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

[albertwang]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The main reason is that Leica is too small a company to develop autofocus for their camera/lenses.

 

Honestly, the Contax autofocus N series are the best by the way. I think that Leica just gave up trying to beat Contax on development of autofocus equipment.

[arthury]

Hi all - I am sure that the following question has already been asked and so it's answer probably already known. Nonetheless, .....

 

"Why is there no auto-focus for any of Leica's cameras/lenses?" Also, any plans in the near future for auto-focus?

 

 

Thanks very much!

 

Robert

 

 

Good questions. The anwers about backward compatibility seems unconvincing to me. If that is so, why isn't there such an issue with other successful vendors: such as Canon and Nikon?

 

My scoop is that AF technologies are not easily acquired; especially, the AF technologies that are currently implemented on the top of the line DSLR's.

[Advertisement]

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

[davephoto]

Honestly, the Contax autofocus N series are the best by the way. I think that Leica just gave up trying to beat Contax on development of autofocus equipment.

 

before the N there was the AX which featured the novel solution to retaining most of the then-existing (read: non-N mount) MF T* lenses in an autofocus application by moving the film plane's distance in relation to the lens. the AX is solidly constructed with an extremely nice finish. it was argued by many that moving the film plane would not be as fast and responsive as moving the lens elements themselves. under most situations, i never found this to be problematic and it performed at least as fast as focusing by hand. (and the fastest i can manually focus is to quickly rotate it to shoot at infinity for a landscape image.) shooting the 50mm/1.4 and the Vario-Sonnar 3.3-4.0/28-85 T*, i found the AX to be quick and accurate and, most surprising to me, quiet. however, in the end, my grievance came from the size and weight of the AX. to accommodate the autofocus assembly it was necessary to build the body relatively deep. the body itself weighed over 1000g. i missed the smaller size of my equally adept R5. such a technological application, however, would be workable for leica if it so wanted to use it. and i can't imagine licensing from kyocera would be a problem any longer given that there is no longer competitive pressures from contax. on the other hand, leica seems to have tipped its hand with their new 4/3 lenses.

[adan]

Good questions. The anwers about backward compatibility seems unconvincing to me. If that is so, why isn't there such an issue with other successful vendors: such as Canon and Nikon?

 

My scoop is that AF technologies are not easily acquired; especially, the AF technologies that are currently implemented on the top of the line DSLR's.

 

 

1. Because Canon and Nikon went to bloated plastic shell designs for their lenses to allow for the AF mechanisms - geared to the camera in some cases, internal solenoid-type drives ("Silent Wave") in others. Contax G kept the size down somewhat by eliminating any manual focus control on the lens itself. Contax R tried the AX moving back (check AX sales figures if you think THAT idea was popular - the only AX I ever saw sat in a dealer's case for 5 years). Contax N1 went the bloato Canon route (licensing Canon technology).

 

2. Because AF requires very-low-mass focusing in order to be fast, not stress the motor, and not use up the camera batteries too fast. Canon and Nikon AF lenses, except for a few wideangles, switched to internal focusing moving 1-3 of the elements instead of the whole lens. Trashes the optical quality - but it does allow AF.

 

On my Contax G2, the 90mm was quite a small, light lens, but in order to maintain the optical quality, Contax focused by moving the whole thing rather than going to internal focus. Even with that small amount of glass/mass, I could hear the AF motor straining to move it quickly.

 

By comparison, Nikon went to internal focus for their 85s - nice fast low-impact focusing; lousy image quality (compared to Contax or Leica).

 

Compare the mass of a Leica R telephoto/zoom to an equivalent Canon or Nikon, and ask yourself - if you were an AF motor, which would you rather heave around?

 

Look at the back of a Leica M lens - it is a solid mass of interlocked brass helices. No room in there to add any AF mechanism (heck they don't even have room - or need - for an auto-aperture) - except by a) blimping it up to SLR lens size, or replacing all that solid brass with a thin metal shell (a la Contax G).

 

Leica's market is people who aggresively DO NOT WANT autofocus - at least if it means compromising anything else about the cameras (manual focus reliability, optical quality, build quality, size, weight, etc.)

 

3. Oddly - as someone already alluded to - one of the first patents for modern AF technology was filed by (drum roll) Leica! I think it was the dual-IR beam method used in many early AF P&S cameras.

[timbedsted1234]

Andy,

 

To claim that Canon/Nikon have lousy optical quality on their tele lenses seems a bit rich to me;)

 

They do have a lower optical quality compared to Leica on wide angle their seems to be general agreement on this.

 

In addition Leica is able to produce AF for the CM camera which works flawlessly, so yes it can be done and as was mentioned previously it doesn't have to be all MF or all AF. Leica can keep the current lline up of lenses for the R series and then prduce a couple of AF zooms. together with the DMR it would greatly enhance the appeal of the R series. I think we can all agree that the R series needs to attract new users if it is not to die a slow death of attrition...

 

Regards,

Tim

[telyt]

The anwers about backward compatibility seems unconvincing to me. If that is so, why isn't there such an issue with other successful vendors: such as Canon and Nikon?

 

Nikon maintained a good degree of backward compatability at the cost of a confusing array of partial functions with a variety of body/lens combinations. Canon totally abandoned the manual-focus FD system when they switched to AF. Except for an optical adapter barely suitable for longer FD lenses on EOS bodies, there was zero cross-compatability.

 

I think we can all agree that the R series needs to attract new users if it is not to die a slow death of attrition...

 

the DMR and the various R-to-EOS adapters have attracted new users on Leica's terms not on the mass-market's terms.

[pascal_meheut]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with Tim. I prefer Leica lenses too but I do not find the Canon and Nikon lenses to be lousy. And when shooting side by side, the difference with Leica is not always obvious.

 

And I'm not sure that internal focusing can be hold responsible for this difference in quality. After all, some Leica lenses such as the 15/2.8 ASPH, the current 19/2.8, the 180/2.8 APO and 180/2.0 APO, the 280/4 are IF (correct me if I'm wrong) and they are amongst the best lenses ever produced.

[telyt]

... I'm not sure that internal focusing can be hold responsible for this difference in quality.

 

I agree. IMHO the looser tolerances required by AF motors are at least partially responsible for the difference. Another factor is that Leica lenses tend to have fewer air/glass surfaces than other-brand lenses; fewer air/glass surfaces can mean fewer internal reflections, higher contrast, more saturated colors.

 

For example, 280mm (or 300mm) f/4:

 

Leica 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R: 7 elements, 6 groups => 12 air/glass surfaces

Canon EF300mm f/4L IS USM: 15 elements, 11 groups => 22 air/glass surfaces

Canon EF300mm f/4L USM: 8 elements, 7 groups => 14 air/glass surfaces

Nikon 300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S: 10 elements, 6 groups => 12 air/glass surfaces

Pentax SMC-FA 300mm f/4.5 ED (IF): 9 elements, 7 groups => 14 air/glass surfaces

Minolta AF 300mm f/4 APO-G: 9 elements, 7 groups => 14 air/glass surfaces

 

Fewer air/glass surfaces doesn't nessesarily mean fewer reflections but it's much easier to control reflections when there are fewer of them. Note what IS does to Canon's lens.

[reddawn]

Perhaps my needs are more specialized than the majority of camera users' needs, but there is no AF camera yet made that has focus points covering the entire viewscreen nor is there an AF camera yet made that can have enough simultaneous active focus points nor is there an AF camera yet made that includes the optimizing algorithm in my brain that can determine which of several active focus points are the most critical ones, and an AF camera in manual mode with its compromised viewscreen is not optimum for the kind of photos I want to make.

 

Canon's white paper at http://photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf explains using autofocus correctly. In particular see pages 11 and 29:

 

"For optimum focusing performance with close subjects, we recommend

avoiding the FLR (Focus-Lock-Recompose) technique. Instead, use an off center focusing point or focus manually."

 

and later in the white paper:

 

"The closer the subject, the more critical accurate focusing becomes.

One potential problem to avoid is camera or subject movement after

focus lock. This can happen more easily than one might think... Even

slight camera movement or subject movement after focus lock can result

in soft images, particularly when shooting at wide apertures with

narrow depth of field."

 

Doug, I agree with what u said, and I've experienced focus-recompose focusing woes as well, mostly with the Leica M system, and nobody seems to actually mention it....

 

I find that it's more accurate using a AF SLR with (manually selected) off centre focusing points with medium telephotos, or even standard lenses at close distances, with wide open apertures for the fast lenses (f2, f1.4 etc) than a M body, especially for non static / moving subjects.....

 

Some have the mistaken impression that the AF systems of today are still the error prone systems of yesteryear. No, you do not have to let the camera choose where to focus for u. And yes, you do know what is in focus. And yes, with some better SLRs (with IR focus assist), you can AF even in complete darkness where u can't see the subject (why u want to do that is another question )

 

I use my AF SLRs mostly exactly the same way I would use a M - I configure the camera to AF using a separate button / control, focus (with AF) with manually selected centre focus point (ala M rangefinding), then recompose to shoot with shutter button. If the subject distance does not change for subsequent shots, there's no need to refocus at all.

 

I love manually focusing my Ms. But AF has its uses and is a great enabler too for pple with poor eyesight!

[adan]

Well - OK, "Lousy" was a bit over the top.

 

Try "Less than optimum".

 

Having used manual focus Nikon and Canon lenses from 1970 on, the AF equivalents are often worse, and rarely better (despite 36 years to improve the designs) than the MF versions. To wit - the 85 f/1.8 and 180 f/2.8 AF lenses definitely suffer in resolution compared to the 180 ED and 85 f/1.8-2 MF versions. And Canon's SLR wide-angles USED to be very good.

 

C and N have clearly had to make compromises to the AF gods. I would prefer not to.

[telyt]

I use my AF SLRs mostly exactly the same way I would use a M - I configure the camera to AF using a separate button / control, focus (with AF) with manually selected centre focus point (ala M rangefinding), then recompose to shoot with shutter button. If the subject distance does not change for subsequent shots, there's no need to refocus at all.

 

Not to discount the benefits of AF, but quoting Canon again: "The closer the subject, the more critical accurate focusing becomes. One potential problem to avoid is camera or subject movement after focus lock. This can happen more easily than one might think... Even slight camera movement or subject movement after focus lock can result in soft images, particularly when shooting at wide apertures with narrow depth of field."

 

Given that I often use wide apertures at close distances the limitations of focus-lock-recompose become glaringly obvious, no matter how accurate the 'focus' part of this technique is. Since the bird's eye - the point I most want in critical focus - can be all over the viewfinder, picking an AF focus point is as futile as trying to throw a ping pong ball through a hula-hoop at 20 meters during a hurricane, that is, assuming the bird's eye lands momentarily at a focus point. The birds move more quickly than one can change focus points.

 

Those who haven't ought to see what real focus 'snap' is by using a Leica APO lens on an SL or SL2: the focus points are everywhere on the screen and there is absolutely no abiguity about correct focus, and the focus-lock-recompose technique along with defined focus points will be exposed for the horrid kludges they are.

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!

[timbedsted1234]

Doug,

 

I still haven't heard a convincing argument for why one we can't have both. No one is trying to take manual focus away from you (and us:) ) all we are saying is that there are a number of situations, fast paced sport, low light etc. where AF with Leica glass quality would be nice.

 

Considering the bulky size of the R8/R9 I simply cannot believe that ther isn't room for an AF module and as I said previously a few zooms and Leica would broaden the appeal of the R series tremendously.

 

The hard facts are that no young photographer today would select Leica if he was looking for a SLR solution, so all the R series has going for it is a groupe of middle aged photographers which eventually will be dying out. Yes I know a handful have switched from Canon due to the DMR, but please note have many of these, which have switched back. The fundamental laws of supply and demand apply to Leica R series as well as everything else, and then where would you be Doug when you run out of spare parts for the SL2 and DMR??

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

the DMR and the various R-to-EOS adapters have attracted new users on Leica's terms not on the mass-market's terms.

 

Yes, I am an example of this exact issue. It's very widespread, actually...autofocus cameras mostly have terrible manual focus capability.

 

I have a Canon 1D2, and 1Ds2. I use Leica R and Canon lenses, and increasingly I found myself turning off, first, auto exposure on the camera, then autofocus on the Canon lenses, because they simply don't focus fast enough in very common "edge" conditions (at many weddings, a lot of the light is scant, even when beautiful!).

 

I finally moved to manually focused lenses on the Canon body because wonderful (and I mean wonderful--even by Leica standards) lenses like the Canon 85 f1.2L (not the very newest version) can't be easily focused manually. It's a completely horrible experience, only made worse by the slower than slow autofocus on that lens.

 

So, I finally found myself earlier this year shooting a 1ds2 with Leica R lenses 95% of the time, with the only other Canon lens used regularly on AF being the very good IS 70-200 2.8L. For very dark interiors and fast movement, this is a good lens, but still hard to manually focus (though much better than the 85).

 

But I bought a DMR, even though I think the 1ds2 is a spectacular image making device. Why? Because even with the special manual focus screens in the 1Ds2 (Canon EC-S) the viewfinder is ridiculously poor compared with the R9. As a result, even the 70-200 has been replaced by the Leica 180f2.8 APO.

 

Yes, I miss full-frame. Yes, I miss "noiseless" ISO 1000 - 3200, and 4.5 frames per second. But the DMR is so much easier to focus using fast glass in low light it's actually worth giving those other things up, or at least relegating them to backup.

 

So I would say Leica is actually getting business by making fabulous manual focus cameras... they certainly got mine.

[telyt]

I still haven't heard a convincing argument for why one we can't have both. No one is trying to take manual focus away from you (and us:) ) all we are saying is that there are a number of situations, fast paced sport, low light etc. where AF with Leica glass quality would be nice.

 

Add AF to Leica-quality glass and you will lose the Leica quality. The compromises nessesary to make lenses AF-compatible are often optical compromises.

 

Considering the bulky size of the R8/R9 I simply cannot believe that ther isn't room for an AF module and as I said previously a few zooms and Leica would broaden the appeal of the R series tremendously.

 

The issue for me isn't as much the bulkiness of the camera body, it's more the viewfinder quality. The viewfinders in AF cameras are very poor for manual focus.

 

The hard facts are that no young photographer today would select Leica if he was looking for a SLR solution

 

This is an over-simplification and not supported by facts. My nephew, completely independant of any influence from me, bought his Leicaflex SL while in high school.

 

... where would you be Doug when you run out of spare parts for the SL2 and DMR??

 

Exaclty. I want to be able to buy new equipment that hasn't been compromised by features I don't use.

[adan]

Tim et al:

 

I guess I don't have an objection to AF per se - so long as I can weld the switch on manual and make the AF totally go away - no vestiges visible: no AF-sensor marks left in the viewfinder, no compromise to the structural or optical integrity of the lenses, no focus-by-wire, no additional weight to the body, etc. etc.

 

An SLR AF module requires that some light be siphoned off from the viewfinder for focusing. Either the focusing view gets darker, or the focus screen must be "brightened" in ways that reduce its contrast for manual focus - both routes compromise the manual focus capability.

 

The M system is just diametrically opposed to AF in an engineering sense. All M cameras except the M7/M8 take pictures without batteries. Where does an AF system get its power - from a little generator on the wind lever?

 

With the classic Leica systems, one makes a conscious choice - to do without AF, or to do without Leica lenses.

 

The new D(igital SLR) 4/3rds line may offer an option for AF + Leica glass. Depends on what Leica actually does with their end of the line in terms of lenses.

[albertwang]

Contax-- compromise, don't think so!

 

In fact, I think that autofocus can be incorporated into highest quality optics... Just expect heavy elements and larger filter threads to house the autofocus modules.

[raizans]

ideally leica would make an autofocus body with backward compatability for manual focus lenses, like nikon and so on. unlike slrs, there's no inherent compromise in viewfinder design.

[adan]

"Contax-- compromise, don't think so!"

 

Less so the G cameras - although the manual focusing was focus-by-wire and pretty kludgy. (I used 'em for a year)

 

The construction of the Contax N AF lenses was like a couple of pieces of plastic plumbing pipe nested together - a far cry from the machined metal barrels of the MF lenses. And what happened to the 21 f/2.8, the 35 f/1.4, the 100 f/2, the 180 f/2.8?

 

A 75-300 f/4-5.6 zoom is a consumer zoom - even if it's designed by Zeiss.

 

Being stuck with slow plastic zooms and losing a whole swath of fast prime lenses is a huge compromise.

[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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[albertwang]

Contax N lenses plastic plumbing... I'm sorry buddy! Don'tthinksoyaknow? I'm gonna replace all that plumbing with PVC pipes and see whatchatthinkofcourseeh?

 

Actually Contax N lenses are the best built autofocus lenses in my honest opinion. They are solid and much better than that cheapo Nikon lens I own. Of course the barrel may be a little looser but most of their lenses are internal focusing anyways.

 

The G lenses are good too. Although I think the new Zeiss M lenses are superior. Cosina seems to be doing much better than Kyocera in this respect. But I did see the new Kyocera cell phones recently.