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

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Interesting.  It’s hard to get a definitive explanation from google. A number of sites state that PDAF, in relatively basic form didn’t appear until the 2000s, whereas the F5 was released in 1996.

Don't let the names of things (and the changing form of those names) confuse things!

A horseless carriage is a charabanc is an automobile is an auto is a car is a whip, right? 😉

Phase-Detection Auto Focus (PDAF) is really just the great-great-grandchild of a rangefinder (whether from a World War One battleship, or a 1932 Leica II, or your Leica MA of today.) And quite a bit older than the 2000s: Leica's own Correfot AF invention of the 1970s used the same principle, if not the name. (Leica never used the Correfot - licensed it to their tech-partner Minolta instead)

https://www.leitz-auction.com/de/Leitz-CORREFOT-Collection/AI-16-19868

Split an view of the world into two pathways (two windows on the MA, or through two prisms, or two electronic detectors in the Correfot, or two pixels on an imaging sensor) - and then turn the lens until those two pathways are back in phase (aligned), and then STOP moving the lens.

All that really changes is the Detection and Focus method - your eye-and-brain vs. a chip eye-and-brain, and your fingers on a focus ring vs. a AF drive motor geared to the focus ring.

In the case of your F5, the PDAF (by any other name) chip's electric signal that told an AF Nikkor's motor to STOP turning when the images were in phase - could also light up an LED to tell your fingers to STOP turning an MF lens when the images were in phase. Easy-peasy.

.......................

And yes, with an imaging sensor that contained its own PDAF pixels (as in the Q3), it could "light up" an LED in the viewfinder, when the correct focus/phase was detected.

Only drawback with PDAF-on-image-sensor technology (at the moment) is that the focusing pixels are not imaging pixels, so the picture will have "pinholes" where the focusing pixels delivered no picture data. With 60Mpixels, and with the slight blurring that comes from demosaicing a COLOR image anyway, this is neglible.

But also, as with the Q3, it makes a Monochrom less-than-ideal - since Monochrom images lack the slight "melding of pixels" that occurs in post-processing color images. The PDAF "pinholes" would be a bit more obvious.

[NigelG]

Thanks for the link to the Correfot…I knew the Leica AF story only in passing. Internet wormhole duly opened 🙄

(Minor pedantic correction - a charabanc is simply a wagon with forward-facing bench seats in rows and plenty were horse-drawn…I have a picture somewhere of an elderly relative on a works outing and there are IIRC four horses up front) 

[LocalHero1953]

5 hours ago, markc2 said:

The moment I bought a light meter was when I really learned a lot as well. LF is probably super slow compared to any modern camera. Just curious what was the biggest thing you learned? and am I right you look at the image inverted?

 

Thanks!

Do things slowly, systematically, with regular checks, and don't make mistakes*. And don't be afraid to bale out and not take the shot if the scene/light changes. Every shot is expensive.

Personally, I use the inverted image to confirm the framing and composition of a scene I have already envisaged, not for the composition itself.

 

* I do everything else correctly except this.

[Alberti]

17 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Personally, I use the inverted image to confirm the framing and composition of a scene I have already envisaged, not for the composition itself.

what is that, an inverted image. It reminds me of the 6x6 I once used.

Anyway,

I find meself nowadays often looking on the backscreen to check illumination (the hi-res sensor I have seems more sensitive even though the DR increased).

In that sense I have been searching for a Leica CL  – maybe this FF-version of the CL is capable of breaking down my extreme latency of buying 🙂 

[LocalHero1953]

19 minutes ago, Alberti said:

what is that, an inverted image. It reminds me of the 6x6 I once used.

 

NB My post was a response to a comment about large format photography. It's exactly the same. On the ground glass screen of a large format camera you see the image upside down and left to right. Same as a Rolleiflex TLR.

[SrMi]

22 minutes ago, Alberti said:

what is that, an inverted image. It reminds me of the 6x6 I once used.

That is an old technique to evaluate composition: rotate the image 180 degrees.

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, adan said:

Only drawback with PDAF-on-image-sensor technology (at the moment) is that the focusing pixels are not imaging pixels, so the picture will have "pinholes" where the focusing pixels delivered no picture data.

The other disadvantage is that PDAF sensors (whether standalone or attached to imaging sensors) have an inherent aperture. They can't see anything if your lens aperture is smaller than their design aperture, much like old split image prisms used to black-out. They also can't see any better than their design aperture For instance, they'll "focus" to f:2.8 even if your lens is open to 1.4. That's why higher-end SLRs had a mix of "high speed" and "low speed" sensors. Cheaper SLRs assumed that most customers had a slow zoom, and printed to 4x6 inches.

[DadDadDaddyo]

9 hours ago, markc2 said:

The moment I bought a light meter was when I really learned a lot as well. LF is probably super slow compared to any modern camera. Just curious what was the biggest thing you learned? and am I right you look at the image inverted?

Yeah, upside down and backwards. That's actually a help, in an odd way. It permits you to view the perspective geometry of the composition with a degree of abstraction from the subject.

The biggest thing I've learned? Well, there are operational conveniences built into cameras that many folks may never have thought about. 

Let's start with film cameras. On most, the act of advancing the film for the next shot also cocks the shutter. On view cameras here's what you have to do to prepare for a shot, not including camera support, composition and subject framing (including geometric corrections), and exposure. In other words, these are simply the steps equivalent to winding the film advance:

1. Close the shutter (you opened the shutter with a little lever on the lens, permitting you to view through the lens for composition). Substep: close the aperture down to the intended f/stop.

2. Slide a film holder into the camera with an unexposed sheet of film on the side facing the lens 

3. Remove the dark slide from the film holder. Now the sheet of film facing the lens is uncovered. (You closed the shutter, right? I hope so...)

4. Cock the shutter (it's a clockwork spring driven mechanism; you have to wind it up)

5. Click the shutter, making the exposure. 

6. Reinsert the dark slide into the film holder. Now you can safely remove the film holder from the camera, so...

7. Remove the film holder from the camera. 

8. Open the shutter, enabling you to see to prepare for the next shot. 

So. Just a few of the ways to screw these steps up....

1. Insert the film holder and remove the dark slide without first having closed the shutter. Film spoiled. 

2. Remember to close the shutter, but then remove the film holder without having first reinserted the dark slide. Film spoiled. 

3. Insert the (double sided) film holder with an already-exposed sheet of film facing the lens, having done everything else right. Double exposure. 

4. Take the picture without removing the dark slide. No exposure. Fail to realize you've done it, process the film, and then you'll realize....

And on and on...

For many folks, a checklist may be advisable. 

What have I learned doing Large Format?

I've learned that while shooting LF I need to slow down and think about each step, and complete each step before moving to the next step. 

Since I'm already slowed down just by the equipment, this produces the right frame of mind to think about exposure. Using a spot meter, deciding where to place your tonal values and calculating the exposure (and determining the plus/minus processing that will be needed) are best done when you're not in a hurry. 

For all of these requirements, I find the whole LF process, once I've accommodated myself to its inherent necessities and requirements, to be both absorbing and relaxing. The results can be very beautiful indeed, and the sense of reward very great.

But that's just me. I'm not going to recommend that everybody should try it, let alone embrace it.

That said, it may be helpful sometimes to recall just how advanced the equipment we use today really is, and how much thought and engineering have gone into every facet of simplifying the photographic process. 

Just as I feel about modern medicine, I'm personally grateful for every single little bit of advancement we've made in photographic equipment and processes since, say, the 1860s, or the 1910s, or the 1960s, heck, even the 2010s...

 

Edited 4 hours ago by DadDadDaddyo
Sheesh! I need a checklist just to get the editing right!

[Daniel C.1975]

Am 26.10.2025 um 16:07 schrieb rxj:

Having used the camera outside of launch day for the last 48 hours and I'm not a reviewer keep in mind, here's my initial thoughts.

• ...
• At night or high ISO isn't that great and probably the downsides of an EVF, not sure how they'll get around this
• ...

Thanks for your first impression. 

The above mentioned point will get even more interesting in a dim environment when stopped down or using a lens like a 5.6 28mm Summaron. 

But as always, there will be a workaround, or just having a not so great VF-view under such circumstances will you not prevent from taking a shot.