CheshireCat Posted August 2, 2015 Share #61 Posted August 2, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) So- we are left with your assertions/opinion. Having focused thousands of times with the EVF, and many of tenthousands with an RF, I don't think you little newspaper game will add anything useful. Actually, we are left with you not doing your homework, as usual Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 Hi CheshireCat, Take a look here The M240 as a professional tool. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter Kilmister Posted August 2, 2015 Share #62 Posted August 2, 2015 I'd be very surprised if jaapv hadn't done his home work. He knows his stuff. No sexism implied by assuming jaapv is male. She might be more than a match for any of us. Please help me with all this correctness ... I don't want to offend anyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 2, 2015 Share #63 Posted August 2, 2015 Actually, we are left with you not doing your homework, as usual By pointing out your assertion is unfounded? Which does not even begin to address whether it is correct or not. First you draw a conclusion from an article that does not even mention the subject of your conclusion. Then you present a chain of arguments that contains an unproven step and when that is pointed out you dream up an experiment that is invalid because it contains three variables and insist that I do your experiment for you to prove your point. Sorry... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 3, 2015 Share #64 Posted August 3, 2015 Let me explain it one last time: - The article demonstrates that AF is as good as critical focusing with 10x LV (manual, or automatic contrast detect). - Critical focusing with 10x LV is more precise than RF (everyone know this, but jaapv won't ever admit it). - Therefore AF is more precise than RF. You don't need a degree in Logic to understand this. If you don't want to understand it, then fine. But stop spreading false information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted August 3, 2015 Share #65 Posted August 3, 2015 CheshireCat. Your most recent posts in this thread can only be described as condescending. Please stop that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted August 3, 2015 Share #66 Posted August 3, 2015 In terms of lenses it won't save DSLRs. They simply are not superlative. I can't think of any Canon or Nikon f1.4 lens any good wide open.Man, I love my Leica glass but to me the above is just so not true. I have tons of stellar published images from the Nikon 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 G lenses that for a number of years had me question why I would ever need to build a Leica system in the first place. I don't agree with what you are saying at all Colonel and neither would any of my peers who also make a fine living with modern Canon or Nikon fast primes. I am sometimes at a loss as to why this Leica bravado chest pounding goes on like it does, what in the heck does it prove other than some gear test chart that has noting at all to do with the end game of a superb photograph. On the note of AF vs RF that seems to have caused a bit of a mud match, AF is fantastic in most modern high end bodies with lenses 2.8 and faster but a few nights ago I was in super low light at around 1/4 of a second at 1.4 at 3,200 and the AF was just not at all that reliable but the M240 in red frame line mode with a 35 1.4 using RF was, amazingly so actually. Maybe ease up on the chest pounding folks, that goes for who would otherwise be a mod too, it makes the place look bad, at least in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 3, 2015 Share #67 Posted August 3, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) You may also ignore Roger Cicala, but this is what I mean: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new` Excellent lenses with excellent AF systems are almost as good as critical manual focusing in Live View. Hence much more precise than a human and a perfectly calibrated RF. Enough with this nonsense RF myth. What do you mean by myth here? Roger Cicala did not say a single word about rangefinders did he? As far as i'm concerned, LV (preferably 10x) is fine when the scene is not too dark, when the lens is not too wide, when the aperture is not too small, when i'm not in a hurry and when i don't mind to be disturbed by a magnified window while composing. Otherwise the RF is vastly superior within the limits of its own accuracy. At least for me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 3, 2015 Share #68 Posted August 3, 2015 Let me explain it one last time:- The article demonstrates that AF is as good as critical focusing with 10x LV (manual, or automatic contrast detect).- Critical focusing with 10x LV is more precise than RF (everyone know this, but jaapv won't ever admit it).- Therefore AF is more precise than RF.You don't need a degree in Logic to understand this.If you don't want to understand it, then fine. But stop spreading false information. “Everybody knows it” Scientific proof, I see. You, for one, failed your degree in logic.... Now tell me where I said whether this step was true or not. I sometimes tend to agree with LCT, but there is no data that shows the truth either way, probably because it depends on the circumstances and operator skill. I can think of quite a few conditions where I prefer LV, or EVF. About lenses, Nikon and Canon are not in the business of producing rangefinder lenses, so I fail to see where they come in. Please let's discuss Zeiss, Voigtlander, etc., as we often do. Chestbeating? Not here. In fact I have regularly said that one of my favorite lenses on the Monochrom is the Canon 1.8/50. From 1954.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 3, 2015 Share #69 Posted August 3, 2015 I can't think of any Canon or Nikon f1.4 lens any good wide open. I have 2 x Leica M 35/1.4s and the Canon L Series 35/1.4. All are perfectly good lenses albeit with slightly different traits. Out of the three, the worst wide open is the old design of the pre-asperic Summilux. The Canon and Pre-FLE are both excellent lenses, the main difference is size, not image 'quality' (that ill-defined but oft quoted parameter). I cannot think of any occasion when I have shot the Canon wide open and have been disappointed with the image due to lens performance. A sweeping statement like the above damages your photographic credibility rather than anything else I'm afraid . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 3, 2015 Share #70 Posted August 3, 2015 Roger Cicala did not say a single word about rangefinders did he? As far as i'm concerned, LV (preferably 10x) is fine when [...] I cannot answer this without sounding condescending... sorry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 3, 2015 Share #71 Posted August 3, 2015 Now tell me where I said whether this step was true or not. Sorry jaapv, I have been virtually gagged. You win. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 3, 2015 Share #72 Posted August 3, 2015 I cannot answer this without sounding condescending... sorry You won't have to condescend if you have any clue will you so go ahead and explain what you mean calmly so we can have a discussion instead of a shouting match. There is no shame to acknowledge mistakes, if any, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 3, 2015 Share #73 Posted August 3, 2015 Man, I love my Leica glass but to me the above is just so not true. I have tons of stellar published images from the Nikon 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 G lenses that for a number of years had me question why I would ever need to build a Leica system in the first place. I don't agree with what you are saying at all Colonel and neither would any of my peers who also make a fine living with modern Canon or Nikon fast primes. If you read my post carefully you will see that I didn't say I didn't think Canon or Nikon fast primes are no good. In fact they are very good and I have taken photos I really like with them. This is a Nikon 35mm f1.4G which is a lens I particularly like the draw of: What I said is that they are on the whole not sharp or have much contrast wide open. In my experience they all need to be opened up to f2.8 to see how they perform. I stand by my statement. I have 2 x Leica M 35/1.4s and the Canon L Series 35/1.4. All are perfectly good lenses albeit with slightly different traits. Out of the three, the worst wide open is the old design of the pre-asperic Summilux. The Canon and Pre-FLE are both excellent lenses, the main difference is size, not image 'quality' (that ill-defined but oft quoted parameter). I cannot think of any occasion when I have shot the Canon wide open and have been disappointed with the image due to lens performance. A sweeping statement like the above damages your photographic credibility rather than anything else I'm afraid . Its true that some older Leica lenses are not great wide open. However the latest Zeiss and Leica lenses are generally far superior to anything Nikon or Canon f1.4 prime wide open. I have used all these systems extensively. As I said above, I am not saying that Canon or Nikon lenses are bad. In fact the contrary they are the workhorse of the pro photographer and the images that can be captured are not in dispute. My shooting style, as a complete amateur, is generally f1.4 or f8. When I use Canon or Nikon I find I am at f2.8 or f8, which is not my ideal rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted August 3, 2015 Share #74 Posted August 3, 2015 I agree with all of @colonel's findings in the post above. (That's how I got into Leica.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted August 3, 2015 Share #75 Posted August 3, 2015 Its true that some older Leica lenses are not great wide open. However the latest Zeiss and Leica lenses are generally far superior to anything Nikon or Canon f1.4 prime wide open. I haven't tried the latest Zeiss but I would be surprised if the Zeiss was far superior. At this stage of lens evolution I would suggest that improvements are actually incremental as opposed to substantial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted August 3, 2015 Share #76 Posted August 3, 2015 Maybe I will have to take another look when I get my 35 FLE this week but not long ago I compared my pre-FLE 35 1.4 and M240 to my Nikon 35 1.4G on a D750 and there was virtually no difference in color transmission, contrast and sharpness. I expect the FLE will be a different story, I had rented it for nearly two weeks and liked it enough to do the upgrade, did not have time to do a comparison due to a heavy shooting schedule. There are other differences though that make the choice of using the Nikon 35 a yes or no, the nod going to the Leica lens on size and the nod going to the Nikon for minimum focus distance. When Nikon came out with the 35 1.4G I sold my previous Leica 35mm 1.4 because I felt like getting away from fiddling around with Leica a bit, needed the cash and found that any differences in post to get them to look similar were at most single digit slider adjustments in Adobe ACR. I'm not back with Leica again because I think the glass is better as much as I think the user experience for certain types of shooting is better and it is. That and the prices have hit the floor so it is a good jump back on point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 3, 2015 Share #77 Posted August 3, 2015 I haven't tried the latest Zeiss but I would be surprised if the Zeiss was far superior. At this stage of lens evolution I would suggest that improvements are actually incremental as opposed to substantial. I guess it depends on individual lens. Not all are perfect wide open obviously. Try the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM, it will blow you away Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 3, 2015 Share #78 Posted August 3, 2015 Having tried it I would rate it higher than the Summilux 35 FLE in all aspects except size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted August 3, 2015 Share #79 Posted August 3, 2015 Let me explain it one last time: - The article demonstrates that AF is as good as critical focusing with 10x LV (manual, or automatic contrast detect). - Critical focusing with 10x LV is more precise than RF (everyone know this, but jaapv won't ever admit it). - Therefore AF is more precise than RF. You don't need a degree in Logic to understand this. If you don't want to understand it, then fine. But stop spreading false information. Does not reflect my real world experience. I find RF to be more predictable, so much that I find I have less of a need to verify the accuracy of the focus on the LCD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted August 3, 2015 Share #80 Posted August 3, 2015 Does not reflect my real world experience. I find RF to be more predictable, so much that I find I have less of a need to verify the accuracy of the focus on the LCD. Agreed. This stuff always works great in the lab, with a test target but not so well when it's either the eyelashes or the eyeball. Or shooting through dirty glass. Or a gap in foliage. Or a wire mesh fence. Or a lion in the long grass. Or...... Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.