jaapv Posted January 21, 2010 Share #161 Posted January 21, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, let's limit that to "more digital rangefinders" to make the statement true... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 21, 2010 Posted January 21, 2010 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Who would like an M 9 autofocus?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Nicoleica Posted January 21, 2010 Share #162 Posted January 21, 2010 For those that want Live-View, AF and video on an 'M' camera, I'm sure that the $750 modification done to this D700 can also be applied to an 'M'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted January 21, 2010 Share #163 Posted January 21, 2010 Hopping in late... AF - no thanks. I use my Canon's for that + the long lenses. HOWEVER, if you wanted to improve the AF, a real improvement on the M (if it were possible without grossing out the body) would be built in dioptre adjustment. I'm sure a lot of users have problems focusing simply because they can't see the detail in the screen. A well adjusted dioptre makes all the difference... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted January 21, 2010 Share #164 Posted January 21, 2010 Maybe Leica could release two different versions. But I rather do not believe in that. Going to digtal - means using benefits that it gives, and fighting with its weakneses. There is no way back. The group that is against the progress is decreasing, dying. And opposite - group of new minds is increasing. I am sure producer does need PROFIT, not only APPRECIATION or SENTIMENT. Guys, I am from external world. When I read users tests of 1.4 lenses - it is UNBELIEVEABLE for DSLR person!!! Unbelievable, that someone postes misfocused photo and agrees that it is best that he could achive... Focus SHIFT - this was not a big issue in ANALOG. Now - using sensors like in M9 and looking on photos on LCD - we see often unacceptable results. There is no sense to buy 1.4 lenses and apply focus bracketting each time. It is like going to Middle Ages! And producer agrees that focus shift is a property of the lens itself, that it is construction, design result... IT ALL would not be the case if LV\EVF could be used in critical moments. No more front focus, back focus, focus shift, all frames centrally composed (nightmare). No more! I am example of person who decided to buy just f/2.5 lenses. LEICA, can you hear? Want to earn more? Deliver LV\EVF and people like me will buy more expensive 1.4 lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted January 21, 2010 Share #165 Posted January 21, 2010 lot of users have problems focusing simply because they can't see the detail in the screen [...] A well adjusted dioptre makes all the difference... What is big step ahead is live view. Solves not only focus issues, but also gives you exact frame view and allows to magnife for focusing any part of frame, not only center. No more need to guess, how distortion will look like when 12mm lens in use ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2010 Share #166 Posted January 21, 2010 With all due respect, you sound more like a person who bought the wrong camera..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted January 21, 2010 Share #167 Posted January 21, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have made first shots and am amazed!!! Most of pictures I do are @ f/5.6 - f/8, even f/11. But from time to time, I would like to use f/1.4. But do not want to play, experiment, so 2.5 is max until LV will be available. And just AF known from DSLr does not solve it too! Exact magnified view from sensor is remedy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 21, 2010 Share #168 Posted January 21, 2010 With all due respect, you sound more like a person who bought the wrong camera..... +1 Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2010 Share #169 Posted January 21, 2010 Jerry, everything you write screams to me that you must start practising your skills instead of blaming your tools. The M 8/9 is a camera that is born to be used with fast lenses wide open. Every second shot I take is with selective focus wide open. And any rare focus error is mine, not Leica's..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodor Heinrichsohn Posted January 21, 2010 Share #170 Posted January 21, 2010 Quote............. a real improvement on the M (if it were possible without grossing out the body) would be built in dioptre adjustment. I'm sure a lot of users have problems focusing simply because they can't see the detail in the screen. A well adjusted dioptre makes all the difference... Agree wholeheartedly. I use a diopter + magnifier Teddy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted January 21, 2010 Share #171 Posted January 21, 2010 Thanks! I will look for cheaper used 1.4 and will practice! Then I do not risk a lot, and have a lot to win. Pls remember - I do not (or at least try not to) blame existing solution, but try to point, that sth new could be added, that would be helpful in some circumestances, not always. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2010 Share #172 Posted January 21, 2010 Quote............. a real improvement on the M (if it were possible without grossing out the body) would be built in dioptre adjustment. I'm sure a lot of users have problems focusing simply because they can't see the detail in the screen. A well adjusted dioptre makes all the difference... Agree wholeheartedly. I use a diopter + magnifier Teddy Agree 100%! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 21, 2010 Share #173 Posted January 21, 2010 Jerry, Jaap is right - there is no substitute for learning your tool, and for practising with it. Sharp focus with a 1.4 is entirely possible and as has been said by others, having the correct setup and dioptre correction is a big step towards increasing your hit-rate. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted January 21, 2010 Share #174 Posted January 21, 2010 I bought 35mm 2.5 and used 90mm 2.8 plus optical magnifier for tele (x1.4). So far - it focuses spot on! This is sth I was most afraid of. I didn't want to send body for calibration. Now I know - in future I will look for some 1.4 lens - but will do all to try it on my camera body, before buying. Thanks for all comments! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted January 21, 2010 Share #175 Posted January 21, 2010 Jerry, Jaap is right - there is no substitute for learning your tool, and for practising with it. Sharp focus with a 1.4 is entirely possible and as has been said by others, having the correct setup and dioptre correction is a big step towards increasing your hit-rate. Regards, Bill Yep, fully agree. I like to focus where I want to focus when I want to focus. I've been practicing focussing on people whilst following them along the street... at 0.95. It's all possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_dernie Posted January 22, 2010 Share #176 Posted January 22, 2010 Basically there is no real need for led confirmation for the excellent focusing mechanism within the Ms. However I (but it's only me) would love to be able to magnify somehow on the rangefinder patches for some extra precision, and this not all the times. This one could accomplish with the aid of some -say- removable optical magnifier glass. But this is not that incredibly important. More important are accurate and moving framelines, moving as one chooses one lens type and then another cam that changes the frame lines as he focuses. Why do you guys need led confirmation? I use the Leica 1.4x viewfinder magnifier to assist focus with my longer lenses. Works well. My business is designing F1 racing cars, not cameras, but I have been packaging things to make them as small as possible for nearly 35 years, I don't see how the M could be made autofocus without being a lot bigger. The layout of the camera does not lend itself to autofocus at all. I have a Nikon D3x for when I need autofocus. I don't find the focus indicator, which works for when using manual focus lenses, to be very useful since I have to take my eye of that which I am trying to focus to look at it. I have often been disappointed by autofocus with fast lenses, the point of focus chosen by the camera is rarely that which I would choose. Portraits of people in spectacles with my Canon 85mm f1.2 lens would have frames in focus and eye slightly blurred, I could give loads of other examples. I find the RF patch on my M9 perfect for focussing fast lenses manually, because it -is- on that which I am trying to focus. People who want autofocus have a plethora of cameras and lenses from which to choose. Those of us who want to use fast lenses under our own control on a tiny camera have one choice. I am sure the M will continue to be developed/improved. I am quite sure autofocus will not fit. I am fairly sure a reasonably priced electronic focus confirmation would be less accurate than the existing manual one. M cameras sell in tiny numbers since the number of people to which they appeal is small. There are gazillions of autofocus cameras, the Panasonic GH1 works well as my on a walk small light versatile camera with HD video. Frank Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 22, 2010 Share #177 Posted January 22, 2010 Frank, when using autofocus and fast lenses, never let the camera choose the autofocus point. That is a recipe for failure. It will usually choose the nearest object, such as the eyeglass frame in your example. When using fast lenses and autofocus, you must choose one autofocus point and place it where you need it. The depth of field is too shallow for allowing the camera to choose. I'm not familiar with how Nikon works, but when using manual focus with recent Canon cameras, you don't have to take your eye off that which you are trying to focus on. The active autofocus patch (the one you've chosen) lights up when focus is achieved, and there is a optional beep. So your eye can be precisely where you are focusing. Autofocus is blamed for many errors, but experienced users such as sports photographers learn how to use it very successfully. This means almost always choosing which autofocus point will be active. That will usually be the center point (unless the outer points are the more sensitive cross-type, as on some cameras). I agree that autofocus just does not fit the existing M. I also agree that electronic focus confirmation is likely to be less accurate than the existing manual method. However, I would not rule out a roughly M-sized autofocus camera being developed in the future, not to replace the M, but to be sold as an alternate camera & lens line, like the S2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_dernie Posted January 24, 2010 Share #178 Posted January 24, 2010 Frank, when using autofocus and fast lenses, never let the camera choose the autofocus point. That is a recipe for failure. It will usually choose the nearest object, such as the eyeglass frame in your example. When using fast lenses and autofocus, you must choose one autofocus point and place it where you need it. The depth of field is too shallow for allowing the camera to choose. I'm not familiar with how Nikon works, but when using manual focus with recent Canon cameras, you don't have to take your eye off that which you are trying to focus on. The active autofocus patch (the one you've chosen) lights up when focus is achieved, and there is a optional beep. So your eye can be precisely where you are focusing. Autofocus is blamed for many errors, but experienced users such as sports photographers learn how to use it very successfully. This means almost always choosing which autofocus point will be active. That will usually be the center point (unless the outer points are the more sensitive cross-type, as on some cameras). I agree that autofocus just does not fit the existing M. I also agree that electronic focus confirmation is likely to be less accurate than the existing manual method. However, I would not rule out a roughly M-sized autofocus camera being developed in the future, not to replace the M, but to be sold as an alternate camera & lens line, like the S2. I do choose the autofocus point which is active, which can makes AF slower than MF would have been, but in the case of the subject wearing spectacles this does not help since the AF usually locks on to the frame not the iris of the eye. As far as sports are concerned, most of the pro F1 motor racing photographers I know use manual focus for critical shots, AF for grab shots with zooms stopped down, where depth of field masks any problems. I have used Canon AF cameras since the EOS 620 but use Nikon more since 2008 because of the superior ergonomics and autofocus. OTOH for critical stuff I would always use my M9. Frank Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjr Posted January 24, 2010 Share #179 Posted January 24, 2010 Absurd............ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted January 24, 2010 Share #180 Posted January 24, 2010 I would love the M10 to have the familiar rewind knob so I can delete pictures without having do go into those complicated menus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.