Leica M EV2 -- your next camera?

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

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. 

 

I guess that OSPDAF is needed to show in which direction you need to turn the focus ring. While helpful, it may not be necessary if you have a visualization aid that shows you the sharpness below the cursor (CDAF approach).

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[padam]

28 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

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. 

I  mostly shoot candid, therefore I require speed, very important, so fighting with all these MILCs is bad, complained about it too many times.
But a focusing aid isn't nearly as usable, if it's not something I control. Don't want to let go of that, this isn't the way I want the camera to "help".
I just want the functions to be ergonomic and quick - which it currently isn't, that's the real issue for me.
For that kind of semi-automated shooting, might as well do the whole AF. Problem with that is eye-AF obstructs the person I want to see. I don't see people talking about this, but using both, it is different. I get many keepers with regards to focus, but the moment and composition may not be as intentional.

I have a similar aid in the Canon R5, and I find that it does not always reach the accuracy level as AF with all lenses, so I don't like it.
And wouldn't you know it, here is something I read in a Nikon Zf article:
"Even if those green boxes for focus confirmation were available (they’re not on this dummy adapter), the lack of contrast can confuse the focus indicators, so I always zoom in "

Well, guess what, I can pre-move that box and zoom in, too, where I want, when I want - if they implement that function well enough...

So no, I don't need a gimmicky focusing aid like that.


But here is something I miss dearly: Sony NEX-5N.
No viewfinder, seems like a bad start. But it has a waist-level finder not obstructed by it. Wrong 16:9 ratio, so the effective area is small.
However, amazingly, I just roughly pre-focus, touch the screen at a certain area and voila, no questions asked, magnifies where I want it.
Instead of following a subject, I can prepare where it's going to be in the frame.
I press the shutter halfway, goes back to full frame, or I just take the shot.
Quick and easy (and more fun because of it...).

Doesn't seem like something difficult to implement and yet even Sony themselves removed it...

My Leica SL2 and Canon R5 both show me a middle finger since this works in playback (by double tapping, that is stupid)
But not for shooting...

Here is another "innovation" hated by pretty much anyone: Canon EOS R
It's the touch bar swipe. I can quickly zoom in and out, placed perfectly, no clicking.
I just wish I could disable the unnecessary high magnification. It would go to the lesser one if I swiped less, but that's too precise and slow.
Unfortunately, moving the area is still a mess.
But combined with a joystick or a nicely configured screen it would work well.

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, padam said:

I  mostly shoot candid, therefore I require speed, very important, so fighting with all these MILCs is bad, complained about it too many times.
But a focusing aid isn't nearly as usable, if it's not something I control. Don't want to let go of that, this isn't the way I want the camera to "help".
I just want the functions to be ergonomic and quick - which it currently isn't, that's the real issue for me.

This is a portion of why I left the M-EVF bandwagon quite a while ago.  The OVF/EVF combo if not ideal, provides the widest range of capability in the most varied of circumstance.  I no longer, especially give the modest cost differential, see sufficient value... for my brief, others clearly feel differently...  to preferring an EV1 over an M.  

Edited 9 hours ago by Tailwagger

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

I guess that OSPDAF is needed to show in which direction you need to turn the focus ring. While helpful, it may not be necessary if you have a visualization aid that shows you the sharpness below the cursor (CDAF approach).

As an aside, I often in the moment, do exactly what CDAF requires when focusing, i.e. briefly overshoot and return to focus.  In fact, as I never remember to return to infinity after a shot and moving from the infinity side oddly results in slightly sharper focus, its somewhat become a part of my muscle memory.  

[padam]

13 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

This is a portion of why I left the M-EVF bandwagon quite a while ago.  The OVF/EVF combo if not ideal, provides the widest range of capability in the most varied of circumstance.  I no longer, especially give the modest cost differential, see sufficient value... for my brief, others clearly feel differently...  to preferring an EV1 over an M.  

I do really miss an M, but I also have a handful of lenses, and I remember how certain combinations worked, yet others didn't (instead of an EVF, I just used the back screen for the 75 Lux and while odd, worked just fine) and articles like this genuinely scare me to start all over again: Why focus calibration with rangefinder lenses is so difficult
Finding out manufacturing tolerances on an expensive lens first-hand wasn't great to start with.

While film has become expensive enough to be less viable now besides the inconvenience, I still think I miss a film M more than digital. (I do have quite a few m39 rangefinders, but I never really used them - the M6 TTL bettered them all, but maybe not to the point of justifying 5-10x over a Canon 7s, if I just use m39 lenses)
Made less mistakes (some say easier to recompose, because film isn't fully flat like a sensor?), and even when they did happen occasionally, acted as part of its charm, while on digital it just looks bad.

I had been used to MILC oddities before anyway, they weren't this picky, so I do consider them more versatile, if only they designed them thoughtfully with adapted lenses in mind.

While an M EV1 is compromised and has no "magic" for the price, it is at least light and compact, which is a factor. But anyway, I am almost happy that it didn't came out better, since I'm only looking at new Leicas in terms of: "will I ever consider them if they depreciated enough". And this may come a long way after, as I've set a hard limit on a single piece of gear to an amount Leicaphiles may laugh at, that helps keeping things somewhat controlled (still have more gear than ever, some day that might be cured.) and within that scope I can still try so many non-Leica alternatives if I want to.
I still think that if Voigtländer or someone else brought out a digital Bessa or something to realise the entry-level concept is where Leica might need to react, since there are so many cheap old-new rangefinder lenses people can have fun with.
Others can start ditching flip screens in favour of tilting in their small entry-level FF cameras, that would also help to just simply accept lesser performance.


Back to the topic, I wouldn't be surprised if the basics for an M EV2 were already laid out in parallel with an M12 and other future models.
But the actual release may still be a fair few years away.
So with an M12 raising price further (12k$ anyone for a non-P model?), an M EV1 becomes "more entry-level" for a whopping -25% - the difference some expected, they just looked at the wrong model. Then they ditch it for the M EV2, raising the entry barrier further up.

[PeterKelly]

The EV1 won’t be my next camera. My current stable of Leica cameras is a M11 BP, a M10M and a Q3. I use a Visoflex 2 occasionally for critical framing but seldom for focus  I think I’m better at nailing focus with the RF patch than focus peaking or magnification - just seems work better for me. My longest M lens is 75mm.

i might have been interested (and willing to part with a kidney or similar) if the new camera incorporated some form of accurate focus confirmation.

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/25/2025 at 4:28 PM, vkdev said:

I will trade my SL for M EV because I don't use SL.

its basically like an SL in an M body anyway.  

the catch is everyone wants a single camera that can do everything, e.g:

 

lightweight 

has small lenses with super high quality

can shoot ISO 1 million

had Dynamic Range better than God

a battery that can last a week

tonnes of internal flash memory

has a rangefinder

has an EVF better than the human eyes

has dual slots for cards

has a silly leather case that doesn't cover the tripod mount and battery

etc etc etc

but camera manufacturers release their products for specific target segments e.g the fuji Xhalf sold like crazy as did the GFXRF and the SL+ Q series.

 

 

[scroy]

What I would like  IBIS like the Hasselblad x2d2, larger internal storage like the m11p or better, perhaps increased evf resolution. 
but if I’m being honest, I would love to buy an ev2 with body size matching the CL eg closer to barnack size with the current feature set + whatever else Leica would give me. 

[Jeffry Abt]

I hope to own one one fine day!

[Tailwagger]

59 minutes ago, Jeffry Abt said:

I hope to own one one fine day!

I will say that I'm interested in seeing just how many EV1s wind up on the used market in the next year or so and how well they fare in terms of resale value.  While I can't justify the cost differential when new against an M, if lightly used examples get cheap enough, I might be able to on the secondary market.