If Leica name an EVF camera *M*, the blow back will be huge. IMHO they need to name it differently. E12 or something like that. Even ME would avoid the obvious shitstorm of forum comments.
Honestly, I would be thrilled with an M11-D that has the same functionality as the M-D Type 262 without Wi-Fi or menu access, so a step back from the M10-D.
Visoflex live view could be useful for occasions when using Leica's new lenses with shorter MFD and for ultra-wide and telephoto lenses. This should be the only additional feature from the M-D. The main improvements for the M11-D would be a higher resolution/dynamic range sensor, the M11 thin body, 256GB of internal memory, and USB-C support. I'd prefer a mechanical-only shutter, but I understand many people like shooting with the electronic shutter despite the extreme rolling shutter effect. All other functions should remain the same, including metering from the shutter as in the pre-M11 series. It should not be a camera with extra features but rather a simple camera reminiscent of shooting film.
That said, I'm very satisfied with the output from the M-D files. Apart from the higher dynamic range, resolution, and thinner body, I'm not sure it's worth switching.
From checking the leaked manual, Leica is offering way more features than I want for the new "D", so I will likely not get one.
flash wrote:
If Leica name an EVF camera *M*, the blow back will be huge. IMHO they need to name it differently. E12 or something like that. Even ME would avoid the obvious shitstorm of forum comments.
M is rangefinder. E is electronic. ME is hybrid.
Gordon
IMO it will come down to the lens mount to which camera line Leica releases the still hypothetical but likely soon-to-be-announced EVF-based model. If it comes with L-mount, it might be added to the Q-line - with M-mount, it will be in parallel to the existing traditional M-line of cameras. I don't think EVF-M in the latter case would interfere with the traditional M naming convention but it could be any other name, too. Maybe also simply M12E (E = electronic). So far Leica is determined to continue pushing the L-mount for new camera lines with exchangeable lenses - I hope they make an exemption here and have this camera with M-mount. This would at least avoid some in-house competition with SL and Q-series cameras.
Honestly, using such EVF based camera with an adapter for M-lenses on a L-mount would be a big bummer for me since it will decrease the compactness aspect of small lens on a M-like camera body size.
retrofocus wrote:
IMO it will come down to the lens mount to which camera line Leica releases the still hypothetical but likely soon-to-be-announced EVF-based model. If it comes with L-mount, it might be added to the Q-line - with M-mount, it will be in parallel to the existing traditional M-line of cameras. I don't think EVF-M in the latter case would interfere with the traditional M naming convention but it could be any other name, too. Maybe also simply M12E (E = electronic). So far Leica is determined to continue pushing the L-mount for new camera lines with exchangeable lenses - I hope they make an exemption here and have this camera with M-mount. This would at least avoid some in-house competition with SL and Q-series cameras.
Honestly, using such EVF based camera with an adapter for M-lenses on a L-mount would be a big bummer for me since it will decrease the compactness aspect of small lens on a M-like camera body size. ...Show more →
L-mount flange distance is much shorter than M-mount. IBIS is the monkey wrench variable here, without which an L-mount camera could be much thinner than the current digital Ms. Adding an M mount adapter to such a thin L-mount camera without IBIS would keep the distance the same from the back of the screen to the front of the M adapter's mount.
EVF-M / no IBIS / native M mount
–– would be the same rear screen to front of mount thickness as >
EVF-L / no IBIS / M-adapter-L attached
Only way to add IBIS to the current M body and maintain the same body thickness would be to add a longer throat to the lens mount, and unless cleverly disguised, it would look just as odd as an M-mount adapter slapped on an L body.
highdesertmesa wrote:
L-mount flange distance is much shorter than M-mount. IBIS is the monkey wrench variable here, without which an L-mount camera could be much thinner than the current digital Ms. Adding an M mount adapter to such a thin L-mount camera without IBIS would keep the distance the same from the back of the screen to the front of the M adapter's mount.
EVF-M / no IBIS / native M mount
–– would be the same rear screen to front of mount thickness as >
EVF-L / no IBIS / M-adapter-L attached
Only way to add IBIS to the current M body and maintain the same body thickness would be to add a longer throat to the lens mount, and unless cleverly disguised, it would look just as odd as an M-mount adapter slapped on an L body....Show more →
I don't think Leica will in its first EVF-based camera release include IBIS. Leica is known for doing things step-wise. I believe we will see a M-like camera with either L- or M-mount just with in-camera EVF instead of the rangefinder system. How IBIS will be implemented here in the future is still an open game.
I would still rather avoid using an adapter for L-mount/M-lens connection since the lens with adapter would protrude longer from the camera housing than with just M-mount and M-lens (didn't say this clearly earlier).
retrofocus wrote:
I don't think Leica will in its first EVF-based camera release include IBIS. Leica is known for doing things step-wise. I believe we will see a M-like camera with either L- or M-mount just with in-camera EVF instead of the rangefinder system. How IBIS will be implemented here in the future is still an open game.
I would still rather avoid using an adapter for L-mount/M-lens connection since the lens with adapter would protrude longer from the camera housing than with just M-mount and M-lens (didn't say this clearly earlier).
Biggest argument for doing native M mount is with L mount, you'd expect to have autofocus. I don't think any of us want the complication associated with AF.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Biggest argument for doing native M mount is with L mount, you'd expect to have autofocus. I don't think any of us want the complication associated with AF.
Agreed! With L-mount, Leica would also face issues with in-house competition of SL and Q-series. If the hypothetical EVF-based camera has also AF, who would still buy a SL-series camera assuming video isn't crippled either?
Fred Miranda wrote:
It looks like the M11-D will be delayed again. Leica wants to get this one right!
In my opinion Leica should have done the same with the M11-P. The P-version should be rock solid which is currently still isn't. There at still too many reports of occasional freezing.
Fred, where did you have this made? This is exactly what I've been looking for for my M11.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I also do this with my Leica M10-R using a custom-made half case that blocks the LCD. This makes it feel like shooting with the M10-D because I can still use the Wi-Fi and the Visoflex to change settings before my shooting.
