Leica MEV1: Best mirrorless for M lenses?

[kiwidad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/31/2025 at 3:55 AM, SrMi said:

That is why M-EV1 is not a danger to RF cameras.

But we are missing the boat. The new camera is identical to the m11 with the exception of the optical rangefinder is removed and and EVF has taken its place. They even share the same firmware if I remember correctly.

nothing will look or render differently it’s all about nothing but how you focus the camera!
I like the option of an OVF and then with the summilux 75 the EVF.

m-ev1 is exactly the same minus the ovf option!

[SrMi]

35 minutes ago, kiwidad said:

But we are missing the boat. The new camera is identical to the m11 with the exception of the optical rangefinder is removed and and EVF has taken its place. They even share the same firmware if I remember correctly.

nothing will look or render differently it’s all about nothing but how you focus the camera!
I like the option of an OVF and then with the summilux 75 the EVF.

m-ev1 is exactly the same minus the ovf option!

Minus the rangefinder, which works better for focusing in some situations, and minus the OVF, which works better in some situations.

Depends on the situation and skills, M11 or M-EV1 will work better, though M11 has an LCD/Visoflex that can emulate M-EV1, while M-EV1 is smaller and lighter (vs M11 with Visoflex).

 

[lct]

Missing the boat or confusion of boats? Leica users wanted a variant of M11 with an EVF replacing the RF and it is exactly what the MEV1 is, besides more EVF resolution. One may like it or not but Leica never promised anything else AFAIK.

[kiwidad]

10 hours ago, SrMi said:

Minus the rangefinder, which works better for focusing in some situations, and minus the OVF, which works better in some situations.

Depends on the situation and skills, M11 or M-EV1 will work better, though M11 has an LCD/Visoflex that can emulate M-EV1, while M-EV1 is smaller and lighter (vs M11 with Visoflex).

 

I was really referring to references to lens imaging. All M11 variants (except the mono) will produce the same image with the same lens! 
Appears the q3 and sl3 and m-ev1 all have the same EVF resoltion.

Edited November 24 by kiwidad

[stbeyer]

5 hours ago, kiwidad said:

Appears the q3 and sl3 and m-ev1 all have the same EVF resoltion.

You see, I don't think resolution is that important in EVFs (once a certain minimum has been met). Eye relief, magnification, blackout, refresh rate, and strange flickering are mouch more important. This is where they differ. 

[SrMi]

16 minutes ago, stbeyer said:

You see, I don't think resolution is that important in EVFs (once a certain minimum has been met). Eye relief, magnification, blackout, refresh rate, and strange flickering are mouch more important. This is where they differ. 

I agree that resolution is not the ultimate spec for EVFs. I do not care much about refresh rate, but I do care about eye relief, contrast, colors, the absence of flickering, and a high-quality magnified view. X2D has the best magnified view that I am aware of. All these do not depend that much on the EVF hardware as on the software driving the EVF.

[kiwidad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, stbeyer said:

You see, I don't think resolution is that important in EVFs (once a certain minimum has been met). Eye relief, magnification, blackout, refresh rate, and strange flickering are mouch more important. This is where they differ. 

All three share same resolution with the q3 having .03 greater mignification and only the mew m ev1 not having the option of 120 fps

i would call that equal!

drill deeper and the m ev1 is inferior though since the processor driving it is maestro 3 vs 4 in the q3 sl3. This would negatively affect all the non mechanical spec and explain why it doesn’t do 120fps

Edited November 25 by kiwidad

[Jon Warwick]

5 hours ago, kiwidad said:

All three share same resolution with the q3 having .03 greater mignification and only the mew m ev1 not having the option of 120 fps

i would call that equal!

drill deeper and the m ev1 is inferior though since the processor driving it is maestro 3 vs 4 in the q3 sl3. This would negatively affect all the non mechanical spec and explain why it doesn’t do 120fps

fwiw, I was in a shop and compared the EVFs of the EV1 against an SL3-S, and was surprised at how much clearer I personally found the EVF on the SL3-S to be (eg, I could more easily see more details like lettering with it).

So I can see that resolution is perhaps just one aspect of what drives the clarity of the EVF. I don’t know what causes the difference in clarity that my eyes saw. Maybe the construction of the EVF can be superior for the SL3-S if it’s physically bigger? Maybe optical glass in the EVFs are different between the cameras? 

[JNK100]

It is possible SL3 has better evf-optics than those in the M?

[Stuart Richardson]

I was going to say, it seems like the SL series here is being ignored. I would say the best EVF platform for M lenses is the M10R or M10M with an EVF, but that is probably me being contrarian. It is hard to argue, however, that the SL3 doesn't bring significant advantages over the MEV1 as an EVF platform for M lenses. I cannot speak to the EVF difference itself, as I have not had both in my hands at the same time, but the stabilization alone offers a huge advantage over the M series cameras. Since the MEV1 did not come with any kind of new focus confirmation, it means that a lot of your time is going to be spent opening focus to wide open, zooming in, focusing, and then stopping down again and composing and then finally taking the picture. Particularly with long lenses, the magnified live view with a fairly low refresh rate is going to bounce around a lot and be challenging at times. By comparison, the stabilization in the SL series cuts that problem way back. Additionally, the SL body allows you to put an AF lens on there when needed and have speed and flexibility. It can also do video. As far as I can tell, the only advantages the MEv1 has are form factor and the roller cam auto zoom in. In comparison to the M11 standard version it really has almost no advantage, other than a bit lower cost and the fact that the EVF is on the eyepiece not on top, but it comes with the big sacrifice of losing the OVF and the ability to focus quickly without magnification. 

I feel like if Leica had been a bit more daring and tried to implement some kind of focus confirmation so you did not have to punch in all the time, the camera would make so much more sense. As of now it just seems kind of half-finished. The fact that the processing power and sensor don't seem to match up too well either only adds to that. This was a low-risk way to do this camera for Leica, and unfortunately that is why it is not really a particularly elegant solution to the problem. It feels to me more like it was made by accountants, not engineers free to innovate. 

Edited November 25 by Stuart Richardson

[jaapv]

21 hours ago, lct said:

Missing the boat or confusion of boats? Leica users wanted a variant of M11 with an EVF replacing the RF and it is exactly what the MEV1 is, besides more EVF resolution. One may like it or not but Leica never promised anything else AFAIK.

That is exactly what it is - and that is precisely its handicap. I am happy for those Leica users that this camera is offered by Leica but I still fear that the appeal of this camera will be limited to this small group. Remember the fate of the CL - a far more universally attractive camera which was killed off for commercial  reasons.

As has been pointed out this is a crippled camera which only has the shape to link it to the M series, the only functional advantage over an SL with an adapter is the auto zoom. Who would buy it, if not emotionally connected to M cameras in general and forced to abandon rangefinder focusing? As soon as Leica comes out with a compact SL, it will be dead in the water.

 

[pgk]

22 hours ago, lct said:

Leica users wanted a variant of M11 with an EVF replacing the RF .....

SOME Leica users (a few, a good proportion, many, most, new users?). It will be interesting to see how many people actually buy the camera.

I still see it as an expensive solution to a problem that only a few thought existed. A triumph of shape and style over functionality.

[lct]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

[...] As soon as Leica comes out with a compact SL, it will be dead in the water [..]

You have no clue about that and neither do i but i own a camera like this already, the Sigma FPL. I like it much for what it is but it is a L-mount camera made for AF lenses in the first place, not an M-mount camera designed for M lenses. It has no autozoom capabilities and a compact SL, if any, would hardly be more relevant for lack of mechanical link with the focus cam of M lenses. Lens compatibility is another issue as there are M and LTM lenses that don't work well, or at all, with the FPL. Not to say that i would dislike a camera like that, but it would not sell more at Leica prices than the digital CL did, i'm afraid, and a cheaper Pana-Leica or Sigma-Leica camera would not compete with the MEV1 anyway. YMMV.

[jaapv]

Exactly - and that is the limiting factor of the EV1 - no ability to use the L lenses, which will put many non-M fanatics off. The FP has no M-enabled sensor.

I would say that the number of customers clamouring for mini-SL far exceeds the EV1 wishers.

[lct]

Inability to use L lenses has never been a limiting factor for M-mount cameras.

[jaapv]

5 minutes ago, lct said:

Inability to use L lenses has never been a limiting factor for M-mount cameras.

Well, not for some M users, maybe. But for the rest of the world... Witnessed by number of M mount adapters to any suitable brand to be found on the market.

[Jon Warwick]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

 It is hard to argue, however, that the SL3 doesn't bring significant advantages over the MEV1 as an EVF platform for M lenses.

I wonder if the micro lenses were improved further on the SL3? …..with the SL APO 50mm prime, I saw even better edges off the SL3 when I tested it carefully (better than what I got when I owned the SL2, and that was already very good), and it seems the M lenses are doing very well on the SL3 too. For those with subscriptions, Reid Reviews did a very interesting comparison recently of the centre and edge sharpness of the  SL3 vs EV1 with challenging rangefinder lenses.

[jaapv]

I would suggest that the improvement comes from the BSI sensor technology. 

[lct]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

Well, not for some M users, maybe. But for the rest of the world... Witnessed by number of M mount adapters to any suitable brand to be found on the market.

I'm not aware of adapters allowing to use L lenses on M-mount cameras. Or am i missing something?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Yes, you are.

suitable brand