Elmar: Leica M EV1 – Next Level M?

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Pelu2010 said:

Hey, 

I have used the xpro1, Xpro2 and xpro3 and if Leica would make the Mx with a OVF I would love to use this. 
even if the ovf would not be as perfect as the ev1. 
if I can switch and use the ovf for the lenses that need parallax correction I would love to do so. 
And now that we tested an evf only M, maybe in a blurry future we see a prototype of the camera with ovf. 
 

Cheers 🥂 

Stefan Daniel has said repeatedly that a hybrid RF/evf is not possible

Is either one or the other

 

 

Edited Sunday at 10:36 AM by colonel

[colonel]

On 12/11/2025 at 5:47 PM, pgk said:

The M11 at $10k is over-specified for a rangefinder which has always been marketed as a hand held camera. The M EV1 offers a fraction of the specification of other EVF cameras which are considerably cheaper. The only real thing it has going for it is its M-like shape and native M lens compatibility. I don't understand the obsession of M shape of the camera especially as it requires a premium price.

that is the main failing of the EVF1 IMHO.

Its an interesting camera for those that want to use FLs that fall outside the traditional frames line.

At 4k it might be interesting, but at a price in spitting distance of the M11, and much more then a better M10, it misses the mark. I know there is always a chuckle when someone accuses a Leica camera of being too expensive, but we all know what we are paying for, and when the bottom line doesn't make sense. I might even get one, when the used values drop to something reasonable.

In terms of the M11 being over-specified, I don't know what this means. It's a fantastic FF rangefinder camera which is a joy to use and takes amazing pics. The M10 is also still amazing.

The M camera shape is perfect, small and compact. It remains the most compact FF system ever made. And yes, I have use the Sony A7CR, which is also an amazing camera. But the lens /camera combination is much bulkier. Especially as I only shoot f1.2/f1.4/f1.5 on the M system. 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 10:44 AM by colonel

[pgk]

1 hour ago, colonel said:

In terms of the M11 being over-specified, I don't know what this means.

I would suggest that the 'sweet spot' for 35mm FX digital cameras, especially if they are considered to be for predominantly handheld use, is 20~30MPixels. Beyond this is moving towards 'specialist' needs (yes some people do favour cropping, but why bother with interchangeable lenses, just buy a Q type camera). I could go on but suffice it to say that whilst I have higher MPixel cameras, they do not get as much use as my lower MPixel ones. I suspect high MPixel numbers are much more about marketing more than they are about reality, for most camera users anyway. That said, I have always tailored my equipment to my output needs, something which few seem to think about today. Perhaps pixel peeping is an end in itself? Anyway I think that the M11 is over-specified and about want rather than need.

Edited Sunday at 12:02 PM by pgk

[FrozenInTime]

1 hour ago, colonel said:

Stefan Daniel has said repeatedly that a hybrid RF/evf is not possible

Is either one or the other

Not within the constraints of the current mechanical shutter M body.

Drop the old slow readout 60 Mpixel sensor, use a stacked sensor 24...36 Mpixels with 1/250s read out,  and a whole new set of possibilities emerge.

However, a ground up redesign project remains a difficult bridge to cross.

 

[colonel]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

I would suggest that the 'sweet spot' for 35mm FX digital cameras, especially if they are considered to be for predominantly handheld use, is 20~30MPixels. Beyond this is moving towards 'specialist' needs (yes some people do favour cropping, but why bother with interchangeable lenses, just buy a Q type camera). I could go on but suffice it to say that whilst I have higher MPixel cameras, they do not get as much use as my lower MPixel ones. I suspect high MPixel numbers are much more about marketing more than they are about reality, for most camera users anyway. That said, I have always tailored my equipment to my output needs, something which few seem to think about today. Perhaps pixel peeping is an end in itself? Anyway I think that the M11 is over-specified and about want rather than need.

We can agree to differ. There is no such thing IMHO as too many pixels. Even more would be better. 

[lct]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

[...] I would suggest that the 'sweet spot' for 35mm FX digital cameras, especially if they are considered to be for predominantly handheld use, is 20~30MPixels. Beyond this is moving towards 'specialist' needs (yes some people do favour cropping, but why bother with interchangeable lenses [...]

Because you don't have interchangeable lenses on hand all the time. Just a snap on my 1.8x user profile and my 50 behaves like a 90. I can even see outside the (digital) framelines this way. Handy.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

Not within the constraints of the current mechanical shutter M body.

Drop the old slow readout 60 Mpixel sensor, use a stacked sensor 24...36 Mpixels with 1/250s read out,  and a whole new set of possibilities emerge.

However, a ground up redesign project remains a difficult bridge to cross.

 

Post #80

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

That said, I have always tailored my equipment to my output needs, something which few seem to think about today. Perhaps pixel peeping is an end in itself? Anyway I think that the M11 is over-specified and about want rather than need.

For some, besides cropping, those output needs relate to huge prints. But relatively few people print at all these days. That said, one can make beautiful prints, still decent size, using 24MP or less (a billboard pic could be shot with a phone camera, provided the viewer is at a far enough distance).  
 

[Smudgerer]

20 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

For some, besides cropping, those output needs relate to huge prints. But relatively few people print at all these days. That said, one can make beautiful prints, still decent size, using 24MP or less (a billboard pic could be shot with a phone camera, provided the viewer is at a far enough distance).  
 

Being a M11-D/M11-M owner/user who keeps his M11's at 18mp, regularly prints large up to 61x90 cms and crops too quite a bit at times, I fully agree with you that 24mp is quite enough for 95% of digital M imagining........

[charlesphoto99]

27 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

For some, besides cropping, those output needs relate to huge prints. But relatively few people print at all these days. That said, one can make beautiful prints, still decent size, using 24MP or less (a billboard pic could be shot with a phone camera, provided the viewer is at a far enough distance).  
 

It's pretty insane what can be done with small files and AI up-res software. My kids have had various projects where they want a poster sized image of something, and I've been able to pull a 1000px image off the web and blow it up to 24X36 inches. So with a light touch on the software, it's entirely doable to take a 24mp file and blow it up as large as one wants.

[Jeff S]

My prints are smaller than that (my printer’s max paper size is 17 inch one side), and display prints from my M bodies, whether from film, M8.2 (10.3MP), MM (18 MP), up to my M10M (40.89 MP) or SL2 (47.3 MP), all look superb IQ-wise. I’ve collected vintage silver (and some platinum) prints for 40 years from great photographers/printers, so I have a high standard for comparison.  

Not just today’s cameras, but lenses, editing software, papers and ink sets, etc, have increasingly improved, making MP a very small component of the overall shooting to print display workflow. Any deficiencies are clearly due to the user, not the tools. 

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

Not within the constraints of the current mechanical shutter M body.

Drop the old slow readout 60 Mpixel sensor, use a stacked sensor 24...36 Mpixels with 1/250s read out,  and a whole new set of possibilities emerge.

However, a ground up redesign project remains a difficult bridge to cross.

 

The presence/absence of mechanical shutter is related to IBIS implementation, not to hybrid OVF/EVF (your reply to post #81).

I can see Leica dropping mechanical shutter so that they can add IBIS.

Edited Sunday at 03:40 PM by SrMi

[SrMi]

Higher MPs are not only about printing large and cropping. It is also about getting the highest quality data out of a shot.

Edited Sunday at 03:42 PM by SrMi

[FrozenInTime]

8 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The presence/absence of mechanical shutter is related to IBIS implementation, not to hybrid OVF/EVF (your reply to post #81).

I can see Leica dropping mechanical shutter so that they can add IBIS.

Removing the shutter and surrounding mechanics wold open up space inside the shell ; as well as IBIS, perhaps folded optics or a vertical orientated projector for a hybrid or otherwise improved  viewfinder.

[SrMi]

4 minutes ago, FrozenInTime said:

Removing the shutter and surrounding mechanics wold open up space inside the shell ; as well as IBIS, perhaps folded optics or a vertical orientated projector for a hybrid or otherwise improved  viewfinder.

Leica has never stated that lack of space is the constraint that they are facing in the hybrid OVF/EVF implementation. They said that for IBIS.

[Jeff S]

11 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Leica has never stated that lack of space is the constraint that they are facing in the hybrid OVF/EVF implementation. They said that for IBIS.

Not so; Stefan Daniel said exactly that. Read interview, post 80.

[SrMi]

8 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Not so; Stefan Daniel said exactly that. Read interview, post 80.

I believe you refer to this part:

Pretty much since the M8 came out, I’d say. I think there’s always been other requests on the periphery of that like a hybrid viewfinder. This would be an enormous challenge given the depth restrictions, correct?

Stefan: The greatest challenge would be to integrate the rangefinding function, the optical viewfinder and the EVF panel.

Note that Stefan Daniel says nothing about depth restrictions. He also doesn't mention that removing the mechanical shutter would help.

[Jeff S]

22 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Leica has never stated that lack of space is the constraint that they are facing in the hybrid OVF/EVF implementation. They said that for IBIS.

And your own thread excerpts his comments about space limitations!

 

[Jeff S]

The shutter comment was just idle speculation on my part.  But you wrote that nobody at Leica mentioned space limitations for a hybrid VF.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

The shutter comment was just idle speculation on my part.  But you wrote that nobody at Leica mentioned space limitations for a hybrid VF.

You are correct, that is what I wrote, and that was wrong.

If you consider my posts #92 and #95, one could infer that I was referring to the space gained by removing the mechanical shutter and using a stacked sensor.

My excuse is that this is my first post after my first morning coffee :).