Fred Miranda wrote:
Yep. I think the first sign will be seeing an SL3 series firmware update address this...or waiting all the way for the SL4. In other words, if Leica figures focus magnification and peaking are already "good enough", it's going to be a very long wait (if it happens at all). Meantime I will continue enjoying the Zf mainly for this feature alone!
Perhaps on the SL4, but only for electronically coupled SL-lenses then.
For M-lenses I am pretty sure they would only add it if at the same time they can do it on the M-EV2 and M12 as well.
highdesertmesa wrote:
If only Nikon and Canon allowed the focus confirmation to happen for non-electronically connected lenses without requiring an electronically-connected adapter to trick the camera into thinking it's an electronically connected lens! It should be enough to enter the focal length as is already done to enable IBIS.
Manual lens data entry to allow IBIS is what I miss most on the Nikon ZR. With most cine glass being electronics free mechanical focus, there is really no excuse. The Z Voigtländer lenses provide focus confirmation and 3 axis IBIS; for 5-axis distance scale would need to be communicated to the body.
A 2nd generation EV1 could advantageously use the RF cam to provide distance readout for IBIS. But as there is no way of predicting how long it will take Leica to get to a shutterless, IBIS equipped M body, the EV1 seemed to provide reasonable value proposition to me at the beginning of 2026. The magnified focus view, without any other assists, on the ZR and EV1 seem equally functional. Things will get very interesting if Nikon can pull out a ZS rangefinder style EVF variant of the ZR, and remove their deliberate dumb lens software cripple that blocks focus confirmation and IBIS.
SlowDriver wrote:
The next logical question then, why does my now almost 8-year-old Canon EOS R have focus confirmation whereas the latest Leica SL3-P does not?
Your last point does not jive with latest comments. The SL line does give a green indication when focus point is locked on.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yep. I think the first sign will be seeing an SL3 series firmware update address this...or waiting all the way for the SL4. In other words, if Leica figures focus magnification and peaking are already "good enough", it's going to be a very long wait (if it happens at all). Meantime I will continue enjoying the Zf mainly for this feature alone!
Interesting, thanks, Fred, sir. Just as well that I recently decided to disregard researching an SL purchase.
I could never warm-up to the ZF. Handled several; in-store demonstrators, and a friend’s gripped ZF. Then, that same friend, in his role as a camera store store employee, put a Nikon ZR into my hands. Planets aligned. Angels sang. Who needs an EVF, anyway? Direct from OVF to 4” articulating LCD. I o’er-leaped the EVF! 🙂
Nielk Mike wrote:
The price for the M series is high - and I always justified it because of the rangefinder OVF. The M-EV is basically no different from the Q - but comes without a lens. What justifies the price?
You’re asking about Leica if the price is justified?
That’s looking at it backwards. It’s only justified because people are willing to pay those prices, not by what the product costs to produce.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
focus peaking sucks and is really only reliable if focusing with the lens wide open.
focus confirmation requires the camera to calculate distance based on data from the lens. manual lenses have no way of communicating this data to the camera. So no can do the little green box on SLx , or EV1 with existing hardware. Another reason the EV1 is NOT WORTH the price.
the zf a beautiful 1900.00 camera handles manual focus differently because of of the following.
the expeed 7 subject recognition which function differently depending on whether the lens has electronic contacts. And guess what, those cheap adapters are chipped which send data to the camera keeping the pd af system active. To put it simply, Nikon and other manufacturers are way ahead of Leica here. And the EV1 has no salvation unless it gets pd capabilities and some nikon engineers working for Leica...Show more →
If focus confirmation requires distance data from the lens, how is it you can trick a Nikon/Canon into accurate focus confirmation for dumb manual focus lenses by using an electronically connected adapter? I don’t think it’s required since said adapters only transmit focal length back to the camera.
If you want focus confirmation while using a AF lens in manual focus, I wouldn’t be buying a Leica. I’d be buying an X2D/X2D2 with the focus clutch lenses. A super manual focus experience with native lenses.
Personally I find between the punch in focus and the *shimmer* you get with some objects that I don’t have any real issues manually focusing on an SL3 or EV-1. Sure I’d like the AF confirmation of the Zf but I’m not into low resolution cameras generally. And the last thing I need is another camera system.
flash wrote:
If you want focus confirmation while using a AF lens in manual focus, I wouldn’t be buying a Leica. I’d be buying an X2D/X2D2 with the focus clutch lenses. A super manual focus experience with native lenses.
Personally I find between the punch in focus and the *shimmer* you get with some objects that I don’t have any real issues manually focusing on an SL3 or EV-1. Sure I’d like the AF confirmation of the Zf but I’m not into low resolution cameras generally. And the last thing I need is another camera system.
Gordon
Additionally, the green confirmation box has the same drawbacks as autofocus, that being your intended point of focus isn’t always what the camera thinks it should be (due to af box size versus area of contrast — eyelashes versus eyeballs, etc.). Even with super accurate focus confirmation, the subject only has to move a few millimeters to throw off focus at wide apertures. Not saying it’s not a great feature, but it’s not going to beat using an AF lens that allows snapping the shot at the instant focus is achieved.
The myth that focus confirmation needs distance from the lens is not quite true.
On-sensor PDAF doesn't need the lens to report how far you turned the helicoid. It just compares two views of the same point on the sensor and asks if they're lined up. When the phase difference hits zero, that spot is in focus...chip or no chip. Peaking is even simpler: it just paints contrast edges on the live image.
What does need electronics on a Zf is the green-box UI. A dumb adapter still gets subject boxes/recognition. They don't turn green unless the body thinks a CPU lens is attached. That's a firmware gate.
Chipped M-Z adapters allow for the green box to work (since the firmware requires it). They also feed FL for IBIS. However that IBIS part doesn't apply to the M11 or M EV1 since Leica M bodies don't offer IBIS and therefore don’t need FL for stabilization.
I believe Leica didn't include green-box PDAF confirmation for the M EV1 for the obvious reason: Its 60MP sensor does not have on-sensor PDAF pixels, since they use a different 60MP variant from the Q3/SL3.
If Leica puts the Q3/SL3 hybrid PDAF sensor in a future M EV2 or M12, a native green-box confirm for fully mechanical M glass is a software choice, not a physics problem.
What justifies the price of the EV-1 M? Nothing. Because Leica "can".
More interesting is to ask why Leica did not initially set the price similar to a Leica Q. This also answers the original question about justification - the price is set high enough to avoid in house competition with both the Q- and the SL-series. I am convinced that this is the case especially when manufacturing of the EV-1 should be much lower than a rangefinder based M camera with more mechanical parts. With a high price tag for an EVF-based camera, Leica decided rather to compromise on the amount of new users within the M-system - for example such, who would jump ship from the fixed-lens Q-system towards EV-1 M at similar price. Similar story with the SL - this series is plagued with lower than expected sales since introduction - very different than the Q-series which might be the best selling Leica Camera series now - so Leica didn't want to risk losing even few SL series to the EV-1 M. Especially those who use the SL series always with adapted M lenses since no other option was available in the Leica environment before the EV-1 M came out - now the EV-1 M price tag is much too high in comparison to switch.
Leica was more afraid of in-house competition than getting more new customers for the EV-1 M series is my interpretation in a nutshell. This behavior is in line with Leica's strategy since the M10 and SL releases where video was left out of M cameras and only found in the SL series. Also seen by removing more affordable f/2.4 and f/2.4 Summarit lines biting into Summicron f/2.0 lens sales. Leica's first priority is to make each of their camera (and lens) lines unique and separate enough from other lines with negligible overlap if possible.
Being afraid of outselling your fixed lens camera and dissuading possible Leica lens buyers has got to be one of the most braindead marketing strategies since Canon's 5D line if that's true.
There's a reason every other brand has pretty affordable bodies and expensive lenses...lenses are the profit drivers.
RoamingScott wrote:
Being afraid of outselling your fixed lens camera and dissuading possible Leica lens buyers has got to be one of the most braindead marketing strategies since Canon's 5D line if that's true.
There's a reason every other brand has pretty affordable bodies and expensive lenses...lenses are the profit drivers.
In Leica terms, this in-house competition "trauma" for Leica started with the Leica CL film camera which quickly outsold for much lower price any M camera on the market. Leica suffered significant losses with introduction of this affordable film camera. It sticks to this day as we can see.
RoamingScott wrote:
Being afraid of outselling your fixed lens camera and dissuading possible Leica lens buyers has got to be one of the most braindead marketing strategies since Canon's 5D line if that's true.
There's a reason every other brand has pretty affordable bodies and expensive lenses...lenses are the profit drivers.
It’s crazy that neither Sigma nor Panasonic have made a rangefinder-style EVF M body. One could almost assume there is an unspoken non-compete regarding M mount bodies in order for them to be part of the L-mount alliance.
highdesertmesa wrote:
It’s crazy that neither Sigma nor Panasonic have made a rangefinder-style EVF M body. One could almost assume there is an unspoken non-compete regarding M mount bodies in order for them to be part of the L-mount alliance.
I'm not surprised by Sigma/Panny for that exact reason, but...DJI? We need a Chinese stakeholder going for blood and cutting the legs out from Leica to bring them back to earth. Where are the modern-day Bessas?
RoamingScott wrote:
Where are the modern-day Bessas?
I think that the 6 bit encoding may be a reason: Leica has patents and without supporting it, building such a camera makes less sense.
Also, I'm not sure if Bessa made a lot of money.
And if you are building a rangefinder, it is hard to compete with Leica. If not, what kind of focusing on a camera where lenses are no preset aperture?
BTW, I'm just guessing and throwing ideas, I have no insight.
pmeheut wrote:
I think that the 6 bit encoding may be a reason: Leica has patents and without supporting it, building such a camera makes less sense.
Also, I'm not sure if Bessa made a lot of money.
And if you are building a rangefinder, it is hard to compete with Leica. If not, what kind of focusing on a camera where lenses are no preset aperture?
BTW, I'm just guessing and throwing ideas, I have no insight.
Why do you need 6 bit encoding when you can simply have a menu in the camera to set up your lenses manually?
RoamingScott wrote:
Why do you need 6 bit encoding when you can simply have a menu in the camera to set up your lenses manually?
You do not need it indeed. This is just less convenient making it harder to sell such a camera in a competitive market.
