Leica M EV1 First Review - It's Bad

[Duofold RF]

The new digital sensors have turned old-era lenses into “character” lenses—prone to flare and low contrast. If you want the best results from a digital body, you’ll need to replace all your vintage glass to achieve optimal performance.

 

[pgk]

I am waiting to find out how the actual reality of using such a camera is viewed once the hype and excitement have died down and the 'honeymoon' period is over. My experience of using manual focus lenses on EVF cameras suggests to me that rf focusing will still be quicker and that using an EVF to try to quickly focus a manual focus lens will increase the failure rate, or at least increase the incidence of 'near miss focus' images. To me this all feels rather like Leica chasing markets rather than staying true to its history of producing precision cameras (albeit at a price).

I've been using M cameras on and off for 45 years and still run M9s and a number of lenses. I'm starting to become disillusioned about the path Leica are taking. IMO 60MPixels is excessive and the base problem with the M is now that it is looking for a niche to fill. An EVF only, M shaped camera is intended to satisfy a demand rather than genuinely move the M forward. All cameras are compromises and the M-EV1 has adavantages and disadvantages over rangefinder versions. I feel that its focus will be slower than traditionally and that whilst it may be precise with magnification, I'm not sure how relevant this is to a camera many fundamentally use handheld.

 

[JeffS7444]

I've been using M cameras on and off for 45 years and still run M9s and a number of lenses. I'm starting to become disillusioned about the path Leica are taking.

What would they need to do in order to entice you into buying a new or factory-refurbished M camera? For me, it would not be easy, because once the novelty has worn off, cameras are picture-taking appliances to me. Unless they are film cameras, in which case, they might also be appealing relics.

 

[571514m3]

I've been using M cameras...........I'm starting to become disillusioned about the path Leica are taking

This thread shows the passion that animates us as a passionate and very diverse community. And, to paraphrase, there are many rooms in the house of Leica.

I am not a shareholder so have no right to double guess Leica's marketing decisions. BUT, and that is a VERY BIG one: up to now Leica has enabled me to use my old lenses, and even the Visoflex3 with Elmar 3.5/65 and the odd BEOON, on my M-P and M-D and likely they will sell me a battery for these when I need it. This continuity and backward compatibility is great. Leica seems to now cater for analog, rangefinder and even folk who want a EVF-M; as well as various other platforms. What could be better?

For me I hope that this new non-RF M will find its way into the hearts of enough people to bring a profit to the company to stay in business to enrich all our lives. Let them even make super pricey special editions to bolster the bottom line.

Folk talk about price tags. I feel that I paid (in personal purchase power) as much for a new Nikon F2 Photomic as I did for a second hand M3 (stolen in Paris), and the first M240 (kinda stolen in Irak in 2015), and it feels like that was similar to what I paid for the replacement M-P and later the brilliant M-D, and what this new non-RF M costs now (~ daily takeaway coffee for 3 years?). Everything seems easier/cheaper/faster in hindsight. It rarely was.

 

[boojum]

The best comment I have run across on this camera is by mathphotographer where he describes it as an "option." Well said.

 

[Godfrey]

The new digital sensors have turned old-era lenses into “character” lenses—prone to flare and low contrast. If you want the best results from a digital body, you’ll need to replace all your vintage glass to achieve optimal performance.

What is "optimal performance" in your opinion?

My M-mount lenses, spanning from a 1961 to a 2013, with both Leica and Voigtländer on the bezel, all make some very nice photographs on film and on the M10-M/-R bodies. And I've seen some of them working nicely on the M11 as well. They neither flare nor exhibit low-contrast in any problematic way.

G

 

[Duofold RF]

What is "optimal performance" in your opinion?

My M-mount lenses, spanning from a 1961 to a 2013, with both Leica and Voigtländer on the bezel, all make some very nice photographs on film and on the M10-M/-R bodies. And I've seen some of them working nicely on the M11 as well. They neither flare nor exhibit low-contrast in any problematic way.

G

Under high-pixel-density sensors, vintage lenses exhibit issues such as chromatic aberration, flare, and others. Some Leica lenses—even on film—prove especially prone to flare, such as rigid, 35 IV summicron. Just my personal experience

 

[Mute-on]

The best comment I have run across on this camera is by mathphotographer where he describes it as an "option." Well said.

Precisely!

It is not a replacement for the M11, or any subsequent development thereof. It is an option for those who choose to take it. Leica obviously does not expect all current (or future) M users to switch to the EV1.

Personally, I am looking forward to development of the EV1. In its current iteration it seems there is significant room for improvement. However, if firmware updates take it forward in some fundamental ways (e.g., an alternative approach to focus confirmation) then it might become a seriously viable option, most particularly for those of us who struggle with some of the limitations of the mechanical rangefinder due to viewfinder magnification and glasses/eyesight challenges.

We are all very fortunate to live in a time when these products and opportunities exist.

 

[luuca]

This thread shows the passion that animates us as a passionate and very diverse community. And, to paraphrase, there are many rooms in the house of Leica.

I am not a shareholder so have no right to double guess Leica's marketing decisions. BUT, and that is a VERY BIG one: up to now Leica has enabled me to use my old lenses, and even the Visoflex3 with Elmar 3.5/65 and the odd BEOON, on my M-P and M-D and likely they will sell me a battery for these when I need it. This continuity and backward compatibility is great. Leica seems to now cater for analog, rangefinder and even folk who want a EVF-M; as well as various other platforms. What could be better?

For me I hope that this new non-RF M will find its way into the hearts of enough people to bring a profit to the company to stay in business to enrich all our lives. Let them even make super pricey special editions to bolster the bottom line.

Folk talk about price tags. I feel that I paid (in personal purchase power) as much for a new Nikon F2 Photomic as I did for a second hand M3 (stolen in Paris), and the first M240 (kinda stolen in Irak in 2015), and it feels like that was similar to what I paid for the replacement M-P and later the brilliant M-D, and what this new non-RF M costs now (~ daily takeaway coffee for 3 years?). Everything seems easier/cheaper/faster in hindsight. It rarely was.

Wait, wait, wait...

You had 2 Leica stolen in your life? This must be a record!

 

[pgk]

What would they need to do in order to entice you into buying a new or factory-refurbished M camera? For me, it would not be easy, because once the novelty has worn off, cameras are picture-taking appliances to me. Unless they are film cameras, in which case, they might also be appealing relics.

I see an optimal M as a rangefinder camera with a 20-30MPixel sensor (sufficient for most tasks and no overly sensitive to motion, mis-focus, all too easily cropped to produce sloppy results, and so on - 60MPixels is to me largely irrelevant and whilst I have higher MPixel cameras, the MPixels are actually rarely the reason I use them), pared back to essentially mimic an M4 (no 'A', minimal controls, etc.). ISO should equate to focusing ability - ie there is no need to have ISOs suitable for situations in which the rangefinder is too dim to focus properly (accepting that there is variation in eyesight of users). In other word to really appeal to me an M needs to be an effective TOOL and be optimised for taking photographs, not overspecified to look good on paper. I'm opinionated but to me a camera should do what it does well and in order to enthuse me into buying a new (or secondhand M body - my M9s may see me out if they last as well as they have so far) they should work as best they can and be optimised for where they perform best. Also, FWIW I do not see Leica rf cameras a being particularly valid as 'street' cameras (despite those who hark back to the era when they were). To me they are great general carry around, hiking and travel cameras.

I have Sony A7 series and Nikons as workhorses but neither adequately replace my Leicas as carry around cameras. They are though, effective tools for the uses I put them too.

 

[jay1155234]

The Missing RF will be added later! I found as my eyes got older with me, the RF was the only way of sharp focus! Please no auto BS!
My eyes had cataracts! Fixed! So I can use SLR but remember they have micro-prism or kind of RF small areas.Plain screens are dreadful..
The new cameras with EV, seem to shimmer.. very disturbing..

 

[Dralowid]

and even the Visoflex3 with Elmar 3.5/65

Now that is one of those 'other worldly' lenses that is often forgotten.

 

[Cascadilla]

The Missing RF will be added later! I found as my eyes got older with me, the RF was the only way of sharp focus! Please no auto BS!
My eyes had cataracts! Fixed! So I can use SLR but remember they have micro-prism or kind of RF small areas.Plain screens are dreadful..
The new cameras with EV, seem to shimmer.. very disturbing..

I think that depends on what you get used to--I was fortunate enough in college to work with both Bolex and Eclair NPR 16 mm movie cameras that had plain focusing screens, and found it hard to use micro prism/split image focusing aids after that. When I bought my first Pentax MX with interchangeable screens, my first purchase was a matte screen with a grid for it. For me, that was much easier to get accurate focus than the standard screen with the focusing aid in the middle. But we are all different...

 

[shawn]

And worth pointing out that an EVF looks/works differently than a matte screen too since they can usually be set to show either the actual exposure being captured or to automatically brighten themselves to a fairly constant level no matter what the scene light level is.

I mentioned it earlier but one of the differences in a high resolution EVF is the 'shimmering'. It is sort of like the opposite of a microprism screen. With an optical microprism screen when you get that shimmering it means you are out of focus. On a high resolution EVF it is a more subtle shimmering and it occurs where you are in focus. What you are literally seeing is the limits of the resolution of the EVF and the subtle stairstepping between pixels.

When the EVF resolution gets lower that is happening over more of the screen and less useful to use as a focusing aid.

 

[Dogman]

Looks like it has a diopter adjustment. That in itself is enough for a dim-eyed old photographer whose eyesight is fading at warp speed to prefer it over the traditional rangefinder. Sorry guys but you gotta look at practicalities first and form factors second at some stages in your life.

Now what about an AFM. 😳 🙄




......................................

 

[Rayt]

Ditto what Godfrey wrote.

It’s all personal choice. I stuck

Under high-pixel-density sensors, vintage lenses exhibit issues such as chromatic aberration, flare, and others. Some Leica lenses—even on film—prove especially prone to flare, such as rigid, 35 IV summicron. Just my personal experience

That makes perfect sense. For my SL2 I have modern native mount Sigma, Panasonic and Leica lenses. For my M11M I only use vintage Leica mostly Leitz because, as far as personal preference, will give me the same lower contrast and wider tonal range I get with these lenses on b/w film. The DNG from the Monochrom is already pretty neutral or flat so it’s a good starting point for post processing. Modern lenses are too high contrast with too much edge sharpness for b/w. This is the main reason I didn’t like my Q2M. While I don’t expect a Leica Monochrom to give me a film image I can get pretty close with say a 35mm f3.5 Elmar or 28mm Elmarit V1. The last film era Leica lenses such as the 21/24/28 Summilux lenses are very good. These three lenses ooze character. But modern users say great = sharp and contrasty so maybe it’s the application who knows. I owned a few APO Asph Leica lenses and sold them almost immediately because the photos were so sharp and contrasty they made my eyes bleed. 🙂 If I shot color those same lenses would have been ideal.

 

[shawn]

This is the main reason I didn’t like my Q2M.

Maybe try something like a Glimmerglass filter on the Q2M?

If that doesn't work I'll dispose of that garbage for you. 😉

 

[Rayt]

Maybe try something like a Glimmerglass filter on the Q2M?

If that doesn't work I'll dispose of that garbage for you. 😉

I did go down that route with a Glimmerglass but ultimately sold it and got the M10M. It’s just personal preference and am sure others will have other ideas. Here’s a shot I took with the Q2M in Saguaro National Park with orange filter. The look doesn’t appeal to me.

 

[Rayt]

This is a better example when the light wasn’t so diffused like the one above.

 

[Rayt]

This one was with the M11M and 40mm Rokkor a multicoated lens from the 80’s. I think it’s sharp enough without that APO Asph eye bleed.