Who would like an M 9 autofocus?

[ModernMan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What's this story Modern? Do you refer to the focus patch of an M rangefinder?

Yes, exactly.

[redbaron]

Didn't say it was more accurate.

 

Just a point of fact: the rangefinder superimposition rectangle is not focus confirmation in and of itself. It provides raw data which the user can process to estimate whether focus is confirmed or not. Whereas, a focus confirmation system processes the raw data and tells you whether focus is confirmed or not (and perhaps which way its off).

 

So, the little rectangle in the rangefinder is not a focus confirmation indication. If one were to build an autofocus M, there would have to be an actual focus confirmation system to control the autofocus.

 

As for dumbing down, you make a good point: decontenting (removing functionality) is not the same as dumbing down.

 

Modern, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

I know you didn't say it was more accurate, but in my opinion, unless it is why use it?

 

I can't see any technical difference between the current rangefinder patch and an electronic focus confirmation device. The patch will indicate if the particular object being aimed at is in sharp focus, or not. It will also indicate which way to turn the lens if the object is out of focus and how far. Your electronic jobbie can still only indicate the same things, therefore I can't see how it is more advanced. Technologically maybe, but not functionally.

 

The RF patch is also right in the centre of the frame, therefore actually on the subject. Any other device must be away from the centre and so less functional.

[jaapv]

If focus is confirmed by a little led flashing, there is no need to get one's brain out of stand-by mode. Interpreting if the RF patch is at max contrast needs at least a modicum of mental effort:rolleyes:

[stealthman_1]

Didn't say it was more accurate.

 

Just a point of fact: the rangefinder superimposition rectangle is not focus confirmation in and of itself. It provides raw data which the user can process to estimate whether focus is confirmed or not. Whereas, a focus confirmation system processes the raw data and tells you whether focus is confirmed or not (and perhaps which way its off).

 

So, the little rectangle in the rangefinder is not a focus confirmation indication. If one were to build an autofocus M, there would have to be an actual focus confirmation system to control the autofocus.

 

 

Horse puckey. A mechanical rangefinder doesn't provide data. It provides a visual cue of focus, subject to the accuracy of rangefinder (generally unknown) and the quality of vision (generally known) of the user. A focus confirmation system processes data from some form of electronic distance measuring device (name your poison) to give you a visual cue of focus. The visual cue is generally in a place where you are not supposed to be looking when doing critical focus or anticipating a crucial moment and while a user with even poor vision could interpret it, focus confirmation accuracy is a function of several significant, unknown variables to the user. Prominent among those is sensor spot location and the inherent resolution limits of the sensor employed.

I think it's very interesting that some would prefer a red flash of light to confirm focus that is inaccurate for up to 4 of the 8 to 9 stops their lenses are built with than to make a decision that focus is achieved.

[ModernMan]

Modern, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

I know you didn't say it was more accurate, but in my opinion, unless it is why use it?

 

 

I'm not even sure we disagree. Personally, I like the M rangefinder, and I wasn't advocating focus confirmation as delivering any usability benefit. My point was just that even with the M rangefinder system, an autofocus feature would require a true focus confirmation system. What we have with the M today is a fine focussing system, but not a true focus confirm feature, as would be required to control autofocus.

 

You do make another good point, which is that a focus confirm system should have the pretty light flash superimposed on the viewfinder over the focus point (as is done in Canon dSLRs), so as not to require looking elsewhere.

[Guest mc_k]

I use the (M8) camera in low light without any leeway for aperture / shutter speed ... if the camera had 2-3 stops better ISO it would amount to having an updated focusing system

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, exactly.

I have AF confirm on Nikon and Canon bodies and it is far less accurate than my Ms or even R-D1s RF in low light. Could be usefull as an optional device for low-sighted people though.

[henning]

The point is that a rangefinder is much smaller than an SLR, especially when carrying a few lenses. Alternatives that offer autofocus are either much bigger (like the Nikon D700) or have a small sensor, no interchangeable lenses and/or no viewfinder. A rangefinder-sized AF camera with AF lenses would offer a great combination of quality, size and practicality.

 

AF lenses for this camera would not be SLR-sized. Without a mirror box, the lenses can be relatively small, even with AF. I believe Leica's X1 has an APS-C Sensor, the same as Nikon's D300 camera, and yet the X1's built-in 24mm AF lens appears smaller than a Nikon 24mm AF lens.

 

Since we already have an AF camera that takes interchangeable lenses and doesn't have to deal with a mirror box, why not look at a Panasonic GF1 as a prototype at 0.7 scale. Scaling it would give you an idea of the size required: 1.4 x the length, width, height. 2.8x the volume and weight. A rather large and very un-M like camera, especially considering that you now would have a large and relatively unresponsive camera that would need serious upgrades to processing power to be able to handle the autofocus and processing required of the new, large size.

 

Not to completely disparage the GF1 (I have one and regularly use it) but one of it's main failings is the lack of responsiveness and so-so autofocus. Scaling it up would make that worse, if anything.

 

I don't have an M9, but have used a couple of M8's for the last 3 years and they are quite different cameras. An autofocus M camera might be interesting, but not at M9 prices and GF1 operational performance.

 

I've tried an X1 and it's not the second coming. For someone who's used an M it's a severe disappointment.

[W4Leica]

A tradition is a tradition. It lasts and survives because of its tradition and base. I do not think Leica M would survive if changed to AF - W.

[hookonclassic]

My answer is No. No. No...

 

If you want AF. Get other camera. Plenty of AF from other system and maker to choose from in the market.

[nugat]

The rangefinder confirms only that the rangefinder itself is set on a subject. Same as the left and right eye vision lines intersecting at a subject and thus not producing double image. To be sure that a desired subject is in focus we need to know what its picture looks like on the sensor (film). This is the real lens focus confirmation method. It also is indepedent of rangefinder adjustments , mechanical perfection in lens focus pulling, front or backfocus issues etc. Where real money rides on focus (film industry, commercial photography) rangefinders are not used. Focus pulling in film is a serious job. The puller used to depend on the measuring tape and a system of marks on the set. If the rushes confirmed he failed, the next day wold be a costly reshooting. Later laser rangefinders were used. Recently LCD displays with magnification are used for the confirmation. Hyperfocals and zone focus are not acceptable here, the plane of focus must always be where the director wants it.

A recent firmware upgrade to GF1 has a picture magnification in the EVF or LCD at a touch of the option dial. Focus with M-mount glass was never easier. Hexanon 60/1.2 which is my favorite portrait lens gives 2 cm or less than an inch of DOF at f1.2 and from 1.5 meter (6 feet). Now it's a breeze to focus on GF1. This is not to disparage all those who can focus their M-mount difficult glass most of the time. I don't have such skills unfortunately.

[redbaron]

Why, oh why do some people insist on flogging this smelly, old nag?

 

Leica will not change the most essential and fundamental aspect of its core product. Not in the next model or the one after that. Never.

[drteitelbaum]

An auto focus lens on an M camera is like a Ferrari with an automatic transmission.

 

While I agree with you in principle, it is a fact that most Ferrari's now come with an F1 transmission. While technically it is an automatic clutch rather than a torque converter, the driver no longer has to shift, which is the true point of your analogy.

 

The bottom line is that I have fewer out of focus M9 photos than I do D3 photos...I think you can learn to focus the M lenses faster and more reliably than a D3...

 

BUT, if Nikon ever got its act together, it would develop a camera that did "autofocus bracketing." Wouldn't you love an autofocus camera that you could set to fire of a bunch of photos of very slightly different focus lengths? That would be the killer innovation. The light meters are so good that you really don't need to do exposure brackets much (unless you're doing HDR.) But focus bracketing - particularly for those of us who like to shoot wide open would be great.

[jlam]

I think manual focusing should remain as the primary means of using an M but it would be a nice addition to have an optional liveview mode with MF-assist magnification. It is suitable for situation where extremely precise focus is needed. And it also makes the camera usable even when the RF calibration is off (and what about an M that can automatically calibrate it's own RF without having to be sent back to Leica?).

 

Joseph

[Olsen]

First of all, Leica must consentrate at making a competitive camera when it comes to high ISO performance and corner sharpness that shows what the Leica glas is really good for. - And how much better Leica glas is compared to competition.

 

When that is done, Leica should modernise the M-series and introduce Auto Focus, plus introduce a ditto AF lens program. With a possibility to still use, manually, the old lenses, - for the hardliners.

 

This is inevitable. Leica should not listen to all these old guys, - they will soon be dead anyway, that want no technical development and improvement. Leica should work towards making the M-series cameras as intuitive to use as just any of these shiny small chinese-made japanese cameras the flow the world right now. That is fast and intuitive, and which delivers pictures of high quality. Leica should target 'the future user', not making themselves dependant on the old guys that will soon not be around, and which is a shrinking market segment. What do the young people expect of Leica? That is what Leica should make.

[jaapv]

One problem here- by the time the oldies have died off and the youngsters have grown up enough to be able to afford Leicas, they will have turned into cranky old luddites who would not dream of using autofocus on their Leica M14..... And the alledged market will have dried up....

[giordano]

One problem here- by the time the oldies have died off and the youngsters have grown up enough to be able to afford Leicas, they will have turned into cranky old luddites who would not dream of using autofocus on their Leica M14..... And the alledged market will have dried up....

 

Maybe they'll be cranky old luddites who wouldn't accept face-, composition- and decisive-moment-recognition features - but I bet they'll want autofocus.

[gwelland]

 

The bottom line is that I have fewer out of focus M9 photos than I do D3 photos...I think you can learn to focus the M lenses faster and more reliably than a D3...

 

BUT, if Nikon ever got its act together, it would develop a camera that did "autofocus bracketing." Wouldn't you love an autofocus camera that you could set to fire of a bunch of photos of very slightly different focus lengths? That would be the killer innovation. The light meters are so good that you really don't need to do exposure brackets much (unless you're doing HDR.) But focus bracketing - particularly for those of us who like to shoot wide open would be great.

 

Surprised to hear of your D3 AF experience - very lens dependent in my experience but with fast optics I find it deadly accurate.

 

With respect to AF focus bracket it exists today! I use a tool called Helicon Remote when shooting tethered which does exactly this by modifying and stepping the AF point through a scene to produce a focus stack of images for Helicon Focus. Btw, you wouldn't want to step through the focal length automatically - not sure that's what you really meant.

 

Anyway, as regards AF on M, it just ISN'T going to happen. Focus assist in the viewfinder could be useful for some but I find the traditional VF very easy and accurate.

[ennjott]

BUT, if Nikon ever got its act together, it would develop a camera that did "autofocus bracketing." Wouldn't you love an autofocus camera that you could set to fire of a bunch of photos of very slightly different focus lengths? That would be the killer innovation.

Not really an innovation but simply what Contax already did. I don't remember which system or when it was, but the camera could AF bracket 3 shots.

 

Personally, I find AF close to useless ("close" because there's very rare occasions where manual focusing takes too long). I had my 5D2 VF re-shimmed at the Canon service, use an Eg-S screen and got a KPS UMC 1.3x VF mangnifier.

With this configuration, it's still not as good as a proper manual focus camera's VF from the 1980s, but certainly usable.

 

Now when I read the forums and see all those Canon users whining about AF not being accurate etc. etc. and being totally dependent on it, it just gives me a headache. From my point of view this is a typical mass market feature and fine for slow zooms, but not for anything else.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[redbaron]

Us cranky, old luddites only have one manual focus camera left. Just one! Those who need help focussing have all the rest to chose from.

 

If you don't like manual focus chose something else, but please stop telling Leica they should change their cameras to suit your inadequacies.