Why is there no auto-focus for any of Leica's cameras/lenses?

[timbedsted1234]

Originally Posted by mgcd

I'm with Doug all the way on this one. One of the main reasons I stayed with Leica is manual focus. I've got one word for those of you wishing for AF: hyperfocal.

Conrad,

Hyperfocal is one of those words that keep popping up, no one dares ask what it really means. Could you explain to a layman (on photography anyway ) how one would use hyperfocal to obtain the advantages of AF?

Thanks,
Tim

[adan]

Tim - I won't argue whether "hyperfocal" replaces AF, but I will offer a definition.

The short version - it means setting the lens for an intermediate distance and stopping down the aperture so that DOF will render the subject sharp regardless of how far away it is. Thus allowing one to shoot away without pausing to focus (auto or otherwise) for each picture. Turns any camera into a really fast P&S.

The longer version:

The hyperfocal distance for any given lens and aperture is that distance at which the depth of field will just barely extend to infinity on the long side, and to 1/2 the HF distance on the short side.

If you trust the lens maker's DOF markings on the lens - set the lens such that the infinity symbol is opposite the DOF mark for the aperture in use, and the true focused distance will be - by odd coincidence - exactly the hyperfocal distance.

E.G. - Leica 28 Elmarit. If I shoot at f/16, and set the infinity focus marking opposite the DOF line for f/16, then the lens is actual set to focus at 5 feet, and the nearest limit of the DOF is 2.5 feet. Anything from 2.5 feet to infinity should (if you trust Leica) be sharp without bothering to focus again.

About the only time I use it is with the 15mm - which is scale-focusing anyway. Set it for 5.6 and 2 meters, and forget about how far the subject is.

[marknorton]

I think the key thing here is the accuracy of the DoF markings - and the aperture set - and I tend to set the focussing ring so that the infinity mark is a little inside the marking of the aperture in use; reduces the near "acceptably in focus point" but provides a safety margin to make sure objects in the distance are in focus. I use it mostly with my 21mm Elmarit, set to f5.6 and, like Andy's, it's good for about 3 feet to infinity.

Incidentally, that is a disadvantage of the first generation Tri-Elmar - no DoF markings on the lens.

[timbedsted1234]

Andy and Mark,

Thanks It is raining cats and dogs right now, but as soon as it dries up I will go out and try it.

Cheers,
Tim

[andybarton]

I leave my lenses set this way all the time. However, if I am shooting at f8, say, I will set infinity to the f5.6 mark to allow for a margin of error.

I was taught to do this by my father - "always set your standard lens to 11 feet and f8, just so as you are ready", he said...

There are, however, some purists who think that Leica lenses should be used at the widest possible aperture, (with consequent minimum depth of field) but I am not one of them.

[waileong]

I don't use a fast enough film most of the time to use hyperfocal focus....

[albertwang]

I hardly shoot hyperfocal. I shoot, let the AF do its work and bang away with motordrive. Works like a charm.

[haris]

I think sooner or later Leica will introduce AF lens(es). I don't know how it would like to have expencive digital camera (M or R) without autofocus, to young people. Do you really think that generation who is used to mobile phone cameras (or theire children in future) would pay Leica price for system which has no AF? I am talking about people who now have 15-20 (or even more) years, and when they become rich enough to buy Leica, do you really think they will not want AF having in mind how (photographically speaking) they are grown up?

It is the same like talking that Leica will never introduce digital. It did. I don't know if they (Leica management) wanted it or not, but Leica had to do it. Same will happen with AF. It simply sooner or later will have to be done, will be must in real life.

[Jamie Roberts]

Originally Posted by haris

I think sooner or later Leica will introduce AF lens(es). I don't know how it would like to have expencive digital camera (M or R) without autofocus, to young people. Do you really think that generation who is used to mobile phone cameras (or theire children in future) would pay Leica price for system which has no AF?{snipped}

I think this entirely depends on how good autofocus really is in 20 years--and how good those cellphones are.

Right now, autofocus is fine, until it doesn't work. Then it fails (on the best cameras, too) in a spectacularly stupid way--hunting and searching for contrast, or simply doing nothing at all.

There's no "autoswitch to manual" or manual assist when AF fails, though some AF lenses can be manually focused too. But as soon as the inner focus fool thinks it has contrast, your painfully hand-focused or hyperfocally focused AF lens snaps out of focus again. Yay and Joy!

Oh, unless you've taken your eye *away from the camera* and turned the little hard switch to MF...

Why not just focus manually with a good viewer instead?

People who are satisfied with virtual pinhole cameras (like cellphones) won't ever buy Leica glass anyway--"AF" or not.

So yes, I think eyes will be eyes in the future, and if AF doesn't get a lot better, there won't be any point.

Of course, AF will get better, and it will get to the point where you have devices that selectively focus POST SHOT (there are excellent prototypes right now). But this requires (right now) a multiple high resolution sensor array, which is not only cost prohibitive but difficult to set up, IIRC. All problems that will be fixed eventually.

But will the quality be there? That's the question. It's no good to me to be able to selectively "produce" depth of field effects if I end up with something that's less than excellent.

So, for the near term future, I'd rather bet that in the next 10 to 15 years I'll be able to afford a camera / sensor that actually does justice to my 50mm Summilux (not that I don't love my DMR, or anything). But there's still a very long way to go for digital in terms of absolute resolution, latitude and microcontrast.

So if the only way to get a high enough quality result is with manually focused lenses on a dedicated super-sensor, then yeah--young photographers who appreciate quality will buy manually focused Leica lenses.

(and I know somebody out there is going to say "but that super-sensor exists--it's called film." Yeah, but I can't re-use it, and unless I'm the lab, I can't color manage it myself ).

[haris]

Originally Posted by Jamie Roberts

There's no "autoswitch to manual" or manual assist when AF fails, though some AF lenses can be manually focused too.

There is. Atleast some Canon AF lenses (I don't know for other manufacturers) have option to use manual focus all time, even if lens is set to AF....

[Jamie Roberts]

Originally Posted by haris

There is. Atleast some Canon AF lenses (I don't know for other manufacturers) have option to use manual focus all time, even if lens is set to AF....

Actually, this isn't exactly how it works. Canon's AF is the one I'm most familiar with, and believe me, it fails horribly when it fails.

All the "full time manual focus means" is that 1) if you have focus locked (so the the camera isn't fully seeking AF lock anymore) then 2) you can tweak the lens by dialling in the focus ring by hand.

Sounds good.

But this is less useful than it seems. First, it isn't on all Canon AF lenses (the 50s, IIRC, were most conspicuous in their absence on this).

Secondly--and most importantly--if you have your camera set up the way it is out of the box, with AF tied to shutter button, and you find you *can't* lock AF focus, then you can't use the manual focus without--at the slightest change in contrast or shutter pressure--the focus thing-y trying to lock back in focus. As Homer would say, "D'oh!"

You're in a heck of a lot of trouble if it the AF well, can't AF.

This is truly more annoying than if it just said "I give up--I will stop trying to focus until you tell me *when* to start focusing again and then, and only then, will I'll churn back and forth on something you can see but I can't"

Now, there is a custom function on my 1d2 and 1ds2 to prevent this. Assigning the AF to a different button than the shutter would mean you could press the discrete AF button, and then lens would seek and seek and seek and not lock... and then you could not engage the discrete AF button and manually tweak and finally not engage AF afterwards, and then press the shutter.

Pretty dumb, I think. I'm way faster with just tearing the thing from my eye and turning off the manual lens switch. I'm even faster with my the DMR because, frankly, I can see more and focus faster. And in the above AF scenario, you lose full time AF anyway! Not good for events that need AF... Fortunately, they tend to be lit, or you just set to manual and forget about AF.

So AF is great when it works, and for really fast sports etc...which I don't shoot and never will--I'm sure it works wonders. But for other photography, when your AF doesn't work, IMO you lose a lot more time and shots than if you just focused manually to begin with.

[haris]

What ever...

But question was why Leica don't have AF camera/lenses. And here are many opinions given. I am not expert, so I don't know answer. But, you know there is no real need for camera in mobile phone, but now there is no mobile phones without cameras. And if any of mobile phone manufacturers start makin all theire phones without cameras they will go to bancrupt. So, if market would demand, there will be Leica AF.

You know hter is one car manufacturer (I am sure there are others, but for this one I know), Morgan. Theire cars don't have any of today cars fancy things. They are uncomfortable, dificult to drive, but they are such cars that some people wants them. If I had money, I would like one of those. They still in production. But, they are custom made, that is you order one and then you wait to be made, there is 2 years waiting list, and then you have your car. That is only way to survive without listening to mass market demands, to make custom made thing and to have enough demand. But, cameras are not cars, they are much more cheaper, and there will be no chance for any camera maker to live like Morgan car maker do. Imangine Leica to make only cameras/lenses for which they received order. Camera maker, wanted or not, must fulfill mass (more or less mass)market demands. Some camera makers, if they want, or can, will resist longer, some shorter, but, in the end, I am afraid, things like AF will be inevitable.

There will be, but not enough to be viable to manufacturers, people who will shoot digital camera with only manual focus. Everyone ( By everyone I mean people who will buy/use digital/autoeverything film cameras (especially digital users will be in future those which will be THE market), mechanical (all manual) camera users are by definition manual focus users) except that group of people (however it is large today I am afraid it will be smaller during time) will demand AF...

Don't get me wrong, on mine AF cameras (EOS3 and FZ20, which by the way I didn't use for more than half year, but that is another story, long live film ) I use only manual focus, I am MF user, and I am not "spokesman" for AF, but I am afraid...

[albertwang]

Of course, Canon AF sux. I'm not surprised.

My Contax NX works very well. Point, recompose, than bang away. Simple as 1-2-3. The Canon has all these fancy schmutlzed out points that you can't decide which is gonna lite up. Very confusing buttons and bam, wrong focus. Ouchers. Okay, Nikon is better but not by much. Contax wins by keeping it simple like Leica.

[haris]

Oh, but albertwang, what those diesigners will then do? They learned in theire schools to think like "it would not cost too much to add one more function to this gizmo, so let us do it..."

[albertwang]

The designers can redo the Canon cameras to make them more Leica-nomic!

[imported_digilux]

Dear John f,

You are absolutely right in remembering the Correfot - the patents for AF are based on Leica patents. Leica decided to give the patents to Minolta in 1977 or 1978. The Leica board decided that Leica customers are able to take pictures and shouldn't need AF. Leica got from Minolta shutter technology as part of the deal. Minolta came on the market in the eighties with the first AF SLR.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by albertwang

Of course, Canon AF sux. I'm not surprised.

My Contax NX works very well. Point, recompose, than bang away. Simple as 1-2-3. The Canon has all these fancy schmutlzed out points that you can't decide which is gonna lite up. Very confusing buttons and bam, wrong focus. Ouchers. Okay, Nikon is better but not by much. Contax wins by keeping it simple like Leica.

Hmm, this thread has resurfaced and I missed this comment by Alfie. I don't use AF lenses on my Canons these days, but I'd like to make the following points. You can set a single AF point with Canon cameras and use them just as you describe with Contax - in fact that's how I and many others used autofocus in Canon and other cameras, Contax were so succesful that they no longer make cameras.