Survey: Leica M EV1 – Future or mistake?

[Markey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Planetwide said:

I guess assuming that Leica might step out of the 90's in camera design was too much of an ask... This board had months of you guys saying that the M-EVF was not a real M, and now it is? A little criticism of Leica is entirely warranted, and yes, I expected more for the price, too bad if you don't like it - nothing personal.

They`ve eliminated flare in their lenses but need more flair in their approach to camera design .

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

14 minutes ago, lct said:

My memory may be failing me, but no one asked for these additions at the beginning of the EVF-M adventure.

My memory doesn't fail me.

People asked for a M with an EVF. They also asked for a hybrid OVF/EVF, IBIS, OIS, a vast range of focus aids, a Q with a M-mount, a Q with an interchangeable lens, and a M with a L-mount (and perhaps a L with a M-mount - I may have missed this one). Singly and in different combinations. And, since this is Leica, no change at all. And people declared that this was what the market demanded.

Of course, everyone is upset that they didn't get exactly what they asked for. Therefore Leica will go bust inside a year.

Edited 18 hours ago by LocalHero1953

[pgk]

12 hours ago, lct said:

The market will decide as always.

There is no doubt about that, but .....

Markets vary. Is the market an expansionist one with vast potential or a dead end to be fulfilled and then fade away?

[lct]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Markets vary. Is the market an expansionist one with vast potential or a dead end to be fulfilled and then fade away?

We shall see. One can only hope that the market will see the MEV1 as a true M camera by its simplicity and its superb results with M lenses. Current MEV1 owners can help by showing their photos and that taking them with an EVF was not more difficult than with an RF, if any.

[Kiwimac]

I’ve often wished for something like this version. Usually when trying to use either very wide or long lenses. 
 

I think the concept is sound but it deserves the best EVF that money can buy and I don’t think it’s got that. Maybe EVF2 or 3?

 It might be a way to keep pricing down. The Monochrom and the Safari are now NZ$19,290 and $18,990 respectively, making them not far off the most expensive non-specialty cameras for sale in the country. 
 

Add on a few more years of annual price increases and I dread to think how much an M12 or 13 might be. 
 

I’ll keep my 11-P as long as I can. It pretty much does what I need. After that? Who knows?

[charlesphoto99]

3 hours ago, lct said:

Current MEV1 owners can help by showing their photos and that taking them with an EVF was not more difficult than with an RF, if any.

This a joke, right? How are we supposed to know from just the images themselves? So far I've seen zilch that couldn't have just as easily been done with a rangefinder (or back screen or Visoflex in the case of close focusing lenses) in the same amount of time, even with 'bad eyes.' Where are all those close up, wide open, Noctilux portraits that just couldn't have been done before without this new $9k 'accessory?' (despite them being done, ad naseum, for years, even on film).  I haven't seen them. A car sitting in a driveway, a country lane at dusk, an object on a table, a tree, a car park, a cityscape, a cat sitting in front of a computer, etc etc aren't convincing images for spending a fortune on an EV1, versus spending just a bit more fortune on an M11 plus Viso and having the option of both focusing/veiwing methods.  

Instead, show me two photographers, one with an EV1, the other with an M rf, in the same fast moving dynamic situation, and then see how it fares, both from the images themselves and the photographer's testimony afterwards on how it went. And then have them switch cameras and do it again. That's the only truly convincing test for me. 

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

[...] show me two photographers, one with an EV1, the other with an M rf, in the same fast moving dynamic situation [...]

You mean two photos, i guess, but i never did this so far. I have little reason to do it since moving subjects have never been a problem for me with EVF and M lenses on various mirrorless bodies for 10+ years. Therefore, i don't expect any difference with the MEV1 that has the advantage of autozoom my other mirorless cameras have not, bar the M11 which behaves the same way as the MEV1, with Visoflex2.

Edited 11 hours ago by lct

[LocalHero1953]

From a quick look at the Favourite Images page here*, 80-90% of the shots would have posed no problems focusing with either a RF M or M-EV1. In other words, most photos there don't need a rangefinder. So if you're comfortable with an EVF, what are you missing?

 

* I'm not setting up the Favourite Images page as a standard for photography, just typical of what users here shoot and like.

Edited 11 hours ago by LocalHero1953

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

From a quick look at the Favourite Images page here, 80-90% of the shots would have posed no problems focusing with either a RF M or M-EV1. In other words, most photos there don't need a rangefinder. So if you're comfortable with an EVF, what are you missing?

+1

For me, OVF is the main benefit of using a rangefinder. So far, the other advantage of the rangefinder is that it comes with an M body. 😄

Now we have a choice.

[charlesphoto99]

14 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

From a quick look at the Favourite Images page here*, 80-90% of the shots would have posed no problems focusing with either a RF M or M-EV1. In other words, most photos there don't need a rangefinder. So if you're comfortable with an EVF, what are you missing?

 

* I'm not setting up the Favourite Images page as a standard for photography, just typical of what users here shoot and like.

For this forum, yes, you are right, though the idea that somehow the photos themselves will give away the method used of focusing/viewing is patently ridiculous. 

What I would miss would be focusing while not taking my eye off the entire scene that is transpiring. I always favor shutter release for the moment versus whether or not I've achieved critical focus or not, because the moment is gone no matter what, and often, even without doing anything, the focus can be right or good enough. This even applies to landscapes - if I'm focusing only on a small magnified bit of the horizon, or am distracted by squiggly lines all over, I might miss, for example, an eagle that suddenly decides to fly into the frame and complete the scene. This can be split second stuff, which is why the open view of the traditional M viewfinder has appealed over the ages to so many 'street' photographers. 

[Edward Schwartzreich]

Let us not forget that an M using its RF has less shutter lag than the M11 with EVF being use, or the new M EV-1.   That extra nimbleness, together with the optical VF with frame lines, can help freeze that moving target at just the right moment.  I have done just that with RF cameras.  Not often, but enough to want to have a non-EVF camera.

[SrMi]

8 minutes ago, Edward Schwartzreich said:

Let us not forget that an M using its RF has less shutter lag than the M11 with EVF being use, or the new M EV-1.   That extra nimbleness, together with the optical VF with frame lines, can help freeze that moving target at just the right moment.  I have done just that with RF cameras.  Not often, but enough to want to have a non-EVF camera.

There is no difference in shutter lag. There is a slight display lag with EVFs. BTW, most action cameras are using EVFs.

[Mahesh]

Having tried this camera on 2 different days, I'm happy that Leica has brought this out. 

It has evf and also it is the lightest of all "M"s.

However as a number of people have said I wish the evf was better.

I have used Sony cameras with evf and magnifying when using manual Leica mount lenses. So I'm used to the process and not new to that.

I'm not sure anymore... Having waited for last over 5 years for an evf M, I wonder if the range finder is still better. 

Ps-I wouldn't have minded a slightly bigger size if that was necessary to make evf better.

[Edward Schwartzreich]

There is a difference, even with the M11 shutter sequence.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited 5 hours ago by Edward Schwartzreich
spelling

[SrMi]

15 minutes ago, Edward Schwartzreich said:

There is a difference, even with the M11 shutter sequence.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I see, thank you for the reminder! 

 

[michaelbrenner]

M stands for "rangefinder" in German, so an "M EV1" makes no sense.  From what I can see the M EV1 is an M with an electronic viewfinder in place of a rangefinder.  I'm not sure how this option in any way adds value or provides a value proposition that is superior in any way to an M, except that an external EV is no longer required and a flash may now be used along with the EV.  Having an M without a rangefinder is a huge handicap as the rangefinder works at any aperture, while (I'm assuming) the M EV1 will need to be stopped down to get the greatest focus accuracy and then stopped back up to the desired aperture before making the capture, resulting in a huge time delay.  Or, am I missing something?

Of course, having an EV offers many advantages, such as being able to see depth of field and exposure, but we already had that with the external EV, so how is the M EV1 anything but an M missing the M?

Finally, using a rangefinder is a much more personal experience, and much quicker, than manual focus.

On more item... as M lenses are designed to be used with a rangefinder, it would seem the M EV1 essentially relegates all M lenses to R-lens use on an M, so why spend the premium to get an M lens when one can get an R lens with the same functionality, even if a larger size and weight and not as high of quality?

Possibly, Leica intends an even more compact line of lenses sans rangefinder coupling, perhaps called MEV lenses.  No longer having to have the rangefinder coupling, they would perhaps weigh less and possibly be more compact.  Of course, even though Leica is known for Rangefinders, perhaps they view this a step towards the digital age, leaving the mechanical rangefinder to the dustbin of history, even if there is a large following, myself included, who greatly enjoy this method of photography.

Another thought is this is a novelty camara much like the M body lacking a digital screen in the rear, though I cannot fathom how leaving the rangefinder out in any way instills the classic lines of that notable production item.  More likely, this is the "next step", but then how does it differ from other Leica digital cameras, non-M, except that this one has the M-mount built-in an so does not require an adapter?

[SrMi]

4 minutes ago, michaelbrenner said:

M stands for "rangefinder" in German, so an "M EV1" makes no sense.  From what I can see the M EV1 is an M with an electronic viewfinder in place of a rangefinder.  I'm not sure how this option in any way adds value or provides a value proposition that is superior in any way to an M, except that an external EV is no longer required and a flash may now be used along with the EV.  Having an M without a rangefinder is a huge handicap as the rangefinder works at any aperture, while (I'm assuming) the M EV1 will need to be stopped down to get the greatest focus accuracy and then stopped back up to the desired aperture before making the capture, resulting in a huge time delay.  Or, am I missing something?

To achieve the best accuracy (better than with a rangefinder) with a lens that does not have focus shift, you need to open the aperture wide for focusing, then stop it down to the working aperture. It is slow and cumbersome. Of course, that is not a problem when shooting wide. Even when shooting at f/4 and 4/5.6 (28mm), I found that I could focus accurately without having to "ride the aperture (Sean Reid)." I believe most M-EV1 owners are focusing at working aperture.

8 minutes ago, michaelbrenner said:

Of course, having an EV offers many advantages, such as being able to see depth of field and exposure, but we already had that with the external EV, so how is the M EV1 anything but an M missing the M?

I find the mounted Visoflex is a bit of a crutch; it is often in the way when handling or storing the camera, and makes the camera feel bigger. There are M owners who use the rangefinder mainly because it comes with the M. 😄

11 minutes ago, michaelbrenner said:

Finally, using a rangefinder is a much more personal experience, and much quicker, than manual focus.

Yes, using a rangefinder is an exceptional experience. It is not always the fastest manual focusing experience, though.

12 minutes ago, michaelbrenner said:

On more item... as M lenses are designed to be used with a rangefinder, it would seem the M EV1 essentially relegates all M lenses to R-lens use on an M, so why spend the premium to get an M lens when one can get an R lens with the same functionality, even if a larger size and weight and not as high of quality?

Autozoom is available only with M lenses. Leica stopped making R lenses, and their performance may not match specific M lenses. However, they can be fun to use with M-EV1.

14 minutes ago, michaelbrenner said:

Possibly, Leica intends an even more compact line of lenses sans rangefinder coupling, perhaps called MEV lenses.

There is zero indication that Leica wants to launch a new series of lenses for this niche product.

15 minutes ago, michaelbrenner said:

More likely, this is the "next step", but then how does it differ from other Leica digital cameras, non-M, except that this one has the M-mount built-in an so does not require an adapter?

M-EV1 is not the "next step." You could call it a side step. 😁

[SrMi]

Regarding focusing wide open vs stopped down: M-EV1 is just Peter Karbe's ploy to force people to shoot wide open. 🤪

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Derbyshire Man]

1 hour ago, Edward Schwartzreich said:

There is a difference, even with the M11 shutter sequence.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I regularly see this wheeled out but I have to say it doesn't match my experience of using the M11P, M11D or M11M, it feels much longer. It's always hard as reaction time comes into it but when trying to photograph a tennis serve for instance I find that even if I predict the start of the swing (aiming for ball strike) I get end of serve. My research suggests that at 120mph the ball should be in contact with the racket for 5ms, well I've pressed on the end of the back swing and get the completed swing every time! Feels more like the 120ms I've seen elsewhere. Which is frankly rubbish if true!

What's the source and methodology please?

Edited 3 hours ago by Derbyshire Man

[SrMi]

25 minutes ago, Derbyshire Man said:

I regularly see this wheeled out but I have to say it doesn't match my experience of using the M11P, M11D or M11M, it feels much longer. It's always hard as reaction time comes into it but when trying to photograph a tennis serve for instance I find that even if I predict the start of the swing (aiming for ball strike) I get end of serve. My research suggests that at 120mph the ball should be in contact with the racket for 5ms, well I've pressed on the end of the back swing and get the completed swing every time! Feels more like the 120ms I've seen elsewhere. Which is frankly rubbish if true!

What's the source and methodology please?

The numbers are from the RedDotForum YT video. Link is below (1:14:43).

Sean Reid measured: shutter lag M10-R: 0.047, M11: 0.064 sec; difference is 0.017sec

Also, shutter lag comment from Jesko von Oeynhausen: 

The shutter lag time of the M11 is, due to its new open-type shutter mechanism, a few milliseconds longer than its predecessor models. In practical use, the difference is hardly recognizable. The effective shutter lag depends on various circumstances like the lighting situation, shutter type and synchronization status of the light metering. Therefore, it can differ in practical use between 50 and 125 ms."

 

Edited 3 hours ago by SrMi