malsop Posted April 9, 2013 Share #1 Posted April 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) My M240 arrived a week ago. My procedure is to run the camera though a few tests to make sure it is doing what I'm expecting it to do before running off to shoot some landscapes. One of my tests is to shoot the Lens Align target at max aperture, focusing with the RF then checking to see where the actual focal plane ended up in Photoshop at 100%. The purpose of this test is to insure that the camera's Range Finder system is calibrated correctly. Because the M240 has Focus Peaking (FP) I added a step. After getting the best focus I could with the RF I checked the Focus Peaking in Live View (LV) and zoomed in …I just checked it, I did't use it to 'adjust' the focus. Doing this I've found that focusing with the RF is far more accurate than the Focus Peaking system, which tends to paint too much area when shooting a target like the Lens Align, which has a lot of sharp edges. Since all I see are rave reviews about FP and how it will make focusing almost fool-proof I thought I'd try the process the other way around: Focus first with FP in LV then check it in the RF. I found that it was very hard to tell exactly where the focal plane was when using FP. Using the tilted scale I could sort of center the area painted with the red lines around the center of the scale but using the RF I could do a much more accurate job. I've tested this on 90mm, 75mm, 50mm and 35mm lenses, all with the same result. As the focal lengths get shorter the discrepancy between RF and FP focusing increases (using the Lens Align target). This runs counter to what I've been reading, namely that FP will make it possible to focus long lenses better than using the RF. I'll grant that FP is easier to use. Focusing with the RF requires careful looking with only one eye and there is always that slight difference that is hard to see when the focal plane is close to the desired distance. So, is anyone else finding that the M240 is better focused using the Range Finder than when using Focus Peaking? 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 Hi malsop, Take a look here Focus Peaking vs RF on the M240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
algrove Posted April 9, 2013 Share #2 Posted April 9, 2013 It is interesting you mention all of the above. As most of us prefer RF focusing (that's generally why we own M's), I find it quite good just to forget FP unless using R lenses. I did notice early on though that when I had good contrast areas while using R lenses that my f-stop dramatically affected the area being "painted" in red. While looking through the EVF while changing the f-stop the red area changed a lot at times, i.e., more and less. You did not mention what f stops you were using, but I assume your tests tried a variety of f stops and all lenses were M. FP from my end is for special use not everyday use as you have quickly determined. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedigitalbean Posted April 9, 2013 Share #3 Posted April 9, 2013 I've had my M240 for a few days and my experience mirrors your own. I find that the rangefinder on the M240 is calibrated extremely well (well enough to nail focus even with the Noctilux wide open). I find my hit rate with RF focus is a LOT higher than my hit rate with EVF+LV focus. On a tripod and with careful work, I can get the EVF+LV focusing to work well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted April 9, 2013 Share #4 Posted April 9, 2013 There is no question rangefinder focusing is the best option for the M. But having the option to use LV is a huge asset as there are many times when using the rangefinder is just not practical. The main disadvantage to LV is the lag. By the time you actually reframe and take the photo, chances are the subject has moved. RF focusing is what an M is all about, but options are a bonus. I am a huge fan of LV focusing, but I will still use the rangefinder at least 75% of the time. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Duane Pandorf Posted April 9, 2013 Share #5 Posted April 9, 2013 I don't have the new M but I was under the impression that you'd normally be using the EVF for non M lens or wider than 28mm M lenses. Don't see any reason to use anything other than the RF with your "normal" M lenses in normal shooting environments. Now if you have the camera on a tripod then that may warrant a change in my standard mode of shooting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
malsop Posted April 9, 2013 Author Share #6 Posted April 9, 2013 To answer one question: I was working at the max aperture of the lenses (f/2 and f/1.4). I'll followup with some testing at smaller apertures. I didn't do this on the first pass as I figured the increase in DOF would smear the red lines over an even larger area. To answer another: The lenses were all Leica M, all 6-bit coded. I did get the Leica EVF for only one reason: I sometimes like to shoot from a low position for which the swivel feature of the EVF is perfect. I'll see how FP works in the EVF tomorrow. Regarding lag time: Not an issue for me. Shooting landscapes mostly, on a tripod with a cable release, plenty of time. Also, I don't have any R lenses and don't intend to get any. I travel on a motorcycle so size is an issue for me, whence the Leica M cameras. That said: I do have the excellent Nikon 14-25mm f/2.8 lens which works well on the D800. Anticipating the arrival of the M240 with FP I got a Nikon-to-Leica M adapter thinking the FP would allow me to focus that lens on the M240, but I haven't tried it yet and I'm thinking it is not a very promising proposition at this point. I've been shooting with an M9-P the last couple of years so I'm very pleased the M240 can be accurately focused using the RF, I much prefer the RF to any other means of framing the images I shoot. It was good to see that my experiences fit in with that of other M shooters, thanks for all your responses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 11, 2013 Share #7 Posted June 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) It should perhaps be noted that the focus peaking accuracy depends on the magnification used. When in the EVF the full frame is visible (x1), the focus peaking is just a rough indication of what is in focus. At x5 it becomes better and at x10 it is better than RF focussing in the 134/3.4 at f/3.4 and the 75/1.4 at f/1.4 for instance. So any contrast lines in the image that become highlighted by the focus peaking at x1 may not be highlighted at x5. And the same holds for moving from x5 to x10. So the best thing to do is to keep the magnification at x10 and after focussing move to the overview by half pressing the shutter button or the focus button. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted June 11, 2013 Share #8 Posted June 11, 2013 Malsop, my experience is the same as yours. I started a thread somewhat like this in early April after I had shot my M240 a bit, both RF vs. EVF and M240 vs. M9. At that time, RF accuracy was still being debated a bit by others, so it is nice to read affirmation from more M240 shooters now. Beyond the clear advantages we all appreciate composing via OVF and RF, as algrove mentions, I am surely faster focusing the RF properly than I am fiddling with the EVF quality and waiting for the system to cycle into taking an actual exposure At this point, I use my EVF (always FP at 10x) only with 135 Telyt and for precise framing of SEM 18. I still focus my 18 with RF, which is far superior IMHO on wides than vague EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 11, 2013 Share #9 Posted June 11, 2013 Focus peaking is very dependant upon the contrast of the lens. With low contrast lenses it does not work at all. For example my Hartblei Tilt Shift Super Rotator 80mm R mount lens, which is based on an old Pentacon 6 80mm medium format lens, hardly triggers focus peaking at all. At the other end of the scale my Zeiss ZM 50mm/f2 Planar, a very high contrast lens, almost makes focus peaking too bright. Like others I would like a menu option to vary the sensitivity of FP. For longer non coupled lenses it works very well and is a huge step forwards from using a Visoflex. I have been using a 1200mm Zeiss Tele Tessar and focussing it is so easy with the EVF. Wilson 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lupico Posted June 11, 2013 Share #10 Posted June 11, 2013 I tend to use the OVF more than the EVF. With the rangefinder focusing is easier unless it is very dim. Lines shown for Focus peaking are too thin IMO. I just can't get the hang of it. Maybe the Oly VF-4s will show more details. But we will have to wait for Leica to rebadge them and offer a firmware update. That might take another year or so. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freecitizen Posted June 12, 2013 Share #11 Posted June 12, 2013 I do not have the M yet ..... but surely the EVF will be better than the RF on lenses with bad focus shift - like the first version 35 Lux Asph and the f1 noctilux ? These lenses by definition will not work reliably with the RF as the aperture is changed. Has anyone experience in using the EVF to say if it overcomes this problem please ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 12, 2013 Share #12 Posted June 12, 2013 I do not have the M yet ..... but surely the EVF will be better than the RF on lenses with bad focus shift - like the first version 35 Lux Asph and the f1 noctilux ? These lenses by definition will not work reliably with the RF as the aperture is changed. Has anyone experience in using the EVF to say if it overcomes this problem please ? Tried focus peaking and the EVF with the Nokton 50/1.1, which has focus shift and with the EVF I get much better focussing in the wide aperture range than with RF, but the focus peaking lines do not show at apertures f/1.1 and f/1.4 due to loss in contrast because of the spherical aberration. Wilson pointed this out above: contrast is key. However even without focus peaking, visual focussing at x10 provides accurate focussing when there is texture or contrast in the image. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 12, 2013 Share #13 Posted June 12, 2013 The really irritating thing about EV focusing is the lack of ability to move the focus patch. This is particularly necessary for using a tilt shift lens, where the point of optimal focus is rarely in the centre and focus plus recompose does not quite work. My cheap little back up camera, an old second hand Olympus EP-2 has this, so why did not Leica think it was necessary. Wilson 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
voightL Posted June 12, 2013 Share #14 Posted June 12, 2013 RF calibration is certainly very accurate on the M240. However, LV and EVF allows me to use my OM lenses and it works really well. I also wish that I can move the "focus patch". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombii Posted June 13, 2013 Share #15 Posted June 13, 2013 None of this surprises me. I've used the NEX cameras for the past year and focus peaking is an acquired skill just like RF focusing. For me with the M240, the RF is easier to use in good light but the EVF can be better in low light. The one thing missing from the Leica EVF implementation is a sensitivity adjustment which is something that makes the NEX system more usable. Even so with both, the magnification really is more accurate IF you have time to focus that way. I'm still coming to grips with the M240 focusing but one thing that's helped with the EVF is to have focus assist set to come on whenever you start focusing. If you dial the magnification down to X1 and have adequate light and contrast, you may be okay with just that. If not, increase the magnification. At this point, I'm finding that every situation is different and I have to decide which way works best. As I get more used to the camera, I expect that I'll know from experience which is the best way to go. One other thing that I see is that the RF on the M240 is easier to focus than on the M9, at least for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 13, 2013 Share #16 Posted June 13, 2013 The rangefinder of the M240 is the best Leica have ever made IMO and i find it vastly superior to the mediocre EVF in most applications. Aside from macro that i have not tried yet, i find the EVF usefull for long tele or fast 75 to 135mm lenses provided the subject matter doesn't move or moves very slowly which is kind of a joke on such a camera. We were informed of this flaw since the beginning though so i don't complain at all about that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 13, 2013 Share #17 Posted June 13, 2013 The rangefinder of the M240 is the best Leica have ever made IMO . That is also my experience. Now we have done calculations in the past to determine what in principle would be possible with a rangefinder with a certain base length and these calculations matched with the experiments: 135/3.4 at f/3.4 would fall outside that range, 75/1.4 at f/1.4 inside that range. So what have they changed between the M9 and the M (typ 240)? Does anybody know? (what does help is that my camera is perfectly calibrated, both horizontally and vertically, but so was my M9 after some adjustments) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted June 13, 2013 Share #18 Posted June 13, 2013 i find the EVF usefull for long tele or fast 75 to 135mm lenses provided the subject matter doesn't move or moves very slowly True, but you can use tricks like using the grass texture around where an animal walks to prefocus at x10. There is something funny: if you use the EVF at x1 with a 90 mm, the angle of view is perfectly the same for both eyes and if you aim the camera correctly you can see depth when keeping both eyes open. It also shows just how crisp the EVF image is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 13, 2013 Share #19 Posted June 13, 2013 As long as nothing moves, which is not exactly what one could expect from a Leica camera. The X107 with its 60 fps should do better from this standpoint. I would have bought the new M for its lower shutter/motor noise and better rangefinder anyway. I guess that the latter comes from a better contrast due to the absence of flare but i may be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 13, 2013 Share #20 Posted June 13, 2013 True, but you can use tricks like using the grass texture around where an animal walks to prefocus at x10. Which is basically the best way to focus (if possible) in wildlife photography anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now