M Rangefinder vs EVF Focus Accuracy?

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am just curious about what new M owners are finding if they compare the rangefinder M/lens focus accuracy against that obtained with the EVF?

 

Thanks.

[Advertisement]

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

[marknorton]

I'm very pleased with the ease of focussing using the LCD - I don't yet have an EVF. For the difficult lenses, seeing the actual image in Live View is very good. That said, the classic rangefinder is working well too.

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Mark,

 

Many thanks. I have the EVF but not the M yet.

 

Of course, if both focusing methods yield the same result then everything is hunky dory.

But, where does one draw the line and have something, either lens or camera, adjusted?

[01af]

The rangefinder's focus accuracy is always the same. The EVF's focus accuracy widely varies with several factors, including focal length, aperture, lens quality, subject contrast, and lighting conditions. In some situations, EVF focusing can be even more accurate than the rangefinder while in others it's next to useless. Generally, EVF focusing is accurate when depth-of-field is narrow ... and typically when the rangefinder comes to its limit. So both focusing methods complement each other neatly.

[k-hawinkler]

The rangefinder's focus accuracy is always the same. The EVF's focus accuracy widely varies with several factors, including focal length, aperture, lens quality, subject contrast, and lighting conditions. In some situations, EVF focusing can be even more accurate than the rangefinder while in others it's next to useless. Generally, EVF focusing is accurate when depth-of-field is narrow ... and typically when the rangefinder comes to its limit. So both focusing methods complement each other neatly.

 

 

Thanks for the reminder. I agree.

 

I am interested though to learn what folks are finding out about their rangefinder focus adjustments when compared to the EVF at its maximum accuracy, i.e. high micro contrast, narrow DOF, etc.?

[canlogic]

Ok think I know what your asking. I shot a quick portrait of my 96 year old mother using my 50 Lux wide open the other day. With the EVF I was able to zoom in 5x or 10x and with peaking make sure that her eye was critically sharp. Room was a little dim but she was sitting near a window, late afternoon with a cloudy sky. This worked much better for me than using the standard range finder.

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok think I know what your asking. I shot a quick portrait of my 96 year old mother using my 50 Lux wide open the other day. With the EVF I was able to zoom in 5x or 10x and with peaking make sure that her eye was critically sharp. Room was a little dim but she was sitting near a window, late afternoon with a cloudy sky. This worked much better for me than using the standard range finder.

 

 

Hi Tim,

 

Many thanks. I would love to see that picture of your mother. I am sure it's wonderful.

So, in this case, is the EVF with magnification and focus peaking the better tool?

Or, do you think the rangefinder of camera or lens is a little off and needs adjustment?

 

Thanks again.

[Ecar]

The rangefinder's focus accuracy is always the same. The EVF's focus accuracy widely varies with several factors, including focal length, aperture, lens quality, subject contrast, and lighting conditions. In some situations, EVF focusing can be even more accurate than the rangefinder while in others it's next to useless. Generally, EVF focusing is accurate when depth-of-field is narrow ... and typically when the rangefinder comes to its limit. So both focusing methods complement each other neatly.

 

Thanks. Spot on.

 

Ok think I know what your asking. I shot a quick portrait of my 96 year old mother using my 50 Lux wide open the other day. With the EVF I was able to zoom in 5x or 10x and with peaking make sure that her eye was critically sharp. Room was a little dim but she was sitting near a window, late afternoon with a cloudy sky. This worked much better for me than using the standard range finder.

 

Exactly my experience.

Yes, there are mechanical tolerances that make perfect focussing with the RF more challenging - but I admit I was ashamed in a couple of instances by how far off my RF focus was compared to the one achieved with the EVF. A true lesson in humility.

However, with wide lenses and large DOF, focus peaking is a lot less accurate than the rangefinder. I suspect that Leica had to make a trade-off regarding the calibration of the contrast detection algorithm and we may see further improvements (lens-dependent focus peaking perhaps?) as the firmware gets refined.

[UliWer]

I havn't got any experience with an electronic viewfinder. So I can only guess based on assumptions. If I had an M 240, should I keep the EVF constantly attached to the camera? I don't think so, for I think a DSLR, or a mirrorles like the Olympus OM-D or one of the Fujis would be the better solution for me. So I'd keep the EVF in the bag and use the optical rangefinder as always. Should I use the EVF, when I suddenly came into a situation where the EVF perhaps was better? Yes perhaps, if I have enough time and think about it - that's the way I use a polarizer on the M. This covers about 1-5% of my photos.

 

If I'd use the camera on a tripod with a long focal length or a macro lens (I have only some of those for the old Visoflex and no intention to buy more) I'd probably use the EVF and Live-View.

[canlogic]

Hi Tim,

 

Many thanks. I would love to see that picture of your mother. I am sure it's wonderful.

So, in this case, is the EVF with magnification and focus peaking the better tool?

Or, do you think the rangefinder of camera or lens is a little off and needs adjustment?

 

Thanks again.

 

In this instance it was a better tool. Low light, stationary subject, very shallow depth of field etc. but I definitely wont be using it for everything. I don't think camera or any of my lenses are off (haven't tested thoroughly). You can get an Olympus EVF for pretty cheap so it is worthwhile.

[dwbell]

And presumably you had to have your mothers eye in the centre of the frame? Due to the limit of magnified peeking on the 240? Is that right?

[canlogic]

There is no way to scroll the image around when magnified (nice if they could add this) but peaking shows what is in focus across the frame. I was still able to see the corner of her eye at 5x without re framing so it worked out.

[k-hawinkler]

In this instance it was a better tool. Low light, stationary subject, very shallow depth of field etc. but I definitely wont be using it for everything. I don't think camera or any of my lenses are off (haven't tested thoroughly). You can get an Olympus EVF for pretty cheap so it is worthwhile.

 

 

Hi Tim,

 

Many thanks.

I have had the VF-2, an EP-2, and an OM-D E-M5 for a couple of months now.

I also have had a SONY NEX-5N and NEX-7 for close to a year.

 

On the NEXs I set the following parameters to get the most out of focus peaking:

 

Peaking Color Red

Peaking level Low

 

Contrast -3

Saturation 0

Sharpness +3

 

Are similar settings available on the M?

Thanks.

[Ecar]

Unfortunately, those settings are not available.

Perhaps in a future firmware version?

[chris_tribble]

As a general observation I find the EVF helpful, but also bring out some of the challenges of working with longer lenses (especially when you magnify to focus). Hand held this can be really disorientating compared to working with reliable autofocus on a modern DSLR with fast glass. My experience is that in hand held photography & with lenses from 28 to 50 I will continue to prefer the RF. With 90 it's a borderline, and with 135 the EVF is hugely advantageous (though often without magnification or no more than 5x can be easier to handle...).

 

On a tripod, it's a no brainer for 90-135 - I use the EVF. With lenses wider than 28 I'm still debating - focus isn't an issue, but it's really nice having access to the beautifully implemented exposure meter information on the EVF and I may use this more than the Frankenfinder. With macro, again a no brainer - EVF every time.

 

Hope this helps.

[Ivan Muller]

I use my dslr rear lcd a lot for shift lens and macro lens focusing indoors or in the studio. Outdoors, the rear lcd is difficult to focus in bright sunlight...some sort of hood will help of course...the only problem I can see with the new M and handheld long lenses is camera shake and difficulty of focus with a fixed focus spot..here of course IS and movable af spot would have helped a lot..otherwise its back to the tripod.

[tobey bilek]

I set up the auto focus fine tune using Live View which is the sensor image. By definition this is what you get.

 

Then I adjust fine tune to achieve perfect live view focus. Then put it the computer to check.

 

Last step is to adjust the screen so all focus systems are coordinated. Newer cameras are adjusted better at the factory so I have not been required to adjust the screen.

 

Live view will be great for those shots with the M where you try to achieve perfect composition / framing which is not possible with frame lines. Problem is that system is too slow & awkward to have any spontaneous pictures.

[billo101]

Those who have not vision problems, rangefinder is much better.

I do not pass the 75 focal length.

 

b

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sheikhrafiq79]

is that possible , we do focus with rangefinder and compose with evf.

[marknorton]

I've spent a good chunk of today trying various lenses on the camera and comparing the two focussing methods. In theory, if you focus on something through the viewfinder and then check it through Live View, it should be in focus there too because what you are seeing is the exact image which will be captured.

 

The rangerfinder focussing mechanism is just a proxy for the real thing. The assumption is that both camera and lenses are calibrated accurately so that when the rangefinder indicates you have focussed, the Live View confirms it.

 

The good news is that my rangefinder alignment is very good. Put on a lens, focus at, say, 5 metres and check the EVF with Focus Assist - magnified with the edge highlights showing. In focus. Take a lens with known focus shift (f1 Noctilux, last gen 35mm Summilux ASPH) and focus wide open, again, good results. Stop down the lens. Rangefinder say the lens is focussed, the EVF does not and the red edges have disappeared. Tweak the focus and they comeback. Very educational in telling you how much to tweak the focus.

 

My most modern lenses were all fine with a question mark over the 21mm Summilux. Older lenses which were made pre-M8 are off such as the 21 and 24mm Elmarits which suggests Leica is getting better at setting up lenses. I'm not so much worried by those two but my 28mm Summicron, one of my favourite appears to be off as well and more work is required.

 

Other lenses which are working well are my 75s - Summilux and Summicron, and the 90s - Summicron and Elmarit-M.

 

Importantly too, my reference lens, a chrome 50mm Summicron was spot on at the 3 distances I tried which confirms its only role as the lens I use to test rangefinders. I have a flock (if that is the collective noun) of rangefinders and, armed with the knowledge that the 50mm is doing its job, I can go back and revisit the two M8s, the M9 and M9-P because I know the M9 is off, at least.

 

Overall, having this new way of focussing, be able to see the results in real time is a great help and is helping me sort out what is working and what isn't.