Leica M EV2 -- your next camera?

[Kiwimac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, setuporg said:

I was an early adopter of the X100 when a bunch of of folks sent it back because they could not focus by wire.  Granted, it was in its infancy.  Moved on to X-Pro1/2, and even had X10 for fun, a cute li’l camera.  The OVF-EVF is an amazing concept.  It is in a different class of innovation.  Leica can learn to do new things.  While misleadingly named, the GFX100RF also has innovative buttons and overall Fuji can teach Leica a thing or two.  No harm to learn from Fuji.

The X-Pro could have been a fantastic alternative to the M. It doesn’t seem they will be continuing it. At least, they’re being very slow about it if they will be!

[DadDadDaddyo]

I've owned each of the three X-Pro releases, and went back and got hold of a used X-Pro2 in nice condition a year or so ago.

It happened when I realized that my Fujifilm GFX system was going unused; it produced gorgeous files, but not so much more gorgeous than those produced by the M11 and M11M (at the sizes I print) to justify the GFX system's extra weight and, to be honest, its cumbersomeness. Getting rid of it financed both the X-Pro2 and several Fujifilm lenses, plus a couple of lenses I wanted for the M, including a nice, clean MATE. That's how I work such things: for something to arrive something else has to go (I've been operating off the same gradually increasing investment in gear for years). 

The X-Pro2, along with a recently obtained X-E5: these are my goto solutions for those situations in which I want autofocus, or IBIS, or both. The Fujifilm XF lenses are wonderful. I've had a couple versions of their X100 line, but I value interchangeable lenses too much to stick with one for the long haul.  

I'd love to see a Leica implementation of a hybrid finder, but I respect the considerations at work in Leica's  decisions guiding the evolution of their finders. There are a lot of factors to weigh and consider. I'm glad they're thoughtful about it. For that same reason, however, I would trust them to get it right if they ever decided to release one. 

With the X-Pro2, I'm on the optical finder 95% of the time, with the small electronic view inset in corner of the view showing what the autofocus system is doing with the focus spot. 

Switching back and forth between the Leicas and the Fujis is pretty easy. That said, I'd never mistake one for the other; they simply don't feel that much like each other. The Fujis are comfortable and engaging, and present no huge problems in use. But the Leicas simply "disappear" in my hands. With them, I'm just looking and seeing. It's years of muscle memory at work. 

In the end, neither system eliminates the desirability of having access to both.

To stick to topic, however, my next Leica acquisition will be their next iteration of the Visoflex, should Leica choose to develop and release it.

Until then, I'm just glad and grateful to have a stable full of different horses for all those different courses...

Edited 20 hours ago by DadDadDaddyo
small amplification

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, setuporg said:

I was an early adopter of the X100 when a bunch of of folks sent it back because they could not focus by wire.  Granted, it was in its infancy.  Moved on to X-Pro1/2, and even had X10 for fun, a cute li’l camera.  The OVF-EVF is an amazing concept.  It is in a different class of innovation.  Leica can learn to do new things.  While misleadingly named, the GFX100RF also has innovative buttons and overall Fuji can teach Leica a thing or two.  No harm to learn from Fuji.

I own and occasionally use the latest X100 and X-Pro cameras because I am a fan of OVFs. Stefan Daniel has explained why a hybrid viewfinder does not work with a rangefinder, and that it is a no-go.

I do have the RF as well, and do not see any innovative buttons. The camera's ergonomics are built around cropping features, either for aspect ratio or digital zoom. I find both implementations cumbersome. A typical setup is to lock out the digital zoom lever because it is too easy to change it accidentally.

I do not see what Leica could learn from Fuji —or, better said, I hope they do not :), though I would love to see the technology evolve so that a hybrid viewfinder with a rangefinder becomes possible.

[LocalHero1953]

10 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

I’d say the Q was fairly revolutionary in its own way. 

Certainly a new idea, but not one that other brands have piled into.

[adan]

On 10/25/2025 at 12:43 AM, setuporg said:

Given that M EV1 lacks everything we imagined, might as well start the list of what actually should be in one to make it useful.

For me, there is nothing "useful" about any EVF, and never will be, given that my manual-focus split-image photo career has been, and continues to be, effective, successful and lucrative.

Why "down-grade" my life and lifestyle - photographic and otherwise? 😉

 

[Kiwimac]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Certainly a new idea, but not one that other brands have piled into.

Have Leica ever done anything that other brands have piled into?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, Kiwimac said:

Have Leica ever done anything that other brands have piled into?

The original comment I responded to was "It’s been a very very long time since Leica revolutionised a sector of the camera market". The M did that (and, of course, the original Barnack), and other brands followed - till the SLR. Perhaps the Q revolutionised a sector of the market, but it was a small sector and not many other buyers and brands noticed.

FTAOD, I don't see this as a criticism of Leica. I'd rather they just made cameras and lenses that do what I want them to do - and broadly they do so.

The DSLR market was largely broken up by Sony and Fuji, even though Leica was a small player with the SL. It has taken Nikon and Canon a long time to catch up in mirrorless, and their early offerings were poor.

Edited 13 hours ago by LocalHero1953

[otto.f]

10 hours ago, setuporg said:

No harm to learn from Fuji.

If I understood well Stefan Daniel's interview about this, he's strongly against it:

People often tend to think of another company that offers hybrid viewfinders, but it is important to bear in mind that their cameras possess optical viewfinders and NOT rangefinders with their opto-mechanical complexity. It just did not make sense, and we will not touch that again. 

So it's either or for Leica

[Edax]

17 minutes ago, Kiwimac said:

Have Leica ever done anything that other brands have piled into?

https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2025/06/leica-maker-of-first-ever-slr-autofocus.html

[Dazzajl]

14 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

They just make cameras and lenses that (IMO) make it easier to take excellent photos (if only I had the talent).

That they do!

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Certainly a new idea, but not one that other brands have piled into.

Would GFX100RF and Rx1riii be launched without the evident success of the Q line? Maybe X100 line helped as well, but those cameras are more in competition with Q3.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Would GFX100RF and Rx1riii be launched without the evident success of the Q line? Maybe X100 line helped as well, but those cameras are more in competition with Q3.

It's taken them a long time to notice the Q line success, or maybe they had other reasons for those cameras. (NB the RX1 and X100 preceded the Q).

 

Edited 9 hours ago by LocalHero1953

[Tailwagger]

On 10/25/2025 at 3:49 AM, padam said:

Only two things are likely for the next model: it will be like the M12, it's going to have less buttons in favour of a huge LCD...

Perhaps. 

I could imagine, however, that the disappointment some given the lack of any breakthrough innovation by the EV1, the whole 'toe in the water' thing and Jono's response to my lack of any deep thinking comment elsewhere, by the time a 12 based version is released... assuming the toe finds the waters warm enough... there will be a more serious attempt to distinguish the value proposition of EV from the M + Viso.

[Tailwagger]

5 hours ago, otto.f said:

People often tend to think of another company that offers hybrid viewfinders, but it is important to bear in mind that their cameras possess optical viewfinders and NOT rangefinders with their opto-mechanical complexity. It just did not make sense, and we will not touch that again. 

I did note in this statement that he did not preclude some form of purely electronic solution.  Given all their expertise with cell phones, its always been a point of speculation for some time that the use of a, say, 28mm equiv. lens might provide the basis for some form of RF-like experience.  There would be no need for the actual focusing mechanism to rely on parallax, but one could see beyond the frame without giving up any of the primary sensors pixels ala digital zoom.

Not sure there's enough value to justify the cost, but the other advantage of such a system might be a greater ability for the photographer to compensate for EV lag when dealing with moving subjects along with the possibility of comparing the default exposure parameters vs. the actual ones affecting the primary sensor.  Doesnt seem worth the effort to me, but who knows.

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, Tailwagger said:

I did note in this statement that he did not preclude some form of purely electronic solution.  Given all their expertise with cell phones, its always been a point of speculation for some time that the use of a, say, 28mm equiv. lens might provide the basis for some form of RF-like experience.  There would be no need for the actual focusing mechanism to rely on parallax, but one could see beyond the frame without giving up any of the primary sensors pixels ala digital zoom.

Not sure there's enough value to justify the cost, but the other advantage of such a system might be a greater ability for the photographer to compensate for EV lag when dealing with moving subjects along with the possibility of comparing the default exposure parameters vs. the actual ones affecting the primary sensor.  Doesnt seem worth the effort to me, but who knows.

An electronic solution would have to display data from the sensor, which would undermine many of the optical rangefinder's advantages.

[Tailwagger]

Pure speculation but it does occur to me that perhaps the plan for the future might include some form of sensor unification across all Leica's FF offerings. One could see the M12 (and EV models) including roughly same PDAF sensor as a future SL/Q which would permit all M models, EVF or otherwise to provide some form of focus confirmation.  I say perhaps and roughly, as I might imagine that the AoI problems correct by the M's micro-lensing solution might not be compatible with the notion of PDAF sites.  OTOH, I could imagine that landing on a single sensor might provide enough cost savings and software development time to make the effort interesting. 

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, Tailwagger said:

Pure speculation but it does occur to me that perhaps the plan for the future might include some form of sensor unification across all Leica's FF offerings. One could see the M12 (and EV models) including roughly same PDAF sensor as a future SL/Q which would permit all M models, EVF or otherwise to provide some form of focus confirmation.  I say perhaps and roughly, as I might imagine that the AoI problems correct by the M's micro-lensing solution might not be compatible with the notion of PDAF sites.  OTOH, I could imagine that landing on a single sensor might provide enough cost savings and software development time to make the effort interesting. 

I expect that optimal M-mount support requires different sensor toppings than the L-mount sensors need.

[Tailwagger]

13 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I expect that optimal M-mount support requires different sensor toppings than the L-mount sensors need.

Which what I meant by "AoI (angle of incidence) problems correct[ed] the M's micro-lensing" (and thinner cover glass). 

The question is whether or not those top layer alterations are incompatible with the notion of PDAF sites.   

[padam]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Perhaps. 

I could imagine, however, that the disappointment some given the lack of any breakthrough innovation by the EV1, the whole 'toe in the water' thing and Jono's response to my lack of any deep thinking comment elsewhere, by the time a 12 based version is released... assuming the toe finds the waters warm enough... there will be a more serious attempt to distinguish the value proposition of EV from the M + Viso.

But what would be a feature that is not in an M12 or other product line?
If an M12 has IBIS, the M EV2 will have it (I remain sceptical, but they know it would be a big reason to upgrade ,and it could matter even more in the latter).
If a Q4 has a new EVF, that might also improve, etc.

There is nothing in an EVF M that could function in a way an SL couldn't.
They could do something with the latter with phase-detect, but on an M, it is wasted.
I really don't think that is a feature needed to improve manual focusing.
Just give me a high quality view and either a (responsive) joystick or touch-based system (not like an SL2, unusable...) to assist quick punch-in-out and movement.
Plus, customization for choosing the magnification that I prefer.
These I think are reasonable targets but based on how they wrote software in the past, I'm not hopeful.

They don't see an M EV1 as the main line, so it is fine for them to sell less, because it is "less value". I don't think Leica cares with that.
Apart from sharing things with Panasonic and Sigma, which is good business,. where is an M-E, Summarit, APS-C? Gone, reduced to atoms.
(Even a Q-E turned out to be a false rumour.)

It's a shame, because I see myself happily using an M EV1 instead of the SL2 for taking pictures, even I would far prefer a miniaturised SL.
But I certainly wouldn't pay 4x for an M EV1 (in the same way that I would not pay over 2x for an SL3 that is a bit lighter with a tilt-screen, but users say has a worse quality magnified image)
Reversing this, how much would I be willing pay for a "more perfect" tool for these lenses using certain features from any brand that I tried? I don't know...

Edited 7 hours ago by padam

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Tailwagger]

3 minutes ago, padam said:

They could do something with the latter with phase-detect, but on an M, it is wasted.
I really don't think that is a feature needed to improve manual focusing.

Lets agree to disagree on this.  You might never require speed to focus in an EVF only context, but this forum is full of comments grousing about the speed of EVF focus, having to zoom and unzoom, crappy focus peaking, so undoubtedly there are those that are desirous of improvement in the space.