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

[JNK100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, CDodkin said:

It literally is a more modern focus aid than a Rangefinder

I am not sure about "literally", but an AF DSLR has a more modern AF system than the M RF but it's modernity is unimportant to those wanting an M RF I would suggest. 

[lct]

34 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Pedantic. I was referring to the concept of the rangefinder. Ever shot a Mamiya 6/7 or Fuji 6X9? I have, and they offer bigger better brighter viewfinder's than either the M or ZM. But they work exactly the same as the Olympus XA on the opposite end with its teeny tiny rf. 

Why so aggressive? We're just discussing here. As far as concepts are concerned i don't know if EVFs have basically changed since i used them first 10+ years ago. I still use my Sony a7r2 mod from 2015 and its concept doesn't feel different to my current Sigma FPL or Leica MEV1. Sure there were no EVFs in 1954. I'm no techie though.

[Tailwagger]

On 11/5/2025 at 9:46 AM, algrove said:

Well you've much more money than I've got and I own 4xM11 , 2xSL3 and 2xQ3, and 2xM6 etc.

Well, duh. You spent it all on Leicas. 😆 

[Tailwagger]

Like it or not, for years we've been hearing that a very large portion of the cost for an M was to be found with the RF mechanism and the labor for its assembly and calibration. Thus, those of us awaiting an EV over the years expected one of two things. Either a camera that differentiated itself from the M by providing a state of the art experience in the context of manual focus M mount lenses -or- a lower cost camera designed as a second body for wides/teles and/or as a backup body for the RF M.  The disappointment expressed by some, myself included, is around the sense that we're being asked to pay for the former, but only getting the latter.

Edited November 6 by Tailwagger

[CDodkin]

3 hours ago, JNK100 said:

I am not sure about "literally", but an AF DSLR has a more modern AF system than the M RF but it's modernity is unimportant to those wanting an M RF I would suggest. 

No AF lenses in the M system - mute point 

[JNK100]

4 minutes ago, CDodkin said:

No AF lenses in the M system - mute point 

I realise the M system does not have AF lenses.

It is not a "moot point" as i was alluding to the point that Leica M RF users are not overly interested in modernity in my view. If they were they would not be using MF perhaps.

 

[CDodkin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 minutes ago, JNK100 said:

I realise the M system does not have AF lenses.

It is not a "moot point" as i was alluding to the point that Leica M RF users are not overly interested in modernity in my view. If they were they would not be using MF perhaps.

 

It's not modernity, it's being able to fully exploit the investment they have made in both lenses and sensor

[SrMi]

29 minutes ago, JNK100 said:

It is not a "moot point" as i was alluding to the point that Leica M RF users are not overly interested in modernity in my view.

If that were true, all owners would be against adding IBIS, which is not the case.

[costa43]

I’m one of those who prefer a more simplified M but I also see the other side. Many people want to benefit from the best possible experience with M glass. If modern tech allows you to get the most out of these wonderful lenses then it would be nice to have these options too. Choice is good. 

[adan]

5 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

Like it or not, for years we've been hearing that a very large portion of the cost for an M was to be found with the RF mechanism and the labor for its assembly and calibration. Thus, those of us awaiting an EV over the years expected one of two things. Either a camera that differentiated itself from the M by providing a state of the art experience in the context of manual focus M mount lenses -or- a lower cost camera designed as a second body for wides/teles and/or as a backup body for the RF M.  The disappointment expressed by some, myself included, is around the sense that we're being asked to pay for the former, but only getting the latter.

I think one has to understand that "normal" product economics do not apply to all products. "Cost of production + X" does not always apply.

See, for example, Veblen Goods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

Becoming a "Leica M" owner in the 21st century, to some extent, means "gaining entre to an exclusive club," not just buying a camera. And as with other exclusive clubs, there is an Initiation Fee. Basically a test of "Are you really rich enough to hob-nob with the rest of us** (as well as help maintain the club's cachet)?" Apparently about a €7000 "cover charge" or "pay to play," these days.

I really kinda giggled to myself all through the past 9 months of discussion, reading the expectations that "an EVF M will be a cheaper M." Or "an even fancier M."

But I figured no one would want to believe me ahead of the reality - and Leica could have surprised me (heck, RR probably could produce a €120K auto, if they wanted) - so I kept mum.

_______________

**Not my personal attitude - I don't "do" clubbishness or conspicuous consumption. I don't use Ms because I am rich - but in order to become rich(er).

[Tailwagger]

39 minutes ago, adan said:

I really kinda giggled to myself all through the past 9 months of discussion, reading the expectations that "an EVF M will be a cheaper M." Or "an even fancier M."

I've been on an extended hiatus from the board, so no giggling, but yes, what arrived, both in content and cost, was what I anticipated though not as the result of gazing into a personal crystal ball but rather being the fortunate recipient of a hint or two on the subject a while back.  I had held out hope for a surprise, an 'audentes fortuna iuvat' moment, but clearly that was not the case this time around.  So allow me to rephrase. We, or at least I, got what was 'expected' but not something that met expectations.

 

 

[charlesphoto99]

On 11/6/2025 at 7:36 AM, lct said:

Why so aggressive? We're just discussing here. As far as concepts are concerned i don't know if EVFs have basically changed since i used them first 10+ years ago. I still use my Sony a7r2 mod from 2015 and its concept doesn't feel different to my current Sigma FPL or Leica MEV1. Sure there were no EVFs in 1954. I'm no techie though.

Not aggressive. Just responding to what I considered 'mansplaining.' 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Not aggressive. Just responding to what I considered 'mansplaining.' 

I do not think it means what you think it means.

- Inigo Montoya

[RobertBClancy]

 

I purchased a Leica M EV1 last week. Originally I was going to trade my M11 for it but at the last minute decided I would go ahead and just buy the EV1 and see how I got on with it before I traded in my M11. In the week since, from what I have experienced so far, I am not going to trade in my M11 because actually I realised the pro’s of both rather than the pro’s and cons of each. I will use my M11 just with a 35 or 50 mm lens and not a Noctilux and I will use the EV1 for anything wider than 35 m, which in my case is 21 and 16mm and Noctilux’s. The EVF is really only for me a game changer when using the shallow depth of field or extra wide angle and that is where it excels. An M11 rangefinder with a 35mm FLE lens is still an unbeatable combination but I love the EV1 for making the exteme investments in Noctilux glass all the more worthwhile, because now with the EV1 you have an M body that gives you confidence to use Noctilux’s. Frankly before it was challenging to say the least.

 

[algrove]

Both cameras use MF, just in different ways if we do not discuss the Viso2 on an M11.

[lct]

20 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Not aggressive. Just responding to what I considered 'mansplaining.' 

I don't know what this means but i smile at the idea that a great photographer might be bothered by the ramblings of an old lawyer like me in anything else than law matters 😇

[algrove]

Ict

Any idea when you will receive your EV1?

[lct]

I have mine. It did work for this thread already

[jaapv]

On 11/6/2025 at 7:30 PM, Tailwagger said:

Like it or not, for years we've been hearing that a very large portion of the cost for an M was to be found with the RF mechanism and the labor for its assembly and calibration. Thus, those of us awaiting an EV over the years expected one of two things. Either a camera that differentiated itself from the M by providing a state of the art experience in the context of manual focus M mount lenses -or- a lower cost camera designed as a second body for wides/teles and/or as a backup body for the RF M.  The disappointment expressed by some, myself included, is around the sense that we're being asked to pay for the former, but only getting the latter.

Actually the cost of the sensor variants that Leica uses is a lot higher than the cost of a rangefinder. 
it costs to stop a half-a billion Euro machine spitting out millions of chips, retool it for Leica Bayer filter, Leica microlenses, Leica IR filter and sometimes even Leica circuits, do a maybe ten thousand sensors run, stop it and retool it again. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Anonautico]

The number of 60MP sensors installed by Leica is not so small that one can ignore the cost of models from other manufacturers with a 60MP sensor on the market. They are all significantly less expensive and still offer additional technology (IBIS, AF, etc.).

I do think that Leica has pushed the price spiral too far here.

Edited November 9 by Anonautico