Re pricing- the pricing of 7300 Euro is basically 9500$ or M11 price and just a little cheaper than a M11P (notably the new EVF will have the 64 gb memory of the M11, not the 256 M11P if spec rumors are correct
This was just posted by another YouTuber take it for whatever you will and says it is 7500 $ not euro- IF that is true then it would be still expensive but more in line for what it is- dropping the 1000 parts of the rangefinder, basically a Q w/o a lens that is maybe 2K of the cost, and 7500$ is still expensive for what it is, but positioned as an entry M that is basically a mirrorless or a M mount Q it is an overpriced indulgence still but somehow seems "better'. We will see when we see, quite possible the price is confused but we will see soon enough. It is possible that the 7300 euro is a VAT price in EU or UK- if so add 20% to the list price, of course we in the US have a tariffs.... so a lot of +/-
This AI mockup is some sort of a chrome- rumors have not said what it really is- chrome of some sort, paint, etc.... and whether some sort of cheaper alloy or brass (weight as well) and whether it has the blaring RED advert in the front like this AI mock up. This mockup reminds me a lot of a contax G for some reason, maybe that is what the computer AI pulled up.
I have had a Q, Q2, M240, used an M11, and currently own a Q3 - I have been asking for an M with a built in EVF since I started using leica gear 10 years ago. I find the rangefinder too difficult to focus with to be functional but have loved shooting with the M240 and m11 with an EVF attached but the extra bulk looks ugly and takes up too much extra space defeating the compact purposes of the M line.
Personally, I dont think there is much overlap between the Q with AF and image stabilization and an M with EVF but maybe i'm wrong. I will likely own both once the early adopters ditch their M11-EVF for the M12 with EVF and I can scoop one up at a heavy discount.
Nikon's Z8/Z9 sensors are proprietary and exclusive. Nikon designed it and Sony Semiconductor manufactures it. The Z6/S1ii sensor is a SC design but it's low resolution. Canon make their own sensors. Are there any high resolution stacked sensors that aren't proprietary?
Both the Z9 and A1 have the same FPS. 20 uncompressed and 30 compressed Nikon's is lossy..
Gordon
Gordon sorry but you are mistaken. From the beginning the A1/AII could do 30fps RAW. To this day the Z9/Z8 sensor can only do 20 fps in any sort of RAW and 30fps only in jpeg. I believe this limitation to be the result of licensing not hardware but public information on this is not available.
Nikon had a parallel development path for the Z9. One based on Sony technology, the other from a different vendor. There were multiple prototypes from each floating around Asia around the time of the Olympics. I believe even in Australia where you are. In the end Nikon was unable to bring the other sensor to market and went with the Sony based sensor.
Canon does fab their own stacked sensors but pay hefty royalties to Sony for licensing technology. A high placed Sony executive said clearly that no one makes a FF stacked camera sensor without paying Sony in one form or another.
So, I guess it depends on what you mean by proprietary. Certainly some implementations are proprietary in their totality, but share core technology. Even Leicas 60mpx sensors are proprietary in their full implementation based on cover glass and filters. But they are clearly based on Sony sensors. Leica also has its own sensor development/testing/configuration team and facilities similar to Nikon. No one even debates this. It is only Nikon and its user base that is so sensitive regarding this subject.
Look up the fps information. At least that part is easily verified. But this is not an important part of this discussion in this thread. I suggest we go to PM if you would like more info on this subject.
EMH2025 wrote:
Re pricing- the pricing of 7300 Euro is basically 9500$ or M11 price and just a little cheaper than a M11P (notably the new EVF will have the 64 gb memory of the M11, not the 256 M11P if spec rumors are correct
This was just posted by another YouTuber take it for whatever you will and says it is 7500 $ not euro- IF that is true then it would be still expensive but more in line for what it is- dropping the 1000 parts of the rangefinder, basically a Q w/o a lens that is maybe 2K of the cost, and 7500$ is still expensive for what it is, but positioned as an entry M that is basically a mirrorless or a M mount Q it is an overpriced indulgence still but somehow seems "better'. We will see when we see, quite possible the price is confused but we will see soon enough. It is possible that the 7300 euro is a VAT price in EU or UK- if so add 20% to the list price, of course we in the US have a tariffs.... so a lot of +/- ...Show more →
Well if it is $7500 in Europe which is only about 6400 EU it becomes interesting. In Italy we can get a 22% VAT refund if bought with an American passport. So, a net dollar price of only $4992. Starting to look like a more reasonable proposition. I will immediately go see this camera at one of my 4 local Leica Stores when they have one to try out. Probably attend a launch event at one of them as well. I will report back when I do. We should know the true information on this soon enough. As it happens I will be at an event at the Leica Store Florence this weekend. However, I doubt there will be a information disclosed by staff there. I wouldn't even ask my friends there to violate any rules.
Oct 06, 2025 at 01:47 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
1bwana1 wrote:
Gordon sorry but you are mistaken. From the beginning the A1/AII could do 30fps RAW. To this day the Z9/Z8 sensor can only do 20 fps in any sort of RAW and 30fps only in jpeg. I believe this limitation to be the result of licensing not hardware but public information on this is not available.
Nikon had a parallel development path for the Z9. One based on Sony technology, the other from a different vendor. There were multiple prototypes from each floating around Asia around the time of the Olympics. I believe even in Australia where you are. In the end Nikon was unable to bring the other sensor to market and went with the Sony based sensor.
Canon does fab their own stacked sensors but pay hefty royalties to Sony for licensing technology. A high placed Sony executive said clearly that no one makes a FF stacked camera sensor without paying Sony in one form or another.
So, I guess it depends on what you mean by proprietary. Certainly some implementations are proprietary in their totality, but share core technology. Even Leicas 60mpx sensors are proprietary in their full implementation based on cover glass and filters. But they are clearly based on Sony sensors. Leica also has its own sensor development/testing/configuration team and facilities similar to Nikon. No one even debates this. It is only Nikon and its user base that is so sensitive regarding this subject.
Look up the fps information. At least that part is easily verified. But this is not an important part of this discussion in this thread. I suggest we go to PM if you would like more info on this subject....Show more →
I'm not sure that it matters but both you and Gordon (flash) are right about the fps when comparing the A1/A1 II with the Z8/Z9. The Sony cameras can shoot 20 fps in uncompressed RAW, but use compressed RAW for 30 fps. The Nikon cameras can shoot 20 fps in uncompressed RAW and 30 fps in compressed jpegs. So Gordon is right that both shoot 20 fps in uncompressed format and 30 fps in compressed format and you are right that the Sony can shoot 30 fps RAW and the Nikon can "only" shoot 20 fps RAW. The difference at 30 fps is the nature of the compression. Sony's files will be a lot closer to uncompressed RAW but they will still be compressed and I think it will be the lossy compression that Sony developed, while Nikon's files will be jpeg. I think the Nikons can actually shoot jpeg at 120 fps but that has some focus limitations, if that matters to anyone.
The reason I think some--including me--would like to see a Leica EV M with a stacked sensor is that it would allow Leica to get rid of the shutter mechanism and hopefully that would provide enough room for IBIS. I like what it sounds like the EV1 M will be. I like its size. I really like the EVF. I don't like that they didn't include IBIS, however. Going with a stacked sensor might well allow them to make the next generation and include IBIS without making the camera bigger.
quantumloop wrote:
I would expect the Leica M EV1 to be a very popular camera. Leica users don't chase specs like IBIS. If they did they would never buy an M. And Leica users are not that price sensitive either, esp those buying the M series.
Take the popular Q styling and pair it with the M lenses and you have a winner. I would expect this to be sold out for months.
You might be absolutely right. We should know soon enough.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The reason I think some--including me--would like to see a Leica EV M with a stacked sensor is that it would allow Leica to get rid of the shutter mechanism and hopefully that would provide enough room for IBIS.
The problem once again is that the mechanical shutter sits in front of the sensor, where theoretically there is a lot of 'extra' space inside of the camera due to the relatively long M mount flange distance. But an IBIS mechanism sits behind the sensor and would still result in more camera thickness than a non-IBIS design. Maybe Leica could design an IBIS system that somehow sits more around and partially ahead of the sensor, but by necessity some of the IBIS system would still be behind the sensor.
IBIS is a reason why I thought it would be more logical to release this camera in L mount and just adapt M lenses. It would also allow use of the many interesting L mount AF lenses. A downside to going with L mount could be suboptimal sensor optimization for M lenses compared to a 'true' M camera. If indeed this camera is designed around the M mount, then Leica clearly have reasons for excluding L mount compatibility and a segment of their overall product portfolio that apparently could use as much help as it can get.
Anyway, Leica could still release an L mount version of this camera. It would 'only' need some internal component repositioning to move the sensor forward to the correct flange distance.
rscheffler wrote:
The problem once again is that the mechanical shutter sits in front of the sensor, where theoretically there is a lot of 'extra' space inside of the camera due to the relatively long M mount flange distance. But an IBIS mechanism sits behind the sensor and would still result in more camera thickness than a non-IBIS design. Maybe Leica could design an IBIS system that somehow sits more around and partially ahead of the sensor, but by necessity some of the IBIS system would still be behind the sensor.
IBIS is a reason why I thought it would be more logical to release this camera in L mount and just adapt M lenses. It would also allow use of the many interesting L mount AF lenses. A downside to going with L mount could be suboptimal sensor optimization for M lenses compared to a 'true' M camera. If indeed this camera is designed around the M mount, then Leica clearly have reasons for excluding L mount compatibility and a segment of their overall product portfolio that apparently could use as much help as it can get.
Anyway, Leica could still release an L mount version of this camera. It would 'only' need some internal component repositioning to move the sensor forward to the correct flange distance....Show more →
Great insight, Ron!
The longer flange distance required for the M mount is indeed a major challenge for Leica engineers as they try to balance the goal of keeping the body slim while adding IBIS. It seems they haven't yet found a way to make that work, though I wouldn't rule it out for the future. For now, it looks like the new M EV1 won't have IBIS and will resemble the Leica Q. Your idea of a mini SL camera would probably have been the better route for those who value AF and IBIS, since the shorter flange distance would make it easier to fit both in a compact body.
You also mentioned extending the lens mount (protruding from the camera) to create extra space for IBIS. That's a clever solution used by Sony on the A7CR and other models, but I'm not sure how well it would fit aesthetically with a Leica camera.
rscheffler wrote:
Anyway, Leica could still release an L mount version of this camera. It would 'only' need some internal component repositioning to move the sensor forward to the correct flange distance.
I also think an L mount version would make a ton of sense. I’d be surprised if most SL users don’t also own an M or aspire to own an M. So it’s already used to complement the M system by users and adds capabilities that are not feasible on an M.. Why not keep those capabilities (IBIS, AF) but make a camera that’s also a better fit to M lenses aesthetically? Call it the SLM1
Fred Miranda wrote:
Great insight, Ron!
The longer flange distance required for the M mount is indeed a major challenge for Leica engineers as they try to balance the goal of keeping the body slim while adding IBIS. It seems they haven't yet found a way to make that work, though I wouldn't rule it out for the future. For now, it looks like the new M EV1 won't have IBIS and will resemble the Leica Q. Your idea of a mini SL camera would probably have been the better route for those who value AF and IBIS, since the shorter flange distance would make it easier to fit both in a compact body.
You also mentioned extending the lens mount (protruding from the camera) to create extra space for IBIS. That's a clever solution used by Sony on the A7CR and other models, but I'm not sure how well it would fit aesthetically with a Leica camera....Show more →
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Like many others, I was of three minds with regards to how Leica would implement a full frame relatively compact camera with an EVF and possibly IBIS. On one hand in the days of the Leica CL, prior to the Q line, some had hoped for a full frame L mount version (higher MP) of that camera incorporating AF & IBIS. It might have some video capability, but it wouldn't have the full blown performance and feature set of the SL line in general. As Ron had pointed out, it's sensor wouldn't be as optimized for M mount lenses as a native Leica M mount body, since the L mount would have been chosen for this design and as it stands, no traditional control dials such as shutter speed etc.
When the Q line of bodies was well established, some had hoped for an interchangeable mount version. This appears to be close to what some believe Leica has developed but chose the native M mount instead of L and thus has not had the ability at present to incorporate IBIS. By choosing the design of the Q body, they avoid encroaching on the purist's idea of what a Leica M camera should be. Again, they are prioritizing performance of M mt lenses over the versatility of using the L mount for this camera and thus eliminating the possibility of AF and IBIS (at this time) but keeping closer to the ethos of what many believe a M mount camera should be.
Lastly they could have (and who knows, maybe they are) go with an EVF version of the M11 body except with a rangefinder type EVF, no Af of course and no IBIS. I think this latter choice of bodies might cannibalize a proportion of current digital M body sales, until which time a future M body or variant might incorporates features such as a stacked sensor, IBIS etc.
Of course one such as Leica, could mix and match all sorts of permutations and features of any of the aforementioned bodies and thus brought to market a camera that they believe would have the greatest chance for success without hurting the sales of other models. Time will tell.
Older M users who generally want or need an EVF could also benefit from IBIS due to their lessening dexterity.
Now that I have shot 4000+ images with my X2Dii, I now know this is the camera for the old me since I can almost forget about SS and use the 50 native ISO with regularity since IBIS takes care of any jitters even at 100MP. When I do look at the SS it is using I am amazed that it just shot a tack sharp image at 1/40th, 1/30th or even 1/15th.
Sure it is a new system to get into, but I must eventually decide if I will even keep my SL3 and SL3S. I just cannot believe the Hasselblad X2Dii currently costs less than an SL3. Both can use M lenses with adapters. The X2Dii does vignette M lenses, but to my surprise does NOT vignette Leica R lenses.
Sorry if I got a bit off topic, but to an older M user, IBIS is just as important as a built-in EVF.
fjablo wrote:
I also think an L mount version would make a ton of sense. I’d be surprised if most SL users don’t also own an M or aspire to own an M. So it’s already used to complement the M system by users and adds capabilities that are not feasible on an M.. Why not keep those capabilities (IBIS, AF) but make a camera that’s also a better fit to M lenses aesthetically? Call it the SLM1
Built in, EVF, IBIS + other digital features for Leica M lenses already here and for some years already with the Leica SL cameras. Like you said I know many of us use both M and SL. IMO the tiny Leica lenses "look" very nice on SL cameras and there are those that use the SL camera body alone for their Leica M lenses.
Of course there are those who don't want the size of the SL cameras and I thought that is what the M form factor for M EV1 was all about. So the new rumor reporting to use the Q body form factor for the alleged EV1 instead sounds a bit whacked IMO. EDIT: A quick check on-line and looks like the Q body/form factor without the fixed lens is smaller than I realized.
fjablo wrote:
Apparently the IBIS unit in the Pentax K1 shifts the sensor by up to +/-1.5mm offering 5 stops of stabilization. Early Sony A7‘s apparently closer to +/-1mm and latest cameras like the Nikon Zf more like +/-2mm with 7-8 stops stabilization. I think in a Leica M, you’d be closer to the earlier Sonys with maybe up to 4 stops or so.
Thank you. Your comment prompted me to look into IBIS a little further. I found this older video that provides a decent demonstration of the different levels of IBIS stabilization capabilities and I am sure this technology has only improved since--and maybe even got a tiny bit smaller overall.
Here a good look under the hood so-to-speak. The fun details start at about 4:25 marker in the video:
Fred Miranda wrote:
Great insight, Ron!
The longer flange distance required for the M mount is indeed a major challenge for Leica engineers as they try to balance the goal of keeping the body slim while adding IBIS. It seems they haven't yet found a way to make that work, though I wouldn't rule it out for the future. For now, it looks like the new M EV1 won't have IBIS and will resemble the Leica Q. Your idea of a mini SL camera would probably have been the better route for those who value AF and IBIS, since the shorter flange distance would make it easier to fit both in a compact body.
You also mentioned extending the lens mount (protruding from the camera) to create extra space for IBIS. That's a clever solution used by Sony on the A7CR and other models, but I'm not sure how well it would fit aesthetically with a Leica camera....Show more →
"You also mentioned extending the lens mount (protruding from the camera) to create extra space for IBIS. That's a clever solution used by Sony on the A7CR and other models"
That's an interesting tidbit about the extended mount on the A7CR that I was not aware of, is there some place I can read up on this? Or is this just something that you noticed on the camera body?
I suspect the reason that Leica is not introducing a compact L mount body for dual use with M and AF L mount lenses is simply that they do not want to cannibalize any of their existing sales in either system. Compromises are likely inherent in whatever they release as they try to thread that needle.
As noted earlier, L mount will allow for IBIS without sacrificing the body thickness. Otherwise you need to have either a thicker body, or a lens mount extension (which is the same as L mount + M adapter.
Making a native L mount body will provide more lens options. And provide autofocus, which is what a majority of people want. Not everyone is a MF masochist.
Whatever is driving Leica's decisions product wise, they seem to be very pleased with their sales and profit numbers. They know their business way better than we do. Hard to argue with success like Leica has had in recent years.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I suspect the reason that Leica is not introducing a compact L mount body for dual use with M and AF L mount lenses is simply that they do not want to cannibalize any of their existing sales in either system. Compromises are likely inherent in whatever they release as they try to thread that needle.
Not unlikely. Or they suspect any Leica with an M mount will always outsell (and/or can be priced higher than) a Leica with L mount. Which I think is quite likely, too.
When it comes to cannibalisation between product lines, they’re basically just guessing what the impact might be. You can try to get data using consumer research or by statistically modelling your sales but both methods have serious limitations. And the latter is impossible to do when there is no precedent.. given this uncertainty I suspect they base it off of „harder“ data which would be M cameras outselling SL.
We might never know for sure
But hopefully we see some first images of this thing soon!
1bwana1 wrote:
Gordon sorry but you are mistaken. From the beginning the A1/AII could do 30fps RAW. To this day the Z9/Z8 sensor can only do 20 fps in any sort of RAW and 30fps only in jpeg. I believe this limitation to be the result of licensing not hardware but public information on this is not available.
Nikon had a parallel development path for the Z9. One based on Sony technology, the other from a different vendor. There were multiple prototypes from each floating around Asia around the time of the Olympics. I believe even in Australia where you are. In the end Nikon was unable to bring the other sensor to market and went with the Sony based sensor.
Canon does fab their own stacked sensors but pay hefty royalties to Sony for licensing technology. A high placed Sony executive said clearly that no one makes a FF stacked camera sensor without paying Sony in one form or another.
So, I guess it depends on what you mean by proprietary. Certainly some implementations are proprietary in their totality, but share core technology. Even Leicas 60mpx sensors are proprietary in their full implementation based on cover glass and filters. But they are clearly based on Sony sensors. Leica also has its own sensor development/testing/configuration team and facilities similar to Nikon. No one even debates this. It is only Nikon and its user base that is so sensitive regarding this subject.
Look up the fps information. At least that part is easily verified. But this is not an important part of this discussion in this thread. I suggest we go to PM if you would like more info on this subject....Show more →
---------------------------------------------
Steve Spencer wrote:
I'm not sure that it matters but both you and Gordon (flash) are right about the fps when comparing the A1/A1 II with the Z8/Z9. The Sony cameras can shoot 20 fps in uncompressed RAW, but use compressed RAW for 30 fps. The Nikon cameras can shoot 20 fps in uncompressed RAW and 30 fps in compressed jpegs. So Gordon is right that both shoot 20 fps in uncompressed format and 30 fps in compressed format and you are right that the Sony can shoot 30 fps RAW and the Nikon can "only" shoot 20 fps RAW. The difference at 30 fps is the nature of the compression. Sony's files will be a lot closer to uncompressed RAW but they will still be compressed and I think it will be the lossy compression that Sony developed, while Nikon's files will be jpeg. I think the Nikons can actually shoot jpeg at 120 fps but that has some focus limitations, if that matters to anyone.
The reason I think some--including me--would like to see a Leica EV M with a stacked sensor is that it would allow Leica to get rid of the shutter mechanism and hopefully that would provide enough room for IBIS. I like what it sounds like the EV1 M will be. I like its size. I really like the EVF. I don't like that they didn't include IBIS, however. Going with a stacked sensor might well allow them to make the next generation and include IBIS without making the camera bigger....Show more →
No. Steve is correct. I mistakenly thought the Z9 could now do 30 fps in compressed raw, which is wrong.
I am correct that Nikon have propriatary rights over the Z9 sensor as well as Canon for theirs.
Back on topic. If the M11-V or whatever, is close to a Q in size, I'm all over it.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I suspect the reason that Leica is not introducing a compact L mount body for dual use with M and AF L mount lenses is simply that they do not want to cannibalize any of their existing sales in either system. Compromises are likely inherent in whatever they release as they try to thread that needle.
To me at least it would seem this camera with an M mount would more directly impact sales of traditional M mount cameras. There is probably fairly big (for the Leica market) pent up demand for an M EVF camera, so it will sell well. Time will tell how it affects the traditional M. But one way or the other, it keeps the M mount alive.
That said, if I was at Leica, I would be looking for more ways to sweeten the L mount lineup. A small, fully functional body would seem like a good solution. While it might cannibalize some SL body sales (like it probably will with M cameras), it's probable that it would increase the number of units actively in use, potentially spurring more lens sales and interest in the system.
Thinking about this some more, I agree with fjablo that this camera with an M mount allows Leica to sell it for more. The L mount does not command the same premium. And if it were released in L mount, the risk is it would more significantly undercut the traditional M price point because it would still attract those looking for a compact EVF M mount option, albeit adapted, and otherwise flirting with an M purchase. I don't think Leica could release it at an M premium in L mount and convince people to buy it AND have to adapt to M, so in this respect it makes sense to release it in M mount, targeting a more niche group, testing the waters and allowing for a higher MSRP. Maybe at a later point Leica will release an L mount version, but probably not after a premium 'P' version, and perhaps the usual other variants have been played out in M mount.
I still think from a technology perspective, this camera makes more sense in L mount. But from a sales perspective, Leica can make a higher per-unit profit in M mount. A higher price point in M mount will also temper sales, potentially making it easier to integrate and remain sustainable for the entire system.
