The call for a parallel M camera with an electronic viewfinder replacing the traditional rangefinder is back in the news. Following the October meeting of the Leica Society International in Dublin, there is a real possibility that Leica would at least consider the model – a Leica M with EVF – if there is sufficient demand from users.
Many Leica users believe this addition to the range is no longer rangefinder heresy. Some complain that because of age-related eyesight problems, they can no longer focus accurately with the rangefinder and hanker after a camera that looks and feels the same as an M but has an electronic screen behind the viewfinder glass.
Others are attracted by the idea of a Leica M with EVF as a second body, particularly for lenses wider or longer than, say, 28mm and 75mm. For wider lenses, an external optical or electronic viewfinder is desirable if not absolutely essential. And the M frame lines for longer lenses tend to be too restrictive for some users.
There is a lot of sense there: An alternative body, but one that looks and feels just like an M, with identical controls. Technically, also, an M-mount camera with EVF has advantages. It needs no adaptor (as is the case with L-mount and other mirrorless cameras), thus saving weight and cost. For instance if you wish to use M-mount lenses on an L body , the official Leica M-L adaptor weighs 70g and costs a hefty £370. There are cheaper third-party versions, of course.
There is definitely a case to be made for such a camera and I believe it would sell in modest numbers. But is it really such a good idea? Would it sell in sufficient quantities to warrant the tooling and the additional production line?
Leica M with EVF: lessons from the M10-D?
These reservations are real. We have a perfect example from the recent past in the form of the lamented M10-D. I was a great supporter of the concept of a screenless M body and, after the original MD, the M10-based camera was near perfect for retro fans. It looked and felt just like a film Leica, but with several hundred exposures and no developing needed.
Sadly, after the fanfare of the introduction, the screenless M was not a viable commercial proposition. It was retired early in the M10’s lifecycle and I doubt that we will see another -D version. I would be delighted if an M11-D appeared, but the chances are virtually nil.
Strangely, the M10-D is now almost unobtainable. It sold out and it seems that used versions are being snapped up whenever they appear. I suspect owners are hanging on to their cameras because they will become something of a classic. Nevertheless, there remains a demand from those interested in the screenless concept.
The example of the M10-D is a good example of a niche product that appeared to have good consumer support but which eventually lacked viability in production and marketing.
We therefore have to ask whether an M body with an electronic viewfinder in place of the rangefinder is really such a good idea. Would it it be a repetition of the M-D and M10-D?
Closer view
Before we clamour for this new camera, we should examine the pros and cons because we need to be very sure of ourselves before pushing Leica into what could turn out to be a dead-end venture.
I am no longer as keen as I was, even a few months ago. We know that Stefan Daniel is also not particularly fond of the idea, largely because he believes that the M body should always represent the original pure rangefinder. I suspect that many others, whose knee-jerk reaction is to favour an M/EVF, might chicken out when faced with the prospect of a near-10k mirrorless camera.
But there are some keen proponents of the M/EVF, including arch Leica enthusiast Thorsten Overgaard. He looks forward to the synergy between the traditional M and companion camera equipped only with an EVF:
My personal view is that I would buy one with traditional rangefinder and one with electronic viewfinder, because both make sense. An electronic viewfinder allows for a preview of exposure and tonality, and it also helps see in the dark – and perhaps the greatest selling point would be that it makes focusing easier…. So yes, a Leica M with a built-in electronic viewfinder would be cool and would sell. And so would the version with traditional viewfinder, because they would exist side by side.
Thorsten Overgaard
Let’s look at the pros and cons of an M body without the rangefinder.
Pros
- Easier focusing for users with eyesight problems, without the need for an external viewfinder.
- Appeal to fans of M-mount glass who do not like rangefinder focus.
- Only mirrorless camera with M Mount (no adaptors, better lens compatibility, lower weight)
- The Visoflex 2 is a bulky and relatively ugly solution
- Alternative body to supplement a rangefinder, better for wide/long lenses, familiar controls, same feel and weight
- An EVF built in is aesthetically pleasing and retains the purity of the M form.
- The faint hope that the new camera would be cheaper than the rangefinder
- A flash unit can be attached without removing the Visoflex 2 [added by MrQuimper, see comments]
Cons
- An M without a rangefinder loses its purpose and risks the purity of the Messsucher concept which has existed for 70 years.
- The Visoflex 2 viewfinder currently offers a desirable hybrid system with the advantage of a tilting head (to appeal to older users with both eyesight and knee problems!)
- The Visoflex 2 costs £600, less than one-tenth of the proposed M/EVF and it can be detached when not needed.
- In theory, improved future Visoflex viewfinders can be used on older cameras whereas the viewfinder in the proposed M/EVF would be fixed for all time.
Finally, we have to return to the question of commercial viability which transcends owners’ preferences. If it doesn’t sell, it will fail.
Most buyers would want the new camera as a supplement to their rangefinder body, not as a replacement, therefore cost is likely to be the most significant issue, particularly when the same functionality can be achieved in hybrid form using the Visoflex 2. There is no guarantee that this limited-production camera would be any cheaper than the current M11. In fact, if the M10-D is anything to go by, it could be even more expensive.
The Leica M with EVF is a good idea at first thought. But is the demand really there? Furthermore, is it viable?
I would be interested in your views, and I am sure they will be read with interest in Wetzlar. Please discuss this in the comments section below.
Want to contribute an article to Macfilos? It’s easy. Just click the “Write for Us” button. We’ll help with the writing and guide you through the process.
You guys should take a look at http://pixii.fr They have been around for a few years making an M mount aps-c rangefinder digital camera with no rear screen and are now selling a full-frame camera. BTW the camera is upgradeable, so when a new sensor, or rangefinder is available just send your camera back to them.
Dear Paul, we have been on that for years if course. Read our review by Jorge-Peter Rau which is one of the most-read articles on the Pixii…
You guys should take a look at http://pixii.fr They are a tiny French camera company and have been around for a few years making an M mount aps-c rangefinder digital camera with no rear screen and are now selling a full-frame version. BTW the camera is upgradeable, so when a new sensor, or rangefinder is available you just send your camera back to them. It can also shoot monochrome dng’s in a very interesting way.
An M with a built in EVF makes great sense especially for focusing in general and especially for lenses outside of the frame lines. After you use an SL and SL2, with a great EVF, an M with built in EVF is a no brainer. Further, worldwide total sales of traditional cameras are declining. Only phone cameras are growing. Leica’s frantic and fanatical marketing can only go so far in propping up sales and profits. As it is, Leica unit sales numbers barely are noticed in the total market. An M with built in EVF will garner a small but financially able to purchase portion of an ever declining market for “traditional” cameras.
Well Stuart
Traditional camera sales are no longer declining, and Leica are doing better and better every year, there is no question of propping up sales and profits, the problem is keeping up with demand.
all the best
Cost is not the issue. We’re basically talking about a Leica Q without a lens so it could be considerably cheaper than an M. That’s the problem though. The M would die.
And that would mean a camera without a shutter and without OIS…
Leica M should have an EVF and no LCD.
I so want a Leica M with no rangefinder and a built in EVF. I do, I want it bad, I want it now. I love the M because its small, yes other reasons apply but let’s settle on small. I had an SL too big , too heavy, and you need a wheel barrow to carry those SL autofocus lenses. but the SL taught me that it’s wonderful built in EVF was just the best way to focus fast or long Leica M lenses, and that my Nocitlux could be sharp more often than not if focused though an EVF. Once I would have said “pah my Leica padawan unpracticed with the rangefinder you are”. I am Rangefinder practiced up the wazoo, got the badge , and have owned every model of M up to the M11, including the M1 that has no rangefinder – great for wides – , so don’t give me a range finder purity argument. An EVF only M, should be cheaper to build than a rangefinder M. None of those twiddly delicate mechanical interconnections. An SL is a Leica without a rangefinder and costs less than an M. A Leica Q is Leica with out a rangefinder with a 28mm lens TIG welded to the front, and it still costs less than a new Leica M body. An EVF only Leica M would to all intents be a Q with interchangeable lenses. As my ageing eyes ponder coinciding that yellowish patch, I wish for something more helpful in the focusing department. Yes I have the EVFs, they help, but the more I use the EVF the less I need the rangefinder. I suspect the problem for Leica is that an EVF only M would cannibalise traditional M sales,. A small light Leica camera with an SL quality viewfinder that can use my M lenses would be bliss. Shock horror I don’t buy Leica Ms for the rangefinder, I buy them as they are the best platform for my favourite M lenses………Enought with this debate , Leica, let me vote, with an order for a rangefinderless M ,……..if you have read thus far thank you for indulging my personal and subjective opinion.
Adam, I think you covered the pros and cons in your comment. However, purely on the subject of cost, I would be surprised if an M with EVF (in place of the rangefinder) would be much cheaper. I don’t have any concrete information on the cost of the rangefinder, but I do remember reading some years ago that the rangefinder itself represents about €1,000 of the total cost of an M. It’s probably more now, and much of this cost must relate to the manual work involved. On the face of things, you could remove the rangefinder (say, minus €1k) and add an EVF (plus €250, say) and end up with a net reduction of €750. But I bet this would all be lost in the final adjustments. An M with EVF might actually cost more.
However, if we assume the rangefinder and the associated mechanism do cost about 1/8th of the total cost of an M, the M still sells at a massive premium compared with the SL2 and Q3, which you mention. Indeed, the Q3 seems to offer tremendous value for money, considering the inclusion of such a fine lens. I don’t think anyone is arguing that the Summilux on the Q3 is as good as a 28 mm Summilux-M (around €6,000 without a camera), but it is certainly good enough for its intended purpose.
If you do compare the M11+28 Summilux (around €13,000) with the Q3, including 28 f/1.7, at €5,500, it is difficult to understand the costing logic. But then, the M has built-in pedigree and stardust compared with the upstart Q.
I would be interested to read other viewers’ comments on this costing issue.
I never owned Leica but I would sell all my gear for M/EVF and a few M lenses (in 21-90 range) for landscape photography. M RF limits it.
Thanks for your contribution. You may be interested in a recent article on this very subject of the rangefinder for landscape, with some stunning examples…
https://www.macfilos.com/2023/06/09/leica-m-in-the-wilderness-does-the-rangefinder-have-a-place-in-the-great-outdoors/
If the M get an EVF then I’m not sure what the difference to a Fuji XPro would be. The whole point of a M is for us to slow down and think before we press the shutter button.
Thanks Mike, I will give you a call either before or after Christmas. I don’t mind wearing glasses. I’ve already had an operation for a detached retina and a cataract in my left eye, plus a few repair jobs. My right eye is my focus and frame eye. Using a Leica M with framelines is now now very natural to me, particularly with 35mm and 50mm lenses. My most commonly used lenses today are a 35mm Summicron and a 50mm Summilux. I have a 28mm Summicron which I rarely use these days. I also have a WATE plus Frankenfinder. For car shows I use the 24mm Elmar, with the Frankenfinder, which I much prefer to any EVF. I also use LTMs and I have a range of accessory viewfinders to go with them.
As you can see, I subject my photography eyes to quite a bit of ‘torture’.
William
I would buy an EVF M in a nanosecond. My aging eyes are not so good with the optical rangefinder, and an EVF would help with that. But I also think the “rangefinder experience” is of limited use: Yes, you can see outside the image area but that works well only for 50mm lenses, There is little outsiode the frame at 35mm and just about none at 28mm. For longer lenses the image patch is for me too small. And a huge advantage of the EVF is exposure on the fly. Setting the camera to manual and looking though the EVF you can be very precise about what you are exposing for. In my view running a EVF M in manual moide is no less “pure” than operating a rangefinder M in auto mode.
With you 100%, Alan, but I will await the results of my cataract op in January before deciding on rangefinder v EVF. For me, nothing beats the accuracy of a well tuned rangefinder, not AF or an SLR ground glass screen. If I have to, I would consider an EVF alternative, although I do like being able to see outside the lens frame. For me, it is a great aid to composition. A lot of older photographers who were used to rangefinder style cameras tried the Fuji X-Pro series which had its own range of very nice small AF optics, but anything involving manual focus, using say an M lens via an adapter, was less than fully satisfactory. Leica would need to do better than that with an EVFM or E or whatever they might call it, but, at least, the company knows where to start with developing this.
William
William, I never had problems with the rangefinder before my cataract operation and I continue to enjoy (and prefer) split-image focus. But there is one important consideration if the cataract surgery removes the need for glasses, as it did in my case. Using the rangefinder without glasses is much more enjoyable and I feel that I can see the whole frame with a 28mm lens which wasn’t the case before. As I said in the article, while I do have the Visoflex I use it only occasionally and generally prefer to use the rangefinder.
Hi William
The Fujifilm ‘hybrid’ rangefinder isn’t actually a rangefinder at all (as you know), and whilst Leica have done a lot of work over the last few years on a proper hybrid they have come to the conclusion that it would be the worst of both worlds – ie a poor rangefinder and a poor EVF (Stefan Daniel was also saying this in Dublin).
I think if Leica are to do an EVF in an M camera then it will be using the existing EVF from the Visoflex 2 (and the Q) instead of a rangefinder. So it would work just like using the Visoflex (except through the rangefinder window). They wouldn’t even have to make any significant firmware changes.
I’m pretty sure that it’s nothing to do with ‘start with developing’ but more deciding whether to do it or not!
All the very best
To Mike: I haven’t discussed that aspect with my eye surgeon, but he says that he is going to balance my right and left eyes and, as I use glasses with left eye now, I assume that I will still need glasses after the operation. That problem with not being able to see the full screen affects me with all sorts of cameras. I have a large format camera project which got stalled by Covid and which I intend to resume next year. The normal thing that large format photographers do when they dive under the black cloth is that they use a loupe to view the rear screen. I got a contraption from Ffordes which has a rubberised hood with a loupe at the top which works very well. For Leicas, I can pretty well see the whole screen at 28mm, but I have no fear of cropping, unlike HCB. My most commonly used lens is a 35mm Summicron and I can see well outside the frames when shooting with that or any other 35mm lens. I often recompose and it works.
To Jono: The so-called rangefinder on the X-Pros is not very good, but you can magnify and use EVF mode just like with the Leica EVFs, which I find to be good rather than outstanding. What I meant by my somewhat awkward expression was that I would expect that Leica would go some extra distance and produce a really outstanding EVF that beats everything else in the market by a wide margin. I won’t go into focus peaking here, but I always like to know the exact focus point (as in ‘old money’) when using either an OVF or EVF. I was sitting beside Stefan when he was speaking in Dublin and I heard what he said, but I would hope that Leica would aim for more when building in an EVF.
William
William, we should have a chat about the cataract operation and see if my experience can be of help in making decisions. Obviously there are many considerations and I only know what decisions I faced and the outcome achieved.
Okay – if we assume (which I think we can) that if the camera comes it would be an M11 body with the rangefinder replaced by the current Visoflex 2 panel and EVF – ie it’s just an engineering and not an electronics development, then the interesting thing is the demographic – which I think is quite big:
I think there are 3 distinct groups of people who would buy this camera
Old M photographers with failing sight
There are lots and lots of people in this category, who have shot with M cameras for years or even decades, who are probably retired with disposable income and who find shooting with a rangefinder difficult. It’s pretty clear in the forum discussions that there are a lot of these people who would definitely buy an M with an EVF (not nearly so clear who would buy a small L mount camera)
Serious M photographers with Fast Lenses
This group would buy an EVF M As Well As a rangefinder M – I’m certainly in this group, shooting wide open with a rangefinder where the shot really matters (a wedding for example) is a dangerous business, to be able to have one body with an EVF and another with a rangefinder is a perfect coupling – especially if the two cameras work exactly the same in all other ways
New Young Leica Users
I think this is the biggest potential market – especially in the Far East, where a Leica M is a real status symbol and infinitely trendy . . . but go into a shop and try one and the rangefinder is hard to use, but an EVF is much more approachable. I know several young people who have bought an M and then given up quite quickly because of the difficulty of focusing.
All the best
The question is whether the EVF would be WYSIWYG i.e it shows you full frame what a 35mm lens would show you, and when you changed to a 50mm lens it would only show you only full frame. So no frame lines as you would not need them.
It would have to be WYSIWYG – just like the Visoflex 2 – anything else would require electronic information from the lens (like it does in the Q2) but M lenses don’t have that.
So, definitely no framelines as the information to make them accurate would not be there with M lenses
The Leica M might be a status symbol and infinitely trendy but when it has an EVF you would not be able to call it an M, would you? That would be blasphemy to most Leica diehards…
Well. The M10 and M11 no longer say M anywhere visible, so it stands to reason that it’s the look rather than the writing which is infinitely trendy.
So if you make an EVF based camera that looks the same you can call it the E if you like – that might even mollify some of the Leica diehards
The M is hip because it is being pushed by a fair amount of YouTubers. It remains to be seen whether they would do the same with an M with EVF. Perhaps, perhaps not, not sure.
i don’t know what age you are, but you should check out Miles Davis in a cream suit and wearing shades while toting an M3 at the Newport Jazz Festival in 1958 before you attribute anything to YouTubers. Of course, the M3 was not designed to be ‘hip’, it was designed to take photographs with. To finish the Miles Davis story, he did admit in an interview that he never changed the speed and aperture settings put in by the store clerk from whom he had purchased the camera. I’ve never seen any photos taken by Miles. Film star Yul Brynner took nice photos with an M3, though.
Cameras which are dependent on electronics and software may not last as long as cameras, like the M3, which are purely mechanical.
William
Hi William, I am not overlooking the legacy of the M, nor the fact that it is an excellent camera, my comment was within the context of Jono saying that the M is trendy, mainly with a younger Asian crowd, and the fact that the M6 is hip or trendy with that demographic has very little to do with Miles Davis or with the fact that iconic pictures were taken with it but more with the hyping on YouTube and the rest of the Internet. This is true not only for the M but also for other cameras like the Mamiya 7, Hasselblad Xpan, Contax 645, Contax T3, etc etc.
Thanks for that William
The images are easy enough to find! You’re right, what could be more hip!
I reiterate my point, as long as a Leica E11 looks just like a Leica M11 it doesn’t matter much what it’s called!
I had to smile at your ‘retired with disposable income’. I disposed of quite a bit of income when I bought an M240 and two Leica lenses.
That said, you’re very likely right. I recently came back from Vancouver, using the Summicron 50 and the EVF on a Fuji X-E3. About half the photos were slightly out of focus. Even on an M240, the Visoflex is far better.
I’ve read that the EVF on the SL2 is excellent. With that EVF and Leica glass in front of it — even I might dispose of more income!
Replacing the rangefinder mechanism with an EVF and making no other major changes to an M camera should be relatively straightforward from an engineering view point. However, it would have a fairly limited target audience being people who might either already own some M mount lenses, or an M mount camera. I doubt you’ll entice many brand new customers.
A “rangefinder style” body in L mount would have the flexibility of accepting L or M mount lenses, and could attract those with Panasonic or Sigma L mount lenses, TL lenses, M mount lenses etc. It could also entice Fujifilm X-Pro users to switch.
Hi Tom
I think there is a big demographic for such a camera (as your first paragraph)
but not one with an L mount – which would become just another AF also ran!
“Leica M with EVF: Do we really need this camera?” at least some of us would like to have it, BUT whatever you do please do not call it some sort of M to not to aggravate the rangefinder fans of M.
In true Leica fashion i see Leica giving this a try to then immediately kill it… The above-mentioned M-D indeed comes to mind, the experiment with video on the M240 as well… Personally I believe the need for a smaller and lighter (and preferably rangefinder-styled) L-mount body is much higher than the need for an M with EVF (especially now the Leica CL has been sacrificed to the bean counting Leica Gods…) but what do I know?
It’s not about your comment, Le Chef. Just I don’t see M lenses physically fitting very well in an evf digital. Of course much easier to use an electronic mount and an adapter. Here the point is starting from the beginning again: which one, L mount?, what other else?, so back to CL or SL
Leica doesn’t need to add another mount to its system(s). More complication, more skus and more cost. At some point you have to confirm commitment to the L-mount and take that decision out of the variables for future market/product planning.
Yes, but CL is discontinued, and an eventual full frame CL would use the bulky SL lenses. And SL is already done.
There are rumors that Leica is about to release a new line-up of smaller L-mount lenses next year. I hope that gets confirmed.
I also read that somewhere, but I have been told so many times that the size and weight of Leica’s L lenses is necessary for the outstanding performance. So smaller, assuming a reasonably fast f/2 or f/2.8 can be achieved only at the cost of reducing quality. But smaller lenses will be welcome. I wonder if they will be tempted to rebadge Sigma lenses as they did with the 24-70 zoom. We are fortunate to have such a wide choice of L lenses; what we lack is a smaller camera to use with some of the smaller optics. I’m looking forward to seeing the new Panasonic S5 II with its new autofocus system borrowed from DJI. That could attract Leica fans who want a smaller but high-quality body.
Sony makes very high quality G Master lenses nowadays that are lighter and smaller than SL lenses, 1/3 of the price and with much better autofocus… The problem with Sony is the uninspiring bodies… If Leica wants to stay relevant in mirrorless they need both a smaller body and smaller lenses, plus better autofocus and (although I personally could not care less) a flippy screen…
Fitting an M lens in an evf camera without and adapter means that the part of the lens done for moving the rangefinder lever mechanism goes just under the bayonet inside the camera. That makes it not only useless, but perhaps obtrusive.
In other words, why making a camera for lenses though, designed and made for a different camera.
I had written “with an adaptor”…
One late night noodled thought on this:
Would Leica allow a LUMIX S5 Mk II to have a hybrid EVF/Rangefinder-style focusing system like the Fuji system?
The camera would be FF, (pixel binning 60MP?) L-mount but also take M lenses with the adaptor.
It could also with a stretch of imagination be two cameras: the LUMIX version (without hybrid) focusing on vloggers and a Leica version with hybrid focusing on photographers. Differences in terms of top plate, LCD screen and UI.
Would the potential volume offset the complication?
Could this be S5-2 and SL3?
My first thought is this would be as niche as the D series, and probably go the same way in terms of commercial viability.
After all I suspect an APSC X replacement would be a success, more so when all other camera manufacturers are bringing new APSC models to the fore, alongside Fuji restricting new sales of the X100 series camera as demand has outstripped supply. But we know this is a dead in water line for Leica now.
Should Leica bring an M with an EVF yes, even if it is to prove the concept, and even if it only sells in small volumes enough to break even. Will they? Who knows, it’s Leica after all, and they never follow what I’d call commercial common sense.
Eek I meant to say “not mention” his name negatively.
I would love an M11 with a built in EVF. I cannot believe you stated that Stephan Daniels does not believe in it. Some people think we should mention his name negatively that we should only criticize Leica as a company. I will not say again that I think Stephan should be replaced as he is the key decision maker. I used to be in key positions of a 1.5BUS high tech company including product management and it was not the board that made such detailed decisions. Boards decide on leadership and markets. Anyway, I will never say again that Stepan Daniels should be fired ( oh, did I say this earlier). I am so glad I did not invest in the CL system which could have been a success properly developed and marketed. Those Board members should stop reading high level financial statements and start making joy stick decisions.😂
Stefan has the advantage of being a Leica enthusiast and has come up through the company from an apprentice. I see him as a positive force at Leica. His reservation over the need for an M/EVF is purely an opinion based on favouring maintaining the purity of the Messsucher concept. But if the demand is there he is willing to consider the idea. I don’t know to what extent it would be his sole decision in any case. Dr Kaufmann clearly has a huge say in policy and there would have to be consensus.
‘Shooting the messenger’ is never a good approach. Stefan came to Dublin and engaged directly with Leica users and, indeed, encouraged users to voice their opinions. Now there is a debate happening here and on the Leica Forum and, possibly, elsewhere as well. As I indicated above, decisions about such matters are complex. In Leica they are also collective decisions. Firing Leica’s main public face would not make any difference to outcomes and would probably harm the company as well.
William
Totally agree William! You cannot make statements supporting the dismissal of a company official without the benefit of inside information. Stefan is a great asset to Leica IMHO. His detailed product knowledge is unmatched, given his long service to Leica. I base this on conversations and email with him in the past.
Hi Bill, I was reading about somebody who bought a brand new M6 and who had to send it back to Leica because it “scratched film…”, he was told 6 weeks, as long as Stefan Daniel as EVP of Operations cannot fix these ridiculous and unacceptable turnaround times he will be accused of incompetence and rightfully so IMO. In the case of the Leica CL he made statements he should not have made and very likely he already knew at the time he made them that that the ship had sailed, self-inflicted wounds, hopefully he learns from it and hopefully he gets better and more transparent and honest with Leica customers.
We need a full frame CL2 style camera.
Many seem to assume that manual focus would be easier with an EVF than with a RF. In my experience, that’s only the case with longer lenses, with narrower depth of field. I find manually focusing a wide angle accurately much slower and more difficult with an EVF than with a RF.
Of course, the visoflex may not be particularly elegant, and a combined RF/EVF (à la Fuji X100) might offer the best of both world, but I am not sure an EVF M would attract many new customers to the brand. After all, if you are not a dedicated Leica fan, found of RF and MF focusing, why would you choose an M in the first place? There are many alternative systems that offer more bang for your bucks…
I also prefer focusing manual lenses with the split-level viewfinder and use the Visoflex only sparingly.
This exact topic came up this morning on the Leica Forum and the following is what I posted:
“I presented both Stefan Daniel and Peter Karbe of Leica AG as speakers at our Leica Society International Conference in Dublin in October and, obviously, this topic came up, more than once.
The Wetzlar people could not be drawn into making definitive statements. Reading between the lines the following considerations would apply
An M = Messucher = Rangefinder. Anything without a rangefinder will not be an M.
If you are putting an EVF into an M size camera then autofocus would seem to be an possible add on.
If autofocus appeared in such a camera then a new lens line would be required. These would be bigger than the current M line and would require considerable development investment. Fuji and others have provided smallish autofocus lenses, but for ‘full frame’, larger lenses would be needed, think about the Nikon Z line and also Sony’s products.
Peter Karbe could entertain you all day long about why lenses in the L line are as large as they are and why APO lenses have so many elements and cost so much.
Just as in any other business Leica AG has to carefully consider its product line up and its market strategy. With technology being the way that it is to day, development costs can be considerable. It is clear that any product launch the company makes will have been carefully considered and that ‘back of the envelope’ thinking is not the way that the company proceeds. However, it does listen to its customers and follows forums like this, but it would be difficult to encompass all of the necessary considerations within an online forum discussion.”
I have nothing really to add to this. As a collector of old Leicas, I spend more time thinking about the mechanical past than I do about the electronic present. However, I am due to have a cataract operation in my right eye (my focus eye for photography) at the end of January. Depending on how that goes, I might need to do a re-think on optical v electronic focus systems.
William
William,
Good luck with the cataract operation. Mine went well, and it opened an entirely new world to me (and that includes really enjoying the M240). I hope it does for you as well!
Kathy
Thanks for your kind words, Kathy
I had a cataract operation on my left eye about 13 years ago when I was working in the Middle East. The one in my right eye has got noticeably worse in the past year and with the LSI Conference and other commitments out of the way, now is the time to get that one done. I have every confidence in my eye surgeon.
William
Yes, cataract surgery is a great thing. In fact, I wish I’d had new lenses inserted years ago, irrespective of the state of the cataracts. After a year (both eyes were “done” on successive weeks) my eyesight is now better than at any time in my life. It’s such a relief not to wear the glasses I had needed from the age of 14. Everything is now so much clearer and I needs minimal +1.0 diopter off-the-peg reading glasses for close reading. As you say, Kathy, a new world.
I would rather see this camera in the tradition of the Q series and call it Q2-M. Similar to the Q2 minus the lens and autofocus but with an M mount. Sort of a Q2 with bring your own lens (BYOL). Just a thought ….
A Q2 with interchangeable Mount has also been discussed in forums but I suspect if this happened it would more than likely be based on the L mount and become a smaller L camera.
I think an M with an EVF could be attractive for both Leica and the customers. The rangefinder is allegedly the most expensive part in any M camera. I think even the best EVF is cheaper to manufacture. This could result in better margins for Leica and maybe in a somewhat lower price for us. The latest EVFs are certainly on a level now that fits the Leica brand.
BUT: They will be very careful and reluctant to play with their heritage. The M system is still a cash cow for Leica, and be it only due to the limited success of the SL system. So, it makes perfect sense that Stefan Daniel says: M means Messsucher. Period. There are still people around at Leica who knwo about the 1970s trauma when Leica had almost abolished the M line. I don’t think they will ever want to get only near to such a situation.
In my opinion, the only realistic option is a hybrid viewfinder (see Ken’s comment) which however would need to be far better and Fuji’s and be it only to keep a healty distance. But then again, compare the M11 with attached EVF to a SL2, and the difference will diminish both in size and weight. We had this discussion in my article here: https://www.macfilos.com/2021/12/10/rangefinder-versus-evf-or-is-the-sl2-s-the-better-m11/
So we’ll see. There is a lot of interest obviously . Well done, Mike, to ignite this discussion!
JP
Stefan actually mentioned the M5 during his chat it Dublin. They certainly would not wish to mess with the established form of the M. As for the hybrid, as you know they have worked on this extensively and decided it cannot be done without compromising the purity of the Messsucher. Such a changed could indeed be another M5 moment.
For me there are basically two reasons why I would prefer an M with a built in EVF.
First, I am somewhat of a perfectionist when it comes to focus. Considering how many Leica lenses suffer from focus shift, an EVF is the only way to improve my odds of achieving the focus I am after; the EVF and focus peaking is fairly easily fooled, so you still need to be aware of what you are doing.
Second is the need for service. While I do like using the rangefinder and think it can be faster than auto-focus or using peaking, the range finder is a mechanical device and it is very easy to bump it out of calibration. Once a rangefinder is out of calibration it is useless and the camera needs to be serviced. Unfortunately, Leica’s service reputation in the US is terrible. The last time I sent my M9 in for service they had it for over 5 months and could not even confirm it was there. Plus, I recently sent my SL2 back to Leica for service, and I was warned to expect the camera to be gone for 6 months, longer if it needs to be sent to Germany. I am not holding my breath, since Leica USA recently announced they are moving office and service operations to a new location.
With the exception of bulk and weight, the SL2 is a viable alternative to an M body. Plus, the SL2 is probably the closest thing we have to a full frame universal camera back. As it adapts to using legacy lenses quite nicely.
Concerning Leica using the Panasonic S5 as a platform, I would be all for it, as the S5 has several features I like that the SL bodies lack. All that would be needed are the Leica sensor cover glass and Leica menus, beyond what ever cosmetic changes might be needed.
In fact, just a few days ago I purchased an S5 to look into this very concept.
Time will tell.
PaulB
I love the shape and feeling of viewfinder-like cameras and have a Fuji (xe3). I find that autofocus and evf are nice features, and work well together, thus I wonder whether an evf without autofocus would be a good idea. I mean yes, focus peak works well, but autofocus works better and faster. Manual focusing with ovf is a different thing, which we loved to do (I had a Fuji GS645S), and continue doing as a sort of tribute to the past.
Gregor Centler
Ich würde sofort ein ME Body kaufen.
Den Messsucher kann ich als Brillenträger lediglich bequem von 75- 35 mm überschauen, wobei es bei 35 mm schon eng wird.
135 und 90 mm sind schon sehr klein. 28 mm garnicht zu übersehen.
Meine 90 sowie 21 mm Objektive benutze ich fast ausschließlich über den Monitor oder den Visoflex 2 Sucher. Mit letzterem verliert die M11 an Kompaktheit und ist der Sucher relativ umständlich zu montieren.
Ein EVF würde diese Einschränken beseitigen und dürfte auch preiswerter zu produzieren sein.
Hinzu wären dann, was in der Diskussion noch wenig anklang, auch kompakte Zoomobjektive möglich.
Gregor, ich habe deinen Kommentar übersetzt (unten), damit mehr Leser an der Diskussion teilnehmen können. Ich hoffe, das ist ok für dich. — Mike
I would immediately buy an ME body.
As a glasses wearer, I can only comfortably see the rangefinder from 75-35 mm, although it gets a bit tight at 35 mm. 135 and 90 mm are already very small. The full frame at 28mm cannot be seen at all. I use my 90 and 21 mm lenses almost exclusively via the monitor or the Visoflex 2 viewfinder. With the latter, the M11 loses compactness and the viewfinder is relatively awkward to mount. An EVF would remove these limitations and should also be cheaper to produce.
In addition, compact zoom lenses would then also be possible, which was not mentioned in the discussion.
Would be delighted to have an M with an EVF as. I use 10mm and 15 mmm Voigtlander lenses a lot and the EVF drains the battery very quickly and it is a pfaff to keep removing the sole plate
Like a Tesla car with a steam engine
Panasonic?? Please give us the GX 9 with 24×36 sensor and Ibis!!!
Yes, what terrific idea. I, too, love the Panasonic GX series (are they still made?)
But I could do without the myriad of controls. Leica has not enough influence on Panasonic in order to realize that, I am afraid.
BTW, I started with serious photography when I got a hand-me-down Leica lllA from my dad in 1970. It’s still my soft spot.
If Leica Camera AG introduced a new M with an integral EVF in lieu of a rangefinder, they’d likely also consider introducing at least one M Zoom lens – shades of MATE & WATE but faster and usable throughout the zoom ranges. The ‘case’ / ‘justification’ for zoom lenses would be to make best use of the EVF’s capability – but I wonder if Leica has the resources to design and manufacture same ‘in-house’ without Panasonic’s assistance / badge engineering? The integral EVF would not be made by Leica or Panasonic – it would likely need to be ‘state of the art’ and developed by e.g., Epson – in which case Leica would need to sell ‘000s of M evf cameras to justify the EVF’s development and manufacturing cost. Maybe interesting times ahead – especially if Stefan Daniel has already hinted at the possible development.
Well, Leica did develop the Quatro-elmar (there were 12 copies made i believe! They abandoned the project because the lenses were too expensive and difficult to make.
But I don’t think they would contemplate M-EVF specific lenses, so I rather doubt it.
As for the EVF – of course you would use the panel and electronics from the current external one (pretty much the same as the Q2) , that way it’s just an engineering change rather than needing new firmware etc.
all the best
You forgot another good reason for a EVF: using a flash and the evf at the same time.
You cannot do it with the rangefinder add-on evf.
Good point!
I have an M11, with a Visoflex. Strikes me that the EVF is mostly necessary for longer lens’, while the bulk of M use tends to be 28-50mm lens’. The new Visoflex is far more acceptable than the prior model, and given the more limited circumstances (long lens and wide open Noct photos), I cant see major sales of a EVF only M.
Id also suspect sometime down the road…..M13, M14….technology will permit an optical viewfinder and integrated EVF in the same space as the current M body…..and that would be a “keeper”
Do not forget about real wide angles. I do not even like using a 28mm on my M11 with glasses.
Owning 3 film Ms and a Q2Monochrom I would buy a 40+mp MEVF (regular or monochrom) in a second. I love the monochrom through the viewfinder experience of the Q2M (that you can also replicate on most MILCs by enabling a B&W picture profile).
I would also love to see the effect of B&W colour filters in real time as on the Q2M.
I love the rangefinder experience with film, but for digital it makes so much more sense to see out the lens.
As an alternative, what about a Panasonic-built camera, like the smaller DC-S5 updated with a higher resolution EVF and increased Mp sensor, that is M-mount dedicated? The S5 is full frame, only slightly larger than the M body and focus confirmation in the EVF would compensate for autofocus when quick shots are needed.
It would allow use of those big Leica M lenses that block the Viewfinder. I currently use a CL for bigger lenses and use only more compact lenses that don’t protrude into the VF of my M10R.
That’s a sensible alternative and, in some aspects, a better solution. But I don’t think it’s likely. I can’t see Panasonic doing anything like this. Pity.
An updated S5 might have some of those features, but making it M-mount only is not worth it when you can get the adaptor for $350 or so.
The only time I have really wished for an EVF on my M cameras is when using a Noctilux 0.95 wide open, which is of course the only way to use that lens! I’m an old guy but I can manage to focus with the M’s optical viewfinder and the usual lenses stopped down a bit just to be sure. Monday I took delivery of an SL2-S under the current promotion deal (plus the M-to-L adapter thrown in) solely to use with the Noctilux. The combination is hefty but better than the Noctilux on an M with a Visoflex on top. So after wishing for an EVF model of the M, I am no longer thinking I would buy one right away if at all. At the promotional pricing of the SL2-S and my need of an EVF only for focusing those specialty lenses like the Noctilux wide open, I think I am covered. I do not mind the auxiliary viewfinder on the M for my 21mm lens as most of the time I am just guesstimate focusing that lens and stopping it down anyway and can shoot it fairly quickly with the auxiliary viewfinder. And I have just never used a 135mm on an M camera. I do use 90mm lenses and I think I would put it on the SL2-S for portraits to get critical focus at wider apertures but use it as normal on the M without a Visoflex for landscape and other work. Just my two cents.
Cheers.
Mike,
I’m curious why you suggest than an EVF version of the M series would cost something in the range of 10K. It was my impression that the optical/mechanical rangefinder mechanism is a precision optical instrument all by itself. That must be very expensive to manufacture! Could replacing it with an assembly line EVF could cut thousands off the price?
That said — as a 73y/o M user with two cataract surgeries: I prefer using the rangefinder. I locate some small feature on my subject and watch it snap into place; the Visoflex offers no such experience.
Kathy
On the face of things, an M with EVF should be cheaper than the M with rangefinder. Let’s assume the rangefinder unit and the human input in installing and adjustment costs $1,200 (which is the figure I have seen repeated several times), deduct the cost of the EVF (let’s say, at Leica prices, $500) and we are left with a potential saving of about $700. However, a specialised extra production line would be more costly in relation to the potential sales, so we could knock off a bit of the saving there. But even if it does cost less, I suspect Leica would charge more simply because it is something novel. The prospect of the new camera undercutting the price of the M is therefore unlikely.
Hi Mike, but didn’t they undercut the M when they introduced the SL? Different form factors but SLs work with M glass better than any other evf cameras. However SLs are too big and for me I do not see them as Leica cameras. For me beauty of Leica is with small cameras and lenses. Otherwise we have canons and Nikons.
I do not see why an ME would be more expensive than M. Yes of course Leica likes to put the cost up when they take something out but in this case they are effectively putting the visoflex in! – that is also perfectly rectangular shaped. I always believed that design renders itself to replace the range finder easily.
I would be delighted if such a camera could be cheaper than an M, but I won’t hold my breath.
I wear spectacles and at 76 my eyesight is not what it once was but nevertheless I do not have any problem with using the rangefinder, even with my 135mm APO-Telyt. As oft stated, the OVF has advantages over EVF (and SLR etc) and I very much enjoy the actor composing and focusing with the OVF. However, (isn’t there always a ‘however’…) I do use Visoflex (M10M & M11) with 21mm SEM and a range of R lenses, but it falls into the category of being a ‘means to an end’.
Would I buy an M lookalike body just because it has an integral EVF? No. Would the target market be people who would also expect IBIS and would said people also start clamouring for a range of M-mount lenses with auto-focus? I doubt Leica have the resources available to carry out such a development whilst also tending to the needs of M11M, M12, SL3, the S range plus whatever lenses are in the pipeline. Better for them to concentrate on nurturing their core market methinks.
I also doubt there would ever be an M-mount lens with autofocus. For one thing, the extra size and weight would destroy the raison d’être of the M. You’d be better off with an SL and one of the existing AF lenses (or, if that’s too heavy, one of the other offerings from Nikon et al).
I’m not sure it’s going to work. I am one of those who has a Leica MD without a screen. It’s such a great camera. Will I ever sell it ? I don’t know, but I don’t think so. I don’t need the new M6 – I bought it in 1990 and sold it 3 years ago. I have my MD. Back to the M evf. If it has to cost the same or a bit less than a regular M – then I don’t think it will be a good business for Leica. Not many will be sold. If they set the price much lower then it eats into sales of the M11.
I still believe the concept of the “CL”. But if APSC is dead then make a top modern CL with FF. Good for smaller FF Leica/Sigma lenses and Leica M lenses. The best of both worlds
Since most Leica shooters tend to operate between 28-50 mm. Why not add make a Q28 and a Q50 and let those be the EVF M’s?
I think Leica has given a lot of thought to this very suggestion. I will be astonished if we do not get a 50mm Q within the next two years. I agree; the two cameras – 28mm and 50mm – would be a match made in heaven. Imagine that a 50mm lens, likely to perform better than the f/1.7 28 Summilux, would crop easily to 75 or 90mm. Mike
Blame it on fuji xpro series!
I had a Fuji Xpro and an X100 as well. But the OVF is just not the same compared to an M. It’s an interesting proposition but very different.
Well, I reckon if Leica could build it – and give it reasonable battery life – an M with EVF would be a winner.
I’d suggest that the comparison with the screen-less -D is slightly askew, as that camera was aimed at a small (purist) subset of the inherently small user group of committed M enthusiasts – so hardly surprising it only sold in relatively tiny numbers – whereas this new development would open up M photography to those who otherwise find it too ‘difficult’ in rangefinder form, much as they’d like to use an M (or to be seen to be using one).
I also don’t think a Visoflex or other external viewfinder is a viable solution for this particular market. Having to ‘build’ your camera by adding bulky external gubbins would seem distinctly odd to the new users I have in mind, especially if that seems to be the only reliable way to take (say) a family group shot without chopping off Auntie’s hat. Might as well use the mobile phone instead.
Of course, there might be a certain amount of sniffiness among die-hard Leica fans about letting this group of amateur snappers through the hallowed portals to M-Land. But we were all amateurs once (many still are and proud of it). And I don’t think Leica as a company has ever been particularly squeamish about attracting new groups of buyers for their products, especially if they then go on to buy some more.
Although I have the Visoflex, I seldom use it. I generally prefer the rangefinder experience and find it easier to focus than when using the Visoflex. But I am open to persuasion.
With you 100%.Don