doubled RF patches." As meta-simulated by LeicaRumors.

The question remains - just how "pretty and accurate" Leica's solution will REALLY be (if at all). At least with today's sensor - screen - CPU capabilities.

They are going to have to make a BIG ADVANCE on Fuji's version to be acceptable for me.

You can use PDAF. But where will you get a sharp enough image in a small rectangle that needs to be aligned with a simulated copy? If the lens is not focused at least approximately at an open aperture, you will have nothing to align, there will be a blurry spot. Or is it assumed that rough focusing will be done based on the entire screen, and fine focusing will be done on the rectangle when acceptable sharpness appears in it?

[tappan]

I wonder if Leica sped this up because of pending economic woes due to tariff war?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[raizans]

Fuji’s digital split-image focusing works like on an SLR: the sections are all blurry when you’re out of focus, and the amount of shift displayed is based on PDAF info.

I’d be happy if the focusing patch just showed a magnified view, and that its position was either eye-controlled or based on AI subject recognition (something that doesn’t require a focus spot joystick). IBIS would help stabilize the magnified patch as well.