M9 increased hit rate vs. DSLR cameras

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe I have missed the point of the comments above but it seems to me that the variable being discussed is the 'photographer'. The equipment does not vary but the photographer does. This is where the 'keepers' reside - in your hands.

 

To me a keeper (mostly) is a result of having an awareness, a preparedness and reflexes, all coupled to some recording equipment (usually a camera). Add 'the decisive moment' (pardon the cliche) and a keeper is in the making. 90% of all that is the photographer, but a good camera is nice to do it with.

 

When it comes to 'non keepers', I am reluctant to delete. In future times they can be valuable to someone. History always proves that. In my film days, I said "one good frame justifies the whole roll". It was, and still is, filed in its entirety. Cheap and easy practice. I largely practice the same with digital. Just a discipline as far as I am concerned. Sometimes, much later, keepers are found among the non keepers as result of re-visiting the files.

[Advertisement]

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

[stealthman_1]

Now obviously this would be much more difficult to do at f2, but I've been very happy with my keeper rate with BIFs, Butterflys IF, and doggie action shots than I expected...of course 90mm is a far cry from 400, but honestly with really tricky action (dragonflys in flight) I shoot the 400 in MF anyway and try to be smaller than f8. And when focus is nailed exactly, the detail I get used to in M9 shots really makes me cringe when I see my D3 shots.

P.S. This bird is smaller than a robin...not even close to 100% crop at this image size.

[Steve Pope]

Oh it focuses alright. But not always on the right eye brow ... M9's focusing system claims no intelligence, its basically just me - so it always focuses on what I want

The photo you've shown hardly proves your point - it's back-focused somewhere in the no-man's land between the two subjects, on or around the blue window frame. Nothing closer than the furthest edge of your daughter's bottom lip is quite sharp enough for the execution to qualify as an autofocus-trumping 'keeper'. You might still like the image for all kinds of other reasons, of course - no argument there.

[erl]

Steve, I think Faraz has made his point and criteria for preference and has not asked anyone else to agree. Personally, I find, from a 'family pic' point of view he has succeeded. The focus is at least as acceptable as many I have seen that escape 'focus criticism'. I think Faraz has demonstrated that 'pre-focus' or 'zone focus' is a tool most readily employed by RF cams rather than SLR's. Whether you like the 'proximity' of focus exactness is a personal thing. Subject 'moment' should override technical fetishes and the particular RF techniques of focusing could be argued as advantageous. Personal preferences making the choice of course, as Faraz has done.

[Steve Pope]

Steve, I think Faraz has made his point and criteria for preference and has not asked anyone else to agree.

As soon as somebody makes outrageously specious claims for focusing hit-rate like that - and on more than one forum simultaneously - then by implication what they say is up for grabs for agreement, challenge or critique. No permission is required - this is a discussion forum, after all. And as for the OP meeting his own stated criteria - nailing eyebrow-precise focus - well, he demonstrably hasn't! No wonder he's getting five hundred keepers per session if that's where the bar is being set.

 

Interesting that you feel such an uncontroversial stance warrants moderator intervention...

[tom0511]

Faraz

 

with all respect that shot could have been done at least as well (technically / quality wise) with a camera and lens costing 10% of what you probably paid.....

 

am sure the shot is close to your heart but from a pure technical aspect not really challenging for most modern cameras.

 

good shooting

andy

 

(M8.2 guy)

 

I think the detail and tonality quite nice in the image. Contrast between the face of the girl vs the bright background is not easy light IMO and rendered quite well.

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As soon as somebody makes outrageously specious claims for focusing hit-rate like that - and on more than one forum simultaneously - then by implication what they say is up for grabs for agreement, challenge or critique. No permission is required - this is a discussion forum, after all. And as for the OP meeting his own stated criteria - nailing eyebrow-precise focus - well, he demonstrably hasn't! No wonder he's getting five hundred keepers per session if that's where the bar is being set.

 

Interesting that you feel such an uncontroversial stance warrants moderator intervention...

 

Steve, I think you have misread faraz's stated aim and my comments. Faraz broadly has said he achieved what he was attempting, which was NOT "eyebrow-precise-focus", to quote you, using his described method. It is not for us to disagree if he is happy. the original discussion I think was relating to technique rather than quality and that is what I read Faraz as saying.

 

As you say, this is a discussion and I had my view to express and I did.

 

Interesting that you see my participation as 'Moderation'. If in fact if it were, you would be left in no doubt about my intent. Be assured I was simply participation as a member, like you, and not 'wearing any hat'.

 

The fact that you disagree with Faraz, and probably me, is fine. The right to express it is always open. The very nature of what we generally discuss is not mathematically precise so there will always be 'discussion', which is healthy.

 

Please continue to enjoy your way of indulging photography the way you prefer to see it.

[Guest]

Hi Faraz,

You noticed that the right eyebrow AND the blue bolts on the window frame on the left are in focus, without being equidistant.

[faraz]

The photo you've shown hardly proves your point - it's back-focused somewhere in the no-man's land between the two subjects, on or around the blue window frame. Nothing closer than the furthest edge of your daughter's bottom lip is quite sharp enough for the execution to qualify as an autofocus-trumping 'keeper'. You might still like the image for all kinds of other reasons, of course - no argument there.

 

I agree the focus is not entirely precise unless you share the intent. The intent was to keep my wife from completely blurring out in addition to handling the tricky backlight (it was bright around noon in southern cali). I intended for my wife to be present within the frame and be recognizable without being the focus of the photograph yet without too much noctilux blurring to entirely render her in the background. I also wanted the background outside of the window to be completely blurred so small aperture was not an option. Please note that this photo was taken from the same bench in the bus and I achieved the intended results by focusing on neither my daughter nor my wife but a third point (in empty space) which delivered this goal - this is not something easily possible with DSLRs (although my 5D2 and some of my canon L glass does allow focusing based on distance and manual override, this is even slower than RF and results in a larger number of missed pictures than my initial RF hit rate).

 

At this time, I am not even talking about ability to focus *at all* in some unexpected scenarios, see this picture for an example - my friend's wife decided to throw a surprise birthday at midnight yesterday for her husband and I happened to be carrying the M9 with nocti for some starry night images. Guess what? this shot would not be possible with any DSLR, no matter what and I got 5 out of 6 shots at acceptable focus despite the dreaded purple fringe of noctilux:

 

[faraz]

Hi Faraz,

You noticed that the right eyebrow AND the blue bolts on the window frame on the left are in focus, without being equidistant.

 

They are sort of equidistant due to the angle I was shooting from (same bench but reaching out to the next row and turning the camera in).

[Nikkor AIS]

Nice shot. But Im a little confussed as why that shot be impossible with my D3 and and my 58 1.2 AIS Nocturnal? Or my Canon 5D2 and the 50 1.0 I used to own.? Just what is the it that M9 has over these other camera? While I really like the M system I still can focus equally well with just about any camera I ever used. My keeper rater (focus wise) is about the same with any system.

 

Gregory

[faraz]

Nice shot. But Im a little confussed as why that shot be impossible with my D3 and and my 58 1.2 AIS Nocturnal? Or my Canon 5D2 and the 50 1.0 I used to own.? Just what is the it that M9 has over these other camera? While I really like the M system I still can focus equally well with just about any camera I ever used. My keeper rater (focus wise) is about the same with any system.

 

Gregory

 

The issue arises in the inability to focus. Atleast with 5D2, even if the ISO is turned up very high (12800 or 25600), the issue is the focusing system and focus hunting - something that simply isn't an issue with the M.

[jaapv]

Well, there is a switch to switch AF off....

[faraz]

Well, there is a switch to switch AF off....

 

But what do you focus on? The view through the lens is not enough to focus manually?

[jaapv]

I never had difficulties focussing SLRs, even in low light. The focussing screen of the newest pro DSLRs is really not bad at all.

[faraz]

I never had difficulties focussing SLRs, even in low light. The focussing screen of the newest pro DSLRs is really not bad at all.

 

That is impressive. To give you an idea of focusing conditions take a look at this picture as the candles had just been blown and all that was left was moon light :

 

 

I only had about 10-15 seconds to capture the moment and the tool worked due to RF focusing. I am not able to focus in this sort of light with a DSLR even with manual focusing

ring (85mm f1.2 having especially horrible focusing ring to begin with, the modern 100mm f2.8 II macro does show some promise).

[Frank Sprow]

"Hit Rate" or "Keepers" to me relates to how well the image reflects my objective in taking the picture. For me, M series Leicas (either my M3, M7 or M9) do this far better than others, except for fast moving or distant objects - where my D3X is king. And I must say my conclusion re success reflects only indirectly on accuracy of focus or even exposure, within broad limits.

[almoore]

Faraz, you're making some very odd comments regarding the apparent inability of SLRs to focus accurately and in low light.

 

If you don't have the inclination to work out how to set up the focus of your 5DII in an appropriate manner (tip: set the focus to the back button separating it from the shutter release and manually select your focus point) then it's your own shortcomings coming into play rather than those of the camera. The same applies to the suggestion that a 5DII doesn't have the dynamic range required for the first image posted - if you expose correctly (don't leave it on autoeverything mode) you'll find that it's more than up to the task.

 

Personally, I find that rangefinders are nicer in the hand than any SLR, have a viewfinder that suits my way of seeing, and have universally great lenses, but it doesn't alter the fact that a good SLR with a well chosen lens is a very competent tool that in the majority of situations will equal the image quality of an M9. I'm pleased you like your camera, but I've no understanding of why you feel the need to run down a perfectly good and well priced SLR.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[faraz]

SLRs are awesome. They are a great tool for fast action, macro work, fashion and product, tele work and a lot of other areas they are appropriate for.

 

There are also some really nice low light performers (both canon and Nikon that I am familiar with) that can do wonders.

 

For *me*, the fact remains that I am achieving a better hit rate in a variety of situations that I was not able to before with an SLR. I mean the RF based focusing feels simple and natural to me and works universally and naturally in a lot of difficult lighting conditions (again for me).

 

I am familiar with manual focus point selection on 5D2 (and there must be similar approaches on other slr cameras) but it does not come naturally to me, i.e. press the button, rotate the wheel to select focus point, half depress the button to lock focus, hope for the best - oops, the aperture wasn't correct, change the power switch to one level up (on 5D2) to allow changing of aperture back to f1.2, target has moved, select the focus point again, lock focus, change shutter speed to accommodate new lighting, *click* - what? the candles are already blown? Wait, wait, we we didn't catch the shot, let's light up the candles again.

 

And I have never claimed to be a good photographer with or without the RF, all I am saying is that the simplicity of focusing seems to allow an incompetent photographer like myself get shots I wasn't able to get before. This is not a universal edict and does not apply to everyone. I hope I didn't imply anywhere that I was issuing a fatwa on dslrs which are amazing tools for a lot of things, even for me (I love rendering on my 85mm f1.2 lens better than noctilux).

[almoore]

Faraz, you're reinforcing the point that I made in my last post - if you don't understand how to set up a camera then there's little point in claiming it doesn't work very well.

 

You don't need to 'rotate the wheel to select focus point', you just need to use your thumb to push the focus point to wherever you choose with that little joystick knob on the back of the camera - it's virtually instant once you get the feel of it.

 

You don't need to 'half depress the button to lock focus', as I've already pointed out you just need to assign focus to one of the back buttons on the camera. This totally removes focus from the shutter release and speeds things up enormously.

 

You don't need to 'hope for the best - oops, the aperture wasn't correct'. This might come as a surprise but there's a setting called M for manual which allows you to choose whatever aperture and shutter speed combination you desire.

 

I don't know what 'change the power switch to one level up (on 5D2) to allow changing of aperture back to f1.2' actually means, but if it's a reference to the use of a thumbwheel to change aperture then this is just about the fastest way possible to adjust your settings (once you get used to it).

 

Give me a choice between an M6 and an EOS1v and I'll pick up the Leica every time. Give me a choice between an M9 and a 5DII and I'll pick up the Canon, because the Leica is still too glitchy whereas the 5DII is relentlessly reliable. Give me a choice between an M10 and a 5DIII/IV/or whatever and hopefully I'll be back to picking up the Leica...There are many reasons to prefer a Leica M over any SLR, but you haven't given them - you've merely shown you don't know how to use a particular camera.