Leica M EV1: The first M with EVF instead of Rangefinder

[Foxtwo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The diopter adjustment limited to only +2 has my attention. I would conjecture that most folks shooting cameras in this price range are older and tend toward farsightedness. I’m not sure that +2 is enough in my case.

Wish I still traveled to where Leica stores were plentiful to give it a try!

[IkarusJohn]

58 minutes ago, costa43 said:

I do think that when you take away the biggest differentiator of an M camera (the rangefinder) and do not offer something unique in return, you turn it into something that can easily be compared to many other cameras when it comes to function, the price then is also far easier to compare. That’s where it doesn’t stack up. 

Any M camera has two unique things (the reasons I bought into the system 15 years ago):

(1) haptics

(2) the lenses (and a sensor adapted to them)

Nothing to do with the rangefinder. Actually, I thought it a bit odd, but had rangefinders before. 

So the unique selling point was not the rangefinders for me - I guess the sales figures for the Q, SL & S systems would suggest I’m not alone (and that’s not counting the T, CL (both versions) and the R system).

As for price, the comparison with other systems isn’t valid as they’re not Leica. 

The only valid comparison is to the M11 + Visoflex 2 (which gives the benefit of both OVF & EVF - take your pick, but having a less than ideal carbunckle on the top of your otherwise beautiful camera).

So who’s going to buy it?

Well, if I had an M11 (any flavour), I wouldn’t as it seems an extravagance when I would already have a Visoflex. But if I was new to the M, I’m not sure I would go for a rangefinder (even having an M-A and Monochrom). EVF’s have been around for ages, >5 million dots is plenty and this wouldn’t be the first EVF camera I’ve used with manual focus lenses. 

I found with the SL and M10-D that I have no trouble focusing without peaking or magnification. 

This may all sound like I’m going to buy the camera. I’m not. But I’ve been keen on this idea for about 15 years and 10 years ago, I would have bought one.  I find too many of the objections here based on a rather inflexible attachment to the traditional M. I’m attached to mine too, but I do use other systems. 

Edited 20 hours ago by IkarusJohn

[thrid]

9 hours ago, hexx said:

according to specs, it's 60FPS, battery life isn't great either 237 shots

ouch... 60hz is pretty bad. Especially in a $9000 camera.

Let's hope that's a typo.

[thrid]

9 hours ago, Pixeleater said:

Yeah, that’s spot on — the M10-R still uses the same front-side sensor architecture as the M10, just with smaller pixels to get to 40+ MP. The tradeoff is a bit more noise and a touch less dynamic range per pixel, but overall it’s still beautifully balanced.

The M11’s BSI sensor is newer tech and gives cleaner shadows and a bit more DR, especially at lower ISOs. But honestly, I love the look out of the M10-R — the files have that classic Leica tonality and color that just feels right.

I agree that a 36MP BSI sensor would probably hit the perfect middle ground between resolution, noise, and file size — but for me, the M10-R still hits that sweet spot. It’s refined, consistent, and the rendering is gorgeous without being clinical.

Actually the tests I have seen for the 10-R show that it has more dynamic range than the M10. It sits in between the M10 and M11.

I had an M10 and it was very prone to clipping highlights and I had it permanently set to -1 or -1.5 stops of exposure compensation. Using a handheld meter instead of the built in metering system made a big difference for me in a lot of situations, but you still had to know the sensor and adjust exposure accordingly. 

I would actually still buy an M10-R if I came across one at a good price.

Edited 20 hours ago by thrid

[lik]

I like the design of the new model. It doesn't need a viewfinder window, so form and function go hand in hand. An M photographer will quickly get to grips with it.

There are two points I take serious issue with:

The lack of an ISO dial is bound to annoy M11 users who are thinking about buying a second body or switching models. At least it annoys me. I suspect that, apart from production costs, there is a rationale behind this decision. On the M11, the ISO dial is a feature that, for the first time, allows you to set all the important parameters without having to switch the camera on. This is because focusing is done via the rangefinder. The M EV1 always has to be switched on in order to be able to adjust the settings. So the probably most important reason for Leica to introduce the ISO wheel becomes useless here, but IMO this is only superficial and not well thought out. Frankly, I feel that this is thinking without the user in mind, at least without the M user. Are they really aiming exclusively at a new customer group that has not yet owned an M? That would be a bit bold.

The second is the reduction of focusing to a meanwhile well known focus peaking feature. In my experience the rangefinder is more accurate than any focus peaking when adjusted correctly, especially with Noctilux and some Summilux lenses, or even with the Thambar. With the latter, you can forget about peaking anyway due to the lack of edge contrast. The fact that the M EV1 is advertised with the outstanding but not entirely easy-to-focus Noctilux 75 lens IMO does not demonstrate the camera's new strengths, but rather its weakness in not having implemented advanced manual focus technology that does fit to such a lens, which is truly unique in terms of sharpness even at full open aperture. Even a Leica S had a focus indicator in the form of a dot for correct focus and two arrows for the direction of rotation. They didn't even measure up to that. This is what you get when you combine an M11 with the viewfinder of a Q and do nothing else.

They obviously have brought a test to the market. For a realistic test of this kind, however, it would have been necessary to challenge the technologies already present in this market from other manufacturers, such as Hasselblad with its excellent and very accurate circle indicator, or at least those already established in-house. Here, it looks more like an offer for M fans with deteriorating eyesight, I'm sorry to say.

In summary IMO Leica has slightly overemphasized the iconic factor over technical progress, to put it mildly.

[hillavoider]

1 hour ago, pgh said:

I haven’t seen this. I am largely critical of this almost private equity luxury firm that happen to squirts out cameras next to their outsourced watches now. Air your thoughts. Don’t make political comments or personal attacks, but that’s easy enough when discussing Leicas strategy and technology. The political rule is applied a little differently and vaguely in more philosophical discussions but I think you can safely avoid it with this subject. 

it does happen, usually on these brand new release threads. Myself and another poster were critical of the M11D in the new release thread for that and had all our posts removed 

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, lik said:

The lack of an ISO dial is bound to annoy M11 users who are thinking about buying a second body or switching models.

And/or M10 owners - don't forget that the M10 initiated the existence of the dedicated top-left ISO knob, 5 years before the M11 came along.

 

18 minutes ago, lik said:

I suspect that, apart from production costs, there is a rationale behind this decision.

Yes, there is. The EV1's EVF module is w-i-d-e-r than the rangefinder/viewfinder tunnel of M optical finders, and needed to steal some of the space previously available for the ISO knob.

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!

[Olaf_ZG]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I really don’t get the Q references.

Well, the Q is an evf camera with the size of a M. The SL is significant bigger. So, except for autofocus and a fixed lens it looks like a Q.

Some people would love a Q with interchangeable lenses. So, it could be m- or l-mount. I am happy it is the m-mount cause there are so more lens choices then with the l-mount. Besides, in l-mount we have already smaller cameras like the BF.

So I do get the reference, and I also think it will be a great addition to any Q or M.

[dsalamena]

54 minutes ago, lik said:

I like the design of the new model. It doesn't need a viewfinder window, so form and function go hand in hand. An M photographer will quickly get to grips with it.

There are two points I take serious issue with:

The lack of an ISO dial is bound to annoy M11 users who are thinking about buying a second body or switching models. At least it annoys me. I suspect that, apart from production costs, there is a rationale behind this decision. On the M11, the ISO dial is a feature that, for the first time, allows you to set all the important parameters without having to switch the camera on. This is because focusing is done via the rangefinder. The M EV1 always has to be switched on in order to be able to adjust the settings. So the probably most important reason for Leica to introduce the ISO wheel becomes useless here, but IMO this is only superficial and not well thought out. Frankly, I feel that this is thinking without the user in mind, at least without the M user. Are they really aiming exclusively at a new customer group that has not yet owned an M? That would be a bit bold.

The second is the reduction of focusing to a meanwhile well known focus peaking feature. In my experience the rangefinder is more accurate than any focus peaking when adjusted correctly, especially with Noctilux and some Summilux lenses, or even with the Thambar. With the latter, you can forget about peaking anyway due to the lack of edge contrast. The fact that the M EV1 is advertised with the outstanding but not entirely easy-to-focus Noctilux 75 lens IMO does not demonstrate the camera's new strengths, but rather its weakness in not having implemented advanced manual focus technology that does fit to such a lens, which is truly unique in terms of sharpness even at full open aperture. Even a Leica S had a focus indicator in the form of a dot for correct focus and two arrows for the direction of rotation. They didn't even measure up to that. This is what you get when you combine an M11 with the viewfinder of a Q and do nothing else.

They obviously have brought a test to the market. For a realistic test of this kind, however, it would have been necessary to challenge the technologies already present in this market from other manufacturers, such as Hasselblad with its excellent and very accurate circle indicator, or at least those already established in-house. Here, it looks more like an offer for M fans with deteriorating eyesight, I'm sorry to say.

In summary IMO Leica has slightly overemphasized the iconic factor over technical progress, to put it mildly.

Completely agree with your two concerns. I'm sure these are concers that were raised also by testers, but evidently Leica decided to take the easiest way: just put an EVF into a Leica M-Q body.

One can wonder if by mere chance the next model will come with at least a proper focusing system. An M-EVF camera needs a reliable and quick focussing system, otherwise it misses the whole point of abandoning the rangefinder.

[LUF Admin]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb rxj:

so why wouldn't it get it's own sub topic vs being under the M11?

Good question.

But I have to be careful not to start too many subsections…

If the new camera gathers enough attention I'll consider a dedicated section.

Andreas

[lct]

There's nothing Q in the MEV1 apparently, bar a part of the look perhaps. It is an M11 camera with a built-in EVF coming from SL3 and Q3 IINW. It is no more a Q3 than an SL3, though, and it is confusing to do such comparisons IMHO. Would be more interesting to compare the MEV1 to the M11 with Visoflex 2 to see what novelty the MEV1 is bringing, if any. Did you read or write reviews doing such comparo, folks? Just curious.

[Paulus]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb IkarusJohn:

It’s a problem, isn’t it?

I’ve had both cataracts done, but have developed astigmatism (only an issue beyond about 20 metres), so actually I’m good with both an EVF and rangefinder.  I’ve played with telephotos and ultra-wides, and I find for the majority of my photography, I’m happy in the range 21mm to 75mm, which makes the M system ideal.  The SL is great as an all weather, universal platform for just about anything.  Mine is relegated to scanning slides (with the fabulous Sigma 105 macro ART lens), the 24-90 zoom and my APO Elmarit-R 180/2.8 (as much telephoto as I need, handheld).  

When I need an EVF, I have an X2D (for wides), my SL, M10-D with Visoflex and TL2.  I really don’t need an M EV1, and the M11 has never appealed.  Besides, I’m not really an “upgrader”, needing to buy each new M release.  But, I do think this is just the right release for Leica, and I think it will sell well as, contrary to what many say here (including Leica), the rangefinder is not the heart of the M system.  What was decisive for me was fine manual focus prime lenses and a user interface which I could understand at first glance and operate directly.  The X2D has the same appeal with the V lenses.

That said, I get the reservations about focusing with the EVF.  I don’t like focus peaking as I don’t find it accurate enough, and auto-magnification is very slow.  I’m not sure if many remember, but when @jonoslack reviewed the SL, he made the comment that he just focused looking at the image.  This has been my approach since then and I’m sure it would work with the new camera.

I’ve often wondered how Nikon included a little green focus confirmation light in the viewfinder of the F5, even with a manual focus Nikkor lens.

The Nikon F801 already had this confirmation system in 1991 if i remember well..

[IkarusJohn]

43 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Well, the Q is an evf camera with the size of a M. The SL is significant bigger. So, except for autofocus and a fixed lens it looks like a Q.

Some people would love a Q with interchangeable lenses. So, it could be m- or l-mount. I am happy it is the m-mount cause there are so more lens choices then with the l-mount. Besides, in l-mount we have already smaller cameras like the BF.

So I do get the reference, and I also think it will be a great addition to any Q or M.

That’s a very superficial analysis, but probably true. 

Let’s just say for argument’s sake, what Leica delivered was an interchangeable Q camera. A new mount, a new sensor … exactly what is left of the Q, after you’ve already removed the lens?

When you answer, perhaps factor in that the Q was made to look like an M camera. 

Then we get to the mount. The general wisdom seems to be that an L mount would be better than the M mount. So, that would really mean an SL, in a Q camera form. In other words, zero relevance to the EVF based M, which is what the discussion was all about. 

I must have missed something.



 

[elmars]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb lik:

I like the design of the new model. It doesn't need a viewfinder window, so form and function go hand in hand. An M photographer will quickly get to grips with it.

There are two points I take serious issue with:

The lack of an ISO dial is bound to annoy M11 users who are thinking about buying a second body or switching models. At least it annoys me. I suspect that, apart from production costs, there is a rationale behind this decision. On the M11, the ISO dial is a feature that, for the first time, allows you to set all the important parameters without having to switch the camera on. This is because focusing is done via the rangefinder. The M EV1 always has to be switched on in order to be able to adjust the settings. So the probably most important reason for Leica to introduce the ISO wheel becomes useless here, but IMO this is only superficial and not well thought out. Frankly, I feel that this is thinking without the user in mind, at least without the M user. Are they really aiming exclusively at a new customer group that has not yet owned an M? That would be a bit bold.

The second is the reduction of focusing to a meanwhile well known focus peaking feature. In my experience the rangefinder is more accurate than any focus peaking when adjusted correctly, especially with Noctilux and some Summilux lenses, or even with the Thambar. With the latter, you can forget about peaking anyway due to the lack of edge contrast. The fact that the M EV1 is advertised with the outstanding but not entirely easy-to-focus Noctilux 75 lens IMO does not demonstrate the camera's new strengths, but rather its weakness in not having implemented advanced manual focus technology that does fit to such a lens, which is truly unique in terms of sharpness even at full open aperture. Even a Leica S had a focus indicator in the form of a dot for correct focus and two arrows for the direction of rotation. They didn't even measure up to that. This is what you get when you combine an M11 with the viewfinder of a Q and do nothing else.

They obviously have brought a test to the market. For a realistic test of this kind, however, it would have been necessary to challenge the technologies already present in this market from other manufacturers, such as Hasselblad with its excellent and very accurate circle indicator, or at least those already established in-house. Here, it looks more like an offer for M fans with deteriorating eyesight, I'm sorry to say.

In summary IMO Leica has slightly overemphasized the iconic factor over technical progress, to put it mildly.

The ISO dial had to be omitted because the EVF is too large. The lack of the dial is only really annoying if you don't want to work in auto ISO mode and adjust the ISO frequently.

Every technique for determining distance has its disadvantages. This applies to autofocus, rangefinders and even focusing on a screen using a viewfinder magnifier and focus peaking. But the latter works really well with the EV1 (it's just slower) and in some situations (low light) even better.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that there is no real innovation in this regard, even though it seems possible. In my opinion, this is because the EV1 is a market test for Leica, which they were persuaded to undertake due to vocal buyer requests. That is probably why they only wanted to invest to a limited extent. However, there are probably also technical reasons. As far as I know, the sensor in the M11 (unlike the one in the SL3) does not have autofocus pixels (I don't know what they are called exactly). So a completely different camera would have had to be designed if focus confirmation was to be included.

Edited 18 hours ago by elmars

[Alexander108]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb lik:

The lack of an ISO dial is bound to annoy M11 users who are thinking about buying a second body or switching models. At least it annoys me.

The first thing I did on my M11: set ISO dial to manual and forget about it. Then assign the thumb wheel button to ISO selection. Want to change ISO? Press the thumb wheel button and select the ISO you want (including Auto). I wished my M10M had this feature. 

[Willard McCarty]

The advantages of the M-EVF are obvious, but I wonder about the effect on the rhythm or speed of use. Slowing down, even by a small amount, seems to me a very good thing, one of the defining characteristics of the M. Has anyone here had experience with the new M in the field and so is able to comment on this?

[costa43]

I don’t want to just harp on about the price but do we think if Leica kept the M11-V name, the cost of the camera would be a little better received? It’s a psychological thing but having it linked to the main M model gives Leica a better platform for keeping the cost similar imo.   I do understand why its ended up being a new line but it seems like it was not the initial plan. 

[otto.f]

9 hours ago, NZDavid said:

Ah, soul!

Dangerous advertising indeed. One can easily argue that it’s exactly the opposite the soul of M, Barnack’s invention, is gone indeed. In the year that Leica celebrates it’s 100 years anniversary.

[mujk]

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

A quick search on the forum of the M Edition 60 provides an interesting comparison to the M EV1 angst.  That was such a bad idea, apparently, sold badly, and resulted in the M-D, M10-D and M11-D, joining the equally terrible Monochrom series as highly sought after.

I don't quite see the similarity between the EV-1 and the M60. AFAIK the M60 has an  OVF/RF like all other M cameras manufactured for the last 30 years or so, except the EV-1. Of course there were discussions about the removal of the frameline illumination window and other things, but these were minor changes compared to the removal of the OVF/RF. So I think the discussion is a bit different now.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Smogg]

41 minutes ago, Willard McCarty said:

The advantages of the M-EVF are obvious, but I wonder about the effect on the rhythm or speed of use. Slowing down, even by a small amount, seems to me a very good thing, one of the defining characteristics of the M. Has anyone here had experience with the new M in the field and so is able to comment on this?

This camera can capture a frozen scene, albeit slowly. If something is moving in the scene, you'll have to get used to it for a long time and practice anticipating movement almost half a second in advance. The EVF implementation here is very different from all other cameras.