SL and wildlife ?

[sillbeers15]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's the way CDAF works, it has to hunt back and forth and back and forth many times until it gets the focus. Very different to PDAF. It was already discussed a number of times on this forum, and elsewhere. I don't have much expectations for AFc to get any better at the SL. It is what it is and will not get much better no matter what.

I'm still curious what cause the difference when the same sized subject (bird) can be focus locked and tracked with AFC on BIF movement later when it begin as a stationary subject with contrast background (bird pitched on tree before fly off) vs a flyby bird against a non contrasted background that the AFC just failed to lock focus on moving subject? In addition, the AFC worked perfectly locking focus and tracking focus successfully frame after frame when the single focus point is aimed at a moving vehicle approaching me? Is that the moving subject speed that determines the AFC success or available contrast in background or subject size in frame? 

[steppenw0lf]

Consistently catching birds in flight does not work with my Nikon (D800) and Canon (5Ds) gear. (many misses, only very few hits)

So I have the impression that only the top 1 promille of cameras can do it (if at all). For me it looks like a myth - I have never really seen it in action (consistent perfect results).

 

So I do not expect the SL to do it - have no need for it. And would probably prefer a smaller sensor (Pana plus Leica 100-400) if I needed it.

So for me not a big loss and not worth a lot of discussing. Simply learn adapting to it - finished.

 

The SL plus 90-280 is delivering many more hits than I ever had before (not just very close misses like I often had with Canikon, that looked like full hits in camera and later looked not so perfect anymore on a higher resolving screen).

 

So for me this topic (difference between AF types, with a focus on how wonderful phase detection AF is) is almost closed. I have learned what to expect and can handle it - better than ever before.

 

Also Sony users seem not to complain bitterly about contrast AF. (probably because critical users use manual focus for best reults, e.g. Doug Herr)

Edited January 5, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[LD_50]

The newer Sony cameras offer phase detection AF points on sensor along with CDAF.

[steppenw0lf]

And how fast is it ? And when are they used and when not ? And where do they sit in the image area ? And how can I control which type is active ?

A lot of stuff only interesting on paper, as I do not want to constantly switch cameras and test the same BS again and again.

For me this is over, whatever is told in whatever website or blog or magazine or ...

What is written is often just a pile of lies - and not worth taking the time to find out what is true in the end.

 

All this crap is such a waste of time for me - if you find it terribly interesting, fine.    

All this complaining  about things most users never need. All the "improvements", that do not mean anything in the field.

 

I also like Leica, because they are not pushing all this technical stuff into the face of every single user - so that you forget what you bought a camera for.  

I know in ten years all the cameras will be much "better". The SL for now and this prediction is good enough for me not to worry about this anymore. And to concentrate on the more interesting parts of photography - the results.

In the year 2000 when digital was still new, it was necessary to worry mostly about technical details. This is definitely a thing of the past. Much more important and worthwhile to plan where you are going at which time of the year with which target in mind.    

Edited January 5, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[LD_50]

And how fast is it ? And when are they used and when not ? And where do they sit in the image area ? And how can I control which type is active ?

A lot of stuff only interesting on paper, as I do not want to constantly switch cameras and test the same BS again and again.

For me this is over, whatever is told in whatever website or blog or magazine or ...

What is written is often just a pile of lies - and not worth taking the time to find out what is true in the end.

 

All this crap is such a waste of time for me - if you find it terribly interesting, fine.

All this complaining about things most users never need. All the "improvements", that do not mean anything in the field.

 

I also like Leica, because they are not pushing all this technical stuff into the face of every single user - so that you forget what you bought a camera for.

I know in ten years all the cameras will be much "better". The SL for now and this prediction is good enough for me not to worry about this anymore. And to concentrate on the more interesting parts of photography - the results.

In the year 2000 when digital was still new, it was necessary to worry mostly about technical details. This is definitely a thing of the past. Much more important and worthwhile to plan where you are going at which time of the year with which target in mind.

I have no clue what all that was about. The fact is many mirorrless cameras are incorporating on sensor PDAF to complement the existing CDAF systems because PDAF offers advantages for certain applications. I hope Leica does the same with the next version of the SL and eventually a mirrorless S system.

 

It's not useless or a bunch of lies and is meaningful "in the field." The details are readily available from each of the manufacturers who include this technology.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

And how fast is it ? And when are they used and when not ? And where do they sit in the image area ? And how can I control which type is active ?

A lot of stuff only interesting on paper, as I do not want to constantly switch cameras and test the same BS again and again.

For me this is over, whatever is told in whatever website or blog or magazine or ...

What is written is often just a pile of lies - and not worth taking the time to find out what is true in the end.

 

 

 

Sony, Fuji and Olympus all have on sensor phase detect focusing. All of them are better at CAF and tracking than the SL. You can select focus points just like the SL and the PDAF points usually cover about 70% of the sensor. In most cases the faster phase gets you close and then the CDAF tweaks for accuracy but yuo can change what does what and when if you want. It works and works well. The XT-2 is fantastic and the EM1 mk2 is supposed to be better (it also has the stunning 300mm (600 equiv) available. The latest Olympus and Fuji cameras perform as well as all but the absolute top Canikons.

 

However the biggest difference is still that they have more long lens options. 600mm (equiv) for the Fuji and 800 (equiv) for m4/3, without converters and with normal AF. Good technique, which many abandon in favour of technology, can overcome many issues with focus and tracking but if the lenses aren't available.....

 

I understand people would like to have just one system. But unless you're a specialist that's just not Leicas way. They make systems that are scalpels not broad swords. And if you can afford Leica you can probably afford another system to fill the holes Leica has. A D500 and Nikkor 600mm would be much less than an SL 600mm anyway.

 

Me. I'm waiting for the EM1 mk2 tests. I have a Pen F and the 100-400 PanaLeica. I'll get the EM1 mk2 and 300mm as my long lens kit that I use side by side with my SL.

 

Gordon

[Bohns]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all !

 

Such a lot of interesting facts were debated here ! Thank you to everybody who participated.

 

By my side, further to read with a lot of attention all your comments, I also looked at my mamals photos archives to assess the focal length I used the most in my mountains. And I was almost always using more than 400 mm, and very often 600 mm. Sure, I can also try to improve the way I am approaching the animals, but from my practice in my area, I am quite sure I would miss a lot of opportunities.

 

Regarding the BIF, I used the same lengths. The CAF is certainly a lot less powerfull than the exceptional dual-pixel AF of my current 1DX mkII.

 

So, why was I questioning about the SL ??? Just because of the "pop" of the images I can see from this camera, on this forum and anywhere else, and because of what I can get from my M-P and my Leica glass, which is never equalized by what I get from my Canon glass, except maybe the 300 f2.8 mkII.

 

As a consquence, I decided to resist to my lust for a SL, and to re-assess it from time to time pending the lenses roadmap. And I also decided to keep carrying my current big and heavy Canon gear while hiking.

 

Best regards,

Stef.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Bohns

[steppenw0lf]

I understand people would like to have just one system. But unless you're a specialist that's just not Leicas way. They make systems that are scalpels not broad swords. And if you can afford Leica you can probably afford another system to fill the holes Leica has. A D500 and Nikkor 600mm would be much less than an SL 600mm anyway.

 

Me. I'm waiting for the EM1 mk2 tests. I have a Pen F and the 100-400 PanaLeica. I'll get the EM1 mk2 and 300mm as my long lens kit that I use side by side with my SL.

 

Of course the Panaleicas with the 100-400 are preferrable for wildlife. Simply because of the massive crop factor. But even they produce a lot of garbage with birds in flight. So all systems have drawbacks and are far from perfect.

Here it should be more about finding the strengths of a system. And starting from there. All this complaining that CDAF is too slow or whatever leads nowhere.  Phase detection is not much better in my eyes. And in ten years both systems will be much improved anyway.

And until then many fotos will simply be made by manual focus - as for the last 30 years.

I know now what the SL can do, and what the Panasonic with the 2x crop can do. And I am happy with both.

Between them they solve all/most of  the possible problems - no need for a single system to span both worlds.

 

So for me these two form factors solve everything. Others prefer the combination of APS-C and mini midrange (like Fuji), but I cannot see an advantage in this combination.

Edited January 5, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[LD_50]

All this complaining that CDAF is too slow or whatever leads nowhere.  Phase detection is not much better in my eyes. And in ten years both systems will be much improved anyway.

And until then many fotos will simply be made by manual focus - as for the last 30 years.

 

Test the best CDAF system against the best PDAF system for something like BIF or fast/erratic sports or action shots and you'll see where PDAF has an advantage. It is much better in practice for these situations, so I can only conclude you've not done the comparison if you're not seeing this. It is exactly the reason on-sensor PDAF is being added to mirrorless cameras.

 

CDAF also offers advantages, mainly accuracy. Also it's not fooled by various lighting situations like my Nikon system was. PDAF presented accuracy problems for me with Nikon that CDAF seems to solve. I have very limited experience with on-sensor PDAF systems to determine whether they are as good as DSLR systems such as the Nikon D5.

[steppenw0lf]

Like the last 30 years I am not relying on the camera AF alone, but on technique. That is what I am saying.

And I have currently no single camera with an AF that is good enough. (perfect and consistent)

And I am not wiilling to buy the latest craze every few months just to be "up-to-date" and get another tiny improvement.  

 

Currently the sensors have reached a level that is satisfactory for many years to come (for me). I am now much more satisfied than ever before with films.

I will look at new cameras again when the 75 or 100 MP level has been reached, if at all. The AF improvements will never be a crucial factor for getting a new camera for me. As we have seen with the SL zooms, AF depends both on camera and lens, so clear improvements would probably require a complete exchange of both. Currently not in my plans.

Edited January 5, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[meerec]

Consistently catching birds in flight does not work with my Nikon (D800) and Canon (5Ds) gear. (many misses, only very few hits)

So I have the impression that only the top 1 promille of cameras can do it (if at all). For me it looks like a myth - I have never really seen it in action (consistent perfect results).

 

So I do not expect the SL to do it - have no need for it. And would probably prefer a smaller sensor (Pana plus Leica 100-400) if I needed it.

So for me not a big loss and not worth a lot of discussing. Simply learn adapting to it - finished.

 

The SL plus 90-280 is delivering many more hits than I ever had before (not just very close misses like I often had with Canikon, that looked like full hits in camera and later looked not so perfect anymore on a higher resolving screen).

 

So for me this topic (difference between AF types, with a focus on how wonderful phase detection AF is) is almost closed. I have learned what to expect and can handle it - better than ever before.

 

Also Sony users seem not to complain bitterly about contrast AF. (probably because critical users use manual focus for best reults, e.g. Doug Herr)

Everyone's experience will vary.

I have no issues with Canon 1-series bodies like 1D Mark IV I own, or the latest 1DX Mark II, and fast super telephoto lenses from Canon. They are designed for tracking and fast action. I used to have 5-series Canon bodies, and they were much less suitable.

Can't comment exactly on Nikon, but I'm sure the D5 and the latest 600mm lens will do well and without issues.

 

Coming back to,our Leica world ... 90-280,zoom is great IQ and very fast focus but it doesn't give me enough reach to shoot birds unless they are close, and BIF is hard. Tracking is not precise and effective in my experience.

[sillbeers15]

I'm not a professional photographer, just a hobbyist with limited experience. Never owned a Nikon in my life and last Canon I owned was more than 35 years ago (Canon A1) which I very soon replaced it with a Contax RTS II with the entire Zeiss T* lenses. I've purchased the SL as a modernized AF option to supplement my M240. I'm happy with both native zoom lenses performance and I did not purchase it for BIF. I do see the SL being week in AFC tracking fast and small objects against non contrasted background against cameras such as 1DX, which would be a more suitable tool for the job. I am also convinced that even those camera with PDAF does not have perfect AFC else 'back button focusing' technique would not have been used by many photographers today. Would I be attracted to buy a FF PDAF DSLR just for BIF? No. But I'm more incline to look for a smaller sensor body with better AFC to hook on to the Leica lens with the lens quality that attracted me in the first place.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

No. But I'm more incline to look for a smaller sensor body with better AFC to hook on to the Leica lens with the lens quality that attracted me in the first place.

 

Agreed. I'd love to see a TL with 24MP and better CDAF so I could share lenses. But alas Leica seem to not want the TL system to be a success and hobble it with an old sensor, substandard AF and a weird design aesthetic. An SL mini (with on sensor PDAF) would probably sell like hotcakes.

 

Gordon

 

p.s And so would an S with the SL EVF and 50MP. Hint Hint Leica..........

[jaapv]

Smaller sensor and system? Look no  further: The Panasonic GH5...

And I would not be surprised to see a new V-Lux based on the DC-FZ80 (1200 mm equivalent zoom, 18 MP) appear as also-announced on the 18th.

[turbonetics]

Hello all !

 

Such a lot of interesting facts were debated here ! Thank you to everybody who participated.

 

By my side, further to read with a lot of attention all your comments, I also looked at my mamals photos archives to assess the focal length I used the most in my mountains. And I was almost always using more than 400 mm, and very often 600 mm. Sure, I can also try to improve the way I am approaching the animals, but from my practice in my area, I am quite sure I would miss a lot of opportunities.

 

Regarding the BIF, I used the same lengths. The CAF is certainly a lot less powerfull than the exceptional dual-pixel AF of my current 1DX mkII.

 

So, why was I questioning about the SL ??? Just because of the "pop" of the images I can see from this camera, on this forum and anywhere else, and because of what I can get from my M-P and my Leica glass, which is never equalized by what I get from my Canon glass, except maybe the 300 f2.8 mkII.

 

As a consquence, I decided to resist to my lust for a SL, and to re-assess it from time to time pending the lenses roadmap. And I also decided to keep carrying my current big and heavy Canon gear while hiking.

 

Best regards,

Stef.

 

 

 

sorry what is "pop"?? It sounds kinda noob to use this word IMO.

do u have photos samples to show your definition of "pop"?

[wildlightphoto]

This morning with the SL and 90-280 APO SL:

 

This is my second go-round with a loaner SL. The first was a year ago with adapters for my R and other lenses. At that time my biggest complaints were the automatic viewfinder brightness and the lack of sensor stabilization. This time the loaner includes the 90-280 APO so at least in the 90-280mm range, stabilization is a non-issue. I'm still struggling wth the automatic viewfinder brightness.

I spent an hour or so this morning in my backyard blind with some obliging sparrows and warblers as subjects. The things I like about the SL are fabulous: the uncluttered buttons that can be operated with gloves on, the almost-real shutter speed dial than can be configured to turn the direction my muscles remember from the Leica-R cameras, the quiet responsive shutter, and apart from the automatic brightness thing, the viewfinder.

Regarding the lens, optically it's quite good and if I'd never used the 280/4 APO R I'd be completely delighted with it. It's not quite as crisp as the 280/4 APO.

There's still a learning curve ahead of me w.r.t. the AF. I've set it up for back button focus. Face recognition isn't up to the task when the bird's head doesn't fill the AF point, often locking onto the background; if the background is distant the AF system has a hard time re-focussing on the bird, so I've turned face recognition off. Basically I have to keep reminding myself "learning curve, learning curve, learning curve" otherwise I'd be blurting out things like "why do people put up with this AF bullsh!t?" When the SL's AF locks onto the right point it's quick, quiet and accurate but fiddling with the joystick to move the AF point, or point-focus-recompose while the optical stabilization is making the viewfinder image swim around and the bird is dancing on its perch is going to take some practice. Why do people put up with this AF bullsh!t?

Edited January 6, 2017 by wildlightphoto

[Jeff S]

 Why do people put up with this AF bullsh!t?

 

For BS.....birds stationary.

 

Jeff

[Bohns]

sorry what is "pop"?? It sounds kinda noob to use this word IMO.

do u have photos samples to show your definition of "pop"?

Just a personal (subjective) appreciation. I feel from the available images here and elsewhere on the web that Leica indeed gave priority to a combination (overall) of a delicate sharpness and some sweetness, with a beautiful gradation of fuzziness and without brutal break in the depth of field. All the opposite of the now usual digital "razor sharp" depiction. It is rather in the 35 mm film, or even film medium format, doctrines. To that should be added the Leica's color, highlights and shadows managements, which are exclusive and very recognizable.

 

This how I may describe, using my "frenglish" (I am French) "pop". I hope it sounds less noob like that.

 

Regards,

Stef.

[BlackDoc]

SL and wildlife ?! YES!!!!

 

... even manual focus with 90mm Cron

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[meerec]

SL and wildlife ?! YES!!!!

 

... even manual focus with 90mm Cron

[=http://cdn.l-camera-forum.com/public/style_images/master/attachicon.gif] 20170106-L1010201.jpg

What a wild, and pretty cow :-)

Love cows.