Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
StephenPatterson

No focus peaking???

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I must say, there is just as much evangelizing FOR this camera, as there are the few voices questioning it.

 

Perhaps more indicative of the larger picture, than just this new offering from Leica?

 

Personally, I think the embattled camera industry is either fast becoming innovatively bankrupt, or is profoundly confused … and is throwing anything against the wall to see what sticks. From Sony's head-spinning "Cavalcade of Cameras", to stripping down a camera and using "Overly Affected" marketing speak which for all practical purposes subverts the adage "Less is More" to simply mean "Less Cost More".

 

> Allow use of M lenses renowned for wide-open optical performance, and provide less focus options to use them.

 

> Include touch screen technology, and fewer ways to use it than a common cell phone provides.

 

> Allow the possibility of using the LCD to compose/shoot with, or use hand-held longer lenses with an EVF, and no image stabilization.

 

The notion that center focus/ recompose is "okay" because it was okay in past, discounts the fact that it's been a crusade by most every camera maker because … it isn't okay.

 

While Sony has achieved the ability to move the focus point anywhere in the frame, including the very edge, they have yet to make moving it a simple task like the DSLRs did 10 years ago. Hasselblad's True Focus APL (Absolute Position Lock) is perhaps the only focus innovation in years … and one that anyone can do without reading the manual every time you pick up the camera.

 

Sony makes it to complex, while Leica's solution is to eliminate it altogether. Neither is satisfactory. At least with the Sony one can practice, practice, practice and hopefully get faster at it, but with this Leica that isn't even an option.

 

Perhaps it all comes down to the fact that none of these solutions have the life span of a May Fly. That precise milled block of aluminum hand polished to perfection will barely be warmed by the hand before it is obsolete … a beautiful shell stuffed with rancid technology.

 

It may be that we will never get really good with any of these tools because they are replaced before we can.

 

We profess that what we have is good enough, but continue swooning at every new release then bickering to the high heavens for or against the latest itteration of this or that.

 

Horses for Courses, YMMV, IMHO, Your 2¢ Verses My 2¢, … LOL!

 

- Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me - less focus systems? In my experience other focus systems are far superior to focus peaking at the focal lengths that comprise the M system.

Let's first see what the focusing on the T is really like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must say, there is just as much evangelizing FOR this camera, as there are the few voices questioning it.

 

Well, it is an internet forum after all.

You make some well reasoned and interesting points. I'm not sure terms like 'stuffed with rancid technology', although pithy, are entirely accurate, but it made me smile though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be that we will never get really good with any of these tools because they are replaced before we can.

 

We profess that what we have is good enough, but continue swooning at every new release then bickering to the high heavens for or against the latest itteration of this or that.

 

. . . so maybe it's better to go back to something rather more basic, and learn how to make it work.

To be honest I've found the limitations on the T to be rather a liberation (yeah yeah, I know, you see me as an evangelist). But I've really looked at equivalently priced mirror less cameras (Sony A7, A7r, Fuji X-T1, Olympus E-M1) Have you? Each has it's good and bad points, but one universal bad point is they're too packed with features you really don't need.

 

Sure, the T is missing features one would like (IBIS for one). Focus peaking I just don't miss, Zooming in to different parts of the frame is useful on a tripod, but if you're handholding what's the problem? Personally if I'm hand holding then I'd rather focus on an unmagnified screen anyway - if it's critical you'll have changed it by the time you zoom out anyway (and even if you've zoomed in on the desired part of the frame then your composition will be screwed.

 

So - okay - I agree, the T is not really designed as a camera to use on a tripod for zooming in - (works fine on a tripod otherwise). But I'd have thought most people were going to hand hold it anyway.

 

I do agree that if you want a camera with everything, including the kitchen sink, then the T certainly isn't it - but most of us are fed up with that, and it's quite a breath of fresh air having something simple and having to think a bit about what you're going to achieve (without 645 different ways of doing it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but one universal bad point is they're too packed with features you really don't need.

 

 

I do not accept this assumption. There must be a reason these features have evolved and been incorporated into cameras and you can't simply dismiss them and say people really don't need them. Have you spoken with every photographer in the world to confirm this? Do you remember how the former Soviet camera industry kept putting out designs from the 30s and 40s with few changes?

 

Sony in particular is taking some hits here for a complex interface, but they are one of the most aggressive leaders in developing digital technology and are often first out the door with incorporating new features. So of course they are challenged with how to make all of this technology more easily usable to photographers. And I am sure they will work on this in the future. I think Sony was one of the first to incorporate touch screens after all.

 

But there is no way you can add features without adding some complexity. It seems that those who care to use those features figure out how to do it. Whereas if you don't have the features in the first place, you just have to accept and work within the limitations your camera has. Some may be happy to do that but I would rather pay less and get more. I can always ignore the features I "really don't need." Set the camera on P and press the shutter release. How hard is that?

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . so maybe it's better to go back to something rather more basic, and learn how to make it work.

To be honest I've found the limitations on the T to be rather a liberation (yeah yeah, I know, you see me as an evangelist). But I've really looked at equivalently priced mirror less cameras (Sony A7, A7r, Fuji X-T1, Olympus E-M1) Have you? Each has it's good and bad points, but one universal bad point is they're too packed with features you really don't need.

 

Sure, the T is missing features one would like (IBIS for one). Focus peaking I just don't miss, Zooming in to different parts of the frame is useful on a tripod, but if you're handholding what's the problem? Personally if I'm hand holding then I'd rather focus on an unmagnified screen anyway - if it's critical you'll have changed it by the time you zoom out anyway (and even if you've zoomed in on the desired part of the frame then your composition will be screwed.

 

So - okay - I agree, the T is not really designed as a camera to use on a tripod for zooming in - (works fine on a tripod otherwise). But I'd have thought most people were going to hand hold it anyway.

 

I do agree that if you want a camera with everything, including the kitchen sink, then the T certainly isn't it - but most of us are fed up with that, and it's quite a breath of fresh air having something simple and having to think a bit about what you're going to achieve (without 645 different ways of doing it).

 

Word!

 

Not everyone is same, thank god!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

IThere must be a reason these features have evolved and been incorporated into cameras

Generating sales? Planned obolesence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Generating sales? Planned obolesence?

 

So you've spoken to every photographer and know that none actually use the features.? Why do some pay extra for a lens with AF when a non-AF version is available. (Canon 70-200 2.8) Likewise who needs a Noctilux? Plenty of photographers get by without one.

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not accept this assumption. There must be a reason these features have evolved and been incorporated into cameras and you can't simply dismiss them and say people really don't need them. ...


This argument has been used for quite some while and applied to word processing. Obviously, the first vendor added a feature to his product because he thought of it and he could do so. All other vendors then hastened to add it as well and then some.

At a rough estimate, each user used about five percent of the functions provided by the installed product. He could have used - perhaps - an additional two point five percents, had he only been able to find it or to understand its use.

However, since not all people used the same five percents of their WP software, dumping the other 95% was no solution. Offering different WP software which included different but overlapping function set also did not work that well.

It appears that some of the functions were not used by anyone, however, as they could not be said to be working in any of the releases of the product at all. No one seemed to have noticed, even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you've spoken to every photographer and know that none actually use the features.? Why do some pay extra for a lens with AF when a non-AF version is available. (Canon 70-200 2.8) Likewise who needs a Noctilux? Plenty of photographers get by without one.

 

That is a result, not a reason. No photographer ever demanded them. They (or some) started using the features as they became available.

Edited by jaapv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . so maybe it's better to go back to something rather more basic, and learn how to make it work.

To be honest I've found the limitations on the T to be rather a liberation (yeah yeah, I know, you see me as an evangelist). But I've really looked at equivalently priced mirror less cameras (Sony A7, A7r, Fuji X-T1, Olympus E-M1) Have you? Each has it's good and bad points, but one universal bad point is they're too packed with features you really don't need.

 

Sure, the T is missing features one would like (IBIS for one). Focus peaking I just don't miss, Zooming in to different parts of the frame is useful on a tripod, but if you're handholding what's the problem? Personally if I'm hand holding then I'd rather focus on an unmagnified screen anyway - if it's critical you'll have changed it by the time you zoom out anyway (and even if you've zoomed in on the desired part of the frame then your composition will be screwed.

 

So - okay - I agree, the T is not really designed as a camera to use on a tripod for zooming in - (works fine on a tripod otherwise). But I'd have thought most people were going to hand hold it anyway.

 

I do agree that if you want a camera with everything, including the kitchen sink, then the T certainly isn't it - but most of us are fed up with that, and it's quite a breath of fresh air having something simple and having to think a bit about what you're going to achieve (without 645 different ways of doing it).

 

Oh make no mistake Jono, I often agree with you … but not always.

 

Have I looked at the laundry list of specific cameras you have? No. Probably never will. Some things are obviously not what I'm looking for. However, I have tried and used a number of cameras you haven't. It's all part of the gestalt of the craft is it not?

 

As my post indicates, I'm not a fan of the overly complex (Sony A7/A7R), nor that which is overly thrifty with features (Leica T). However, don't confuse "complex" with being bereft of "some" common features these mirror-less EVF cameras have made possible … not all features, some of them that have proven to be of value. It is their "user implementation" that I have a quarrel with, not that they are there.

 

I happen to believe that there can be a middle ground between over-dressed and naked. Evidently, what seems obvious to me, and what the camera companies actually do, don't coincide.

 

BTW, it was not all that long ago that you and I debated the merits of focus peaking on the NEX cameras … with you vigorously evangelizing for it! : -) Now we've swapped positions on the subject … not that I think it is THE answer, but iI have learned it is a good option to have in many situations.

 

I do use the zoom feature with the focus point set high in portrait orientation to nail the eyes when shooting wide open, and with practice it is fast and accurate, so I find the tripod argument stretching it a bit to discount the fact this T camera doesn't have that feature.

 

In truth, I'd prefer Hasselblad's True Focus in any of these cameras over what is now available. A simple, elegant, easy to implement solution that seems to escape everyone else.

 

- Marc

Edited by fotografz
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My basic issue is I think a simple APS camera like the T with a kit zoom and EVF should sell for $1500 tops. Not $4200. I don't care who makes it. This isn't 2003.

 

This excerpt seems at the heart of the debate, i.e., not just too few features according to Alan, but too high of a cost for those limited features.

 

We're talking about Leica here. The cost issue, and cost/value equation, could be argued for virtually every Leica product, including every accessory. Old news.

 

One needs to either accept the Leica pricing strategy or not. Asking for more 'features' by those who don't accept the value equation is unlikely to sit well with those who already do.

 

And the beat goes on….

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a result, not a reason. No photographer ever demanded them. They (or some) started using the features as they became available.

 

I never demanded that Nikon replace my F with an F2 either. Or make a fisheye or tilt/shift lens. I never demanded digital photography either, but I don't shoot film any more.

 

What is your point? Does Leica somehow know what nobody else knows?

 

OK here is a list off the top of my head of what comes on a Nex 6 that is not on the T. (There may be more.) And other newer cameras may have more features than the Nex 6.

 

1. Image stabilization on some lenses.

2. Sensor cleaner

3. Built in EVF

4. Focus peaking

5. Magnified focus anywhere in the frame

6. AE lock button

7. Tilting LCD

8. Ability to use flash and EVF simultaneously

9. Electronic level

10. 10 fps

11. Electronic first curtain shutter

12. More compact IS kit lens that is wider with powered zoom

13. IR port and connector for wired remote cord.

14. HDMI out.

15. Sweep panorama feature

16. PDAF on sensor

17. AF illuminator

18. Anti Motion Blur : 6-image layering

19. Video Mode : AVCHD: PS - 1920 x 1080/60p@28Mbps FX - 1920 x 1080/60i@24Mbps FH - 1920 x 1080/60i@17Mbps FX - 1920 x 1080/24p@24Mbps FH - 1920 x 1080/24p@17Mbps MP4: HD - 1440 x 1080/ 30fps@12Mbps VGA - 640 x 480/ 30fps@3Mbps

20. Smaller and lighter with kit lens and EVF.

21. Smile shutter release. (I see the T has face detection - an essential feature for sure.)

22. Many more lenses available at this time including from third parties even some AF adapters for other brands... E.g. Canon Speedbooster.

23. Alpha lens adapter with SLT PDAF system for faster focusing.

 

Of course nobody really needs any of this and none could possibly lead to sharper or better photographs in any way.

 

Yes we should all still be shooting film with our M3s and Nikon Fs. Or Daguerreotypes for that matter. Heck there was a time when nobody could think of the need for more than a handful of computers worldwide.

 

Times change.

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK here is a list off the top of my head of what comes on a Nex 6 that is not on the T.....

 

A bit like my M6 and an auto-everything SLR back in the 90s. The odd thing was I enjoyed using my M6 much more that the (far) cheaper Pentax that it replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One needs to either accept the Leica pricing strategy or not.

Jeff

 

Yes, the need to suspend one's disbelief and agree that a basic kit lens that is made under contract in Japan is worth $1750. Is the construction of this lens metal or plastic? Why do the Leica lenses made by Panasonic cost less?

 

Inquiring minds want to know...

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not accept this assumption. There must be a reason these features have evolved and been incorporated into cameras [...]

 

We merely find philosophical differences in this case.

 

Of course there is a market for a pared down feature list. Remember when monolithic computer programs ruled? They had so many features that hardly anyone used more than 10% of them. What evolves now are market-driven features so that now instead of having 10 $1000 programs, we have plug-in oriented modular programs, and hundreds of economical 10-feature programs that run on mobile platforms. If only Leica could get the economical part.

 

I like simple. I appreciate limits, however no IBIS in the T is troubling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not accept this assumption. There must be a reason these features have evolved and been incorporated into cameras...

 

It's the same reason that some restaurants have menus that run to dozens of pages. They're trying to offer something that will appeal to everyone in the hope that they'll get more buyers. In the restaurant case the result is usually a second rate experience.

 

One of the best meals I've ever has was were the only choice on the menu was the dessert course. The place was packed. Now of course it wouldn't appeal to everyone, just as a camera lacking in functions wouldn't appeal to everone, but the restaurant knew their market and were happily satisfying it. Maybe, just maybe, Leica know their market and are doing something similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the same reason that some restaurants have menus that run to dozens of pages.

 

And the ones with the fewest choices cost 8 times as much? Years ago I ate at Jean-Louis at the Watergate. The basic low end meal without wine cost $150+ per person and the courses were what he decided to prepare that evening. If that is your thing, ok but I did not like the meal very much and never went back.

 

So what is "essential" about the T including face detect and a flash? Meanwhile a remote release cord is not. Are they just screwing with us? Did you see all of the things left off the menu that the Nex 6 and other cameras have? Not one of those things would be useful to you? We are not eating a meal, we are buying a tool.

 

I have no problem with a camera being reduced to so called essential features if that is the marketing plan. But charging $4200 for the privileged (with lens and EVF) seems very cheeky. But then I am just a simple practical guy and I don't get excited about new cameras. I didn't even buy an A7r and I could at least use that for a lot of work.

Edited by AlanG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He he! Yes but if it were less bulky the Fuji 23/1.4 would be in my bag already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...