stgrove wrote:
I put myself in this camp even though I did not join LFI.
That said I think the price should be at least $2k less and find it not giving me more than my M11+Viso2 except for the built-in EVF factor, but with the Viso2 tilted up 90 degrees I have shot people at around 4-5 feet and they had no idea I was taking a picture of them.
This one taken with the 50/0.95 Noctilux at f0.95 at less than 4 feet.
I can't find any logical justification to gripe about Leica prices. It is what it is for some and less for others. This is the world we live in and as usual there are many alternatives at various price points. Seems whatever I am not willing to pay for in the Leica catalogue there are apparently many, many others more than willing to pony up haha. But then again I paid $15 for Leica branded microfiber clothes..a few times already so maybe I am a bit of a boujee 🤪
quantumloop wrote:
People buy Leica for its pride of ownership, build quality and feel, and brand heritage.
Wrong. You've described some of their customers but far from all of them. Historically, it was 33%. Nowadays, maybe it is more but if you read this forum, you would know that many of us buy for other reasons.
quantumloop wrote:
If you just go by specs alone, Leica usually doesn't make any sense for the money.
Wrong again. Some Leica products are almost unique on the market: no one else offers a rangefinder. No one else offers a FF compact camera like the Q line with a fixed lens such ergonomics.
I'm not crazy about the SL line but I have to admit that they offer something else and for some use cases, I would prefer it to any competitor.
quantumloop wrote:
There are many who want the M experience but don't like using the rangefinder for various reasons.
The M experience is the rangefinder. If not, buy a Fuji X. The make excellent cameras.
quantumloop wrote:
In fact this is one reason why the Leica Q series has been so popular.
Is it? Do you have market studies to prove it? Or maybe you forgot that the Leica Q offers AF and stabilization and is quite a different value proposition?
stgrove wrote:
I put myself in this camp even though I did not join LFI.
That said I think the price should be at least $2k less and find it not giving me more than my M11+Viso2 except for the built-in EVF factor, but with the Viso2 tilted up 90 degrees I have shot people at around 4-5 feet and they had no idea I was taking a picture of them.
This one taken with the 50/0.95 Noctilux at f0.95 at less than 4 feet.
Having shot the EV-1 and M11 + Visoflex side by side I strongly disagree. The EV-1 is a far better experience on all levels. Easier to focus, smoother, which results in faster more accurate focusing. I think everyone I tested with came to the same conclusion. Have you tried the EV-1 yet?
quantumloop wrote:
The selling proposition of this camera is not difficult to understand. I think some are overanalyzing it.
You have to start with the market of Leica users. Most can easily afford it and use Leica for more than its technical specification. Leica has never been about some value proposition. People buy Leica for its pride of ownership, build quality and feel, and brand heritage. If you just go by specs alone, Leica usually doesn't make any sense for the money.
There are many who want the M experience but don't like using the rangefinder for various reasons. It could be they find it difficult to learn and master, it could be vision related. In fact this is one reason why the Leica Q series has been so popular.
Here they have the full range of M lenses to use. With an EVF. They aren't analyzing it comparing it to all of the other cameras out there, because this is a Leica.
I read one commenter on another forum who was a Leica dealer. He said that when the Q was released, people didn't think it would sell because it was an expensive fixed lens camera, EVF, without the classic M experience. Of course that was wrong as the Q is probably Leica's best selling product series now.
Time will tell how well the M EV1 sells. But I think it will do just fine.
pmeheut wrote:
But I would like to know why, it would be interesting instead of reading words such as "purists", "keyboard warriors" to just reject all the points made here to express why this camera is not that attractive.
I don’t understand what you are trying to know the here.
Leica M EV1 is the only native m mount camera with native evf on the market. Some people like it, some people don’t, just like almost every other thing on the earth. Your comment just like standing outside a restaurant and asking repeatedly to the people who are about to walk in “I would like to know why you choose this restaurant? Why you buy those expensive shitty food?”
1bwana1 wrote:
Having shot the EV-1 and M11 + Visoflex side by side I strongly disagree. The EV-1 is a far better experience on all levels. Easier to focus, smoother, which results in faster more accurate focusing. I think everyone I tested with came to the same conclusion. Have you tried the EV-1 yet?
Have you tried them side by side yet?
There are none to try yet in the US, so of course no I have not yet tried the EV1 side by side with an M11+Viso2. There are not many Leica dealers near me, but I will get to it once they become available in the US.
And TBH, I never used any of Nikon’s MILC fancy MF feature or FUJI gfx1002 MF feature. Either peaking or zoom, that is it. (Do use DSLR focus aid a lot before because no peaking in VF)
I fail to understand the dramatic response here too. I feel many nonsayer are never meant to be the market of a brand new Leica M camera. (Some exception for sure)
TTartsan or 7art M camera? What are we talking about?
I will not buy it in short term but I can see this can be a fun camera to use. For zone focus street, you don’t need any MF, just muscle memory is enough at f8. None MILC other than Leica are truely compatible with M glass. This is really the first one.
retrofocus wrote:
Not successful if their pricing is aligned with current Leica M pricing. Such EVF-based M camera has to be substantially lower in cost to make it successful in the market. Western based manufacturers are not able to handle this IMO. If we ever see such camera hitting the market, it will most likely - I know I repeat myself here - coming from China.
China is world factory, not world philanthropy organization. They manufacture cheap goods because they still can earn money from it, not because they are idiotic. The key of low manufacturing cost is huge volume. If you really think design and manufacture small m-mount evf camera is profitable, no one stop you to fly to Shenzhen, visit a consumer electronic ODM to propose your business idea. I wholeheartedly hope you can successfully implement this camera, just like I hope Sigma can add mechanical shutter and EVF into the successor of FP-L, then heartbroken seeing the spec of “BF”, or hoping Epson (Cosina) pushing out full frame version of RD1, or Nikon can build a ZF with FM2’s form factor. Maybe it’s really hard to squeeze all the functionality into a fairly constrained form factor, and we can have more respect on Leica’s engineering effort to provide a camera even with this price tag.
zhangyue wrote:
And TBH, I never used any of Nikon’s MILC fancy MF feature or FUJI gfx1002 MF feature. Either peaking or zoom, that is it. (Do use DSLR focus aid a lot before because no peaking in VF)
I fail to understand the dramatic response here too. I feel many nonsayer are never meant to be the market of a brand new Leica M camera. (Some exception for sure)
TTartsan or 7art M camera? What are we talking about?
I will not buy it in short term but I can see this can be a fun camera to use. For zone focus street, you don’t need any MF, just muscle memory is enough at f8. None MILC other than Leica are truely compatible with M glass. This is really the first one. ...Show more →
I think the more actual customers buy and use the M EV1 we will start seeing more realistic tone in the comments to come.
zhangyue wrote:
And TBH, I never used any of Nikon’s MILC fancy MF feature or FUJI gfx1002 MF feature. Either peaking or zoom, that is it. (Do use DSLR focus aid a lot before because no peaking in VF)
I fail to understand the dramatic response here too. I feel many nonsayer are never meant to be the market of a brand new Leica M camera. (Some exception for sure)
TTartsan or 7art M camera? What are we talking about?
I will not buy it in short term but I can see this can be a fun camera to use. For zone focus street, you don’t need any MF, just muscle memory is enough at f8. None MILC other than Leica are truely compatible with M glass. This is really the first one. ...Show more →
Have you ever actually tried M lenses on other cameras? With exceptions, I find my lenses work well on some of my cameras.
LBJ2 wrote:
I think the more actual customers buy and use the M EV1 we will start seeing more realistic tone in the comments to come.
I’m sorry, but what this camera offers is a high-res EVF, focus peaking and magnification. There are already a bunch of cameras offering the same high resolution EVF (plus IBIS) and peaking and magnification. It’s exactly because there’s nothing new about this camera that the comments are what they are.
Reliability is the main thing that attracts me to labels, peace of mind...but they're all pretty good with that. And if I can't find batteries for it in 10 years when the charge doesn't hold... we'd upgrade by then sure but the principle.
I know Leica have done brilliantly with lens design and appreciate what it's helped me to have, even if I don't own any.
I wish they made it a bit smaller and fit ibis in there for an all-day everyday carry. That with the small m-mount lenses, that's super attractive. Even with the smaller lenses on the a7cii i don't feel comfortable with it on my neck going out randomly, it goes in the bag. But I'd love to have a high quality option that is basically part of the clothing.
Happy for those that get to enjoy their lenses more comfortably with the digital evf though.
Not canon R, not Sony after A7R2. Other than that, I used camera from Leica SLx, Nikon Z6/7/8, Panasonic S1/5x I/II, Fuji GFX50S/100S/100II, Hasselblad X1D 1/2.
But that doesn’t really mean much to you anyway as you like the experience. I found most MF feature gimmick, distractive that not a fun to use. Initially interesting? Maybe, but die down quickly to go back fundamental implementation. johnvanr wrote:
Have you ever actually tried M lenses on other cameras? With exceptions, I find my lenses work well on some of my cameras.
tigerlo wrote:
China is world factory, not world philanthropy organization. They manufacture cheap goods because they still can earn money from it, not because they are idiotic. The key of low manufacturing cost is huge volume. If you really think design and manufacture small m-mount evf camera is profitable, no one stop you to fly to Shenzhen, visit a consumer electronic ODM to propose your business idea. I wholeheartedly hope you can successfully implement this camera, just like I hope Sigma can add mechanical shutter and EVF into the successor of FP-L, then heartbroken seeing the spec of “BF”, or hoping Epson (Cosina) pushing out full frame version of RD1, or Nikon can build a ZF with FM2’s form factor. Maybe it’s really hard to squeeze all the functionality into a fairly constrained form factor, and we can have more respect on Leica’s engineering effort to provide a camera even with this price tag....Show more →
I believe that there is a market for such fully electronic camera - actually much easier to manufacture than any other MLC since it does not require any AF, IBIS capability and other bells and whistles. As I said earlier, an older FF sensor will be sufficient, too - around 24 or 36 MP maybe. No micro lenses but just thin sensor cover like Kolari does it in their modifications. A good but not superb EVF is sufficient to cut the price additionally a bit. Doesn't take much to see a good business idea here - it will sell if offered for around $1500 (just to approximate a price range compared to your favored Leica product).
When it concerns you that not too many of such copied EVF-M mount cameras would be sold - do you think Thypoch 50/1.4 lenses for example are made in the millions for what they cost compared to 50/1.4 Summilux lenses - of course not exactly the same image but close enough for > 90% what is needed! They are a niche product as everything else for M-mount. And it works!
If you own just one SL APO prime that same money will get you a nice 55V (43 FF equiv) lens (with very usable manual focus clutch a la Q3) plus a 28P (22 FF equivalent) which is an AF lens less than 2" long for example.
zhangyue wrote:
Not canon R, not Sony after A7R2. Other than that, I used camera from Leica SLx, Nikon Z6/7/8, Panasonic S1/5x I/II, Fuji GFX50S/100S/100II, Hasselblad X1D 1/2.
But that doesn’t really mean much to you anyway as you like the experience. I found most MF feature gimmick, distractive that not a fun to use. Initially interesting? Maybe, but die down quickly to go back fundamental implementation.
I'm not asking about the overall experience, but wondering about the experience you based this comment on: "None MILC other than Leica are truely compatible with M glass."
Everybody keeps saying that M glass is horrible on other sensors, but I've found that generally it can be fine.
johnvanr wrote:
I’m sorry, but what this camera offers is a high-res EVF, focus peaking and magnification. There are already a bunch of cameras offering the same high resolution EVF (plus IBIS) and peaking and magnification. It’s exactly because there’s nothing new about this camera that the comments are what they are.
Other cameras with IBIS have the sensor pushed to the front and the IBIS mech pushed rearward, then the M adapter makes the lens poke quite far forward. The thinner the flange distance, the more the M lens protrudes forward from the front of the mount. Even if you mod the sensor of another camera so that the cover glass thickness matches the M sensor, you're still left with a longer overall setup. The exception would be cameras that don't have IBIS like the Sigma fp, Fujifilm X-M5, etc., which can be as small as or smaller than the M.
9K *is* an insane price to pay to keep film M body thickness on a sensor optimized for M lenses, but there's nothing in the Leica ecosystem that is a sensible purchase anyway, so I'm not sure how this differs much in that respect.
algrove wrote:
In this vein, LLL started with a lens many M users wanted to try since is was originally a Cooke cine lens. Of late they have branched out offering lenses that directly compete with Leica lenses like the 50/1.2. Since many liked their quality and optics early o n it seems they now have a following with most priced 1/5th of a comparable Leica lens, if one nearly identical is offered.
LLL started out with the 35mm F2 8 Elements copy, not the cine lens. That came out several lens releases later.
