How about a line of M Autofocus Lenses for the EV line of M cameras?

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One thing I find curious about the M EV1 angst is having over focusing manual lenses with an EVF, this has been around for years with the Sony A7 and Zeiss’ hugely popular Otus and Milvus lines of lenses.

Edited Thursday at 07:50 PM by IkarusJohn

[Advertisement]

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

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, rxj said:

The M lenses are that size for a reason, you add autofocus motors and you'll get huge lenses ultimately nullifying any argument for compact M and M lenses in the first place.

Have you ever heard Leica Q (or Q family). It is as compact as M and with AF.

AF M with L mount is not a problem at all.  Ever heard M to L adapter? 

Edited Thursday at 07:55 PM by Einst_Stein

[rxj]

2 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Have you ever heard Leica Q (or Q family). It is as compact as M and with AF.

AF M with L mount is not a problem at all.  Ever heard M to L adapter? 

Q = Fixed lens with leaf shutter and focus by wire. Different use case.

[Einst_Stein]

18 minutes ago, rxj said:

Q = Fixed lens with leaf shutter and focus by wire. Different use case.

Good, You do know it can be done and has been done!

[zlatkob]

9 hours ago, beewee said:

Part of the appeal of the M-mount is that the lenses, with few exceptions, are all backwards compatible with all M-mount cameras over the last 70 years.

A hypothetical auto-focusing M-lens would very likely break that backwards compatibility. Most AF lenses today use focus-by-wire when the MF ring is turned and this is partly because of cost, size, weight constraints where if mechanical focusing was needed, the lenses would need to be bigger to add components like clutches that can mechanically couple the focusing ring with the optics for manual focusing and then disengage when in AF mode. This then either make the lens diameter bigger, or impose size constraints to internal lens elements, or more likely - both.

Moreover, rangefinder coupled M-lenses have a size constraints from an ergonomics usability perspective where the lens cannot block the view of the viewfinder patch, otherwise the rangefinder functionality will be lost. Also, as the lens diameter grows, the viewable area within the optical viewfinder also diminishes as the lens barrel intrudes into the frame lines. This constraint has been both a blessing and a curse. It makes the lens design more challenging and thereby increasing the cost but it also enforces an upper bound on the size of an M-lens, and indirectly, weight.

The compact nature of the M-system, and more specifically M-mount lenses, is very much physically driven by the physical limitations imposed by the rangefinder optics themselves. So if the complexity of the lens must grow, the optical designers must make additional compromises either in the lens optical quality or the physical size of the lens must grow. Although a larger lens barrel is not as consequential for an EVF only camera, it is very consequential for backwards compatibility on rangefinder cameras. If one were to break backwards compatibility with the rangefinder itself, then the lens in many ways may have an M-mount but will have lost a core attribute of an M-system lens, both in rangefinder coupling and form-factor.

You are 100% correct. However, there is another path: a different camera, with a different mount and lenses. Leica already does this with the SL, albeit in a much bigger package.

Leica can keep making backwards compatible M cameras and M lenses for the next 100 or 1000 years, while also making another camera, with autofocus interchangeable lenses. Just as Panasonic makes the S9 and Sony makes the A7CR, Leica can make a small full frame camera in the shape of an M, with an M EV1 EVF, with M-like software and M-like styling, but with compact interchangeable autofocus lenses. Of course the lenses would not be backwards compatible with the M. But SL lenses aren't compatible with the M either.

Everyone can be happy: M users can have the M's appeal and backwards compatibility forever, while those who prefer autofocus can have an M-ish / Q-ish small full frame camera with interchangeable compact AF lenses, perhaps similar to the Sigma i-Series.

[Einst_Stein]

Whoever puts his hand to the plow and looks back would not fit the future. Backward compatibility is a virtue as long as it does not turn away from the real needs.

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why the insistence on a full frame camera? Given the quality of modern sensors, a smaller sensor fulfils most needs just beautifully. Take the CL, for instance. Works with M lenses. Works with CL lenses, even smallish ones. Yields pictures that are just perfect for all practical purposes.

[costa43]

What would appeal more to me is a small range of weather sealed L lenses with high performance. Like the Sigma contemporary range but a bit more robust in inclement weather. 

[Einst_Stein]

On 10/30/2025 at 11:37 PM, pop said:

Why the insistence on a full frame camera? Given the quality of modern sensors, a smaller sensor fulfils most needs just beautifully. Take the CL, for instance. Works with M lenses. Works with CL lenses, even smallish ones. Yields pictures that are just perfect for all practical purposes.

I am yet to see anything "perfect all practical purpose", not even M, L, or S. 

CL is a good compromise, so would be M or L or S, depends how you limit yourself, or your "'practical purpose". 

[pop]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

depends how you limit yourself, or your "'practical purpose".

What are your requirements that you actually need a full format sensor?

[Einst_Stein]

57 minutes ago, pop said:

What are your requirements that you actually need a full format sensor?

Smoothness of image, for example. 

[BWColor]

Why not a much smaller SL4?  That seems to me to be a better direction.

[Einst_Stein]

56 minutes ago, BWColor said:

Why not a much smaller SL4?  That seems to me to be a better direction.

It seems the want is a M like (or S9 like) SLxx, or a FF CL, preferably also has sensor shift stabilizer, or a Q with interchangeable lens.

Edited Sunday at 12:51 AM by Einst_Stein

[Erich6]

On 10/29/2025 at 7:24 PM, adan said:

Promoting a discontinued product on one's website is common practice. And also an indicator of weak sales.

Either FujiFilm is still stuck with a warehouse-full, and needs to get rid of them.

Or Fuji is helping out their dealers - who are still stuck with shelf-fulls, and need to get rid of them.

It may be an indicator of weak sales, but I don’t think the stock assumption applies to Fujifilm’s X-Pro3. I don’t see any new ones for sale available anywhere. Fujifilm tends to be conservative with their production rates to avoid this issue.

It is, nonetheless, an attractive alternative to Leica M with excellent autofocus lenses. An X-Pro4 is likely to be released next year and Fujifilm promises it will be “special.”