NEXT! M-EV1 with a L-mount

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I struggle to see the point in an M sized L mount camera.

I had the 16-35, 24-90 and 90-280 zooms, the 50 Summilux and APO 75 with my SL, and lugged them about. Great lenses, but it was just all too big and heavy.  I looked at my M lenses, 10 ranging from 21mm to my rarely used 135mm and wondered why I had duplicated all those focal lengths in the L system.  I made marginal gains in image quality only pixel peeping would reveal, AF which I hate and video I never use.

I sold the entire  system, preferring the M system, keeping only the SL and 24-90 zoom as they weren’t worth selling and I could take that camera and one lens to places a bit too rough for my M cameras and lenses. I’ve since added the Sigma 105 macro for scanning slides and negatives.

I really see no point in an AF M camera when the rangefinder and M lenses are so good!

But, I still have my TL2.  I’ve kept that camera as I love the concept and it is compact with the 28 Summaron attached (42mm field view).  However, focusing is hit and miss (relying on depth of field), and adding the Visoflex is clunky.  So, I’m trialling the Sigma 24 and 45 Contemporary lenses. Too bulky for the pocket of my cycling jersey, but light and smaller that the SL and M cameras.

Does that mean there’s a place for a return of the CL, or an L mount M camera, or a Q body with lenses?  I’m not convinced. The SL system is all about lens quality without compromise to size.  It would be a shame to confuse that line (I don’t think re-badging lenses is a good move).  So, where’s the gap?  A zoom Q?

Leica is valued for quality, and it needs to maintain clarity in its product lines, in my view.

Edited November 19 by IkarusJohn

[lct]

Why not a compact L-mount camera fitting AF lenses? SL cameras cannot compete due to size. M cameras cannot compete either due to lack of AF. My Sigma FPL is fun to use with FF and crop L-mount lenses. It just lacks a built-in EVF Leica could provide if there is a market for that. Same for the Panasonic S9 that has no built-in EVF either. YMMV.

Edited November 19 by lct

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

We have measured EVF lag as 70ms. Accounting for non-zero shutter lag and reaction time, it probably matters little compared to OVF. SL3 was estimated to have a bit longer lag. I would expect Q3 to have a similar EVF lag to M-EV1.

 

I haven't tried the M-EV1. On the SL3-S, SL2-S, SL, CL, TL2, M240(+Visoflex) it has been long enough to be subjectively noticeable. That's probably the correct order of increasing lag.

To take a different look at this, I was shooting dancers making jumps last Saturday at 7fps, i.e. 140ms between frames. That is an interval encompassing too soon (dancer rising) to too late (dancer descending). I had to take 2-3 sequences to be sure of getting one with the dancer at the top. (A faster frame rate switches to electronic shutter, and that caused lighting banding problems).

So although a 70ms lag sounds very short, in real world terms I suspect it is still significant - and is significant in the cameras I list. The human body is remarkably responsive in responding to fast events, but this is just one more factor to allow for - that I would prefer not to have to allow for.

[jaapv]

An old photographer once told me: If you shoot bursts your shutter is open for 1\100th of a second per second or so, which means tha it is closed 99% of the time. And you want to capture the precise moment that way? 

[wizard]

Am 19.11.2025 um 18:50 schrieb SrMi:

This is the time until the camera is ready for the next shot, which apparently varies with resolution

Quite correct, and I am well aware of that. But it would appear that the OP in a parallel thread on shutter lag has understood this phenomenon as "shutter lag" (which it is not) and it was discussed at length in that thread. I am not bothered by shutter lag at all, and have not checked whether it varies with resolution (I would think not). 

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, wizard said:

Quite correct, and I am well aware of that. But it would appear that the OP in a parallel thread on shutter lag has understood this phenomenon as "shutter lag" (which it is not) and it was discussed at length in that thread. I am not bothered by shutter lag at all, and have not checked whether it varies with resolution (I would think not). 

If you meant me as the OP, then I don't think I misunderstood this. My only concern (elsewhere) has been EVF lag. I am not concerned with shutter lag either.

[Anthsmith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tried an EV-1 IN A dealership i would NOT have one as a gift awful ,if thats what you want buy a sony, I ll stick with my M10 R

[zlatkob]

On 11/19/2025 at 1:49 PM, IkarusJohn said:

I struggle to see the point in an M sized L mount camera.

I had the 16-35, 24-90 and 90-280 zooms, the 50 Summilux and APO 75 with my SL, and lugged them about. Great lenses, but it was just all too big and heavy.  I looked at my M lenses, 10 ranging from 21mm to my rarely used 135mm and wondered why I had duplicated all those focal lengths in the L system.  I made marginal gains in image quality only pixel peeping would reveal, AF which I hate and video I never use.

I sold the entire  system, preferring the M system, keeping only the SL and 24-90 zoom as they weren’t worth selling and I could take that camera and one lens to places a bit too rough for my M cameras and lenses. I’ve since added the Sigma 105 macro for scanning slides and negatives.

I really see no point in an AF M camera when the rangefinder and M lenses are so good!

But, I still have my TL2.  I’ve kept that camera as I love the concept and it is compact with the 28 Summaron attached (42mm field view).  However, focusing is hit and miss (relying on depth of field), and adding the Visoflex is clunky.  So, I’m trialling the Sigma 24 and 45 Contemporary lenses. Too bulky for the pocket of my cycling jersey, but light and smaller that the SL and M cameras.

Does that mean there’s a place for a return of the CL, or an L mount M camera, or a Q body with lenses?  I’m not convinced. The SL system is all about lens quality without compromise to size.  It would be a shame to confuse that line (I don’t think re-badging lenses is a good move).  So, where’s the gap?  A zoom Q?

Leica is valued for quality, and it needs to maintain clarity in its product lines, in my view.

No point? But the point is so obvious: autofocus. Many photographers value both autofocus and the size and styling of an M camera. That's why the Q line is so popular. An M-sized L-mount camera would take the small Q to the next level: interchangeable lenses. That in turn would find new buyers for Leica.

Re-badging lenses happens, whether it's a good move or not. That doesn't rule out the possibility of creating new lenses as needed, zoom and prime.

Photographers buy what they like and find useful. A line can include both large no-compromise lenses and smaller more practical lenses, without confusion. There are buyers for each. I don't think photographers get confused by having options that meet their diverse needs.

[IkarusJohn]

49 minutes ago, zlatkob said:

No point? But the point is so obvious: autofocus. Many photographers value both autofocus and the size and styling of an M camera. That's why the Q line is so popular. An M-sized L-mount camera would take the small Q to the next level: interchangeable lenses. That in turn would find new buyers for Leica.

…

I don’t disagree with this, but it has nothing to do with either the M or Q line for all the reasons discussed.

There is clearly a desire, here at least, for a full frame CL, M sized body with AF or Q sized camera with L mount - call it a QL if you like, but it has nothing to do with the M system.  So, yes pointless.

But a small L mount camera clearly has legs, but with smaller lenses.  I’ve tried my TL2 with SL lenses, and found it unworkable.  However, with the new Sigma Contemporary lenses (I have the 24 and 45), it is very good indeed.  I don’t see Leica making a new camera for other people’s lenses.  So, Leica needs to develop new lenses for such a system, or re-badge Sigma lenses.

Speaking purely for myself, I bought my M9 and subsequent Leica system cameras for what they were.  If they were re-badged Panasonics, I’d have bought the Panasonics.

You may know more than me, but I really don’t see Leica making a small L mount camera for other people’s lenses.

[lct]

14 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

[...] I really don’t see Leica making a small L mount camera for other people’s lenses.

Neither do i but both SL and TL lenses would fit and Leica could rebadge a couple of Pana or Sigma lenses as well. Good move to avoid high prices associated to pure Leica lenses. Not a new move either, the little Leica zoom of my 10 yo Pana Lx100 is superb, to the point that that of the current D-Lux 8 is the same or very similar AFAIK. 

[SrMi]

29 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I don’t disagree with this, but it has nothing to do with either the M or Q line for all the reasons discussed.

There is clearly a desire, here at least, for a full frame CL, M sized body with AF or Q sized camera with L mount - call it a QL if you like, but it has nothing to do with the M system.  So, yes pointless.

But a small L mount camera clearly has legs, but with smaller lenses.  I’ve tried my TL2 with SL lenses, and found it unworkable.  However, with the new Sigma Contemporary lenses (I have the 24 and 45), it is very good indeed.  I don’t see Leica making a new camera for other people’s lenses.  So, Leica needs to develop new lenses for such a system, or re-badge Sigma lenses.

Speaking purely for myself, I bought my M9 and subsequent Leica system cameras for what they were.  If they were re-badged Panasonics, I’d have bought the Panasonics.

You may know more than me, but I really don’t see Leica making a small L mount camera for other people’s lenses.

Yes, the size of SL cameras works well with Leica's APO lenses and zooms.

While I like the M for its smaller size, I would be OK with the current SL size, provided the camera is much lighter (200g less). Maybe an SL version could be made much lighter if it drops video (less cooling necessary?).

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, zlatkob said:

No point? But the point is so obvious: autofocus. Many photographers value both autofocus and the size and styling of an M camera.

Besides compactness, I would place more value on stabilization and weather sealing than AF.  The M-EV lacks both. I shoot my SL2 deliberately, so AF is not really essential, especially with focus aids; other aspects make it more flexible than, and complementary to, my M system.  I don’t mind the bulk/weight of the SL2 with 24-90 (and smaller 28-70), but a more compact system, with similar functionality, might serve well for travel, long hikes, etc.  IQ hasn’t really been lacking across most modern systems and brands, at least not for my modest print sizes.  Leica excels for me, however, in build quality, simplicity of controls and menus, VF design and execution, lens options, etc.

Edited November 24 by Jeff S

[IkarusJohn]

1 minute ago, lct said:

Neither do i but both SL and TL lenses would fit and Leica could rebadge a couple of Pana or Sigma lenses as well. Good move to avoid high prices associated to pure Leica lenses. Not a new move either, the little Leica zoom of my 10 yo Pana Lx100 is superb, to the point that that of the current D-Lux 8 is the same or very similar AFAIK. 

I don’t see that - Leica makes nothing out of secondhand sales (the TL lenses) or other people’s products.  Try an SL lens on a TL or CL - people do, but not for the purposes for which a small L mount camera was made.  My 24-90 zoom is a handful on my SL(601).  On my TL2, it’s pointless.

Conversely, a set of fine Leica L mount lenses based on existing designs, complementary to the existing lenses, but with AF would make sense. The only question I have is the investment required - it took Leica forever to stick a toe in the water with the M EV1.

[wizard]

vor 22 Stunden schrieb LocalHero1953:

If you meant me as the OP, then I don't think I misunderstood this.

No, I did not have anyone particular in mind. Would have to explore the other thread again, but in my view it does not really matter anyway.

[Stuart Richardson]

On 11/20/2025 at 2:32 AM, jaapv said:

An old photographer once told me: If you shoot bursts your shutter is open for 1\100th of a second per second or so, which means tha it is closed 99% of the time. And you want to capture the precise moment that way? 

That is probably unintentionally a great argument for using video stills at this point! Most cameras can now do 4k or even 8k at 24-60fps...

[hdmesa]

On 10/26/2025 at 8:28 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

Leica has made a small investment (by its own account) in replacing the opto-mechanical rangefinder with an EVF. What could be simpler than taking the next step, with another small investment, to replace the mount with a L-mount? For the shorter L-mount registration distance, they would bring the sensor forward in the body, thereby making space for IBIS as well. The higher power demand would be mitigated by a higher capacity battery (as they did for Q and SL by switching from BP-SCL4 to BP-SCL6).

They have conveniently drawn the ire of the RF adherents by the launch of the M-EV1, so the only people who could be upset are those who bought the latter, but would really really like AF - and IBIS.

What not to like?

(Yes, maybe this should be in the L-mount forum - or half way between - but this is where the M evolution excitement is)

No, a rangefinder style SL camera is what we need. No sense in being tied to the M-EV1 body. Why? Because adapting M lenses to it will look ridiculous – they will all be pushed out forward in the front of the camera by the same M-mount adapter needed for SL cameras. I guess if you never want to mount M lenses on it or don't care that if you do it looks like an aboMination, then ok.

But seriously, it is mind blowing to me that so few camera manufactures make rangefinder-style cameras with EVF on the left versus the center hump. I guess everyone just decided, yeah cool cool, Fujifilm can just completely own that market.

(Editing to say, the CL (IMO) is irrelevant because it did not have the analog-style retro marked top dials – so when I say we need an SL with a rangefinder style body, I mean one with the M controls, not the soulless unmarked dial thing)

Edited Wednesday at 12:25 AM by hdmesa

[BigBabyEarl]

On 10/26/2025 at 10:09 AM, CptSlevin said:

You are just living in a world of fantasy.
It's not MY marketing foresight

https://petapixel.com/2024/03/22/leica-selling-l-mount-cameras-is-tougher-than-selling-a-q-or-an-m/

SL3/SL3S shows less sales than their any other product line, why they would kill it off even more by introducing M with L mount?
Just enlighten me

Once Leica creates a medium format camera the SL can go the way of the Leica R. Let it die or become more video driven. Create a compact Leica M/Q that can auto focus and shoot legacy M glass. The 35mm format can exist next to a camera that competes with the X2D line and accepts SL primes (with compromise). The M rangefinder can be made extremely simple, light, without a screen etc for the purist. Time to evolve. 

[CptSlevin]

3 hours ago, BigBabyEarl said:

Once Leica creates a medium format camera the SL can go the way of the Leica R. Let it die or become more video driven. Create a compact Leica M/Q that can auto focus and shoot legacy M glass. The 35mm format can exist next to a camera that competes with the X2D line and accepts SL primes (with compromise). The M rangefinder can be made extremely simple, light, without a screen etc for the purist. Time to evolve. 

Evolve and Leica in one sentence is an irony.

[pgk]

On 11/19/2025 at 6:49 PM, IkarusJohn said:

I struggle to see the point in an M sized L mount camera.

So do I, for myself. However look at it this way. The M-EV1 is a product which responded to the views of a demographic fundamentally made up of older, M orientated Leica users. An M sized L mount might be a transition stage from not having a Leica, to having a Leica, for a younger aspirational demographic who may well value the 'Leica heritage' but whom also prefer to have a higher degree of auomation than is offered by the M-EV1. For them an M shaped L mount camera would not need be an M, but it would certainly look like a traditional Leica. Eventually smaller lenses will no doubt appear from Leica should they choose to go down this route. Just a thought.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jdlaing]

9 hours ago, BigBabyEarl said:

Once Leica creates a medium format camera the SL can go the way of the Leica R. Let it die or become more video driven. Create a compact Leica M/Q that can auto focus and shoot legacy M glass. The 35mm format can exist next to a camera that competes with the X2D line and accepts SL primes (with compromise). The M rangefinder can be made extremely simple, light, without a screen etc for the purist. Time to evolve. 

The S, I believe, is medium format.