Jono: A Leica M EV1 Review

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Before I respond, perhaps I missed it in the review but I wondered if you noted if there any narrowing in the gap between the display and reality vs. the Viso?  Any improvement in EVF lag would be valuable in some circumstances.

16 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

The time to do that is when you are sure there is a market for it.

I would have supposed that the Viso take rate (and its uptake trends) along with all the comments, praise and criticisms over the years would have provided something of a go/no go indicator.  I am but one individual, though one who outside of his first year with the 240, has always had a Viso atop his M 24/7.  As yet I don't really see anything I don't already have, so I'm struggling to understand how such a camera... if it fails to meet its targets... gives any better indication of the market potential than what's already on offer. Even the pop icons over at DPreview seem perplexed:

"Based on using the camera for a week, I can't see the point in paying 91% of the cost of a Leica rangefinder, only to get something that isn't a rangefinder and that's no more elegant to shoot with than any other mirrorless camera trying to manual focus...  After a few minutes of shooting with an M9, I understood why someone might buy a rangefinder. After a few days with the M-EV1, I'm at a loss to why anyone would buy this instead."

26 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

I've already had quite a lot of emails from people who have never bought a rangefinder . . . . but intend to buy this - now THAT is something Leica will like to hear.

I've no doubt this is true, but the real question is whether or not they will ultimately be satisfied by the experience.  I can certainly see where those previously hesitant to join the M party would, much as Leica, tip toe into the experience by coming in through the EVF side entrance.  But if I were sitting in the halls of power, I might be concerned that the real risk posed by the M-EV lies in how this camera is received by those currently unfamiliar with the models that have preceded it.  Photographers already living with the pros and cons of an EVF with manual focus lenses will go in (or not) eyes open, but I wonder how well informed those unfamiliar with the issues will fare.  And if poorly, how that will influence their opinion (and future sales) of the M itself.

Perhaps such concern is unfounded given we are dealing with a software defined device that can morph over time to sufficiently address any shortcomings.  Equally, my PoV may not be a conventional one given my use of the EVF is more around precise leveling and framing along side of exposure.  Focus precision is a distant fourth (given the M's OVF) as I live more on the wide side with my Ms, preferring to carry the SL for focal lengths beyond 75mm. Those living in the 28-135 range, rather than the 16-75 that I employ, might be more satisfied with this implementation than I am likely to be. 

31 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

As for your downright pessimism - why on earth would they stop making the Viso for M cameras with optical rangefinders? ... they are full of ideas which they investigate thoroughly- the future of your M/Viso combination is bright indeed! 

Cost reduction as a driver for greater profits, a fact of 21st C life.  But glad to hear a report that M/Viso is unaffected at the moment and even happier to hear that we can expect some innovation in that space. 

My genuine hope is that your optimism for the success of the M-EV1 is spot on as I continue to believe that such a camera could be quite valuable. But that thought, in my case, is predicated on it minimally providing elegant solutions to the problems associated, among others, with precise focusing given the lack of auto-aperture lenses, particularly on the wider end of things. That said and channelling your positivity, I'll try not to be so glum and revel in the notion that even if its only a pinky, at least we finally have a toe in the water. 

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

5 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

 I can see it being used by both wedding and travel photographers - I've done both with it, and whilst I wouldn't like to shoot a wedding JUST with an M EV1, it would certainly be useful for wide open shots - where focusing is very easy - possibly with a Noctilux. As for travel - it made a great kit with the WATE, 35 APO and 75 APO - nothing else needed and in some respects better than a rangefinder camera. 

I wouldn't want to use it for street and photojournalism though

Jono, very few wedding photographers afford M gear anyway. I do know one international wedding photographer who travels worldwide to shoot weddings, but not with Leica. As for travel, well yes, a few may try one but I doubt that the M-EV1 is going to make much of a dent in a marketplace where the rangefinder remains just a respected niche in all honesty. This is the risk you take by following a marketplace which wants a product in spite of its compromises. It will be very interesting to see how sales go and whether any professionals are persuaded to buy this camera - I doubt that it will make much impact though because of its lack of versatility.

[Tailwagger]

4 minutes ago, pgk said:

 It will be very interesting to see how sales go and whether any professionals are persuaded to buy this camera - I doubt that it will make much impact though because of its lack of versatility.

Hmm... this provokes a not fully formed thought that perhaps rather than a being seen as some form of revolution, one should view the EV1 M variant as residing at the opposite end of the minimalist spectrum from the M-D.

[zlatkob]

The M EV1 makes a lot of sense as an addition to the M series, but here's what would make even more sense: a Q3 (or Q4) with compact interchangeable autofocus lenses, as an addition to the Q series. Just a few new lenses would be needed.

[charlesphoto99]

12 minutes ago, zlatkob said:

The M EV1 makes a lot of sense as an addition to the M series, but here's what would make even more sense: a Q3 (or Q4) with compact interchangeable autofocus lenses, as an addition to the Q series. Just a few new lenses would be needed.

They already do - it's called the SL line. The 'compactness' (never found them that compact, personally) on a Q comes from the welding of the lens in place so that it actually has the shutter in it. Without that, it would be similar in size to the SL. 

Now if Leica made say a 35mm 2.8 fixed lens M with AF, much like the Konica Hexar 35AF in the film days, that would be something. 

[zlatkob]

9 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

They already do - it's called the SL line. The 'compactness' (never found them that compact, personally) on a Q comes from the welding of the lens in place so that it actually has the shutter in it. Without that, it would be similar in size to the SL. 

Now if Leica made say a 35mm 2.8 fixed lens M with AF, much like the Konica Hexar 35AF in the film days, that would be something. 

Are you sure about that? Not being compact, the SL line is not it at all. The SL line is characterized by large bodies and large lenses. Compactness is a real and attractive quality of the Q, missing in the SL. Good compact autofocus interchangeable lenses can certainly be made. For example, Sony's A7CR is compact and can be fitted with small lenses from Sony, Sigma and others. Leica could do similar, but with Leica Q style.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Before I respond, perhaps I missed it in the review but I wondered if you noted if there any narrowing in the gap between the display and reality vs. the Viso?  Any improvement in EVF lag would be valuable in some circumstances.

 

Well, the EVF performs pretty much like the Q, so certainly less lag than the Visoflex 1, and nearly twice the resolution of the Visoflex 2 (but about the same size view).

 

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

I would have supposed that the Viso take rate (and its uptake trends) along with all the comments, praise and criticisms over the years would have provided something of a go/no go indicator.  I am but one individual, though one who outside of his first year with the 240, has always had a Viso atop his M 24/7.  As yet I don't really see anything I don't already have, so I'm struggling to understand how such a camera... if it fails to meet its targets... gives any better indication of the market potential than what's already on offer. Even the pop icons over at DPreview seem perplexed:

I agree that if it doesn't meet its targets gives any indication of what the market potential of a camera which is a real competitor of a rangefinder . . . . But I don't think Leica want a real competitor to a rangefinder - it'll be expensive to develop and just eat into current rangefinder sales . . . I think if it fails to meet its targets then Leica will shrug their shoulders and walk away from the concept. They can console themselves that it didn't cost a lot to develop.

If it sells like hot cakes then it pretty much indicates there is a market. Then they will have to decide wether to develop the EVF into something more sophisticated

I read the dPreview review, but I have the advantage of having spent 6 months with the camera - together with lots of discussions with a bunch of excellent (mostly professional) photographers - most of whom will buy it - not to replace a rangefinder, but as well as one.

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Cost reduction as a driver for greater profits, a fact of 21st C life.  But glad to hear a report that M/Viso is unaffected at the moment and even happier to hear that we can expect some innovation in that space. 

Well, if I was Leica I would be busy putting the finishing touches to a new EVF based on the Q3 - but I don't know or I couldn't say!

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

My genuine hope is that your optimism for the success of the M-EV1 is spot on as I continue to believe that such a camera could be quite valuable. But that thought, in my case, is predicated on it minimally providing elegant solutions to the problems associated, among others, with precise focusing given the lack of auto-aperture lenses, particularly on the wider end of things. That said and channelling your positivity, I'll try not to be so glum and revel in the notion that even if its only a pinky, at least we finally have a toe in the water. 

I'm pretty sure that the M EV1 will be a big success, but I really do believe what Stefan Daniel said - to the effect that they only made it because so many customers were asking for it. I don't think it will be such a bad thing if it isn't a success - a win win situation for them. 

I do know that Leica now consider this as a new branch of the M family ( as per the D, M and P) . . .  but honestly I don't see much reason for being pessimistic about Leica's direction right now. The unfair advantage I have is to see the professionalism and enthusiasm in the Product Management Team.

All the best

Jono

[jonoslack]

42 minutes ago, zlatkob said:

The M EV1 makes a lot of sense as an addition to the M series, but here's what would make even more sense: a Q3 (or Q4) with compact interchangeable autofocus lenses, as an addition to the Q series. Just a few new lenses would be needed.

Yes - just a few new lenses - but a completely new body design with all the R and D costs dependant on that - The Q body is not big enough to have a shutter in it (it has a leaf shutter in the lens). Basically another line, and compact AF lenses don't really seem to be a thing! . . .  and then they would be in direct competition with Sony - which is something they always try to avoid.

Edited 2 hours ago by jonoslack

[charlesphoto99]

10 minutes ago, zlatkob said:

Are you sure about that? Not being compact, the SL line is not it at all. The SL line is characterized by large bodies and large lenses. Compactness is a real and attractive quality of the Q, missing in the SL. Good compact autofocus interchangeable lenses can certainly be made. For example, Sony's A7CR is compact and can be fitted with small lenses from Sony, Sigma and others. Leica could do similar, but with Leica Q style.

The somewhat 'compact' lenses in the Sony etc line ups are typically 2.8 lenses. Are Leica afficianados that don't blink an eye at dropping five figures on release day really going to be happy with that? 

Personally, after owning a used Q for a few weeks, the supposed 'compactness' of it turned out to be underwhelming. Picking up my M10-R with a 28 Summicron is just as compact if not more so, albeit heavier. 

At the end of the day, Leica should just make a smartphone, slap the red dot on it, make a few accessories for it, charge $4k, and please the users that seem to be on the constant for making the M a Sony. 

Some things in life one just has to work at, and be discomforted with to a degree, so one works harder or sees differently due to those limitations. That's the beauty of the M rangefinder and its literal window on the world. Sadly, many want to see the mystery wrung out of it in the name of instant gratification so that it becomes like everything else on the market. 

[zlatkob]

4 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

The somewhat 'compact' lenses in the Sony etc line ups are typically 2.8 lenses. Are Leica afficianados that don't blink an eye at dropping five figures on release day really going to be happy with that? 

Personally, after owning a used Q for a few weeks, the supposed 'compactness' of it turned out to be underwhelming. Picking up my M10-R with a 28 Summicron is just as compact if not more so, albeit heavier. 

At the end of the day, Leica should just make a smartphone, slap the red dot on it, make a few accessories for it, charge $4k, and please the users that seem to be on the constant for making the M a Sony. 

Some things in life one just has to work at, and be discomforted with to a degree, so one works harder or sees differently due to those limitations. That's the beauty of the M rangefinder and its literal window on the world. Sadly, many want to see the mystery wrung out of it in the name of instant gratification so that it becomes like everything else on the market. 

Not true. There are lovely and compact f/1.8 and f/2 and f2.5 interchangeable autofocus lenses, and there is nothing wrong with f/2.8 either. For many photographers, small autofocus lenses are useful and ideal. Besides, there are f/2.8, f/3.4 and f/4 lenses in the manual focus M line loved by Leica aficionados.

Be sad if you want to, but Leica's biggest selling digital cameras are now autofocus cameras (according to Leica's 30 September 2025 press release). That is proof that many Leica buyers want autofocus. Autofocus doesn't turn a Leica into a Sony, and autofocus doesn't stop Leica from also making rangefinders.

[charlesphoto99]

Just now, zlatkob said:

Not true. There are lovely and compact f/1.8 and f/2 and f2.5 interchangeable autofocus lenses, and there is nothing wrong with f/2.8 either. For many photographers, small autofocus lenses are useful and ideal. Besides, there are f/2.8, f/3.4 and f/4 lenses in the manual focus M line loved by Leica aficionados.

Be sad if you want to, but Leica's biggest selling digital cameras are now autofocus cameras (according to Leica's 30 September 2025 press release). That is proof that many Leica buyers want autofocus. Autofocus doesn't turn a Leica into a Sony, and autofocus doesn't stop Leica from also making rangefinders.

Full frame? Or APS-C? And what's the definition of 'compact?' I personally use the 50 2.8 M-Elmarit and 90mm Macro-Elmar quite a bit, esp when traveling. 

I have no problem with autofocus lenses. Have some and use them for my Nikon's. Compact they are not. I do not foresee a future where I can fit the AF equivalent of six manual focus M primes in a small bag. 

[zlatkob]

50 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Yes - just a few new lenses - but a completely new body design with all the R and D costs dependant on that - The Q body is not big enough to have a shutter in it (it has a leaf shutter in the lens). Basically another line, and compact AF lenses don't really seem to be a thing! . . .  and then they would be in direct competition with Sony - which is something they always try to avoid.

Compact AF lenses are a thing (examples from Sony, Sigma, Samyang, Viltrox, etc.).

Completely new body designs and new lenses are what camera makers do, and what Leica has done from time to time. Leica competes with Sony with the SL and Q lines, with much better styling, albeit with much higher pricing.

Leica would compete better with an interchangeable lens Q. An interchangeable lens Q would not somehow increase or worsen competition with Sony.

[zlatkob]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Full frame? Or APS-C? And what's the definition of 'compact?' I personally use the 50 2.8 M-Elmarit and 90mm Macro-Elmar quite a bit, esp when traveling. 

I have no problem with autofocus lenses. Have some and use them for my Nikon's. Compact they are not. I do not foresee a future where I can fit the AF equivalent of six manual focus M primes in a small bag. 

All of these are compact, current full frame AF lenses: Sony 20/1.8, 28/2, 35/1.8, 35/2.8. Samyang 24/1.8, 35/1.8, 45/1.8, 75/1.8. Sigma 20/2, 24/2, 24/3.5, 35/2, 45/2.8, 50/2, 65/2, 90/2.8. Viltrox 85/2 EVO. They are not as compact as M lenses, but still compact.

Edited 55 minutes ago by zlatkob

[jrichie]

15 minutes ago, zlatkob said:

Compact AF lenses are a thing (examples from Sony, Sigma, Samyang, Viltrox, etc.).

Completely new body designs and new lenses are what camera makers do, and what Leica has done from time to time. Leica competes with Sony with the SL and Q lines, with much better styling, albeit with much higher pricing.

Leica would compete better with an interchangeable lens Q. An interchangeable lens Q would not somehow increase or worsen competition with Sony.

basically what you are suggesting is a compact SL camera and range.  The Sigma BF comes to mind, albeit no EVF [which is an issue], but when I held that camera I felt it had similar vibes to the Q / M in terms of size and weight.

Personally I would be very happy with a compact SL / interchangeable Q at 24MP.

Edit - this would be the camera to get the younger generations into Leica and M.......

Edited 1 hour ago by jrichie

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

...but I don't know or I couldn't say!

So its the latter then 🤣

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

Even the pop icons over at DPreview seem perplexed:

"Based on using the camera for a week, I can't see the point in paying 91% of the cost of a Leica rangefinder, only to get something that isn't a rangefinder and that's no more elegant to shoot with than any other mirrorless camera trying to manual focus...  After a few minutes of shooting with an M9, I understood why someone might buy a rangefinder. After a few days with the M-EV1, I'm at a loss to why anyone would buy this instead."

I am highly disappointed that Richard Butler wrote such an initial review.

Once you consider Leica a luxury good, as he does, whose allure lies in its high cost and exclusivity, your review will be loaded with prejudice. I posit that only a minority of Leica owners have that view.

He mentions that the menu is similar to the one on Q3 43, which is not true, and complains that the 'Leica Content Credentials' option takes up a whole page. The difference between Q3 and M's menus is that M still has a configurable Favorite page. Removing the 'Leica Content Credentials' option will remove the Favorites page.

He says: I'm not a fan of shooting with manual focus lenses on modern cameras, full-stop. I guess he is not the right person to review the M camera, then.

Etc.