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

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

26 minutes ago, pgk said:

An rfM will focus an MF lens quicker with high precision using the rangefinder. This has been stated innumerable times.

Often stated but hardly proven. Precision with the RF is only good enough compared to EVF with magnification.

[BernardC]

11 minutes ago, lct said:

Precision with the RF is only good enough compared to EVF with magnification.

It depends on the user and the situation. I find the rangefinder to be much more accurate with wider lenses (50mm and lower), especially stopped-down or in low light. Some longer lenses, especially the three Noctilux (50, 75, 90) are at the limit of rangefinder accuracy, so you find that they are easier to focus with an EV1, or on an SL.

That being said, some users just don't mesh with rangefinders, or with EVFs. It could be a lack of practice, but it could be caused by eyesight issues (esp. astigmatism), or just a preference. We can each decide what works best for us, and accept that other photographers will come to a different conclusion.

[pgk]

57 minutes ago, lct said:

Often stated but hardly proven. Precision with the RF is only good enough compared to EVF with magnification.

How can I prove to you what I have found myself in practice? But you can easily check with wide-angle lenses because they are trickier to focus, especially if slow, and with both dSLRs and EVFs have to use magnification which does not give as precise and fast focus as does a rangefinder, which does not rely on viewing through the lens itself with its inherent large depth of field. Of course you can say that because of the larger depth of field precise focus is not important, but this poses the question of why use any sort of precision focus at all? My experience of MF lenses on EVF cameras is that they are not as fast to focus as many M rangefinder lenses are when used on M rangefinders. Within their operating envelope M rangefinders work very well, but EVF cameras, whilst very good with AF lenses, were never intended for use with MF lenses although they can be used very effectively with focus magnification, but slowly. This really is not a difficult concept to grasp.

[lct]

54 minutes ago, BernardC said:

It depends on the user and the situation. I find the rangefinder to be much more accurate with wider lenses (50mm and lower), especially stopped-down or in low light. Some longer lenses, especially the three Noctilux (50, 75, 90) are at the limit of rangefinder accuracy, so you find that they are easier to focus with an EV1, or on an SL.

That being said, some users just don't mesh with rangefinders, or with EVFs. It could be a lack of practice, but it could be caused by eyesight issues (esp. astigmatism), or just a preference. We can each decide what works best for us, and accept that other photographers will come to a different conclusion.

I could agree more or less when comparing RF to EVF without magnification but with magnification is another story. With magnification, i use EVFs as a judge to check RF accuracy actually. Not that i find RF inaccurate per se, just good enough IMO but it's only my 20+years experience and i cannot speak for others obviously. YMMV.

[charlesphoto99]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Often stated but hardly proven. Precision with the RF is only good enough compared to EVF with magnification.

Depending on what and how one is shooting, precise focusing is overrated, and can actually be a stumbling block to missing the moment. The moment is gone, no matter if you had the focus right or wrong. Throwing pop ups and squiggly lines into the mix is fine with a static subject but falls apart if the action is moving quickly. That's what AF lenses are for if one isn't comfortable or up to speed with rangefinder focusing. Sticking a manual focus lens on an EVF without very quick and out of the way focus aids is a compromise of both worlds. There's a whole history of M shooters that proving the rangefinder is very quick. 

What I love about the optical M viewfinder most is it frees one up to experience the unexpected. An EVF/SLR can force one into always trying to be 'perfect' with composition and focus. Of course if that's what one desires, that's great, it's a tool just like any other. But sometimes it's the imperfections that can make a photo more exciting, getting loose and riding the edge, so to speak. And so far it has not been 'proven' to me that an EVF is any faster or better than the rangefinder. YMMV. 

Leica M10-R, 24mm lens, flash, full frame, no external finder due to the flash. 

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!

[bcaslis]

Is the RF very quick, yes it can be. But with certain subjects and lenses I'm finding the EV1 close if not the same. Specifically with the 75mm APO summicron, on any subject with vertical or horizontal elements I can see focus without zooming in or FP. On wider angle lenses I think the RF has an advantage but this superiority of the RF doesn't seem like a blanket statement. And if the photo above is "fast moving subject" I would disagree with the characterization.

Let me give an example, in some rooms we have blinds with a horizontal grab at the bottom. When learning the M11, I used to try focusing on the handle and it was bear to get accurate. On the EV1 it's a pieced of cake, no zooming or FP needed. This is just cherry picking but I'm trying to show the RF is not better and faster in all situations.

In either case, why does this need to be argued over and over? The RF proponents seem to have a need to prove the EV1 is inferior. Let people choose the one that works for them without attacking the other.

 

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

56 minutes ago, bcaslis said:

Is the RF very quick, yes it can be. But with certain subjects and lenses I'm finding the EV1 close if not the same. Specifically with the 75mm APO summicron, on any subject with vertical or horizontal elements I can see focus without zooming in or FP. On wider angle lenses I think the RF has an advantage but this superiority of the RF doesn't seem like a blanket statement. And if the photo above is "fast moving subject" I would disagree with the characterization.

Let me give an example, in some rooms we have blinds with a horizontal grab at the bottom. When learning the M11, I used to try focusing on the handle and it was bear to get accurate. On the EV1 it's a pieced of cake, no zooming or FP needed. This is just cherry picking but I'm trying to show the RF is not better and faster in all situations.

In either case, why does this need to be argued over and over? The RF proponents seem to have a need to prove the EV1 is inferior. Let people choose the one that works for them without attacking the other.

 

The 75 APO has always been a bugger, even after Leica adjusted mine, in part due to the floating element in it. It's definitely one of the lenses that would benefit from the EVF. 

One could also say some of the EVF proponents feel the need to prove the rf is inferior (despite having spent gobs of cash for M's over the years), which is what I and others are responding to. Both have their place, which is why in many ways the standard M with a Visoflex is the best of both worlds. FWIW, just don't focus on horizontal blinds with the rf and you're good (use the window frame, or turn the camera vertical and then back horizontal). 😉 

And yes, I realize the pic above is not the best example of fast moving, but more an example of if I could see what was actually happening in real time I might not have come up with such an 'off' composition and been more straight ahead about it, which would have been fine, but just not as dynamic in my book (I like the tension that happens when the subject is about to fall off the edge of the frame). 

Hanoi, Leica M6, 28mm. 

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!

[bocaburger]

As it applies to others, I pass no judgment  on how others spend their money.  
I myself have no interest in the MEV for these reasons:

1) I have only ever put up with Leica's high prices, mediocre reliability and bog slow repair service because I prefer the range/viewfinder.  Never a fan of EVFs it feels to me like watching a TV through a keyhole.   I am more than satisfied with my M240's EVF (actually Olympus @ 50% the price of the Leica-badged unit) for the rare occasions when I use it.  Plus I have a Sony A7R that (fortuitously) performs superbly with all my M lenses.  Cost me a tenth (secondhand) of an MEV.  

2) I am still waiting for Leica to make good on their statement of providing new batteries for the 240-series and until they do I won't be buying any new Leica product.

 

 

[pgk]

13 hours ago, bcaslis said:

In either case, why does this need to be argued over and over? The RF proponents seem to have a need to prove the EV1 is inferior.

Some of us expect better, a lot better, than a compromised camera from Leica. It seems to me that Leica are now clearly chasing sales rather than producing genuine photographic tools which is what they did in the past. The M EV1 and M11 both illustrate this.

[Markey]

41 minutes ago, pgk said:

Some of us expect better, a lot better, than a compromised camera from Leica. It seems to me that Leica are now clearly chasing sales rather than producing genuine photographic tools which is what they did in the past. The M EV1 and M11 both illustrate this.

I don`t quite understand that conclusion .

Leica are and always have been an innovative commercial  company operating  in a competitive environment.

They need to be proactive (chase) in order to gain new customers or they wouldn`t survive.

Offering a range of products is an important part of that strategy .

I`ve been a Leica M user since the early eighties but fail to recognise the description "genuine photographic tool" .

That would seem to imply that there are millions of successful photographers  who are not using a photographic tool.

Choice is good and I`d certainly be in the market for an EV 1 despite my lengthy history of using an RF .

Flexibility and openness to new ideas are important .

 

[pgk]

4 hours ago, Markey said:

I don`t quite understand that conclusion .

Leica are and always have been an innovative commercial  company operating  in a competitive environment.

They need to be proactive (chase) in order to gain new customers or they wouldn`t survive.

Offering a range of products is an important part of that strategy .

I`ve been a Leica M user since the early eighties but fail to recognise the description "genuine photographic tool" .

That would seem to imply that there are millions of successful photographers  who are not using a photographic tool.

Choice is good and I`d certainly be in the market for an EV 1 despite my lengthy history of using an RF .

Flexibility and openness to new ideas are important .

 

 

4 hours ago, Markey said:

I don`t quite understand that conclusion.

A high MPixel camera with no image stabilisation. An EVF camera without AF. If there was a clear and reasoned strategy about the uses for such cameras then they might be a logical progression. But to me both appear to be marketing solutions rather than cameras designed to fill a genuine need.

[BernardC]

22 minutes ago, pgk said:

A high MPixel camera with no image stabilisation. An EVF camera without AF.

I'm not too worried about people who buy an M and find-out afterward that it doesn't have AF! The SL3 offers stabilization, AF, and high megapixels, and it's sold in the same shops.

Any reasonable vendor will gladly swap one for the other within a reasonable timeframe (barring any obvious damage).

[jdlaing]

43 minutes ago, pgk said:

 

A high MPixel camera with no image stabilisation. An EVF camera without AF. If there was a clear and reasoned strategy about the uses for such cameras then they might be a logical progression. But to me both appear to be marketing solutions rather than cameras designed to fill a genuine need.

Leica does not fill genuine need. Leica fills genuine want.

[bocaburger]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

 

A high MPixel camera with no image stabilisation. 

The MEV doesn't have IBIS?!?!?  Are you $&%#'ing serious?  That's the main reason I got my A7R, to use handheld w fast 50, 90 and 135 M lenses.   Bonus is I use it with the 400/6.8 Telyt as well.  

[lct]

49 minutes ago, bocaburger said:

The MEV doesn't have IBIS?!?!?  Are you $&%#'ing serious?  That's the main reason I got my A7R, to use handheld w fast 50, 90 and 135 M lenses.   Bonus is I use it with the 400/6.8 Telyt as well.  

Same with my a7r2 mod. No IBIS for the MEV1 though. Hardly a Sony-like camera. Better think of it as what it is. Just a variant of the M11 with an EVF in place of the RF. Works fine as is for me, to the point that my Sony is gathering dust now. YMMV.

[bcaslis]

8 hours ago, pgk said:

Some of us expect better, a lot better, than a compromised camera from Leica. It seems to me that Leica are now clearly chasing sales rather than producing genuine photographic tools which is what they did in the past. The M EV1 and M11 both illustrate this.

That is your point of view. I regard the M EV1 as an improved M11, not compromised. I get accurate focusing, exposure preview, and 100% accurate framing compared to an M11 or other RF camera. Somehow the it's only a photographic tool if it is missing major features? I don't get this. If I wanted "better" tools (meaning everything from the kitchen sink) I have my Nikon Z cameras right here which run any Leica into the ground but they are not as fun to use as the M.

 

[Markey]

3 hours ago, pgk said:

 

A high MPixel camera with no image stabilisation. An EVF camera without AF. If there was a clear and reasoned strategy about the uses for such cameras then they might be a logical progression. But to me both appear to be marketing solutions rather than cameras designed to fill a genuine need.

Many use the SL cameras with M lenses the M EV is simply a smaller package 

A  marketing solution is precisely what its about .

With out that you wouldn`t have had the M in the first place and we would still be using plate cameras

Every company needs to innovate or stagnate.

I`m sure the MEV will be improved and enhanced as all the other models have . 

This is a sensible first step .

Edited December 10 by Markey

[SrMi]

M-EV1 was based on what customers said they needed. Leica, by itself, did not want to launch it but relented after pressure from customers.

With M-EV1, Leica is dipping their toes into a concept that they are unsure of. Before adding more development to the M-EV line, Leica needs to confirm that customers really want such a camera

[charlesphoto99]

6 hours ago, pgk said:

 

A high MPixel camera with no image stabilisation. An EVF camera without AF. If there was a clear and reasoned strategy about the uses for such cameras then they might be a logical progression. But to me both appear to be marketing solutions rather than cameras designed to fill a genuine need.

If Leica can sell out $500 teddy bears, they can sell just about anything, no matter how compromised. They know their market. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[charlesphoto99]

3 hours ago, bcaslis said:

That is your point of view. I regard the M EV1 as an improved M11, not compromised. I get accurate focusing, exposure preview, and 100% accurate framing compared to an M11 or other RF camera. Somehow the it's only a photographic tool if it is missing major features? I don't get this. If I wanted "better" tools (meaning everything from the kitchen sink) I have my Nikon Z cameras right here which run any Leica into the ground but they are not as fun to use as the M.

 

If the M was so flawed due to its viewfinder, why did you buy an M body with rf to begin with? Or is this your first M, and therefore nothing but other EVF cameras to compare it with? Talking with my dealer about the EV1 (he's an MP shooter himself), he pointed at the case of Nikons and Sonys and said the EV1 will do well despite its flaws, because for a lot of people, EVFs are all they know.