What if this EV1 camera is simply meant to allow users that can't use the RF patch anymore (or with difficulty) to get rid of the external EVF (which, anyway, is it said to not offer a great experience) and get a better one integrated in the place of the OVF/RF? No hump on top of the camera, better electronic image and less expensive. Plus the hotshoe is left empty. So, basically, nothing groundbreaking, just useful and practical. User pushes the "frame lines lever" once and gets 2x magnification, pushes it further and gets 10x magnification. Releases the lever and gets back to seeing the full frame. And click!
And then, when manual focusing on the M camera, the thumb is, anyway, very close to the said lever.
A bit quicker than on my Sony A7CR where I have to push 3 times the magnifying button to get the full circle of 2x / 10x / full frame.
Just a thought.
Also, maybe Leica is using this EV1 camera to test the waters with regards to acceptance from the users. In the end, what useful upgrades could possible bring an M12 Messsucher? More MPx? I guess no way without IBIS. IBIS? Maybe, but not in the current M sized camera body. And it seems no-one wants to increase the size of the M camera, not even to M240 size. Then what is it really left to improve? Leica M's are not AF machine guns with processing power of a PC, in the end.
catacore wrote:
What if this EV1 camera is simply meant to allow users that can't use the RF patch anymore (or with difficulty) to get rid of the external EVF (which, anyway, is it said to not offer a great experience) and get a better one integrated in the place of the OVF/RF? No hump on top of the camera, better electronic image and less expensive. Plus the hotshoe is left empty. So, basically, nothing groundbreaking, just useful and practical. User pushes the "frame lines lever" once and gets 2x magnification, pushes it further and gets 10x magnification. Releases the lever and gets back to seeing the full frame. And click!
And then, when manual focusing on the M camera, the thumb is, anyway, very close to the said lever.
A bit quicker than on my Sony A7CR where I have to push 3 times the magnifying button to get the full circle of 2x / 10x / full frame.
Just a thought. ...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
catacore wrote:
Also, maybe Leica is using this EV1 camera to test the waters with regards to acceptance from the users. In the end, what useful upgrades could possible bring an M12 Messsucher? More MPx? I guess no way without IBIS. IBIS? Maybe, but not in the current M sized camera body. And it seems no-one wants to increase the size of the M camera, not even to M240 size. Then what is it really left to improve? Leica M's are not AF machine guns with processing power of a PC, in the end.
I think your comments are probably closer to the reality of what we will learn on the 23rd w/ the possibility Leica might have a few nice to have features/enhancements that have yet to be leaked or rumored.
FWIW, the Visoflex 2 is a 3.7-megapixel OLED display/EVF “accessory”. The A7CR is 2.36 million-dot in-body OLED display/EVF. My experience with the VisoFlex 2, 3.7-MP is more than an enough and we don’t have to worry about AF/C-AF dragging down the VisoFlex 2 resolution with the MF only M11. I don’t have any experience with the A7CR to compare.
retrofocus wrote:
I see two main issues for customers with the SL line which hasn't changed since it started:
+ Price for what the customer is getting compared to other MLC offerings in the market
+ Bulk/size of the camera itself (lens size is another issue but some of it is unavoidable due to AF. Nevertheless, lens size is similar to DSLR lens size but other MLC manufacturers have the same issue)
Leica had IMO a winner if they made the SL series only slightly bigger than the M or Q series. Reminds me kind of on the Leica R-series: tried to compete at the time with upcoming SLRs on the market, failed because it was too expensive compared to alternatives and didn't have the same options as Japanese manufacturers started offering in their SLRs. And customers preferred the smaller M-series overall to this date. ...Show more →
catacore wrote:
Also, maybe Leica is using this EV1 camera to test the waters with regards to acceptance from the users. In the end, what useful upgrades could possible bring an M12 Messsucher? More MPx? I guess no way without IBIS. IBIS? Maybe, but not in the current M sized camera body. And it seems no-one wants to increase the size of the M camera, not even to M240 size. Then what is it really left to improve? Leica M's are not AF machine guns with processing power of a PC, in the end.
The opportunities are endless: Safari, D, P, Monochrom, 101st Anniversary edition, insert “famous rockstar” edition, Year of the Dragon edition. No need to even think about new features, just adding color schemes, taking away stuff and limited availability at increased prices. /s
For me all this talk about cannibalizing SL sales with a great EVF system on an M body makes no sense.
I primarily shoot M for 3 reasons. First is shooting M lenses natively on a system designed for these unique lenses. Lenses drive my choice. I do like the advantages of the M form factor and workflow. I worked hard to learn how to use the RF effectively. But in the end it all comes back to lenses.
I primarily shoot the SL3 for a native mount for the APO-SL lenses. I love the workflow, and the EVF. It is also my bad weather system. I consider the SL3 form factor to be a negative that is only compensated for by the APO lenses. Yes I shoot a couple of my M wide angle lenses on the SL3 because who needs AF when shooting that wide. Manual focusing on the SL3 body is a nice experience due to the quality of the EVF. But I would never choose the SL3 as my primary M body.
I know only one guy who shoots M on SL because he doesn't like RF focusing. I am guessing he might switch to the EV-1 if the EVF focusing experience is good. I think there is a reasonably sized group of people that will strongly prefer EVF over RF. Many will be new Leica customers who were always RF uncomfortable so shot other brands.
Since it is likely lenses that drive body choice in the Leica World, I don't see a huge potential for cannibalizing one system over another because of body features. Leica should provide the best possible EVF experience it can on the EV-1. Each photographer can choose the system that best suits them. That will most likely result in the highest number of happy Leica users overall, and increase Leica sales overall. In the end these things are probably what matters most to Leica.
No leica body is competitive performance feature wise with other brands mirrorless offerings. That is not why people choose Leica. We should not frame our views regarding what Leica should do by applying the same criteria that we do with other brands.
retrofocus wrote:
The SL is a bulky beast - remove the bulky handgrip from the M camera and the difference is even more obvious.
The SL form factor is certainly not a member of the featherweight division. Personally, I adjusted to the SL form factor quite well and if this is what it takes to gain access to the superlative Leica SL APO primes...I'd do it all over again. Which I did with the slightly smaller SL3. The tiny Leica M lenses are a treat on the SL system w/ EVF and IBIS +++, So I can certainly understand the desire for a smaller M EV1.
Much like the Leica rangefinder, the SL is not the camera system for everybody.
1bwana1 wrote:
For me all this talk about cannibalizing SL sales with a great EVF system on an M body makes no sense.
I primarily shoot M for 3 reasons. First is shooting M lenses natively on a system designed for these unique lenses. Lenses drive my choice. I do like the advantages of the M form factor and workflow. I worked hard to learn how to use the RF effectively. But in the end it all comes back to lenses.
I primarily shoot the SL3 for a native mount for the APO-SL lenses. I love the workflow, and the EVF. It is also my bad weather system. I consider the SL3 form factor to be a negative that is only compensated for by the APO lenses. Yes I shoot a couple of my M wide angle lenses on the SL3 because who needs AF when shooting that wide. Manual focusing on the SL3 body is a nice experience due to the quality of the EVF. But I would never choose the SL3 as my primary M body.
I know only one guy who shoots M on SL because he doesn't like RF focusing. I am guessing he might switch to the EV-1 if the EVF focusing experience is good. I think there is a reasonably sized group of people that will strongly prefer EVF over RF. Many will be new Leica customers who were always RF uncomfortable so shot other brands.
Since it is likely lenses that drive body choice in the Leica World, I don't see a huge potential for cannibalizing one system over another because of body features. Leica should provide the best possible EVF experience it can on the EV-1. Each photographer can choose the system that best suits them. That will most likely result in the highest number of happy Leica users overall, and increase Leica sales overall. In the end these things are probably what matters most to Leica.
No leica body is competitive performance feature wise with other brands mirrorless offerings. That is not why people choose Leica. We should not frame our views regarding what Leica should do by applying the same criteria that we do with other brands....Show more →
I am fairly positive if given the opportunity, there will be those that swap to something like an M EV1 from the SL system if all they use the SL system for is the built-in EVF for their M lenses. But like you, I also feel the SL system is all about access to the Leica SL APO primes w/ adapting Leica M lenses as icing on the cake. Additionally, adapting one of the larger Noctilux-M lenses on the SL can also be a very nice experience.
*Side story, I recently noticed a man on the street happily taking photo after photo, rapid fire. He was having the time of his life. He came over to tell me how happy he was using an EVF camera for the first time ever. He said with poor eyesight he thought he had given up photography until he discovered the EVF. That brief encounter certainly left an impression on me.
1bwana1 wrote:
For me all this talk about cannibalizing SL sales with a great EVF system on an M body makes no sense.
I agree. I don't follow the logic. It would be different if this EVF camera had an L mount, which I earlier thought would be more logical because it would allow adapting of M lenses and draw in AF-centric L mount users looking for a smaller camera.
But with the current rumors that the camera will have an M mount, I see no 'threat' from this camera for the SL system.
1bwana1 wrote:
No leica body is competitive performance feature wise with other brands mirrorless offerings. That is not why people choose Leica. We should not frame our views regarding what Leica should do by applying the same criteria that we do with other brands.
In-house competition is the real deal here Leica for sure considers when releasing any kind of camera - they are not going to repeat their error with the Leica CL film camera competing with Leica M film cameras just to name one famous example here.
retrofocus wrotethey are not going to repeat their error with the Leica CL film camera competing with Leica M film cameras just to name one famous example here.
You love this example because you talked about it many times but this was 50 years ago. Maybe a few things happened since?
And BTW, the CL was "competing" against the M5, the biggest, most complicated and less loved M camera of all times till the M8.
And both were rangefinders using the same mount.
Now we are comparing a manuel focus small camera to the AF SL. This is a different ball game.
For now, I'll wait for the official announcement because I see no point in exploring these "I believe this or that" with not a single fact to back it up and not even an ounce of logic.
johnvanr wrote:
The opportunities are endless: Safari, D, P, Monochrom, 101st Anniversary edition, insert “famous rockstar” edition, Year of the Dragon edition. No need to even think about new features, just adding color schemes, taking away stuff and limited availability at increased prices. /s
You have all these already for the M11 series. Question is what M12 vs M11 improvements are still possible, if any. If M12 will still be a Messsucher, it will need to bring "something" to the table (as a basic model). Only then they can go for "variations" like D, P, Safari and so on.
catacore wrote:
You have all these already for the M11 series. Question is what M12 vs M11 improvements are still possible, if any. If M12 will still be a Messsucher, it will need to bring "something" to the table (as a basic model). Only then they can go for "variations" like D, P, Safari and so on.
Not sure what the M12 might bring but I could see the following as improvement over the M11:
+ tilt/rotating back screen
+ avoidance of purple color cast as common in the M11 by better sensor/image reproducibility
+ longer battery life time
+ diopter change on OVF without need for correction lens
+ maybe IBIS in some sort
retrofocus wrote:
Not sure what the M12 might bring but I could see the following as improvement over the M11:
+ tilt/rotating back screen
+ avoidance of purple color cast as common in the M11 by better sensor/image reproducibility
+ longer battery life time
+ diopter change on OVF without need for correction lens
+ maybe IBIS in some sort
My bet is Leica M (be it OVF/RF or EVF) will never have a tilt/rotating screen. It is very much against M philosophy, I would say.
IBIS is also a big thing to be implemented, as we have all heard so far.
And the rest, well, I guess they are not enough to warrant a new camera, IMO.
catacore wrote:
You have all these already for the M11 series. Question is what M12 vs M11 improvements are still possible, if any. If M12 will still be a Messsucher, it will need to bring "something" to the table (as a basic model). Only then they can go for "variations" like D, P, Safari and so on.
From a physical design perspective the M is already very refined. Areas where improvement may be possible would be related to image capture quality. If traditional IBIS is physically too much compromise, implementation of electronic image stabilization might be an option. I don’t know the challenges this would entail, or imaging compromises it might cause, but imagine it would benefit from a faster sensor. And this brings me back to my current peeve with the M11’s sensor: it’s glacially slow. Leica as a premium brand should be able to find a way to include a stacked sensor in the M12 and potentially completely eliminate the mechanical shutter. At the least, if a mechanical shutter is still necessary, add the option for EFCS.
Additionally, manual focus assist could also be added to a purely optical rangefinder viewfinder via a ‘focus confirmation light’ and would use focus/defocus information from PD pixels on the sensor. This would keep the M12 in step with aspects of the EV1, while being more true to the M tradition and appealing for the more hardcore M faithful.
rscheffler wrote:
From a physical design perspective the M is already very refined. Areas where improvement may be possible would be related to image capture quality. If traditional IBIS is physically too much compromise, implementation of electronic image stabilization might be an option. I don’t know the challenges this would entail, or imaging compromises it might cause, but imagine it would benefit from a faster sensor. And this brings me back to my current peeve with the M11’s sensor: it’s glacially slow. Leica as a premium brand should be able to find a way to include a stacked sensor in the M12 and potentially completely eliminate the mechanical shutter. At the least, if a mechanical shutter is still necessary, add the option for EFCS.
Additionally, manual focus assist could also be added to a purely optical rangefinder viewfinder via a ‘focus confirmation light’ and would use focus/defocus information from PD pixels on the sensor. This would keep the M12 in step with aspects of the EV1, while being more true to the M tradition and appealing for the more hardcore M faithful. ...Show more →
I could not agree more. No mechanical shutter means less noise, less vibrations. Some electronic focusing help whilst keeping the rangefinder would be useful too: one could use it when shooting a long focal length or anything wide open.
IBIS would be great but I can live without it if not physically possible.
And a quicker startup time of course, something I've been waiting since the M8 and to this day fail to understand why it has not been delivered.
pmeheut wrote:
I could not agree more. No mechanical shutter means less noise, less vibrations. Some electronic focusing help whilst keeping the rangefinder would be useful too: one could use it when shooting a long focal length or anything wide open.
IBIS would be great but I can live without it if not physically possible.
And a quicker startup time of course, something I've been waiting since the M8 and to this day fail to understand why it has not been delivered.
Of all the potential improvements I expect that Leica coming up with a high resolution (60mpx +), high dynamic range, low noise, sensor and processor, capable of supporting a mechanical shutterless camera one of the least likely to happen. I know of no such sensor in production currently. Plus just the software requirements to support this and compensate for all lighting conditions is probably an unrealistic ask for a company like Leica. Leica will need to wait untill such hardware is available open to by from a vendor such as Sony.
This kind of effort really only makes sense for high speed cameras with AF which the Leica M will never be. The M has a completely different orientation.
catacore wrote:
You have all these already for the M11 series. Question is what M12 vs M11 improvements are still possible, if any. If M12 will still be a Messsucher, it will need to bring "something" to the table (as a basic model). Only then they can go for "variations" like D, P, Safari and so on.
I was just joking.
Not joking, Leica’s and Hasselblad’s challenge is that they need to keep convincing enough people that beautiful design, unique ergonomics, unique color science, stellar lens performance and historical nostalgia are worth the premium over more pedestrian competitors who offer more features at lower prices.
Part of that challenge is holding on to traditional designs, like the M and the 500 series.
