RF vs EVF

[DigitalHeMan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well written, Dirk/menos. I've been following your photography for a while, both on the Leica as well as the Nikon sites, and as usual you're spot on

[adan]

no it is no[t] and never will be a more accurate way to focus

there never will be a better way to focus than to zoom 10 times

 

"Accurate" I will give you - provided one has several seconds to focus (especially using 10x zoom). Focusing with the actual pixels you will capture guarantees a 100% match with the pixels you do capture (so long as one ignores other factors, like the subject (motif) moving).

 

Your mistake lies in equating "accurate" with "better" as a universal principle. Sometimes "fast" is better.

 

I snap the RF images together in my M9 in under 1 second. Watching EVF users, they are generally twiddling the focus ring for (being really generous) 3 seconds.

 

90% fast and 90% accurate (Leica RF) is a "better" solution than 30% fast and 100% accurate. Unless one only photographs dead things....

 

there are millions of photo on internet......

 

Billions, actually. And....?

 

with iphone.....

 

What does an iPhone have to do with manual focusing? Or focusing at all? iPhones have a ~6mm f/2.4 lens, with depth of field from 2 feet to infinity. Things will be in focus if you hand the iPhone to a monkey and let him push the button.

 

(BTW - Dirk - what you are SUPPOSED to do is just shoot with an iPhone, and then defocus the background with an app. Using a Nocti is so low-tech! "Virtual" blur is much more attractive than "authentic" blur. )

 

auto-focus....

 

What does auto-focus have to do with manually focusing (EVF, RF, or any other means)?

 

Erick and cheshire_cat have drunk the Kool-Aid. (Heck, from his location, CC probably manufactures the Kool-Aid). Their ideal photographer....

 

http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2006/7/borgcap1.jpg

 

"You will be assimilated!"

[Rick]

"Accurate" I will give you - provided one has several seconds to focus (especially using 10x zoom). Focusing with the actual pixels you will capture guarantees a 100% match with the pixels you do capture (so long as one ignores other factors, like the subject (motif) moving).

 

 

Adan, I agree with everything you say here except, the part about the EVF and 10x with or without peeking as being accurate. In theory it seems like it would be, but in practice even with static subjects and a lot of time it is still impossible to get good focus all of the time.

 

For example, try a Macro Elmar at f4.0. The DOF is very wide and it can be difficult or not possible to determine the point of focus with the EVF. All that the EVF can give you is what appears to be "in focus" within the limit of "clear" on the EVF and within the DOF.

 

But, a small crop and a large print will blow the focus right out because, the subject may not have been at the exact point of focus, only somewhere within the DOF that can be detected by the EVF image.

 

So, why not open up the aperture and make the DOF on the EVF very thin? Not possible on the Macro Elmar. Not to mention that often macro is done at f16 and there the EVF image shows everything in focus. But, these images sure don't look in focus once on a screen.

 

I'd pick up a DSLR with fast center point AF before I'd ever drink the EVIL EVF Cool Aid. I already have been there and done that with the A7r with its supposedly far superior EVF and the problems still exist.

[CheshireCat]

It is clear that few people here know what a good EVF is.

 

If you care to continue the discussion, here is my reply:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/274855-m-rangefinder-vs-evf-focus-accuracy-3.html#post2704038

 

And this is the proper thread:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/274855-m-rangefinder-vs-evf-focus-accuracy-3.html

[lct]

A good EVF with image magnification can focus accurately wide lenses at f/8 and f/11. Sounds incredible but it's a fact of life. Now it takes some time to focus a manual lens this way. This time may be reduced in different ways but it is always longer than focussing directly with a rangefinder, a split image SLR ou a good AF camera IMHO.

[Rick]

It is clear that few people here know what a good EVF is.

 

If you care to continue the discussion, here is my reply:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/274855-m-rangefinder-vs-evf-focus-accuracy-3.html#post2704038

 

And this is the proper thread:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/274855-m-rangefinder-vs-evf-focus-accuracy-3.html

 

I'm sorry, but I had the A7R so I do know what a good EVF is. You simply don't know what you are talking about which is why I normally don't respond to your posts.

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Adan above described the culprit of this discussion succinctly.

 

One point, that curiously never comes on the table, which in fact absolutely defines why RF focussing is so much more accurate and so extremely fast in even difficult situations is this:

 

With a rangefinder camera you not only have a visual reference to what is in or out of focus by displaying blur. No, the real advantage of an RF camera lies in the fact that it provides you a LINEAR REFERENCE, when and where will be your aimed subject in focus!

 

Now let this slowly drip in and think about it. When you focus with your RF (be it a Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Fuji, Mamiya, … heck even your stone old beater Graflex 4x5), you have a reference at all times by how much you still have to move your distance control to arrive at perfect focus.

 

If you are shooting a RF for a while you can even get really good at it and learn not only the connection between your focus dial and the RF patch and time your shots, but you also learn this connection with your SUBJECT's movement and even your own movements.

 

Once you have understood and trained your muscle memory to subconsciously use all three of these references at the same time you are getting fast to focus (and PRECISE) to focus an RF camera.

For several years, while commuting, I made it a habit to shoot an RF camera with fast lenses out of a moving car - now mind you, Shanghai's taxi drivers are the worst drivers in the world and you could as well sit on a pile of potatoes in a truck on a country road in Urugay and would have a smoother ride allowing you to focus a EVF camera.

 

Out of the need for packing small I have also shot for several years in a row the 24h of Le Mans with Leica M cameras and fast lenses.

 

After you make this finger - brain connection between the RF patch and yourself there is simply no better way of focussing manually with any other camera system.

 

Yes, in theory an EVF camera can be more accurate, as the focussing aid shows the actual capture pixel by pixel - but it's slow and shows ZERO reference to when and where your subject will be in focus, as a RF does.

Yes, my D3 and D800 will focus f2.8 lenses faster on a given focus point, but it will focus them less accurate + it simply cannot reach the focussing accuracy of a well maintained RF camera with lenses of f1.4 and faster AT ALL, as it's focus system is trained on speed (compare this to the focus system of the Leica S, which is designed in priority for accuracy and see how so veeeery slow it is by comparison).

 

The RF, Leica has perfected over the last century is what makes the Leica M so special.

The Leica M is not an outdated product, we use and love out of nostalgia - many use it, as it has a few technical advantages, making it a SUPERIOR camera system. One of them is its rangefinder focussing principle.

 

You just know with a Leica M when things get into focus. With a Leica M it is also not the camera's technical specs or numbers and data sheets, that perform - it's the photographer, using this camera over and over and over again over years, which finally produces lightening fast focus - this is the part, the Japanese camera manufacturers don't get by the way, as the human factor (user/operator/customer) is taken entirely out of the equation when refining their products ;-)

 

100 f2 wide open at very slow shutter speed (it was night and I had to shot the old M9 here to get a shot of the winning Audi R18 of the 2012 edition of the 24h of Le Mans):

 

Le Mans 24h 2012 - no.1 Audi Sport Team Joest - Audi R18 e-tron Quattro - winning Le Mans 2012 by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

You might not see it well in the photograph, but this is shot from a spot in the infield not far from Tetre Rouge, where the cars leave the fast curves coming from Dunlop Bridge.

The cars come at an angle at you while accelerating fast out of the corner constantly changing their speed - you HAVE TO FOCUS here - no pre focussing or scale focussing is possible. But it's possible because of the aforementioned principle of the rangefinder.

[CheshireCat]

I'm sorry, but I had the A7R so I do know what a good EVF is. You simply don't know what you are talking about which is why I normally don't respond to your posts.

 

Sorry, but the A7R EVF is crap, even if way better than the Leica EVF. There's much better, but clearly your experience is very limited.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

IMHO, there's absolutely bugger all difference in RF accuracy versus an good EVF. Both systems can acheive dead on results and both can do it quickly in the right hands. You may prefer one or the other. You may be more adept with one or the other. But the difference is the user, not the technology. I change between RF and EVF dialy with various systems (Leica, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony). Some tasks are easier with RF some with EVF.

 

For me the issue is trust. I don't really trust my RF's anymore. For example I have a 135mm APO that has been giving problems for a year. So I sent an M9 with it. Turns out the lens is still out but so is the RF, slightly (I can't see the vertical issues they say exists). The thing that annoys is that this camera was completely rebuilt by Leica Australia less than 6 months ago. So you think it should be OK. And of course they want to charge me because the RF wasn't part of the shutter issue the camera was sent in for. (So much for testing prior to return. Then again they only had it for 4 months??).

 

I think my M240 is perfect. But after phone conversations about the lens, I'm now doubting that. Confidence shot.Thanks leica.

 

If an RF is spot on and one is prepared to learn and practice (it took me about a year) then I think there is no real world accuracy differences. The problem is trusting that my rangefinder is spot on and that it will stay there more than a day or two.

 

Gordon

[CheshireCat]

"Accurate" I will give you - provided one has several seconds to focus (especially using 10x zoom).

 

Several seconds ? Maybe with a crappy EVF implementation or untrained users.

 

In any case, you finally agree that the RF is not the most accurate way of focusing.

 

Your mistake lies in equating "accurate" with "better" as a universal principle. Sometimes "fast" is better.

 

I snap the RF images together in my M9 in under 1 second. Watching EVF users, they are generally twiddling the focus ring for (being really generous) 3 seconds.

 

I usually snap images in under 1/10 seconds with my AF camera (and proper lenses). AF accuracy is about 98%, depending on the subject.

 

So you will agree that the RF is not the fastest way to focus.

 

90% fast and 90% accurate (Leica RF) is a "better" solution than 30% fast and 100% accurate. Unless one only photographs dead things....

 

Even by your questionable logic, my AF camera with EVF is 110% more accurate and 1000% faster than a RF camera.

 

I think this is enough to prove that the sentence "The RF is the fastest and most accurate way to focus" is false. Which is the core of the discussion here.

 

Erick and cheshire_cat have drunk the Kool-Aid. (Heck, from his location, CC probably manufactures the Kool-Aid).

 

Well, not exactly. But sure I work on new technologies. Boo... Booo ! Spooky new technologies !

 

Bottom line is: This is the same film vs digital deja-vu: people biting the hand that feeds them.

It is all fine with me, now back to my M. And shhhh... the more I use the Leica EVF, the more I like the RF

[CheshireCat]

If an RF is spot on and one is prepared to learn and practice (it took me about a year) then I think there is no real world accuracy differences.

 

Try focusing a Noctilux f/1 stopped down to f/5.6 at 3 meters.

Is the lens design broken ? Or is it the RF ?

 

EVF shows what you get, any lens design, any third party lens, any mechanical misalignment. Just focus, shoot, and what you see is what you get.

[Mantice]

I'm with RickLeica that 90/4 is best served in RF focus; it has its limitation but generally it is more intuitive and faster to focus.

 

My 2-cents: we can all agree that EVF is the future and a feature that provides many benefits to the existing RF focus, especially if its even possible to merge these two.

 

In the end for all logical and practical purpose RF is the core of M-system and without it, it will just be another EVF mirrorless and there won't be need for Leica unless one just to have it. I know if I don't want RF focus I wouldn't even went through the whole hassle of waiting for M240 for the entire 2013, plus paying the price of nearly 4 A7x or 2 5D3 (Leica is 15% more expensive here in Asia compare to US)

 

[zlatkob]

I agree 100%

and today Cartier Bresson will never use a M but a Sony A7

RF are things from the past , totally useless

 

I have a hard time believing HCB would be using an A7. His style of photography was so integrated with the way a rangefinder works. His style didn't depend on a fast 135 or 28mm shot wide open with precise focus. I get the feeling a lot of his photos were focused very quickly and approximately, or prefocused, and stopped down when practical to do so.

 

You can't be serious about RF being "totally useless" — that claim is disproven by every RF user.

 

Most of the time, when I see two people arguing about 'best' - it comes down to mistaking 'best for what I like to do' with 'absolute best'.

 

That sums up the problem. People are taking different positions on this (and talking past each other) because they photograph differently. How you like to photograph and what you like to photograph determines what is "best".

[-Lss-]

People are taking different positions on this (and talking past each other) because they photograph differently. How you like to photograph and what you like to photograph determines what is "best".

Quite so.

 

I am happy to ditch my RF gear when there is something that works better for me. I'm ready to switch even as soon as there is something that works as well and costs less. So far, none of the alternatives comes even close. While it would be great to be able to use my existing lenses on that great-system-of-the-future, it is possible it will be an AF system of some sort that will finally outdo RF for my needs. Manual focusing with the current off-the-shelf EVF systems is rather limited from my point of view, but I can think of ways to improve the experience significantly.

[tookaphotoof]

Sorry, but the A7R EVF is crap, even if way better than the Leica EVF. There's much better, but clearly your experience is very limited.

 

 

Anyway you can let us know which cameras have a fantastic working evf?

[adan]

Several seconds ? Maybe with a crappy EVF implementation or untrained users.In any case, you finally agree that the RF is not the most accurate way of focusing.

 

"Finally agree?" I never disagreed in the first place, did I? If I did, quote me. When you can't find the quote (you won't) - feel free to come back and correct your misattribution.

 

"Finally" was about 10 years ago - when I wrote photo.net's review of the Digilux 2. In which I said:

 

"And while rangefinders and even SLR screens can get out of alignment, with the EVF you are focusing using the actual pixels that will make up the final picture - the image sensor can’t ever get out of alignment with itself."

 

I usually snap images in under 1/10 seconds with my AF camera (and proper lenses). AF accuracy is about 98%, depending on the subject.So you will agree that the RF is not the fastest way to focus.

 

Nope.

 

We are talking M-mount lenses, so by definition autofocus doesn't enter the discussion. Remember the original thread subject (28mm Summilux).

 

Manually focused - an RF is faster than an EVF to focus

Manually focused - an EVF is potentially more accurate than an RF, but slower, when trying to achieve that accuracy

Autofocused - a different subject entirely (see title of this thread).

 

Even by your questionable logic, my AF camera with EVF is 110% more accurate and 1000% faster than a RF camera.I think this is enough to prove that the sentence "The RF is the fastest and most accurate way to focus" is false. Which is the core of the discussion here.

 

Autofocus - a different subject entirely (see title of this thread). So it proves exactly zip regarding the matter at hand (manual focusing with M lenses, on RF vs. EVF).

 

Howver, while it is nice that - IN YOUR OPINION - your AF with EVF is "110% more accurate and 1000% faster than an RF camera," simply asserting that is not enough to prove anything.

 

I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything, which is why I presented photographic evidence of what I can do with my M9. You'll have to do the same if you want anyone to pay attention.

[adan]

Sorry, but the A7R EVF is crap, even if way better than the Leica EVF. There's much better, but clearly your experience is very limited.

 

I'm just curious - what did you hope to add to the discussion with that last phrase? Was it necessary? Was it useful?

 

What if you had just said: "There's much better." and left it at that.

[Jennifer]

Sorry, but the A7R EVF is crap, even if way better than the Leica EVF. There's much better, but clearly your experience is very limited.

 

Well, notwithstanding I recently bought a M240, in "my very limited experience" the EVF on my A7R is far from "crap". Indeed, it's commonly considered one of the best out there.

[jaapv]

As for accuracy the EVF, I apologize for getting close to 100% perfectly focused images with it on lenses longer than 180 mm used wide open using focus peking. I obviously am doing something wrong here.

 

Try focusing a Noctilux f/1 stopped down to f/5.6 at 3 meters.

Is the lens design broken ? Or is it the RF ?

:confused:I get two perfectly focused images One just needs the skill to lean a bit for focus shift. Photography is about the abilities of the photographer, not about blindly following the dictates of gear.

 

The fact that the systems work for me does not mean they will work for others. However others should remember that the fact that a system does not work for them should be applied universally to the rest of the world.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Try focusing a Noctilux f/1 stopped down to f/5.6 at 3 meters.

Is the lens design broken ? Or is it the RF ?

 

EVF shows what you get, any lens design, any third party lens, any mechanical misalignment. Just focus, shoot, and what you see is what you get.

 

1. A Noctilux f1 isn't a current lens. It was built in an era when most focus shift issues were hidden by the medium. The new 0.95 was released with the M8 for a reason. And the 35 FLE and.......

 

2. If you really learn how to use a rangefinder it's actually quite possible to work with focus shifted lenses. I had a Nokton 1.1 and still use a 35mm ASPH. No reall issues with either once I spent the time to learn their characteristics.

 

I'm a fan of EVFs. But theyre not WYSIWYG. They're a limited resolution, limited DR jpeg. Also the eye is so easily fooled. I prefer to have a histogram in my EVF to really be sure. As far as focus accuracy, it can be more accurate, sometimes under some conditions. But usually not. And when it is it's usually slower.

 

Gordon