Will the next Leica M have an EyeRes EVF?

[animefx]

I'm trying to hold off a purchase of the Leica SL because I enjoy using rangefinders most. I'm concerned that Leica is going to wait until the year is nearly over before they release the next M unfortunately. We all know it will likely use a modified version of the Q and SL sensor which is great, but what about the next generation EVF? the SL has the most amazing built in EVF on the planet right now, will we be able to buy an external version of that EyeRes EVF for the next Leica M?

 

[docmoore]

I'm trying to hold off a purchase of the Leica SL because I enjoy using rangefinders most. I'm concerned that Leica is going to wait until the year is nearly over before they release the next M unfortunately. We all know it will likely use a modified version of the Q and SL sensor which is great, but what about the next generation EVF? the SL has the most amazing built in EVF on the planet right now, will we be able to buy an external version of that EyeRes EVF for the next Leica M?

No one at this point has a clue ...

And Leica is unlikely to affect SL sales by stating so.

My guess is no ... perhaps a better EVF but the whole deal is the M is a rangefinder and Leica has opened a whole new category with
attendant cost that need to be amortized over time .... The M with the same level of EVF would be a competitor to the SL. :Not usually
the Leica business model. Now two generations down the line perhaps.

Just my opinion from 30 years experience with Leica products.

Bob

 

[KeithL]

but what about the next generation EVF? the SL has the most amazing built in EVF on the planet right now, will we be able to buy an external version of that EyeRes EVF for the next Leica M?

If we can I'll buy, if we can't I won't.

If I don't I'll be forced to look elsewhere.

 

[KeithL]

I'll add, if Leica are intending to offer an accessory EVF - and why wouldn't they - then why wouldn't they offer the best possible accessory EVF?

 

[airfrogusmc]

I hope not. Kinda defeats the rangefinder purpose.

 

[KeithL]

I hope not. Kinda defeats the rangefinder purpose.

How does an accessory EVF defeat the rangefinder purpose?

 

[D&A]

Now that the SL is released with its particular feature set, I am more convinced than ever that it was designed to partially respond to those rangefinder users who wanted to see at least one model/varient of the future M to have either AF option and/or some type built in EVF or hybrid. This is aside from obvious use of SL with R lenses.

My gut feeling tells me now the future upcoming M will be quite conventional in nature with the usually additional advances that keep the basic tenent and classic principals of the M intact. I think an improved external EVF is a given but whether it will match the one used on the SL is hard to predict for a variety of marketing and and financial decisions. I very much agree with Bob's assessment (above).

Dave (D&A)

 

[Godfrey]

How does an accessory EVF defeat the rangefinder purpose?

I don't think it does either. I find the accessory EVF is a useful adjunct to my use of the M-P, specifically for when I want to use lenses at the ultra-wide or longer tele ends of the spectrum. I use it with the 24, the 90, and the 135 mm lenses because it gives better focusing and framing capabilities than the OVF can provide. I see nothing wrong with Leica upgrading the EVF accessory and interface for the next M to the same standard as the Visoflex EVF used with the T and X typ 113 cameras, or even beyond. (It would be nice if the EVF were a bit less bulky than the Visoflex for those cameras, however, more like the Olympus VF-4 would be good.)

With the focal lengths I use most of the time on the M-P—35, 50, and 75 mm—I prefer the rangefinder and OVF. To me, this focal length range is what I enjoy most when using the M, and the rangefinder/optical viewfinder are beautifully suited to them.

G

 

[KeithL]

I regularly use the rangefinder and accessory EVF on my M240, both are equally important to my work. I'm hoping the next M will have the option of a much improved EVF. I can't imagine Leica would offer us the option of a poor accessory EVF. Once bitten, twice shy.

 

[Godfrey]

I regularly use the rangefinder and accessory EVF on my M240, both are equally important to my work. I'm hoping the next M will have the option of a much improved EVF. I can't imagine Leica would offer us the option of a poor accessory EVF. Once bitten, twice shy.

I wouldn't call the current EVF "poor". It was the best EVF panel available when the typ 240 was designed. It's not the same quality as other EVFs available today, but it still performs quite well.

 

[uhoh7]

Obviously people feel differently about EVFs. Three color models would be nice for M: upgraded 240 style with best EVF possible, perhaps even on-camera alongside the OVF; upgraded 262: smaller; and the "interchangeable Q", a compact EVF only M body.

I like my M9, admire the 240, but the M6 is dramatically nicer in my hand Many people would be very excited to see that footprint again. When I ever I suggest this, some always chime in to defend the current size. But given the real choice, I'd bet many of them would also enjoy a smaller body.

The whole original ethos was a compact system. Barnack wanted something easy to carry. I hope one day we will see another such FF camera from Leica. The lenses are fine as they are

 

[KeithL]

I wouldn't call the current EVF "poor". It was the best EVF panel available when the typ 240 was designed. It's not the same quality as other EVFs available today, but it still performs quite well.

The problem was compounded by a processor that couldn't support more recent and improved EVF viewfinders or scrolling liveview.

Hell, my wife's ancient £300 Lumix has a better EVF and supports scrolling liveview.

 

[Vivek]

I would like a digital CL with an EVF at least as good as that of the Lumix GM5. Add a swivel LCD (with or without RF coupling) and I will preorder .

 

[Godfrey]

The problem was compounded by a processor that couldn't support more recent and improved EVF viewfinders or scrolling liveview.

Hell, my wife's ancient £300 Lumix has a better EVF and supports scrolling liveview.

Which Lumix is that? I had the G1 and find the M's EVF on par with that, they are roughly contemporary in design history.

I don't conflate scrolling features (a matter of the video processor) with the quality of the EVF (a matter of pixel density and refresh rate). Two different things.

Upgradability of the body is yet another thing. Olympus replaced the VF-2 with the VF-4, using a higher res panel. They issued firmware updates allow the older bodies to use the later EVF, yes, but the older bodies (E-P2, E-PL1, etc) still only image at the VF-2 spec onto the VF-4—limitations of the display hardware in the bodies. Leica is in the same position with the EVF, but they don't produce a plug-compatible update with higher resolution like Olympus did so they didn't update the firmware for compatibility.

I don't know ... All this fuss over the EVF. Should it be improved in the next M? sure. Is it a motivating reason for upgrading? Not for me: It's an adjunct to the M and expands the camera's versatility, but it's not why I buy an M.

G

 

[KeithL]

I'll take the G1 EVF over the M.

But each to their own, the compelling reason why I bought into the M was the option to use a rangefinder and an EVF on one body.

But really, I can't see this as an issue, I'm sure the next M will have a much improved accessory EVF.

 

[ptomsu]

Which Lumix is that? I had the G1 and find the M's EVF on par with that, they are roughly contemporary in design history.

I don't conflate scrolling features (a matter of the video processor) with the quality of the EVF (a matter of pixel density and refresh rate). Two different things.

Upgradability of the body is yet another thing. Olympus replaced the VF-2 with the VF-4, using a higher res panel. They issued firmware updates allow the older bodies to use the later EVF, yes, but the older bodies (E-P2, E-PL1, etc) still only image at the VF-2 spec onto the VF-4—limitations of the display hardware in the bodies. Leica is in the same position with the EVF, but they don't produce a plug-compatible update with higher resolution like Olympus did so they didn't update the firmware for compatibility.

I don't know ... All this fuss over the EVF. Should it be improved in the next M? sure. Is it a motivating reason for upgrading? Not for me: It's an adjunct to the M and expands the camera's versatility, but it's not why I buy an M.

G

Actually the current EVF of the M240 was putting me off to buying one last year. Main reason was speed (it really lags behind) and somehow also resolution.

I agree with you that one gets the M for using mainly the rangefinder and while I love to use a rangefinder and can pretty accurately focus especially with the M240 (and suppose as well M262), the EVF is needed for accurate focusing for and above 90mm and a must for framing with lenses below 28mm - at least for me. I know that there are special optical finders for WA, but this is nothing for me and I assume many other people as well.

So for me to buy Leica's next generation M it needs to have an add on EVF on par with the SL (or at least Q).

 

[Vivek]

OVF RF has very limited use and it is better to replace that with the EVF to make the camera less hybrid and totally electronic.

Add a global shutter to make it complete! :thumbs:

 

[Godfrey]

Since I now have the SL as my versatile, 'do it all' camera, I'm content to use the M much as I always did in the past: Namely, as an adjunct, less versatile complement to my main system camera. It does not bother me at all to consider the M as what I use with specific and exceptional 35/50/75 lenses only. I don't need IS, don't need flippy LCDs, etc. The M262 would be just fine except I have the M-P already.

I'm more focused on improving the M optical viewfinder, responsiveness, sensor, etc as the right way to go. Not that it isn't excellent already, but improvements that don't detract from its fundamental capability...

 

[airfrogusmc]

If I'm not mistaken with EVF you are seeing the image through the lens like a DSLR using live view. To me that's the same as a DSLR/SLR. One reason I shoot Leica M because they are rangefinders and I bought the M Mono (original) M 262 and M-E because they didn't have live view and video. If I wanted that I would have kept my Canons.

 

[KeithL]

If I'm not mistaken with EVF you are seeing the image through the lens like a DSLR using live view. To me that's the same as a DSLR/SLR. One reason I shoot Leica M because they are rangefinders and I bought the M Mono (original) M 262 and M-E because they didn't have live view and video. If I wanted that I would have kept my Canons.

Yup, one has the option to view through the lens or not on the same body.

Win, win.