The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

is leica m ready for an evf?

msadat

Member
Godfrey, Sony announced a new high rez evf (a while back), u can google it and three years in the digital world is old young man
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey, Sony announced a new high rez evf (a while back), u can google it and three years in the digital world is old young man
That's nice. It will hopefully do better than the mediocre supposedly high Rez EVF in the A7. Whether it's any better than what's already in the SL has yet to be seen.

I don't buy things because of their specifications. I buy things because they work.

I'm not young, but the SL certainly still is.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
An EVF version of an M is a no brainer - only a matter of time till Leica offers the option of an EFV M.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Maybe I should not be sarcastic BUT I need to get this out:

I think the Leica M is ready for an EVF, while many Leica M shooters are not :ROTFL:
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I have no problem with a Leica M compatible camera with an EVF but it'll be called something other than a Leica M. Maybe a Leica EM, but almost surely not an Mxx?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Emm, EM semantics.

First update and then make the name an a la carte service option (for extra cash, naturally!). :D
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Maybe I should not be sarcastic BUT I need to get this out:

I think the Leica M is ready for an EVF, while many Leica M shooters are not
LOL! I have used my M lenses on Leica EVF camerass with no problems, technically or image rendering-wise. :D

BUT the ergonomics of M lenses are not ideally suited to TTL usage, they are designed for an RF camera's operation. There are fundamental control organization differences that make M lenses awkward to use with a camera oriented around viewing and controlling focus and all functions through the eyepiece which are solved with lenses from SLR cameras ... which is why I greatly prefer using Leica R lenses, which are designed for this operation, on Leica EVF cameras. The design of T/TL/SL series Leica lenses reflect this difference as well.

G
 

strohscw

New member
The M maybe not, I hope the M will continue to exist, I love it for lenses from 28 to 50mm.
But how about an update for the EVF with the resolution of the SL?
Or how about a FF C-M with the size and the battery of the M10, the EVF of the SL an without the display on the backside?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
The M maybe not, I hope the M will continue to exist, I love it for lenses from 28 to 50mm.
But how about an update for the EVF with the resolution of the SL?
Or how about a FF C-M with the size and the battery of the M10, the EVF of the SL an without the display on the backside?
An SL EVF would almost certainly put a bigger lump onto the left top of the CL scale body, and honestly I'm not entirely sure it's all that necessary. The size and battery life of the M-D or M10 would be a reasonable trade-off, but I'd sure like it to weigh closer to what the CL weighs.. That 200g doesn't seem like that much, but it does make a big difference on my back when bicycling with the camera.

I prefer an EVF camera to retain the LCD. Removing that restricts the usability of the design by a great deal, unlike removing the LCD of an M rangefinder camera.

Of course, what's really needed is an EVF that accommodates working in bright sunlight better than even the current SL EVF does, which is already near state of the art in this respect (near because the Oly E-M1 is slightly better in that regard). That would make the biggest difference in the usability of the camera.
G
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I have no problem with a Leica M compatible camera with an EVF but it'll be called something other than a Leica M. Maybe a Leica EM, but almost surely not an Mxx?
They could call it whatever they liked as long as it was the same size no larger than the M10 - an improved EVF and the consequent ability to also improve metering directly off chip - would be welcome to me anyway.
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
BUT the ergonomics of M lenses are not ideally suited to TTL usage, they are designed for an RF camera's operation. There are fundamental control organization differences that make M lenses awkward to use with a camera oriented around viewing and controlling focus and all functions through the eyepiece which are solved with lenses from SLR cameras ... which is why I greatly prefer using Leica R lenses, which are designed for this operation, on Leica EVF cameras. The design of T/TL/SL series Leica lenses reflect this difference as well.
Sorry, Godfrey, I don't get your argument on why R lenses are better than M lenses on an EVF camera. I imagine you had the SL or CL in mind.

Both R and M are fully manual; aperture and focus, clearly different from T or SL lenses. But why are R 'better' than M lenses? What 'organisational differences' do you mean?
 

DB5

Member
Leica keep saying it will never happen.

The EVF from the SL will not fit inside the M for a start. Anything else would be considered a compromise and I'm not personally interested in it.

I actually really like the current detachable EVF and love the way it swivels but I would like it one that is designed to look and work well with the M, one with a PC flash sync terminal or an active hot shoe on the top of it would be good too. A less generic one. I prefer the shape of the last one (it looks more M like), but prefer the way the new one fits inside the hotshoe.

To me, Leica is the M and I hope they push and develop it as their flagship and crown jewell.

The incoming Nikon EVF camera looks really quite incredible, Canon too will follow, and I hope this reinvigorates Leica's interest in the M as the supreme ruler of compact mirrorless for a hundred years.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Sorry, Godfrey, I don't get your argument on why R lenses are better than M lenses on an EVF camera. I imagine you had the SL or CL in mind.

Both R and M are fully manual; aperture and focus, clearly different from T or SL lenses. But why are R 'better' than M lenses? What 'organisational differences' do you mean?
This is easy, Robert.

I had both SL and CL in mind; I worked with the SL for three years, now work with the CL.

Look at the M body and lenses. Because there was no moving mirror behind them to constrain the optical design, the short focal lengths used most of the time sink into the body fairly deeply. The body (prior to having a big display and rows of buttons and control widgets on the back of the camera) was designed to be what you held the camera by, with a focusing ring (often aided by a finger nub of some sort) arranged close to the body in such a way that your fingers would not occlude the rangefinder window when holding the body and operating the focus ring. Because there is no difference to the brightness of the viewfinder AND the viewfinder (originally) had no exposure information in it, the aperture setting ring and shutter speed are designed to be operated when looking down at the camera from the top so you can see the focus zone markings on the distance scale and the aperture and shutter all together, making it swift and easy to couple the correct exposure, focus setting, and focus zone in an easy glance.

The result is that the camera is designed to be held by the body most of the time and the relative placements of the focus and aperture rings on the lens vary a lot, depending on focal length, just how deeply the lens is inset into the body cavity, and what the engineer felt was a simple, easy to manufacture control mechanism to get to the iris inside.

Now look at the reflex cameras. The viewfinder is TTL; all the viewfinders have shutter speed, aperture, and metering indicators in them as well as the focusing screen. The camera is intended that you use the viewfinder as your information center: You use the viewfinder to gauge sharpness of the image for distance, you watch the readouts for the position of the shutter speed selector and aperture ring selector. The moving mirror forces that same range of focal lengths to clear it for mechanical compatibility; also, since the viewfinder is the information control center, the camera controls are designed to be operated by touch and feel with the camera at your eye. This promotes a regularization of the positions of the focusing ring and aperture ring so that your fingers can always find them quickly and easily, regardless of the focal length of the lens. Also, since there are no focusing or metering windows to occlude on the body, and you need to hold the camera steadily while making settings, the camera and lens are designed such that you wrap your left hand around the body and lens for stability and control of the focusing ring/aperture ring while your right hands fingers are left free to work other switches and controls on the body (metering mode selector, film advance, shutter speed selector, DoF preview lever, etc). At the moment of making an exposure, you cradle the camera and lens with the left hand and use the right hand to assist in stabilizing it with a light grip and smooth action of the shutter release.

The result is that the lenses are designed to be part of the grip on the camera body, the whole package's balance point is more forward and lays into the grip of the left hand regardless of lens used. This reflex body model is much more akin in control dynamics and operational use to the EVF/TTL electronic camera of today. Because the lens and body together are the grip, the number of buttons and controls on the body don't interfere with it as much. The adoption of the modern idiom of having the aperture control sited on the body next to the shutter control simplifies the modern lens to just the focus and zoom ring, making them easier to handle and use, and making it consistent where the aperture control is for any lens.

For one example, I have the WATE and the Elmarit-R 19mm v1 and I use them on the CL now. Neither is a particularly small lens, but the WATE barrel is small in diameter. The WATE has its focus ring back by the body, a big zoom ring in the middle, and the aperture ring out near the forward end of the lens. The focusing ring has a finger nub designed for you to be holding the camera by the body and moved by moving your finger across the plane of the body's front surface, keeping your fingers out of the way of the focusing windows while setting the distance; it's not ribbed for a grip. The zoom ring consumes a good deal of the middle section of the lens and you have to hunt for the aperture ring all the way forward when making adjustments and looking through the CL viewfinder to see the effect on brightness and readouts. Because the barrel is thin, you can't use it to help stabilize the body effectively and need to grasp the body by its edges, where space is limited.

The Elmarit-R 19 v1 by comparison has a very oversized front element, but the rest of the lens, from focusing ring backwards, is about the same diameter as the lens mount and makes a good grip to hold the whole camera still with. The focusing ring is prominent at just the right place to grasp between thumb and forefinger for fine adjustments, the aperture ring is in the same position as the aperture ring on all other R lenses, very easy to find when looking through the viewfinder for information on what it's doing.

Switch to, say, the Summicron-R 35mm and Summilux-M 35mm v2. Again, the same issues with the M lens in terms of where the focusing ring and aperture ring are placed on this much smaller lens ... they're hard to find and operate smoothly with the fingers without the eye to guide them ... and the R lens is identical in feel and operation to the 19mm because of the control locations.

I've tested all these lens pairs on the SL in the past, and tested them on the CL within the past few weeks. In every case, I find I can hold the CL with the R lens more steadily (less camera motion at long exposure times) and work with the more focusing ring more easily while also evaluating the sharpness in the display. The little bit of testing of the TL60mm macro and other T/TL/SL lenses on the CL body showed the same comparison to using the matching focal length in an M lens.

Some will say that they find it perfectly easy to use the M lenses on their camera and no difference. Well, I cannot, perhaps because of the size of my hands and my expectations in using a TTL camera. For whatever reason, I use my M lenses on my Ms, and I use my R lenses (as well as my couple of F-mount Nikkors) on my CL (when I had it, my SL as well). The ability to operate the camera smoothly and hold it steadily is one of the reasons my photos are sharp when I want them to be sharp, regardless of lens... :)

G
 

airfrogusmc

Well-known member
Leica keep saying it will never happen.

The EVF from the SL will not fit inside the M for a start. Anything else would be considered a compromise and I'm not personally interested in it.

I actually really like the current detachable EVF and love the way it swivels but I would like it one that is designed to look and work well with the M, one with a PC flash sync terminal or an active hot shoe on the top of it would be good too. A less generic one. I prefer the shape of the last one (it looks more M like), but prefer the way the new one fits inside the hotshoe.

To me, Leica is the M and I hope they push and develop it as their flagship and crown jewell.

The incoming Nikon EVF camera looks really quite incredible, Canon too will follow, and I hope this reinvigorates Leica's interest in the M as the supreme ruler of compact mirrorless for a hundred years.

I think being a true rangefinder is what separates Leica M from the herd. Why would you want to be something you are not? In my opinion Leica knows exactly what their rangefinders are and should be. Why would anyone buy a Leica M if it were just an expensive version of everything else out there? I know the reason that I buy Leica M and if they want to keep my business they need to keep making wonderful unique cameras like the M 10 and the MM. Leica has plenty of interest in the M and camera like the M-D MM and M 10 are proof.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Some will say that they find it perfectly easy to use the M lenses on their camera and no difference. Well, I cannot, perhaps because of the size of my hands and my expectations in using a TTL camera. For whatever reason, I use my M lenses on my Ms, and I use my R lenses (as well as my couple of F-mount Nikkors) on my CL (when I had it, my SL as well). The ability to operate the camera smoothly and hold it steadily is one of the reasons my photos are sharp when I want them to be sharp, regardless of lens... :)
Thanks for the elaborate story Godfrey, and it again shows how personal ergomics of handling a camera are. For instance I prefer my M-Summicron 50/2 and OM Zuiko 50/1.4 over my Rokkor 50/2, Most M-lenses (like the M-Summicron) and the Zuiko's I use have the aperture ring upfront and the focus ring mid-barrel which my muscle memory is used to, but the Rokkors have the aperture ring at the mount which I don't like as much. So for me it's not rangefinder lenses vs. SLR lenses but more the order of how the controls are laid out on the lens.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Thanks for the elaborate story Godfrey, and it again shows how personal ergomics of handling a camera are. For instance I prefer my M-Summicron 50/2 and OM Zuiko 50/1.4 over my Rokkor 50/2, Most M-lenses (like the M-Summicron) and the Zuiko's I use have the aperture ring upfront and the focus ring mid-barrel which my muscle memory is used to, but the Rokkors have the aperture ring at the mount which I don't like as much. So for me it's not rangefinder lenses vs. SLR lenses but more the order of how the controls are laid out on the lens.
Indeed, I think it's a matter of which reference model works better for your muscle memory based on what you're most used to. My SLR reference model was/is the Nikon F, which sited the aperture control at the rear, just like most of the other majors did in the late 60s/early 70s. The Olympus OM System was new in about, what, 1975? -76? I had an OM-1n for a while and found the shutter speed concentric to the lens mount with two small control pads to grasp it by and the aperture ring up front more difficult to find and work reliably compared to the F and FM2/FE2 control organization, because I was far more used to the Nikon.

I also tend not to change the aperture much when shooting, adjusting exposure mostly by time and sensitivity, so the relative placement at the rear of the lens or on the body sort of "de-prioritizes" it for me appropriately.

What distinguishes "best" camera for me, given that most cameras, film or digital, are darn competent performers these days, are the ergonomics of use rather than pixel resolution, speed of sequences, and bazillions of features that I rarely if ever need or use. The M-D typ 262 is one end of an ideal spectrum for me... :)
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Leica keep saying it will never happen.

The EVF from the SL will not fit inside the M for a start. Anything else would be considered a compromise and I'm not personally interested in it.

I actually really like the current detachable EVF and love the way it swivels but I would like it one that is designed to look and work well with the M, one with a PC flash sync terminal or an active hot shoe on the top of it would be good too. A less generic one. I prefer the shape of the last one (it looks more M like), but prefer the way the new one fits inside the hotshoe.

To me, Leica is the M and I hope they push and develop it as their flagship and crown jewell.

The incoming Nikon EVF camera looks really quite incredible, Canon too will follow, and I hope this reinvigorates Leica's interest in the M as the supreme ruler of compact mirrorless for a hundred years.
Leica don't have to fit the EVF from the SL into the M, it can take the form of a hump like many other mirrorless cameras. It would no longer be an M and so need not conform to the M shape.

Please, just give us a dedicated Leica FF EVF body with the approximate size of an M, hump or not.
 
Last edited:

iiiNelson

Well-known member
its seems very obvious that some sort of m mount evf camera would be highly desirable.
I said that when I was still an M owner... Nearly 4 years later they still haven’t released the body that I personally really wanted which makes me glad I didn’t wait for it and just moved onto another system. I loved my M9’s in operation and results when I owned them but it’s a camera almost strictly for working with focal lengths between 24mm and 90mm (not that there’s anything wrong with that). It’s fine for most things but it’s not fine for everything and this seems to be how Nikon and Canon took off after coming to terms with the inherent limitations of a Rangefinder.

The bottom line is that there’s a market and the technology is readily available to provide an “M-type” EVF camera that uses M lenses in a Rangefinder form factor - in what would essentially be a Leica Q with an M-mount bayonet. Leica could sell them hand over fist but I don’t know that anyone was really ever asking for a TL/CL/SL type camera in the first place when they wanted a Leica Mirrorless camera. I think the consensus was that people wanted a camera that could be used for M-mount glass for people with aging eyes and/or wanted to be able to have a platform to accurately focus with glass longer than 90mm or the Noctilux lenses.
 
Last edited:
Top