RustyBug wrote:
Yup, the EV2 will be interesting to see where the iterative improvements land. There could be an opportunity for migrating from "problems" to "wants" territory in the next gen. Again, I see the EV1 as a mid-cycle release. The EV2 should be a full cycle release and has more opportunity to be matured.
As we've come to expect from Leica, they have been able to squeeze a few new enhancements/new features out of their processors even a few years after the camera launched. So I expect more to come for the EV1 too.
It’s definitely “wants” territory. If I restricted this hobby to “needs” I’d have more space, less bags, and a happier wallet 😛
RustyBug wrote:
Yup, the EV2 will be interesting to see where the iterative improvements land. There could be an opportunity for migrating from "problems" to "wants" territory in the next gen. Again, I see the EV1 as a mid-cycle release. The EV2 should be a full cycle release and has more opportunity to be matured.
The M-EV1 is somewhat attractive to me for its size/weight. However, I just see too many compromises vs my SL3. A flip screen is IMHO a necessity, especially for street shooting. I wanted the visoflex 2, so that I can look down into the camera, again a no go. Battery life... Ibis...
So, I will reserve judgement until I can use one...
Planetwide wrote:
The M-EV1 is somewhat attractive to me for its size/weight. However, I just see too many compromises vs my SL3. A flip screen is IMHO a necessity, especially for street shooting. I wanted the visoflex 2, so that I can look down into the camera, again a no go. Battery life... Ibis...
So, I will reserve judgement until I can use one...
From my experiences shooting the EV-1 I think that if you can live with the SL3 form factor, your instincts are spot on.
I'm trading in my M11 + Visoflex 2 to get the M-EV1 for following reasons:
1. I've always had issues with rangefinder calibration for different lenses. Even after Leica re-calibrate my M11 rangefinder, it still has issues.
2. I hate focusing with live view for my close focusing lenses and I shoot in close distances quite a lot. Visoflex helps a great deal but I don't like the added bulk and weight.
3. It's the same case with wide angle lenses, I have to use either live view of Visoflex.
I did try the M-EV1 at the Leica store and I like it a lot. I'm using the same focusing method with my Visoflex i.e. auto magnify + peaking and it's fast and easy to nail focus. Don't really care about IBIS on an M body, I have X2D II if I need IBIS (best ever camera for my needs) or to some extent my Q3 43 with its OIS. Post processing software is really amazing these days, I can shoot with very high ISO and I can use either DxO Raw, Lightroom's denoise feature or Topaz Photo to reduce the noise.
normie610 wrote:
I'm trading in my M11 + Visoflex 2 to get the M-EV1 for following reasons:
1. I've always had issues with rangefinder calibration for different lenses. Even after Leica re-calibrate my M11 rangefinder, it still has issues.
2. I hate focusing with live view for my close focusing lenses and I shoot in close distances quite a lot. Visoflex helps a great deal but I don't like the added bulk and weight.
3. It's the same case with wide angle lenses, I have to use either live view of Visoflex.
I did try the M-EV1 at the Leica store and I like it a lot. I'm using the same focusing method with my Visoflex i.e. auto magnify + peaking and it's fast and easy to nail focus. Don't really care about IBIS on an M body, I have X2D II if I need IBIS (best ever camera for my needs) or to some extent my Q3 43 with its OIS. Post processing software is really amazing these days, I can shoot with very high ISO and I can use either DxO Raw, Lightroom's denoise feature or Topaz Photo to reduce the noise.
Look forward to receiving mine in 2-3 weeks time. ...Show more →
Sounds like a great fit for you. I wish you many years of enjoyment with your new camera
I just was looking at the C-Sonnar thread, and it reminded of the focus shift that exists with certain lenses.
To that end, I think the EV1 might breathe new interest in lenses that otherwise were "finicky" to use with RF. We've mentioned WA and Tele glass, as well as "eyesight" focusing issues for the RF, but I don't recall us mentioning too much about focus shift being a use case where the EV1 might bring value for its user. That, or I just forgot it being mentioned much.
I figure if I had the EV1 with my VM 75/1.5 ... I'd probably still have the VM 75/1.5.
KLaban wrote:
I used the C-Sonnar for many years on my M bodies but had to resort to using the Visoflex to overcome focus shift issues.
Unfortunately the lack of stabilisation on the M EV1 means the body is still not a suitable option for my use.
But, it was usable with the Visoflex?
I still don't understand how it is that folks can be fine with using an M body, but now that an M body doesn't have IBIS, it is suddenly unsuitable. While that may not be your specific use case (per se), but I see folks that have used M's, decry the lack of IBIS as a deal breaker.
I mean, it seems that the ability to use a faster shutter speed or higher ISO (or both) minimizes the need for handholding an M (use case) in sub 1/30 range for many things. Not the least of which is the "capture the moment" kind of things. It seems to me that if you're in "moment" work, you're gonna be fine with higher ISO (today's ISO ain't your CCD ISO 800 grainfest) for that SS speed.
I can dig on IBIS as much as the next person ... and have different bodies, some with / some without. But I'm hard pressed to understand how many M shooters suggest that the lack of IBIS is a deal breaker. Bump the ISO and capture the moment. It's not like folks are shooting 500mm glass on an M. Most folks are shooting 50mm or wider. Few use 75 / 90 and almost none use 135. Unless folks are simply deferring their technique to the technology, as a matter of preference.
Not meaning to suggest your case specific ... just struck a chord with some rationale that I don't get from some folks regarding M's and the deal breaker the lack of IBIS presents for them. That combination typically makes me think ... go get an Olympus and shoot m43 if you want small with great IBIS. Or, use the (larger) SL body with M glass, if you still want to use the M glass. Kind of a pick your poison thing. The engineering requirements for IBIS hardware require real estate ... so, either get a smaller sensor that packs into a smaller body, or get a larger body that allows space for larger IBIS movement mechanism's. I've never expected an M body the size of the M10 / M11 to have IBIS. I've long stated that I think the M240 body would support the necessary real estate for IBIS ... and Leica's gonna be "picky" about such an implementation into an M ... but, I digress.
Sometimes, it makes me think that folks would want an Italian racing bicycle to have a motor in it, and still expect it to be as light and small as an Italian racing bicycle.
RustyBug wrote:
But, it was usable with the Visoflex?
I still don't understand how it is that folks can be fine with using an M body, but now that an M body doesn't have IBIS, it is suddenly unsuitable. While that may not be your specific use case (per se), but I see folks that have used M's, decry the lack of IBIS as a deal breaker.
I mean, it seems that the ability to use a faster shutter speed or higher ISO (or both) minimizes the need for handholding an M (use case) in sub 1/30 range for many things. Not the least of which is the "capture the moment" kind of things. It seems to me that if you're in "moment" work, you're gonna be fine with higher ISO (today's ISO ain't your CCD ISO 800 grainfest) for that SS speed.
I can dig on IBIS as much as the next person ... and have different bodies, some with / some without. But I'm hard pressed to understand how many M shooters suggest that the lack of IBIS is a deal breaker. Bump the ISO and capture the moment. It's not like folks are shooting 500mm glass on an M. Most folks are shooting 50mm or wider. Few use 75 / 90 and almost none use 135. Unless folks are simply deferring their technique to the technology, as a matter of preference.
Not meaning to suggest your case specific ... just struck a chord with some rationale that I don't get from some folks regarding M's and the deal breaker the lack of IBIS presents for them. That combination typically makes me think ... go get an Olympus and shoot m43 if you want small with great IBIS. Or, use the (larger) SL body with M glass, if you still want to use the M glass. Kind of a pick your poison thing. The engineering requirements for IBIS hardware require real estate ... so, either get a smaller sensor that packs into a smaller body, or get a larger body that allows space for larger IBIS movement mechanism's. I've never expected an M body the size of the M10 / M11 to have IBIS. I've long stated that I think the M240 body would support the necessary real estate for IBIS ... but, I digress.
I'll add to this...what are people shooting with an M camera that needs IBIS, when you can already shoot f/1.4, 1/60 at a clean ISO 12500. That's EV 0 if I'm not mistaken. IBIS is useless for people shots anyway so is it people trying to do waterfall shots? Middle of the night stopped down landscape? I'm curious because from my cameras I get 25000 max on the 246, which I never really use and even the D810 with its measly 12800 max never really runs out of shutter speeds for me at f/2. Or maybe I'm not shooting the right things.
I'm not dismissing the concerns, I'd just like some examples of what people are shooting where the lack of IBIS is a deal breaker, given that IBIS is only useful for low shutter speeds (for the lens). Is it that people want to shoot very long adapted lenses with the EV1?
And by the way, those old cameras just got a new lease of life with Lightroom's AI denoise. It really does wonders!
One reason is that magnification in the EVF is generally needed for nailing focus with a small depth of field, and IBIS really helps when using magnification (otherwise the magnified image in the viewfinder can be quite jumpy).
RustyBug wrote:
But, it was usable with the Visoflex?
I still don't understand how it is that folks can be fine with using an M body, but now that an M body doesn't have IBIS, it is suddenly unsuitable. While that may not be your specific use case (per se), but I see folks that have used M's, decry the lack of IBIS as a deal breaker.
I mean, it seems that the ability to use a faster shutter speed or higher ISO (or both) minimizes the need for handholding an M (use case) in sub 1/30 range for many things. Not the least of which is the "capture the moment" kind of things. It seems to me that if you're in "moment" work, you're gonna be fine with higher ISO (today's ISO ain't your CCD ISO 800 grainfest) for that SS speed.
I can dig on IBIS as much as the next person ... and have different bodies, some with / some without. But I'm hard pressed to understand how many M shooters suggest that the lack of IBIS is a deal breaker. Bump the ISO and capture the moment. It's not like folks are shooting 500mm glass on an M. Most folks are shooting 50mm or wider. Few use 75 / 90 and almost none use 135. Unless folks are simply deferring their technique to the technology, as a matter of preference.
Not meaning to suggest your case specific ... just struck a chord with some rationale that I don't get from some folks regarding M's and the deal breaker the lack of IBIS presents for them. That combination typically makes me think ... go get an Olympus and shoot m43 if you want small with great IBIS. Or, use the (larger) SL body with M glass, if you still want to use the M glass. Kind of a pick your poison thing. The engineering requirements for IBIS hardware require real estate ... so, either get a smaller sensor that packs into a smaller body, or get a larger body that allows space for larger IBIS movement mechanism's. I've never expected an M body the size of the M10 / M11 to have IBIS. I've long stated that I think the M240 body would support the necessary real estate for IBIS ... and Leica's gonna be "picky" about such an implementation into an M ... but, I digress.
The point is I haven't used Leica M bodies for the last six years, since when my eyesight and hand stability have deteriorated to the point where I can no longer even use my Nikon Z bodies or now my Q3 43 without stabilisation turned on.
KLaban wrote:
The point is I haven't used Leica M bodies for the last six years, since when my eyesight and hand stability have deteriorated to the point where I can no longer even use my Nikon Z bodies or now my Q3 43 without stabilisation turned on.
Yeah, I get that ... which is why I mentioned I wasn't referring to you specifically. It just raised the question for so many other "complainers" that I have observed, where they shoot M's and now decry the lack of IBIS.
In some regard, it would seem that these folks should be lining up in droves with their Sony > Kolari, given the $$$ amount of the EV1.
Anyway, just to be clear, I wasn't targeting your use case ... just the broader discussion of complaints, regarding the voracity of disdain for the lack of IBIS in the M.
brafman wrote:
One reason is that magnification in the EVF is generally needed for nailing focus with a small depth of field, and IBIS really helps when using magnification (otherwise the magnified image in the viewfinder can be quite jumpy).
Ok yes I get that. Does the current visoflex have software stabilisation? (not sure, asking, I've only used the crappy old VF2).
Anyway...just as a fun argument here we are:
M was made for portable and fast focusing photography with modest aperture lenses (because that's all the could do at the time) -> high ISO was not availlable back in the day hence shutter speeds could be too low -> shutter speed issue solved with fast lenses -> fast lenses wide open need accurate focusing -> rangefinder is difficult to focus wide open accurately -> EV1 solves that problem 70 years later with an EVF -> EV1 needs IBIS to make the EVF suitable for critical focusing
It is just like those engineering projects where you keep adding to the solution, trying to solve the last problem caused by the previous addition that was solving a problem that was created by the previous addition...all the way back where effectively you're trying to solve a problem that was always outside the original specification.
The next iteration is:
... EV1 solves the focus issues with an EVF -> EV1 needs IBIS to make the EVF suitable for critical focusing -> IBIS needs to fit within a sensor stack and body that adheres to the original M body dimensions -> etc...
panos.v wrote:
Ok yes I get that. Does the current visoflex have software stabilisation? (not sure, asking, I've only used the crappy old VF2).
Anyway...just as a fun argument here we are:
M was made for portable and fast focusing photography with modest aperture lenses (because that's all the could do at the time) -> high ISO was not availlable back in the day hence shutter speeds could be too low -> shutter speed issue solved with fast lenses -> fast lenses wide open need accurate focusing -> rangefinder is difficult to focus wide open accurately -> EV1 solves that problem 70 years later with an EVF -> EV1 needs IBIS to make the EVF suitable for critical focusing
It is just like those engineering projects where you keep adding to the solution, trying to solve the last problem caused by the previous addition that was solving a problem that was created by the previous addition...all the way back where effectively you're trying to solve a problem that was always outside the original specification.
The next iteration is:
... EV1 solves the focus issues with an EVF -> EV1 needs IBIS to make the EVF suitable for critical focusing -> IBIS needs to fit within a sensor stack and body that adheres to the original M body dimensions -> etc... ...Show more →
And the Campagnolo eventually morphs into a Vespa.
RustyBug wrote:
It just raised the question for so many other "complainers" that I have observed, where they shoot M's and now decry the lack of IBIS.
Lack of IBIS does not prevent focusing with a rangefinder. But with an EVF, an 90mm or more, IBIS is very useful when using the zoom to focus. I believe it has been said above.
Also, we accept a lot from the rangefinder M because it is unique on the market. The EV1 is not.
pmeheut wrote:
Also, we accept a lot from the rangefinder M because it is unique on the market. The EV1 is not.
Which is why folks modify a Sony > Kolari ... because there are so many other EV1's out there.
I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of EV options, because there are. But, that's removing the fundamental base aspect of the M from the equation. If folks want an M, then they want an M. If folks just want SOME camera, with an EVF ... a zillion options exist.
Imo, there's more to what makes an M, an M, than the rangefinder alone. Yet, some folks think that the only thing that makes an M, differentiated from the available market offerings is the rangefinder. In that regard, folks should be looking at non-M options, since there are "so many other" options out there that tick the EV box.
It might sound pedantic, but the salient question is this:
Do you want an M, with an EVF?
vs.
Do you want SOME camera with an EVF?
Which ultimately begs the question that comes around to our decisions for which glass are we shooting / why are we choosing to shoot said glass.
I'd suggest that for folks who are really dissatisfied with the route that Leica is going here ... get a Sony and buy the E- versions of Voigtlander's manual focus lenses (or Nikon counterpart, etc.).
I mean, heck if you're already vested in Leica M glass ... sell it, replace it with E- glass and pocket a mint divesting from Leica to Sony, moving away from M to E-. What, you want to keep your M glass because of XYZ? Hmmm?
To the point that we have carried in certain historic perspectives ... Voigtlander's (et al) recent offerings liberate folks from the M mount altogether if they so choose.
No longer are folks beholden to the M mount for the tactile, manual focusing experience that the M lenses have retained for generations. But, for folks who prefer M mount glass (vs. E-, etc.) mount glass on an M mount body, then it's either the M or adaptation, and the caveats that come with adaptation ... i.e. larger body in the SL, optical IQ degradation in the Sony, or modifying with the Kolari, etc.
LBJ2 wrote:
While we wait in the US market, if anyone is interested, photos are popping up in the "Leica M EV1" Facebook Group ( currently 999 members)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/leicamev1
Well, what is supposed to differentiate the images from the EV1 from those from the M11? Perhaps that the Leica look (subject exactly in the center of the image) is now often missing?
rationale that I don't get from some folks regarding M's and the deal breaker the lack of IBIS presents for them. That combination typically makes me think ... go get an Olympus and shoot m43 if you want small with great IBIS. Or, use the (larger) SL body with M glass, if you still want to use the M glass. Kind of a pick your poison thing. The engineering requirements for IBIS hardware require real estate ... so, either get a smaller sensor that packs into a smaller body, or get a larger body that allows space for larger IBIS movement mechanism's. I've never expected an M body the size of the M10 / M11 to have IBIS. I've long stated that I think the M240 body would support the necessary real estate for IBIS ... and Leica's gonna be "picky" about such an implementation into an M ... but, I digress. 
