flash wrote:
Fujifilm has patents on the dual finder. And really, it’s only OK quality. Lower resolution, low magnification and the EVF part is quite poor for focusing manually. Even the larger XPro cameras don’t wow most people with their finder quality. The PiP tech is great but really not good enough yet. I don’t think anything below 5MP is good enough.
I’m happy with the EVF only route. The M11 still allows the Visoflex if you want both. With the limitations of that approach. They’ll need to do some serious battery management tricks to get a more powerful processor and EVF in the M body.
Cries from the A7Cii viewfinder resolution. Been doing okay with it with CV lenses but more would be better certainly.
I'm happy with the x100vi's EVF but I don't manually focus that. And if there's a patent what can you do.
Perhaps a focus on smaller size/ibis then so you get a bit more for the sacrifice...going a bit harder on the tech focus for ditching traditional. Doesn't need every bell and whistle.
Understandably R&D is going to be different between them and the others though.
I'm happy for the folks with a collection of lenses this helps out but as someone constantly eyeing the small sized vm lenses, and wanting a smaller body than the a7cii, without a smaller size/ibis it's not enough to get me to pull the trigger.
No attachment to the brand, it's extra risk when out and about - just want compact form with high quality and small 28+50 lenses without additional hassle.
soarfm wrote:
I can’t see what an M EV-1 offers that I don’t already have with an M11 and visoflex. And my visoflex flips up allowing me to focus with the camera held low.
As much as I like the visoflex, I do not and would not want to use it as the primary way of focusing. Over 50 or when using a Noctilux wide open the visoflex (or an EVF) works great. From 28-50, rangefinder all the way.
I have the Visoflex but it adds bulk and is lower resolution than the EV-1 viewfinder. With the EV-1 I can now shoot my 18, 21, and WATE lenses with no compromise and without the bulky Visoflex on top. And getter better focusing with my fast lenses and the 135 APO. A win for me.
My plans if I still want one is to wait until they sell for $4k on the used market. In the meantime I love using my M11's + Viso2 especially in the 90 degree up mode.
My plan is to never buy this camera. I really don't get what Leica was thinking, no offense to those who like it.
That said, I could definitely see myself considering a much smaller SL camera in the future, something not much bigger than the Sony A7CR. Basically a Leica CL full frame.
I don't believe Leica will make one, but it's something I'd consider for sure.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My plan is to never buy this camera. I really don't get what Leica was thinking, no offense to those who like it.
That said, I could definitely see myself considering a much smaller SL camera in the future, something not much bigger than the Sony A7CR. Basically a Leica CL full frame.
I don't believe Leica will make one, but it's something I'd consider for sure.
My belief is they were thinking the following:
1) There are a lot of people with plenty of buying power that have never used an RF but have used an EVF given that has been the dominant framing technology for the past 15-20+ years now. If you project the addressable market, there are a lot more customers for an EVF camera than there are for an RF camera.
2) Instead of essentially forcing those people to learn how to use an RF to become customers (a high barrier to entry for many people), they believe an EVF basically removes all barrier to entry (once again, for people with plenty of buying power).
3) If those people have tried the Q series (the gateway drug of Leica), the M EV1 is almost a lateral move in terms of accessibility (outside of manual focus, but when I had a Q2, I used manual focus a lot and it worked great on that camera).
4) People value small, portable, high quality camera systems, which makes the M system more attractive than the L-mount / SL system.
5) Existing customers are likely not the primary focus for Leica with this camera, but of those customers that have diminishing eyesight, they can easily switch to the M EV1 and continue using their existing lenses without needing to "jump ship" to another system.
6) From a manufacturing standpoint, given the M11 was designed with an in-body EVF in mind, this is a relatively low risk way to get an MVP model into the market and see how it performs without a huge amount of non-overlapping R&D effort.
These all make a lot of business sense to me, though I would still have hoped for some more innovation on the focusing / software side of things.
TheEyesHaveIt wrote:
My belief is they were thinking the following:
1) There are a lot of people with plenty of buying power that have never used an RF but have used an EVF given that has been the dominant framing technology for the past 15-20+ years now. If you project the addressable market, there are a lot more customers for an EVF camera than there are for an RF camera.
2) Instead of essentially forcing those people to learn how to use an RF to become customers (a high barrier to entry for many people), they believe an EVF basically removes all barrier to entry (once again, for people with plenty of buying power).
3) If those people have tried the Q series (the gateway drug of Leica), the M EV1 is almost a lateral move in terms of accessibility (outside of manual focus, but when I had a Q2, I used manual focus a lot and it worked great on that camera).
4) People value small, portable, high quality camera systems, which makes the M system more attractive than the L-mount / SL system.
5) Existing customers are likely not the primary focus for Leica with this camera, but of those customers that have diminishing eyesight, they can easily switch to the M EV1 and continue using their existing lenses without needing to "jump ship" to another system.
6) From a manufacturing standpoint, given the M11 was designed with an in-body EVF in mind, this is a relatively low risk way to get an MVP model into the market and see how it performs without a huge amount of non-overlapping R&D effort.
These all make a lot of business sense to me, though I would still have hoped for some more innovation on the focusing / software side of things....Show more →
My thoughts are purely personal, not about what makes the most business sense for Leica. That's their job, not ours. I'm just sharing what would fit my own needs.
For me, I would love to see a compact full-frame Leica...something smaller than the Q and closer in size to the discontinued CL. That's the kind of mirrorless camera that would get me shooting Leica outside of my rangefinder digital and film bodies.
I'm sure Leica knows what they're doing from a business perspective. I just hope one day their plans happen to line up with what I'm looking for. For now, I'm pretty happy with my A7CR Kolari setup for adapting M lenses and taking advantage of the EVF, IBIS, and AF adapter.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My plan is to never buy this camera. I really don't get what Leica was thinking, no offense to those who like it.
Yes - I believe this topic of pros and cons with the EV1 is so divided because it comes down to very subjective need and usage plus looking at existing possible alternatives. I would get the EV1 in a heartbeat if the price is right for me. There are situations where I prefer EVF over OVF and vice-versa.
That said, I could definitely see myself considering a much smaller SL camera in the future, something not much bigger than the Sony A7CR. Basically a Leica CL full frame.
Same what I said about the SL - too bulky for my preference and no need for AF-based L lenses. Wouldn't the Leica CL FF be the same or kind of the EV1 other that the CL had AF capability also? Personally, I am not interested to use my M lenses with AF.
Where I see for me the EV1 being a great fit is that it does not require need for any kind of adapter for M lenses - and LTM lenses can be adapted with the thin LTM/M adapter as they are used on any traditional M rangefinder camera - and that the FF sensor works (hopefully!) flawlessly with all or nearly all M lenses. This is the camera I was hoping for! The focus system I can also deal with - used M lenses for years adapted to my Sony A7R with peaking and magnification focus tools successfully. Just the camera's price tag....a sticker shock for me. In a couple of years then - first maybe upgrading to a M10-R instead but keeping also my M-E 240 which I really enjoy.
I only finally tried a rangefinder a year ago after many years of thinking TTL framing and focusing is a must. Fell in love with the rangefinder focusing experience, especially now being able to focus as easily when stopped down. With an EVF, focusing stopped down is very imprecise, so I end up having to open up a couple stops, focus, then close back down. Not interested in the EV1, as I have my Fujifilm + Voigtlander kit for when I want to use an EVF.
No idea how reliable the random sources that I've looked at are, but some claim that the Q series is their best seller. Makes sense to expand the product line and sales with the Q as a starting point.
The value proposition for the Q customer I don't get though. Once you add the price of a Leica lens to the EV1 you're looking at about £11k with the 28mm Cron vs £5.4k Q3 28mm 'Lux. That is a huge jump, unless you go with 3rd party lenses.
Maybe the key is in the name. It is the cheapest (new) digital M series. Did their marketing research conclude that they would substantially increase M sales if they figured how to drop the price by about 15% that would justify the investment, and make better profits than focusing on something else? Is the EVF a benefit for the intended buyers, and not a downgrade or niche as some of us perceive it?
TheEyesHaveIt wrote:
My belief is they were thinking the following:
1) There are a lot of people with plenty of buying power that have never used an RF but have used an EVF given that has been the dominant framing technology for the past 15-20+ years now. If you project the addressable market, there are a lot more customers for an EVF camera than there are for an RF camera.
2) Instead of essentially forcing those people to learn how to use an RF to become customers (a high barrier to entry for many people), they believe an EVF basically removes all barrier to entry (once again, for people with plenty of buying power).
3) If those people have tried the Q series (the gateway drug of Leica), the M EV1 is almost a lateral move in terms of accessibility (outside of manual focus, but when I had a Q2, I used manual focus a lot and it worked great on that camera).
4) People value small, portable, high quality camera systems, which makes the M system more attractive than the L-mount / SL system.
5) Existing customers are likely not the primary focus for Leica with this camera, but of those customers that have diminishing eyesight, they can easily switch to the M EV1 and continue using their existing lenses without needing to "jump ship" to another system.
6) From a manufacturing standpoint, given the M11 was designed with an in-body EVF in mind, this is a relatively low risk way to get an MVP model into the market and see how it performs without a huge amount of non-overlapping R&D effort.
These all make a lot of business sense to me, though I would still have hoped for some more innovation on the focusing / software side of things....Show more →
Leica's thinking on why they built this camera is simple. It is the result of constant requests from existing customers for such a camera. Leica even did a specific customer survey about it. Stephan Daniel also has said this to me personaly. Leica has been very open about it. We'll see how listening to customer request plays out.
Personally my preferece would be for the next generation of Leica M to have a super fast processor and sensor retaining 60mpx and DR, with IBIS. Yes I am greedy and want it all. This should result in instant boot time, useful electronic shutter, the ability to shoot at lower ISO for IQ boost, smooth and wonderful EV experience through a much improved Visoflex. Is that too much to ask for in a 10K camera?
I actually ended up deciding to get rid of Leica M completely. I don’t think they’re serious about ever giving us a state-of-the-art manual focus experience beyond what they’ve now introduced. All I really want is to use my M-mount lenses, because they’re the smallest high IQ FF lenses around. I can do that on many cameras.
The only thing I’ll miss is a good 28mm lens on a smallish camera (considering Sony is a no-no for me).
This ^ one is a very much a quid pro quo thing, imo.
By that, I mean that those cameras / sensors that have the most DR / IQ also have the slower readout speeds. Those cameras / sensors that have the fastest readout speeds have reduced DR / IQ by comparison (build / design choices).
For Leica's ethos of the M and its regard to the emphasis on IQ (in the small package), the balance of where they land the readout speed (on the slower end of things) isn't likely to be moved into a different paradigm to yield a more "useful" (assuming you mean faster) electronic shutter ... in exchange for a reduction in DR / IQ from the quid pro quo of things. My understanding is that the "flagship" M will always retain the high water mark goal(s), regarding IQ.
Plenty of other alternatives for quid pro quo that yields a faster performance (readout speed, etc.) ... especially, when one considers the ethos of the M is to be "more deliberate", rather than faster. That said, "I get it." for the want of the faster e-shutter ... I just don't see Leica going there, as it may be consider an antithetical quid pro quo for them.
Take a deeper study into the likes of all the Sony / Nikon variants (see link below) and you'll tend to notice the pattern in the relationship of faster readout speeds. Compare that with the M (et al). Granted, that for many folks, they draw the line on "acceptable" IQ to their needs at a lower bar than where Leica desires to land the M, and would readily trade the faster readout speed for the mild reductions in IQ / DR. However, that's not likely (imo) a concession that Leica will make with the M.
It's kinda like wanting a truck that rides like a limousine and handles like a sports car.
Getting a package that inherently retains a balance of such opposing attributes means that you can produce one, but it will necessitate giving something back to achieve it. Not sure that Leica will give much back in terms of trading out DR / IQ for electronic readout speed in the M. It's just not in their DNA for the M (imo).
RustyBug wrote:
This ^ one is a very much a quid pro quo thing, imo.
By that, I mean that those cameras / sensors that have the most DR / IQ also have the slower readout speeds. Those cameras / sensors that have the fastest readout speeds have reduced DR / IQ by comparison (build / design choices).
For Leica's ethos of the M and its regard to the emphasis on IQ (in the small package), the balance of where they land the readout speed (on the slower end of things) isn't likely to be moved into a different paradigm to yield a more "useful" (assuming you mean faster) electronic shutter ... in exchange for a reduction in DR / IQ from the quid pro quo of things. My understanding is that the "flagship" M will always retain the high water mark goal(s), regarding IQ.
Plenty of other alternatives for quid pro quo that yields a faster performance (readout speed, etc.) ... especially, when one considers the ethos of the M is to be "more deliberate", rather than faster. That said, "I get it." for the want of the faster e-shutter ... I just don't see Leica going there, as it may be consider an antithetical quid pro quo for them.
Take a deeper study into the likes of all the Sony / Nikon variants (see link below) and you'll tend to notice the pattern in the relationship of faster readout speeds. Compare that with the M (et al). Granted, that for many folks, they draw the line on "acceptable" IQ to their needs at a lower bar than where Leica desires to land the M, and would readily trade the faster readout speed for the mild reductions in IQ / DR. However, that's not likely (imo) a concession that Leica will make with the M.
It's kinda like wanting a truck that rides like a limousine and handles like a sports car.
Getting a package that inherently retains a balance of such opposing attributes means that you can produce one, but it will necessitate giving something back to achieve it. Not sure that Leica will give much back in terms of trading out DR / IQ for electronic readout speed in the M. It's just not in their DNA for the M (imo).
Yes, true for the current generations of Sony sensors which is what most manufactures are using. But Sony already has the technology to improve performance in both speed and IQ in it's new triple layer sensor for FF cameras. It will come, and I hope Leica takes advantage of it.
1bwana1 wrote:
Yes, true for the current generations of Sony sensors which is what most manufactures are using. But Sony already has the technology to improve performance in both speed and IQ in it's new triple layer sensor for FF cameras. It will come, and I hope Leica takes advantage of it.
RustyBug wrote:
By that, I mean that those cameras / sensors that have the most DR / IQ also have the slower readout speeds. Those cameras / sensors that have the fastest readout speeds have reduced DR / IQ by comparison (build / design choices).
For Leica's ethos of the M and its regard to the emphasis on IQ (in the small package), the balance of where they land the readout speed (on the slower end of things) isn't likely to be moved into a different paradigm to yield a more "useful" (assuming you mean faster) electronic shutter ... in exchange for a reduction in DR / IQ from the quid pro quo of things. My understanding is that the "flagship" M will always retain the high water mark goal(s), regarding IQ. ...Show more →
I don't agree there is a significant DR tradeoff by using a high performance sensor. Consider the very minimal DR differences between the vastly different performance characteristics of the sensors in the Sony a1/a1II and a7rIV/V.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall high DR being a big marketing push around the M series. I must be out of touch with Leica's M strategy because I was always under the impression that the M was a system geared towards stealthy hand held use in suboptimal conditions when decisive moment timing was a high priority. This kind of use case IMO would strongly benefit from a fast processor, a fast sensor and more than just 'usable' electronic shutter. Therefore (IMO) a small DR hit would be an acceptable tradeoff.
Some of my M frustration is that every digital iteration up to the present has continued to include considerable electronic performance tradeoffs. It was understandable in the early generations like the M8, M9 and M240. But at least with the current series, the technology to make the M low compromise, high speed and high performance, exists. Yet there appears to be little impetus by Leica to move the M in this direction.
In hindsight I can appreciate the low risk approach taken with the EV-1 to test the waters with this camera, even if I don't agree with it. But there is certainly a tradeoff with this 'safe' decision, in that it appears to have soured the attitude of a significant subset of M users on this board with the lost opportunity for Leica to really seize the potential of this direction for the M system.
Therefore, to return to the topic of this thread, I'm not overly interested in the EV-1 because of its slow sensor performance and lack of focus aids that leverage on-sensor PD, which IMO would be the only MF solution that would approach the speed of the traditional optical RF system. I'm in a wait and see situation for the M12, which will possibly hint at what the EV-2 will offer. Hopefully Leica will make some progress speeding up the electronic half of the M12, which in turn will trickle down to the EV-2. But I remain skeptical the EV-2 will be the EVF-based M camera *I* would like Leica to make.
If I was a suspicious person….. I would say that Leica deliberately dumbed down the EVF on the EV1 and already have the EV2 etc versions ready with what we were hoping for.
Those will be released once sales of the EV1 plateau or decline.
The purpose of the EV1 is to snag those impressed just by the fact that it is an M w a built in EVF.
rscheffler wrote:
Therefore, to return to the topic of this thread, I'm not overly interested in the EV-1 because of its slow sensor performance and lack of focus aids that leverage on-sensor PD, which IMO would be the only MF solution that would approach the speed of the traditional optical RF system. I'm in a wait and see situation for the M12, which will possibly hint at what the EV-2 will offer. Hopefully Leica will make some progress speeding up the electronic half of the M12, which in turn will trickle down to the EV-2. But I remain skeptical the EV-2 will be the EVF-based M camera *I* would like Leica to make. ...Show more →
As long as Leica does not repeat what Sony did when moving from the first generation of A7 mirrorless cameras to the second generation: adding more bulk to the camera with thicker handgrip etc etc. To this day I consider the first gen of A7 cameras the best ergonomically - smallest and most compact in size never seen in later generations which came. All the "wishes" for the EV-2 might enforce a bigger housing size - who knows. My focus remains on the EV-1 after its price has depreciated.
Desmolicious wrote:
If I was a suspicious person….. I would say that Leica deliberately dumbed down the EVF on the EV1 and already have the EV2 etc versions ready with what we were hoping for.
Those will be released once sales of the EV1 plateau or decline.
The purpose of the EV1 is to snag those impressed just by the fact that it is an M w a built in EVF.
Having worked in supply to the automobile industry, I can confirm that new materials are developed 3-5 years before they enter the market. I don't think this is too different from any other industry, camera industry included. Leica might not have the EV-2 prototype ready yet, but they likely are in the process of putting things together for this second generation.
Desmolicious wrote:
If I was a suspicious person….. I would say that Leica deliberately dumbed down the EVF on the EV1 and already have the EV2 etc versions ready with what we were hoping for.
Those will be released once sales of the EV1 plateau or decline.
The purpose of the EV1 is to snag those impressed just by the fact that it is an M w a built in EVF.
