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

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That one is hard to substantiate. Obviously the Leica saga started with Barnack’ Leica 0 CAMERA. Lenses got developed to fit it. Later, in 1934, the development of the rangefinder CAMERA started with the Leica L and this culminated in the M3 CAMERA at Photokina 1954, which basically settled the competition with Zeiss. Lenses were adapted from the Barnack series. Obviously over time, the lens range got further developed but in parallel with the R series. Quite a few lenses were close parallels or identical optically with R lenses. Nowadays the landscape has changed. M lenses are great and excellent but they are no longer necessarily the best on the market. Other brands have caught up in design capability and Leica cooperates extensively with their competitors. And more importantly, L lenses in general outperform equivalent M lenses, good as M lenses are. 
So no, it is not about lenses but about the Gestalt of the rangefinder M. 

[lct]

46 minutes ago, jaapv said:

 [...] So no, it is not about lenses but about the Gestalt of the rangefinder M. 

Different experience here. Since i'm interested in M cameras (70s) its always been about lenses and compactness of the gear. YMMV.

[jaapv]

I don’t think you read my post. It is not about personal experience, nor about the motivation of an individual photographer. It is about the M system as such. Leica intended the am camera to be able to use with non-M lenses Hence the Visoflexes. 

[lct]

We won't redo history but remember the M1 and M2. Rangefinders are an important part in the M system, not the essence of it. As Leica tell it themselves, there are M cameras with rangefinder and M cameras with EVF.

[jaapv]

I said Gestalt, not specific  models.  M1 was an entry model, to be optionally upgraded with arangefinder,  M2 had a rangefinder, MD was meant  to be used without M lens on for instance a microscope or Visoflex.

[lct]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

I said Gestalt, not specific  models.  M1 was an entry model, to be optionally upgraded with arangefinder,  M2 had a rangefinder, MD was meant  to be used without M lens on for instance a microscope or Visoflex.

MD cameras have little to do with the MEV1, since they had no VF contrary to the latter. As for the M1, it was a sans-RF variant of the M2 the same way as the MEV1 is a sans-RF variant of the M11, both of them having a VF. I don't understand your point then sorry.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is clear You dragged the old rangefinders M discussion into it. My point was  that the idea of the M is basically not lens-driven., but based on the camera that was designed as successor to the Barnack. De the L prototype dem 1934 proves this.
 

Leica originally carried over the Barnack lenses and then developed the M lens system but not exclusively for the M. This makes the statement “M is about the lenses” a personal sentiment, but not a fact, on the contrary. Maybe if you added “for me”? 

[lct]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

That is clear 

 Incomprehensible to me sorry.

[jaapv]

Read my edit 

[lct]

I see what you mean thank you but you seem to forget the lens mount in your reasoning. Besides the RF or lack thereof, what makes M camera and lenses what they are is the M-mount. The M-mount is a fact and explains why cameras sans RF like M1 or MEV1 are M cameras and why M lenses are so attractive to Leica and non Leica users.

[charlesphoto99]

2 hours ago, lct said:

I see what you mean thank you but you seem to forget the lens mount in your reasoning. Besides the RF or lack thereof, what makes M camera and lenses what they are is the M-mount. The M-mount is a fact and explains why cameras sans RF like M1 or MEV1 are M cameras and why M lenses are so attractive to Leica and non Leica users.

The lens mount? That is just a proprietary bayonet, no different from any other bayonet type mount by a dozen manufacturers. What makes the M unique is the small size of the lenses, the fact that they are manual focus, and work very well in conjunction with the rangefinder of the M bodies. The M1 was popular? Seriously doubt it. MEV1, still to be seen beyond the deep pocketed who snatch up most anything with a red dot. The EV1 still has the half compromise of one foot in the modern world (EVF), and the other foot  in the old (manual focus lenses only). That latter part will still hamper many. Yesterday, I took a few pics with a friend's ZF as she wanted to be in shot. She could just hand it over to me, and all I had to do was point the thing and push the release and the photos were fantastic. That is why the Q has been such a big hit. 

[lct]

1 minute ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Yesterday, I took a few pics with a friend's ZF as she wanted to be in shot. She could just hand it over to me, and all I had to do was point the thing and push the release and the photos were fantastic.

May i ask if you were using M lenses then?

[charlesphoto99]

Just now, lct said:

May i ask if you were using M lenses then?

No, of course not. How would I be able to just press the release and nothing else?  It was a friend's who knows nothing about the M system.  

IMO M lenses with an EVF are compromised due to no auto stop down. The Q and SL line and Nikon etc etc don't have that problem. I've tried M lenses on a CL, and always went back to the 18mm pancake it came with. If I want to use an M lens, I use the body it was meant for. Though that said, with the right adapter the ZF is much more conducive to using one due to the superior focus aids, but still a kludge. Even older Nikon lenses are a kludge due to having to use an adapter. Those are best used on the SLR/DSLR generations. 

[lct]

11 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

[...] IMO M lenses with an EVF are compromised due to no auto stop down. The Q and SL line and Nikon etc etc don't have that problem. [...]

M lenses are manual so the MEV1 has little to do with auto stop down, let alone AF. The MEV1 is a variant of the M11 with the same features as the latter, besides the RF, so it is not the right camera for people disliking the M11 or M lenses IMHO.

Edited 2 hours ago by lct

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto99 said:

No, of course not. How would I be able to just press the release and nothing else?  It was a friend's who knows nothing about the M system.  

IMO M lenses with an EVF are compromised due to no auto stop down. The Q and SL line and Nikon etc etc don't have that problem. I've tried M lenses on a CL, and always went back to the 18mm pancake it came with. If I want to use an M lens, I use the body it was meant for. Though that said, with the right adapter the ZF is much more conducive to using one due to the superior focus aids, but still a kludge. Even older Nikon lenses are a kludge due to having to use an adapter. Those are best used on the SLR/DSLR generations. 

Nikon has the same problem when using native lenses without auto stop down (the excellent CV lenses). I have the Zf and M-EV1 is a much better camera for me because I enjoy using it much more. No Leica is designed to appeal to the masses, especially those that pick their camera based on technical specs and opinions of influencers.

[charlesphoto99]

49 minutes ago, lct said:

M lenses are manual so the MEV1 has little to do with auto stop down, let alone AF. The MEV1 is a variant of the M11 with the same features as the latter, besides the RF, so it is not the right camera for people disliking the M11 or M lenses IMHO.

The reason auto stop down is so important, is that it allows one to always view at the stop that allows the most light coming in, thereby decreasing the gain needed in the EVF, as well as maintaining a slim depth of field for the focus aids to work at their best. It's one of the reason many photographers used f1.4/2 SLR lenses back in the day. Even if wide open wasn't always needed (though with film, when it was needed it was really needed and not so much an 'effect') it allowed the viewfinder to be clearer. When I tried the EV1 in dim light at the dealer, it felt as if I was looking underwater. One things settle down I'll see if I can borrow for a longer time and shoot under some different conditions, but the idea of focusing wide open and then stopping down to take the final image harkens back to the days of view cameras. 

[charlesphoto99]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Nikon has the same problem when using native lenses without auto stop down (the excellent CV lenses). I have the Zf and M-EV1 is a much better camera for me because I enjoy using it much more. No Leica is designed to appeal to the masses, especially those that pick their camera based on technical specs and opinions of influencers.

I can dig that. I loved the Zeiss manual focus lenses when I had a D3, though they auto stopped down. For me, something like the ZF would be complimentary to my M10-R,/M and I would most likely get a couple of small Z primes, and an adapter to use my F mount 300mm, all of which, body, adapter and primes, bought used, would cost one quarter of an EV1 body. The EV1 will be a fantastic solution for many, but the hurdle to adoption by those not already versed in the M and manual focus lenses will be very high imo, both in functionality and cost. Of course, if somebody wants to gift me an EV1, I would surely find some use for it and yes, any M is more fun to shoot than a Nikon... (which is why my D850 is pretty much permanently connected to my copy stand for archiving slides and negatives). 

[jaapv]

9 hours ago, lct said:

MD cameras have little to do with the MEV1, since they had no VF contrary to the latter.

Like the MEV1, they had to be focused through the lens by the Visoflex.