focus confirmation : there is a market

[rsolomon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have just read in another post -- and it's news to me that there are lens adapters on the market that allow you to use R lenses on C bodies (like the 5d) AND expolit the focus confirmation of the C camera body.

 

I have to wonder if leica reads these posts, i wonder if they see the the market and the desire of their customers, i wonder if they see a niche provider making money on the gap in the R system (my opinon).

 

leica is so clearly JUST about lenses ...boy i wish they had focus confirmation, the argument of a slight darker viewfinder is weak to me since low light situations (where the viewfinder is already to dark) is exactly where i want focus confirmation,

[Advertisement]

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

[sdai]

Can anybody confirm if the Leica R->4/3 adapter 18628 will enable focus confirmation when coupled to a 4/3 body?

[telyt]

the argument of a slight darker viewfinder is weak to me since low light situations (where the viewfinder is already to dark) is exactly where i want focus confirmation,

 

With an SL viewfinder you don't get a viewfinder that's too dark. Focus confirmation gives up before the SL viewfinder is too dark.

[TimF]

I have just read in another post -- and it's news to me that there are lens adapters on the market that allow you to use R lenses on C bodies (like the 5d) AND expolit the focus confirmation of the C camera body.

A case of putting the cart before the horse? These adapters (and others) exist purely because Canon's flange to focal plane distance is less than that of most other makers. According to Cameraquest, only the Olympus E system can accept more differing mounts via adapters.

 

So, does this mean Leica R users want focus confirmation, or that Canon EOS users believe that certain Leica glass (principally wide angles) and before that Zeiss C/Y lenses (until supplies effectively became exhausted) are superior to those of their chosen marque, and that they (ie Canon users) want the focus confirmation they would expect with Canon lenses? Its pretty much a given that most AF screens are lacking when it comes to manual focus. Over to you.

[sungnee]

I think the R system has no future without auto-focus. Even focus confirmation is not good enough.

[jlancasterd]

I think the R system has no future without auto-focus. Even focus confirmation is not good enough.

 

Are you an R user? If you are, I'm surprised you would make such a remark. I'm sure that I'm not alone in choosing to use the R system *because* it is designed for manual focusing. Having used autofocus DSLRs by other makers I was becoming increasingly frustrated by their shortcomings (specifically losing shots whilst the camera dithered over exposure, and out of focus shots when using short focus lenses). I was delighted when I was able to afford the DMR for my R8.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

leica is so clearly JUST about lenses

 

Not just about lenses surely? So who else makes an M7, MP or M8? Who else makes a digital back for a film SLR? I know there are people out there who will buy an M body and use VC or other lenses until they can afford Leica glass.

 

OK the next SLR will no doubt be a fully integrated digital model but R9 offers an important alternative to other top end film SLR's IMO.

[earleygallery]

I think the R system has no future without auto-focus. Even focus confirmation is not good enough.

 

I too prefer manual focus most of the time. The R9 offers a manual focus alternative - maybe you see it as a drawback but others will see it as an advantage.

 

For Leica to introduce a new autofocus SLR body & a range of autofocus lenses would be quite something. Maybe it will happen but then again, does the market warrant it?

 

I have said before, I think Leica would do well to offer a limited range of AF lenses in say Nikon & Canon mounts, produced in partnership with another manufacturer such as Sigma or Tamron (they provide the body/electronics & Leica provide the glass). Maybe now that they are producing 4/3 mount AF lenses in partnership with Panasonic this isn't such a daft idea after all?

[robert_parker]

Quoting James:

'I have said before, I think Leica would do well to offer a limited range of AF lenses in say Nikon & Canon mounts, produced in partnership with another manufacturer such as Sigma or Tamron (they provide the body/electronics & Leica provide the glass). Maybe now that they are producing 4/3 mount AF lenses in partnership with Panasonic this isn't such a daft idea after all?'

 

James' idea makes a great deal of sense and would represent Leica playing to one of it's strengths as a lens maker - and I'm convinced that the idea of staying with an apeture ring, rather than relying on a switch on the back of the camera will win over a great many who make comparisons.

[dan58]

The main reason I got a R9/DMR is because it did not have auto-focus. What I love about Leica is that you and not the camera takes the photo. If the picture is bad it is your fault. Auto everything has it's place but I do my best work with my Leica.

 

R9/DMR 21-35, 35-70, 80-200, 400.

M6TTL 15,35,50,90.

[rsolomon]

.....and i am talking SLR world

 

i also agree on the auto focus - just not needed, however i am a fan of manual focus with focus confirmation.

 

The way i "read" the adpater that provides focus confirmation for R lenses on C bodies is that .....most everyone wants to use leica lenses (they're the best), but not leica cameras (they don't offer all the features).

 

So i jump to the conclusion that leica should look at these folks and figure out how to sell them cameras for the lenses thay want to use - not let some camera adapter niche company fill the gap

[telyt]

related to this thread is this one:

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/12404-leica-r-lenses-5d.html

 

where one poster states that the electronic focus confirmation on his Canon (with Leica lens) gets him close to accurate focus but for precise focus the focus confirmation isn't quite good enough. There is also a thread on photo.net's Nikon forum

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JMyz&tag=

 

discussing manual focus on the D200 and in particular the KatzEye aftermarket viewscreen, where comments include:

 

"The only time I get out of focus shots is when I use AF lens with shallow DOF. They just aren't as acurate as MF!"

 

"I got the first KatzEye ever made for the D200 (I lent them mine for the prototype). The only annoying thing about it is all Nikon's fault: you can't turn off the little black square in the middle so it always obscures the split finder's sweet spot."

[icemendicant]

I'm not sure if the advantage of focus confirmation with manual focus would outweigh the disadvantages in terms of additional complexity for me, although of course I respect the opinions of those who have tried, and like, similar systems.

 

My reasoning is this: with manual focus we adjust the lens with our hands and watch for a visual cue to know when to stop turning the focus ring - whether that cue is two images lining up in a rangefinder or split-image SLR finder, or microprisms disappearing, or simply the subject looking as sharp as possible in a DLSR. With focus confirmation, we are still using our hands to turn the focus ring while watching for a visual cue, except in this case a little light comes on to tell us we have focus - but if that light is at the bottom of the viewfinder we have to take our eye off the subject to watch for it - which might be important.

 

With full autofocus, at least there are motors turning the lens quickly which frees up the hand and mind for other tasks. With all the shortcomings of autofocus (which prompt many of use to prefer manual focus in the first place) it does have the virtue of being very fast, even if not always accurate and often being tricky to control. There are many areas of photography where this speed is valuable.

 

With focus confirmation we seem to be simply swapping the visual cue to indicate focus. I suppose if it worked in very, very low light (infrared system perhaps) where even a rangefinder would not work then there might be an advantage, but that is not the phase-detection system that seems to be being discussed here.

 

Just my 2p worth...

 

Dan

[rsolomon]

maybe my reall issue is the focus screen . i am currently using the "universal" .... maybe i should cut over to plain ground glass? what do you guys use in low light situations ?

[rsolomon]

maybe my reall issue is the focus screen . i am currently using the "universal" .... maybe i should cut over to plain ground glass? what do you guys use in low light situations ?

[robert_parker]

Richard

 

I know a lot of people (Pascal, Guy M and others) use Brightscreen with some sucess

[sdai]

None of the screens will beat the AF confirmation adapter under low light conditions ... and I've tried them all. I must admit the in camera electronic rangefinder (of all the EOS models that I own at least) is far more reliable than human naked eyes.

[telyt]

Simon, unless you have tried the SL or SL2 you have not tried them all. Their viewfinders - not just the viewscreen - are vastly superior to the typical SLR viewfinder, even in the current top-of-the-line C and N cameras. Not even a Brightscreen is as good, and there is nothing inherent in the design of digital capture or the SL viewfinder that precludes putting the two in the same camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sdai]

Yes, Doug ... you're right. To be honest, I've seriously considered to get a SL2 at one time ... but all my R lenses are ROM versions and I don't see too much benefit to retrofit them for use on a elder film body.

 

The focus confirmation adapters are very inexpensive ... you may want to give it a shot as the proof of a concept if you haven't done so. Of course, some lesser Canon EOS bodies may be prone to error signaling with front/back focusing but this is very unlikely the case with a 1 series body ... at least, not with mine.

[telyt]

all my R lenses are ROM versions and I don't see too much benefit to retrofit them for use on a elder film body.

 

For those who would like to try an SL but don't want to give up the ROM contacts, Don Goldberg and I have worked out a way to use ROM lenses on the SL with very minor (and reversible) modifications to the lens and body. This doesn't work on the SL2 or Leicaflex Standard, just the SL.