leica where do you go to?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have tried the WATE with the A7 but actually find it much easier to use on the M for the following reasons

1. I find it a lot easier to focus accurately on the M due to being able to use the RF.

2. I like being able to use the EVF in the vertical position

3. As good as the files are on the A7 I find that they are better on the M and you have the advantage of the leica lens correction profiles

 

I love using the leica Apo-telyt 135 on the A7 the files are just stunning and with the better EVF focussing is very accurate

 

Funny, I find the focus peaking on the A7 so inaccurate as to be nearly useless, as opposed to the 240. I stopped using it after a short while. Sony clearly chose a different accuracy/visibility compromise than Leica did.

Edited July 15, 2014 by jaapv

[Rick]

Funny, I find the focus peaking on the A7 so inaccurate as to be nearly useless, as opposed to the 240. I stopped using it after a short while. Sony clearly chose a different accuracy/visibility compromise than Leica did.

 

Thank you for this. I had a terrible time with the focus peaking with the A7r, it was just too wide (depth) compared to the M240. This was with M and R lenses. I assumed that the contrast of the Leica lenses caused the exaggerated effect. And, assumed Leica had tuned their algorithm for the sharp M and R lenses. Does this sound possible?

[Advertisement]

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

[paulsydaus]

The next gen focus peaking algorithms should be adaptive because each lens has different peak contrast and DOF performance.

[CaptZoom]

Thank you for this. I had a terrible time with the focus peaking with the A7r, it was just too wide (depth) compared to the M240. This was with M and R lenses. I assumed that the contrast of the Leica lenses caused the exaggerated effect. And, assumed Leica had tuned their algorithm for the sharp M and R lenses. Does this sound possible?

 

 

I thought your synopsis of the above in the A7/r thread was plausible and made sense to me.

[jaapv]

Not just possible; likely. It is conceivable that Leica chose the setting they did because the peaking is mainly meant for long R lenses. After all, they have the OVF for shorter focal lengths. Sony probably meant it to be more universal and has three settings. Even Low is too imprecise IMO....

 

Thank you for this. I had a terrible time with the focus peaking with the A7r, it was just too wide (depth) compared to the M240. This was with M and R lenses. I assumed that the contrast of the Leica lenses caused the exaggerated effect. And, assumed Leica had tuned their algorithm for the sharp M and R lenses. Does this sound possible?

Edited July 15, 2014 by jaapv

[FlashGordonPhotography]

EOS5e - works very well. I use it for school sports day with a 70-200mm L f4 lens and it nails focus every time. There are only 5 autofocus spots which are linear though. I have 2 different calibrated settings - one for when I wear glasses and the other for contact lenses.

 

EOS5 had 5 linear points. It was called the A2E in America and some other realms. The EOS A2 was the same camera without eye control AF. The EOS3 had 21 eye controlled focus points which could be cut down to 9 (or 11) in the menus. There may have been a third as well (EOS 50E??) I think I was one of the few who had great success with the eye controlled EOS bodies. Mostly they were panned as a flawed function and dropped by Canon.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have tried the WATE with the A7 but actually find it much easier to use on the M for the following reasons

1. I find it a lot easier to focus accurately on the M due to being able to use the RF.

2. I like being able to use the EVF in the vertical position

3. As good as the files are on the A7 I find that they are better on the M and you have the advantage of the leica lens correction profiles

 

I love using the leica Apo-telyt 135 on the A7 the files are just stunning and with the better EVF focussing is very accurate

 

Fair enough. I don't feel there's a need for profiles for the WATE on the A7 and I find the ability to focus anywhere rather than just the centre is handy on the A7. It may be personal preference but I also prefer the peaking on the Sonys. More configurable. I have my set to the goldilocks setting. Just right.

 

Yes, the 135 APO is sensational on the A7 and A7R. Sometimes f3.4 is a bit slow. And the 135 Sony, while huge, is very special indeed. Especially for portraits.

 

Gordon

[bocaburger]

I don't find the focus peaking on the Nex-6 unusable, although it's a crop sensor so for a given framing there appears to be a bit more forgiveness. That said I tend to mainly judge focus by eye, as I do with the EVF on the M240 also. Inasmuch as I also tend to hyperfocal a lot for my travel photos, it ought to serve its purpose as an inexpensive emergency backup. The main issue I have with any of these including the M240 and longer lenses is that with the image magnified it jitters so much it's very hard to focus, period. If the next generation M has AF I hope it also has in-body IS that works with manual lenses.

[jaapv]

Ummm...the jitter is caused by the camera waving around and is a good indication of motion blur....

[JohnJWhite]

Ummm...the jitter is caused by the camera waving around and is a good indication of motion blur....

 

Right!

 

Consider using a tripod or monopod.

[DigitalHeMan]

The next M will have the facility for AF lenses and backwards compatability with manual lenses.

 

 

 

I 100% guarantee it.

 

 

 

Don't ask be how I know ..... but there was briefly indirect evidence of this which the observant would have noticed .......

 

 

Since you are putting this on a public forum, I think you should back it up with the evidence you claim to have seen. Otherwise why make the claim?

[tom0511]

....

If Leica really cares for the essence of photography, they should build something up to modern standards. A M with a fast AF, or a new line that professionals can take seriously. The essence is indeed being able to make the picture.

 

While I really like the M for what it is your described facts are exactly the reason why I also own a Canon DSLR and a Oly EM1.

I would love to have a ff or dx-sensor camera from Leica which has an AF like the 5dIII or EM1 or A6000.

 

My dream would be a downsized S-camera with a fast AF.

 

Personally I am afraid Canikon have many years advantage in AF development and Leica will need some more years to catch up in regards to AF speed.

 

However it also might be the case the Leica does not offer any products which are directly comparable to Canon/Nikon to avoid direct price comparisons.

They might have the strategy to develop products, which are not offered by others.

Like the S with its inbetween sensor size, or th x1 at the time when there was no other large sensor compact, or the T with its aluminum apple body and the touch interface.

 

I think they could very well offer comparable products to Canikon for a higher price because they have such excellent optics.

 

Until then many will have to use other camera systems for occasions, where fast AF is wanted/needed.

[bocaburger]

Ummm...the jitter is caused by the camera waving around and is a good indication of motion blur....

 

Yeah, believe it or not I actually figured that out for myself.

 

 

Right!

 

Consider using a tripod or monopod.

 

If either of you had bothered to read what I wrote with the intent of comprehending rather than banging off a smug reply, you would note that I refered to the jittering while focusing the magnified image. A 135mm lens @ 5x = 675mm. True it's not a bazooka like an actual 600mm but it's still a bitch to hold steady. I'm perfectly capable of steadying a 135mm lens on an M to focus with the rangefinder and to shoot hand held. The problem comes with lenses which don't couple to the rangefinder and thus require focusing with live-view. If there was in-body IS it would help greatly with those. Such as my 70-210 Vario Elmar. I can hand-hold it fine to shoot @ 200mm (with reasonable shutter speed of course), it's focusing it magnified 5x that's a problem.

Edited July 16, 2014 by bocaburger

[jaapv]

Still, I manage to focus a 400 mm lens @ 5x. Jittery, yes, accurate focus too.

[AlanJW]

Thank you for this. I had a terrible time with the focus peaking with the A7r, it was just too wide (depth) compared to the M240. This was with M and R lenses. I assumed that the contrast of the Leica lenses caused the exaggerated effect. And, assumed Leica had tuned their algorithm for the sharp M and R lenses. Does this sound possible?

 

Yes. Agree. One of the reasons I abandoned A7r. The T is better but the M is even better with focus peaking.

[bocaburger]

Still, I manage to focus a 400 mm lens @ 5x. Jittery, yes, accurate focus too.

 

So do I (admittedly a 400/6.8, a lens that was designed to be hand held...not sure I would want to try it with a 400/2.8). But it would be a lot smoother experience if there was IS in the body. Although I'm not sure if it would work with such long lenses, maybe the IS needs to be in the lens with them.

[JohnJWhite]

Yeah, believe it or not I actually figured that out for myself.

 

If either of you had bothered to read what I wrote with the intent of comprehending rather than banging off a smug reply, <snip>

 

I'll try to contain my smugishness and simply state that if you see movement in the viewfinder, you'll see movement at the sensor. And unless you want the image smeared by movement at the sensor, you'd be well advised to stabilize the camera.

[bocaburger]

I'll try to contain my smugishness and simply state that if you see movement in the viewfinder, you'll see movement at the sensor. And unless you want the image smeared by movement at the sensor, you'd be well advised to stabilize the camera.

 

The amount of movement in the viewfinder at 5x magnification while focusing does not equate to the same amount of blur in the image at 1x. I just don't know another way to explain that any clearer. But I agree, stabilizing the camera is always a good idea. I often lean against a wall or a post (or occasionally using the table tripod like that), and/or tighten the strap around my wrists and neck. But the main reason I use a camera like the M or a Nex is to not need to lug around a tripod or monopod. To encumber myself to that extent I may as well lug my DSLR...which, ironically, has image stabilized lenses that in many circumstances obviate the need for a tripod or monopod.

[colonel]

The APS-C sized T. This time with autofocus, and a new line of lenses, including zooms. Let me keep it short: as many reviewers wrote, the T is very slow for a compact. Slow AF, slow in handling. Cheaper cameras like the Sony A6000 are much, much faster, apart from other advantages.. .

 

I don't recognize this statement. Have you used the camera ?

Yes its not as fast as a Sony A6000 or E-M1 or a DSLR (what compact camera is) but it is faster then many including the X-Pro1 and RX1, etc.

 

I find its plenty fast enough for the use I intend it for (actually quite fast):

 

Its benefits come in other things, including build, handling, interface and results.

If the package is not for you thats fine, but its hardly uncompetitive.

 

I feel the same way about the M240 but its much more complex. The RF workflow is very different (and you are experienced with this). Sure the M240 is heavier but I enjoy using it so much more then an M6, I can't even put it in words

 

I have noticed that some people comment that Leica should be producing lean photographic machines at good prices. Leica have never been cheap, so just forget this. Leica are producing largely hand made devices outside the large corporate purview. A cottage industry in UK terms.

 

This costs more and is quirky. But many people love the mixture, and if you don't its not for you. Leica does need to appeal to the top end of the income market as well as appeal to photographic instincts. I think it has the balance rightish (hardcore M, more tolerant of amateurs T, X series for compact and consumer, Jointly designed compacts with Panny for the discerning - this is actually an incredibly wide range for such a small company).

 

The only thing I would change is some of the boutiquey staff in their shops, but hey if its working on their bottom line more strength to them

Edited July 16, 2014 by colonel

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[JohnJWhite]

The amount of movement in the viewfinder at 5x magnification while focusing does not equate to the same amount of blur in the image at 1x. I just don't know another way to explain that any clearer.

 

Of course it doesn't. But how is that relevant? The reason 5x magnification is useful is it helps you see what's wrong with the image you're about to make. If the image is out of focus, 5x mag helps you see that. If the camera is moving, 5x mag helps you see that. It's magnifying not just the image, but those aspects of the image that you may later realize aren't what you wanted.

 

But I agree, stabilizing the camera is always a good idea. I often lean against a wall or a post (or occasionally using the table tripod like that), and/or tighten the strap around my wrists and neck.

 

Sure. Don't we all?

 

But the main reason I use a camera like the M or a Nex is to not need to lug around a tripod or monopod. To encumber myself to that extent I may as well lug my DSLR...which, ironically, has image stabilized lenses that in many circumstances obviate the need for a tripod or monopod.

 

And if your final image size is small enough, all that jitter in the viewfinder will be invisible in the print.