EVF M rumoured

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

And then they went on to complain of knee, hip, hearing, denture, and prostrate problems...

I must be suffering from a bit of it all. No wonder why i want an EVF-M. But I'd keep my M11 in case I suddenly grow younger. As long as there is a future, there is hope 😅

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

Mocking other people's disability or limitations is very gauche. 

I have arthritis in my knees - it even interfered with my skiing this year, but I don’t feel mocked. 😇

[Lee S]

9 hours ago, gotium said:

There are better ways of doing EVF manual focus than what Sony does - Panasonic has a little square that zooms for focus, while the rest of the screen stays at 1:1 for composition, for example, and Nikon has focus confirmation without needing to zoom. I'm sure there's some way of making it work as well as a rangefinder - which has all sorts of limitations. 

That’s a much better implementation for focus aid. Hopefully makes it onto the M-EVF if we get one…

[pgk]

12 hours ago, sebben said:

Some of us just want an L mount EVF camera with IBIS that is focused on photography that doesn't have the weight and bulk of an SL. The SLs are fine but not the kind of camera you just work around with on a whim.

Interesting. Back in the days of film I had two Nikon F4s then two Nikon F5s, and a bag of lenses for them. Lighter Nikons were available but aimed not at a pro but at an amateur market. If you wanted the specification and contols of a top camera it involved weight. Ditto medium format. Today the expectation is of lightness but in all honesty the SL (I've owned on - not to my taste for many reasons) is not the huge bulky camera its often made out to be.

[jaapv]

13 hours ago, sebben said:

Some of us just want an L mount EVF camera with IBIS that is focused on photography that doesn't have the weight and bulk of an SL. The SLs are fine but not the kind of camera you just work around with on a whim.

Basically what I am asking for is Leica Q with a L mount paired with the M mount adapter. It shouldn't be rocket science nor uneconomical to create this camera. 

For me it would be the perfect companion for my Leica M10D, because if it is light and compact it can offer things that the M can't.

If Leica won't make it I guess I just need to settle for a used Leica Q2 or a used CL.

 

S5ii ? 

[Smudgerer]

13 hours ago, sebben said:

Some of us just want an L mount EVF camera with IBIS that is focused on photography that doesn't have the weight and bulk of an SL. The SLs are fine but not the kind of camera you just work around with on a whim.

Basically what I am asking for is Leica Q with a L mount paired with the M mount adapter. It shouldn't be rocket science nor uneconomical to create this camera. 

For me it would be the perfect companion for my Leica M10D, because if it is light and compact it can offer things that the M can't.

If Leica won't make it I guess I just need to settle for a used Leica Q2 or a used CL.

 

Yet another wish-step backwards, I'd love a Monochrom "D", an 11 or whatever comes next as long as it is stripped not only of colour rendering but also some of the layers of electronic "fat" and unnecessary feature sets, ie: the need to use Fotos et al, with everything accessible "on camera" etc etc...............and I wouldn't be surprised if that would sell very well too. My Leica Dealer contacts say that they cannot keep the M11-D in stock and are back-ordered to some degree too........That's great in my book and shows that when Leica does think "outside the box" that's when it is at it's best.

Edited February 10 by Smudgerer

[sebben]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

S5ii ? 

 744 grams.

May as well get an SL

[Jsung]

An EVF M camera will not be competing with the M line, but will destroy Q and SL

but i guess it doesn’t matter anyway 

[jaapv]

But much more compact. That is only 80 grams more than an M10...  If that were  an issue I would have trouble lifting a cup of coffee...

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, sebben said:

 

 744 grams.

May as well get an SL

 

[sebben]

Right, but when one wants a camera that is lighter than an M10 one doesn't choose one that is heaver right? 

[UliWer]

Just have a look on outward dimensions (width, height, depth)

SL 

141.2 mm, 108.5mm, 84.6mm

S5ii

134.2 mm, 102.3mm, 90.1 mm

M11

139 mm, 80.3mm, 38.45mm

Q (without fixed lens)

130mm, 80.3mm, 32,5mm.

Compared to a Q(without fixed lens) the „normal“ M looks like the M5-desaster described by jaapv. And is the Q (with fixed lens) the failure of recent years? I personally don‘t like the Q design - as it has no „eyes“, though many customers don‘t share my point of view. An EVF-M certainly wouldn‘t have „eyes“ as well.   

As we‘ll never see any Q without fixed lens for obvious cannibalizing reasons the question whether it might have an L or M-mount seems moot.  

 

 

Edited February 10 by UliWer

[jaapv]

5 minutes ago, sebben said:

Right, but when one wants a camera that is lighter than an M10 one doesn't choose one that is heaver right? 

Weight has never been an issue to me. I regularly carry combos of 3 kg or so...

[davidmknoble]

This is where things get interesting.  Some talk about difficulty in focusing a rangefinder with bad eyesight and want a focusing aid.

Yet, the M system was not made to be the SL system or even the S system and the Q has a fixed lens so it is the hybrid between rangefinder size and EVF focusing aids built in.  I’m not a fan, but I don’t care if they offer another model as long as the rangefinder continues as well.

Many of the greats used the M system rangefinder until they died (some recently).  I have horrible eyesight (the big E at the top of the chart is blurry).  Eyeglasses make using a rangefinder more difficult.  So, I put a -3.0 diopter on the back of all my M’s and I can focus with no glasses.  I also have an analog MP with 0.58x and 0.80x viewfinders.  One is really wide and makes it easy to focus 35 even with glasses on.  The other let’s me nail focus with an APO 90 at f/2. I put the same diopter corrector on my M11.

More importantly, the rangefinder focuses by matching 2 images together, that are in focus already in the viewfinder!

I still play with a Nikon F2 and the R8 / R9, and I have the darndest times sometimes getting the focus nailed through the SLR viewfinder because I’m trying to find the sharpest image.  Even with a split or a micro prism center, it’s not always easy in low light or really dark subjects.

My point is that the rangefinder is made because it’s small and accurate.  And while it isn’t for everyone, I don’t care if Leica decides to make one, but I will stick with the rangefinders, because all my film M’s use it and I find it much easier and faster to set focus by.

IMHO of course.

[sebben]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Weight has never been an issue to me. I regularly carry combos of 3 kg or so...

It depends what you are doing. I am for example looking for a light high quality camera that I can have on my body when I am working on a filmset with an easyrig and fully rigged Arri Alexa Mini weighing in at around 12kg...

I want something light and nimble that doesn't get in the way. The M10 is slightly too bulky and the risk of it smashing into something is somewhat high.

 

 

Edited February 10 by sebben

[jaapv]

I would not call an M very light nor nimble for that use. A D-Lux seems more appropriate. I use an X2 in such cases. 

[charlesphoto99]

8 hours ago, SrMi said:

Mocking other people's disability or limitations is very gauche. 

Ok, making some fun of myself at 61 as I sit here with a blown back, and my own litany of health complaints (which seems to be what my friends and I sit around a exchange thoughts on these days). I'll delete it. [EDIT: actually I'll leave it as others were able to laugh at themselves. Old age is not a disability, it's a fact of life.] My point being is that we all have some 'disabilities' and limitations, but do we throw out the baby (the rangefinder) with the bathwater (a few who would be better served with a different camera altogether). Imo EVF's are not a panacea for eyesight difficulties and can even be worse - in my experiences as a glasses wearer and astigmatism sufferer. 

Edited February 10 by charlesphoto99

[phojomatic]

Three days into this enjoyable discussion, the more we talk about an EVF-M, the more I appreciate the M11-P and RF focusing. 
 

If the new camera uses the same visioflex experience with the blackout and delay, it’s a bit of a non-starter. The EVF resolution is ok, but blackout is the very antithesis of M shooting. 

I can appreciate a visioflex for the times it’s needed…wide/tele/ultra-fast lenses, close focus situations and importantly, low-angles or on a tripod  we would lose the angle advantage with the EVF-M, although presumably the hot shoe would have contacts and we could add a visioflex to an EVF-M….and that’s weird and extra expense.

The visioflex also has a diopter and this might be difficult to add into the M which has always used correction discs. Bolting on a Q style eyepiece isn’t elegant. Maybe a new dial cut into the M11 top piece is needed?  Or repurpose the ISO dial into a diopter adjustment? Where does it go?

I was so excited when the M10 (2017) came out, I rushed to my Leica dealer to see the camera with intention of using it with the visioflex 020, just like the promo video showing an assignment in Zanzibar. Ultimately it was totally disappointing and took away from the beautiful new .73x RF of the M10 that I never used a visio again until the M11, and that was very specific to formal portraits (in square mode, using the grid overlay as a guide).

In the end, the SL might be the better solution to EVF and M lenses…

[Steve Ash]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Jsung:

An EVF M camera will not be competing with the M line, but will destroy Q and SL

but i guess it doesn’t matter anyway 

There are quite some people that own an M as their base camera but also own a Q or an SL.

The obvious would be to take a Q body with its EVF and make the fix lens an M mount. Actually quite a lot asked for a Q with interchangeable lenses. Two problems - one solution.

 

Edited February 10 by Steve Ash

[Jon Warwick]

3 hours ago, Jsung said:

An EVF M camera will not be competing with the M line, but will destroy Q and SL

but i guess it doesn’t matter anyway 

Whilst I don't know if an S4 (EVF medium format?) will ever launch, if it did and could take SL lenses via an adapter - would that be even more likely to make the SL series somewhat redundant? At that stage, if I wanted a Leica camera for interchangeable lenses, the portfolio would be quite simple for me ....a very compact & light M style body (whether with rangefinder, or with EVF) to take M lenses only .... or .... the larger S4 (onto which one might be able to adapt all lenses, such as SL, classic S, new S lenses, M lenses??). Personally, I wouldn't buy an SL3 if such a hypothetical choice existed, given an S4 might offer similar handling but with more lens flexibility.

 

 

Edited February 10 by Jon Warwick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Elliot Harper]

Calling it EVF M is obviously irritating loyal rangefinder purist. It feels the evf is violating m system.

Let’s call it M-mount SL then. Same product, but it feels better because our beloved m system is invading SL now. 😝

Edited February 10 by Elliot Harper