No focus peaking???

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So? Rangefinders and AF can be hit or miss under some circumstances too. Doesn't the magnified view on the A7, and lesser Sony models and other brands have more capability than on the T? Sony has a DMF (Direct Manual Focus) mode that can combine peaking and magnified focus (on any place in the field of view.) This even fluidly overrides the AF mode if you move the focus ring.

 

Studying a magnified view is the most exacting way to work but is not always practical... especially if it only works in the center of the frame where it may be too slow, awkward, or inaccurate once you recompose. Thus Leica not only left off one focus tool, they crippled the other one. Meanwhile the newest Sony APS cameras have 179 PD focus points that are selectable for help with motion tracking, adjustable peaking, and various options for magnified view.

 

So which camera is likely to give a typical user or a sophisticated user accurately focused images under a wider variety of situations?

 

Well Alan - not the A7 that's for sure!

 

Probably A D4x I'd say, although the D800 will do quite well too.

 

If you're talking Mirrorless the Olympus E-M1 seems to do best (but they're all flawed). Certainly, in my travels around mirror less cameras (A7,A7r,E-M1,X-T1) none of them track worth a dime. I haven't tried the Sony A6000 . . . but if Tim Ashley ( a total Sony convert) says it's rubbish then I believe him.

 

Putting 179PD focus points on is ticking boxes - making them useful is something different!

 

The focusing in the T is not terribly fast, and not terribly flexible - but it's pretty reliable and accurate - which is all most of us need.

[jonoslack]

HI Stephen

I hope you're well . . . . . I tried hard to persuade them to focus peaking, but it wasn't going to happen . . . . . to be honest I can't exactly remember the reason why.

 

Still - I'd rather given up using it. For hand held (using an EVF) I've found that there is a kind of 'shimmer' over the in-focus areas, and the screen acts very like a ground glass screen. So I tend not to zoom in either (that's not just with the T, but with all the other EVF cameras I've been using).

 

I think with practice it becomes easier and easier to see what's in focus, and I'm getting pretty good hit rates - of course, this has several advantages:

 

1. no messing with buttons or dials

2. no problems with composition

3. no difficulty with where you've zoomed in

 

So, personally, despite having been an advocate, I don't really miss it.

 

all the best

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

I think it has not changed much as it is mainly related to user error.

 

New AF systems give a much much higher hit rate under much more difficult conditions that people didn't even attempt with older focusing methods.

[AlanG]

Well Alan - not the A7 that's for sure!

 

Probably A D4x I'd say, although the D800 will do quite well too.

 

If you're talking Mirrorless the Olympus E-M1 seems to do best (but they're all flawed). Certainly, in my travels around mirror less cameras (A7,A7r,E-M1,X-T1) none of them track worth a dime. I haven't tried the Sony A6000 . . . but if Tim Ashley ( a total Sony convert) says it's rubbish then I believe him.

 

Putting 179PD focus points on is ticking boxes - making them useful is something different!

 

The focusing in the T is not terribly fast, and not terribly flexible - but it's pretty reliable and accurate - which is all most of us need.

 

Temporarily forget about comparing performance of specific cameras. Simply look at what is included or not included with a T. Of course many can live with it and find a way to work with what it does provide. What does that have to do with a decision to leave things out. Surely that decision was only made as a compromise to having a simple interface or lack of access or ability to incorporate some technology. I don't think there was a decision that peaking was useless or that limiting magnified view to the center was the best approach.

 

Other companies are pushing the limits of technology with each release and some find those features useful and some do not. But just as with what seems like an amateur hokey feature like "Smile Shutter" some people think of interesting ways to use it as a new methodology to expand their photographic toolbox. The companies make the tools and then it is up to the user to open up his/her imagination.

 

But while you are rationalizing the lack of inclusion of common features in a new expensive camera, tell me why just having magnified manual focus in the center will be better than having it anywhere on the screen.

 

Yeah on sensor PDAF is just ticking boxes.. Meanwhile other companies are not hand polishing their cameras and instead are developing all of this technology that Leica gradually adopts but charges a premium for what they do include.

 

http://petapixel.com/2013/07/04/check-out-the-canon-70ds-dual-pixel-af-system-in-action/

 

When you attempt to simplify and limit things in order to make something easier to use, one is bound to lose things.

Edited April 28, 2014 by AlanG

[jonoslack]

Forget about comparing specific cameras. Simply look at what is included or not included with a T. Of course many can live with it.

 

But while you are rationalizing the lack of inclusion of common features in a new expensive camera, tell me why just having magnified manual focus in the center will be better than having it anywhere on the screen.

 

It isn't better

It's not better not to have focus peaking either

It's not better to have 16mp rather than 24 or 36 either

It's certainly not better not to have IBIS (my main grudge)

It's not better to have 2 native lenses than 20

 

As I said - if you're doing box ticking then it's clearly not better.

 

But If I'm asking myself:

Which camera would I rather shoot with M lenses (apart from my M)

Which camera produces the best IQ with a kit zoom lens

Which camera would I rather take out on a casual shooting trip.

 

Then I'd take the T over the A7 every time!

 

The trouble is that it's easy to tick PDAF check boxes, but it's not so easy to define the difference between the shutter clatter of the A7r and the shutter snick of the T, and both of these things are part of the shooting experience.

 

Look - I'm not saying the T is perfect (and I never have). I just think that it's an interesting and worthwhile first step in a different direction, and writing it off by enumerating the advantages of a different direction is rather negative.

 

I also think the A7/r is an interesting and worthwhile step in a different direction . . . but for my money Sony haven't got there yet, whereas, in it's small way I think the T has (and worth mentioning that the T body is cheaper than the A7r too)

 

All the best

Edited April 28, 2014 by jonoslack

[jonoslack]

Meanwhile other companies are not hand polishing their cameras and instead are developing all of this technology that Leica gradually adopts but charges a premium for what they do include..

 

Well, unfortunately Leica is a small company, and spending millions on developing new technology is not really an option..

 

But that's not my point - the point is whether a camera is good for taking pictures - NOT whether hit has the latest technology.

 

When you attempt to simplify and limit things in order to make something easier to use, one is bound to lose things.

 

Inevitably - But sometimes losing things is good - sometimes.

 

Look - Leica simply cannot compete in terms of tick boxes and technology - they don't have the millions available for development that Canon or Nikon or Samsung have available to them - they simply don't.

 

But in my mind a camera is good if it's good for taking photos with - NOT because it has the latest and best technology (and not because it's been polished for 45 minutes either!).

 

So you could say that the simplicity of the T is making a virtue of necessity -actually, I don't really agree - I think it's sad that they can't include IBIS - because I think it's an important feature that most of us would like most of the time.

 

Sony, on the other hand - DO have the money . . . and they still don't include IBIS . . added to which they make such an catastrophically clattery shutter that you need 3 times the focal length for shutter speed to ensure a decently sharp hand held photograph. . . . .

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sony, on the other hand - DO have the money . . . and they still don't include IBIS . . added to which they make such an catastrophically clattery shutter that you need 3 times the focal length for shutter speed to ensure a decently sharp hand held photograph. . . . .

 

They have lenses with IS and I don't know why they don't have IBIS since Minolta Camera (now Sony) invented it. But I think the noisy shutter you are referencing is on a full frame camera. The A6000 shutter would be a better comparison. Perhaps it is still louder but surely not very loud. It also shoots at 11fps rather than 5 so maybe that would explain it.

 

The Nex 6 has worked well for me at low shutter speeds. The electronic first curtain means there is minimal shutter vibration during the exposure. I don't know if the T has that feature. I have little interest in an A7r at the moment.

 

Yes, many things on those "tick boxes" are not really useful... until you need them.

 

I remember when you had to pay extra for a camera with 1/1000 sec. shutter speed over a lesser model with 1/500. People would say, "why would you need such a fast speed?"

Edited April 28, 2014 by AlanG

[jonoslack]

I remember when you had to pay extra for a camera with 1/1000 sec. shutter speed over a lesser model with 1/500. People would say, "why would you need such a fast speed?"

 

So do I - and I still think that 1/8000 is better than 1/4000 - but it's unlikely to be a good reason to buy a camera (or not).

 

The NEX 6 is a great camera - no question - and interestingly it uses the same sensor as the Leica T (The Leica however does have a much quieter shutter).

[plasticman]

I'm really sorry - this is rude of me, but I can't bring myself to read all the to-and-fro in this discussion - but from the parts I could speed-read, am I to understand that the user can't simply click anywhere s/he wants on the screen to choose the enlargement area?

That's pretty much always how I use manual lenses on my Olympus m43, and it's really essential. I feel maybe I must have misunderstood?

 

EDIT: Decided to download the instructions and look for myself. Doesn't appear that the enlargement area can be chosen on the touch-screen. Don't know how this has been missed?

Edited April 28, 2014 by plasticman

[AlanG]

So do I - and I still think that 1/8000 is better than 1/4000 - but it's unlikely to be a good reason to buy a camera (or not).

 

The NEX 6 is a great camera - no question - and interestingly it uses the same sensor as the Leica T (The Leica however does have a much quieter shutter).

 

Good but I barely notice the shutter noise of the Nex 6 so I couldn't care less about getting one that is quieter. The 10fps is useful if just for the special noise and vibration reduction modes. But I'll shoot sequences. I read the T spec sheet and see no mention of electronic first curtain shutter. But I don't know for sure.

 

I use things like the electronic level, tilting LCD, radio flash triggering (while using the BUILT IN EVF) and sweep panorama mode very often. I'd hate to lose them or work with a larger camera. See what I'm getting at? There are a lot of those pesky tick boxes.

[jonoslack]

I use things like the electronic level, tilting LCD, radio flash triggering (while using the BUILT IN EVF) and sweep panorama mode very often. I'd hate to lose them or work with a larger camera. See what I'm getting at? There are a lot of those pesky tick boxes.

 

I do see what you're getting at, but apart from the built in EVF and the tilting LCD, I don't use those things - and the plug in EVF and fixed LCD are perfectly decent substitutes.

[jonoslack]

I'm really sorry - this is rude of me, but I can't bring myself to read all the to-and-fro in this discussion - but from the parts I could speed-read, am I to understand that the user can't simply click anywhere s/he wants on the screen to choose the enlargement area?

That's pretty much always how I use manual lenses on my Olympus m43, and it's really essential. I feel maybe I must have misunderstood?

 

Sorry - I will shut up from now onwards (sorry Alan)

 

No - you can't simply click here and there on the screen to choose the enlargement area like you can on your Olympus µ43

[plasticman]

No - you can't simply click here and there on the screen to choose the enlargement area like you can on your Olympus µ43

 

Thanks - I was editing my post with this conclusion while you were writing, I think.

Have to say it's not just 'clicking here and there' - I rarely have the main subject of my image slap-bang in the center, and lenses don't all behave the same way if you focus and then re-frame, not to speak of the moment passing while you do this...

Oh well, I'm thinking this is something that can be fixed in firmware at a later date.

 

PS: I'm indifferent (even hostile) to most bells and whistles on cameras, but some things seem like no-brainers to me. The touch-screen is a natural medium for functions like quickly choosing a focus-enlargement area imho.

[jonoslack]

PS: I'm indifferent (even hostile) to most bells and whistles on cameras, but some things seem like no-brainers to me. The touch-screen is a natural medium for functions like quickly choosing a focus-enlargement area imho.

 

Well, of course I agree - the trouble is that everyone has their little 'no brainer' (me too, it's IBIS) - and if you pander to any of them you end up with a Fuji X-T1.

 

Still, the EVF on the T is very good, and I've found no problem focusing the 50 lux wide open just using the un-magnified EVF (and of course that covers the whole frame).

[thighslapper]

Sorry - I will shut up from now onwards (sorry Alan)

 

I think everyone needs to understand the basic Leica philosophy .....

 

Most other camera makers add as many features as they can fit into the camera in effort to stand out from the competition.......

 

Leica just include the features that are needed to take quality images as easily and simply as possible.

 

If you can take super images 99% of the time without resorting to focus peaking, image stabilisation, 12fps, 36mp, smile recognition, 64000iso, 10 minute exposures, complex image manipulation in camera then why add these just for the sake of the sad 5% of 'customers' who feel a camera is rubbish without them ?

 

The XV was roundly trashed by most reviewers....... but I have found it the most capable all-round little camera I have ever owned .....

 

I am sure the T will be just as accomplished with the added bonus of great styling and the flexibility of using multiple lenses.

Edited May 1, 2014 by thighslapper

[jonoslack]

If you can take super images 99% of the time without resorting to focus peaking, image stabilisation, 12fps, 36mp, smile recognition, 64000iso, 10 minute exposures, complex image manipulation in camera then why add these just for the sake of the sad 5% of 'customers' who feel a camera is rubbish without them ?

Perfect - why couldn't I have put it like that

[thighslapper]

Perfect - why couldn't I have put it like that

 

[kdriceman]

Putting 179PD focus points on is ticking boxes - making them useful is something different!

 

.

 

 

I agree Jono. And thank you for all of your testing and reviews over the years. I keep trying the mirrorless cameras hoping I will find one that does autofocus, tracking and image stabilization like my Canon. My latest attempt was the XT1. Not close (I mean, not even on the same planet) to my aging 7D. So, I sent the Fuji back.

 

I would like to know why the mirrorless cameras can't deliver a fast tracking autofocus that is at least comparable to what's been available from DSLRs for years. As much as I like the looks of the T, until this happens I will stick with my current lineup - the M, the 7D, And the Nex6. Each has its own strengths and there isn't much overlap (well the 7D will do everything the Nex can do- usually better - but it's just so heavy).

 

Sigh...

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalArts 99]

Hey, at least it's got almost a dozen scene modes like beach/snow, candlelight, fireworks.....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[AlanG]

I agree Jono. And thank you for all of your testing and reviews over the years. I keep trying the mirrorless cameras hoping I will find one that does autofocus, tracking and image stabilization like my Canon. My latest attempt was the XT1. Not close (I mean, not even on the same planet) to my aging 7D. So, I sent the Fuji back.

 

I would like to know why the mirrorless cameras can't deliver a fast tracking autofocus that is at least comparable to what's been available from DSLRs for years. As much as I like the looks of the T, until this happens I will stick with my current lineup - the M, the 7D, And the Nex6. Each has its own strengths and there isn't much overlap (well the 7D will do everything the Nex can do- usually better - but it's just so heavy).

 

Sigh...

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

Currently the PD AF systems of DSLRs and Sony's SLT cameras use discrete components that simply have more capability than what is available on the mirrorless cameras. That does not cancel out the improved performance that PDAF spots on the sensor of the A6000 have over older systems. But DSLR AF come up short compared to the A6000 in that the PD AF is only in the center area. And the major companies have been working hard to try to make AF on mirrorless cameras better with steady improvement each year.