Manual Focusing RF vs EVF

[DTM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am (re)new to manual focusing after decades of using autofocusing on SLRs and DSLRs. I know I am early in the learning curve but I am wondering if it is quicker to get critical focus on faces and eyes with an EVF vs the rangefinder. For defined edges, i.e. a nose, the head or an ear, I find that I can get it into focus fairly quickly. But for the eyes where the demarcations are not as well defined I struggle in getting the correct focus. I find that I have the same problem with moving subjects where I want to focus on the face. Would the EVF2 with the focus peaking be of any advantage? I wear bi-focals and the LV doesn't seem to work well for me.

 

If the EVF is not any real advantage for focusing then I don't want to invest the money in it.

Thanks for any advice.

[indergaard]

I am (re)new to manual focusing after decades of using autofocusing on SLRs and DSLRs. I know I am early in the learning curve but I am wondering if it is quicker to get critical focus on faces and eyes with an EVF vs the rangefinder. For defined edges, i.e. a nose, the head or an ear, I find that I can get it into focus fairly quickly. But for the eyes where the demarcations are not as well defined I struggle in getting the correct focus. I find that I have the same problem with moving subjects where I want to focus on the face. Would the EVF2 with the focus peaking be of any advantage? I wear bi-focals and the LV doesn't seem to work well for me.

 

If the EVF is not any real advantage for focusing then I don't want to invest the money in it.

Thanks for any advice.

 

I find that the EVF is better for very critical focusing and for focusing in general in very dim light. For your use (precision focusing on eyes) it sounds like the EVF can make life easier for you. The sad thing about the EVF though, is that unlike every other EVF on the market, Leica doesn't allow you to move the magnified focus point in the EVF. So you are limited to focusing in the center of the image, just as with the rangefinder patch. And once you start re-composing you will in most cases loose sharpness on your point of focus, unless you are capable of calculating the exact mm you require to compensate, and in what direction, and at the same time be in control of your subject, your own movement, and everything else while re-composing. This is the by far biggest limitation on Leica cameras compared to any other modern digital camera.

 

My advice is to get the Olympus VF-2. It is 100% the same viewfinder as the Leica branded one, but costs far, far less, and you can easily find a used one since Olympus has moved on from that EVF a long time ago... And started using better EVF's for their cameras.

Edited November 23, 2014 by indergaard

[Advertisement]

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

[pop]

I exchanged the M plus the EVF2 for the M9 because of LiveView and Focus Peaking. However, I need Focus Peaking with longer focal lengths or for quite dark places only. Otherwise, I vastly prefer using the RF.

 

It takes a bit of training, but you can focus on anything with vertical edges quite accurately. My main problem is that subjects will insist on moving, and Focus Peaking will not help you there, either.

 

The Olympus EVF is not only compatible, it is identical and hence better value for money than the Leica one.

[jdlaing]

For me the RF is a lot easier.

[fotofool]

DTM, as others have said I find the RF to be faster but the EVF to be more precise. If speed is your issue I'm not sure the EVF would help you.

 

I find that when I am shooting my 75 Summilux wide open at close focus distances (i.e. with shallow DOF) I get close to 100% hit rate with the EVF and far less with the RF. Maybe more like 60%? But when shooting with a larger depth of field (wider lens, larger focus distance and/or smaller aperature) I can go both go faster and get close to 100% hit rate with the RF.

 

Other occasions when the EVF can help are focusing in low light and framing lenses wider than your RF. Because I use some wide lenses and do a lot of shallow DOF portraits my EVF is always in my bag. But otherwise it would not be.

[LocalHero1953]

However, I need Focus Peaking with longer focal lengths or for quite dark places only.

 

I got the Olympus EVF, but only use it now for lenses where RF focusing is not possible (eg with OUFRO). Unlike Pop, I found that for those scenarios, like dark places, where RF focusing was difficult, there was usually insufficient contrast for focus peaking anyway. I find that if there's good enough contrast or edges for focus peaking, then I can do it quicker with the RF. But YMMV.

 

PS but I certainly found the EVF a step up on LV on the rear screen.

Edited November 23, 2014 by LocalHero1953

[flyalf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I have the EVF and find it next to useless in low light and to people / street photo in any conditions. The real advantage is when working on static objects with camera on tripod. Also for utrawides the framing is much easier with EVF.

 

The reason EVF wont work on more dynamic objects is the slow response time combined with the poor ability to check when focus is achieved. The zoom function is ok on tripod, but for more dynamic situations its no good for me. Other might find it more useful.

[norbertnl]

For temporal precision (as little time lag as possible) RF is indispensable; for spatial precision the EVF helps. In all situations, in my experience RF is the faster focusing method. If I had to decide I would choose for RF without hesitation. Luckily, the M Type 240 offers both options.

[bocaburger]

I find the EVF (Olympus, as others have said, a fraction of the cost of the identical Leica-badged version) much more precise for lenses longer than 135mm, for closeups with an extension tube, and for lenses such as the 12mm and 15mm CV LTM which are not rangefinder coupled. For all else, in all situations, I find the RF better. I'm not disappointed though, because I paid $7K for this camera only because it's a rangefinder. Otherwise there are many fine mirror reflex DSLR's I could have chosen from. The EVF also is handier than carrying and switching accesory finders, or the (to me) ridiculous frankenfinder, when using more than one lens for which there are no frames in the viewfinder.

 

But as has been noted numerous times, the time lag after a shot before the EVF "goes live" again makes it next useless for me for anything but static shots.

[farnz]

Static subjects are fine with the EVF but for moving or non-static subjects the RF wins hands down for me even with the Noctilux and 90AA. For macro and long lenses the EVF is indispensable but for both I tend to use my 5D2 with Leica R lenses and adaptors because I'm able to move the 10x magnified image and spot meter using the cursor on the LCD and arrow keys, which is not possible with the M.

 

I find that I rarely use the EVF on the M nowadays.

 

Pete.

[Jeff S]

This will sound basic and obvious, but before you invest in anything, be sure that your eyes are perfectly corrected for the focus patch (2m virtual distance), and that the RF focus is perfectly aligned, i.e., it matches LV focusing (using tripod).

 

After that, I suggest you visit a dealer and experiment with the EVF…there is no generalization when it comes to eyes, and viewing preferences. You might also want to try a magnifier to see if that helps (only after steps above).

 

Jeff

[DTM]

Thanks everyone for your comments and advice. As I expected this is very much individual dependent but based on the comments I plan to hold off buying an EVF for now and continue to practice, practice, practice with the RF and see where it takes me. Thanks again.

[Jeff S]

... continue to practice, practice, practice with the RF and see where it takes me.

 

I hope not without first confirming eye/camera tests just above. And perhaps this FAQ.

 

Jeff

[lct]

Yes an eyepiece correction lens can do marvels sometimes.

[Jeff S]

I prefer my sunglasses….to see both the focus patch and far subjects (and correct astigmatism and provide light protection for sensitive eyes)…everyone is different. Regardless the solution, the important thing to ensure corrections if needed.

 

Jeff

[microview]

Yes an eyepiece correction lens can do marvels sometimes.

 

Yes I was going to suggest checking the various diopters which screw into the rangefinder eye piece. They can make a big difference. But, Ict, you got there first!

[tom0511]

rf is better except static subjects or focal length 135.

just my experience. Tom

[DTM]

I hope not without first confirming eye/camera tests just above. And perhaps this FAQ.

 

Jeff

 

Yes, I will do the 2M comparison, and hold off for the time being in getting an EVF.

 

I am able to focus but it is difficult to do it quickly.

[bocaburger]

A few RF tips/tricks from many years of using a Leica:

 

- Memorize which way the RF image moves in relation to the direction of rotation of the lens' focusing ring or tab. That will save you time lost to turning the lens in the wrong direction as the subject moves toward or away from you.

 

- Break yourself of the SLR-based habit of turning the lens back and forth past the point of exact focus. Stop when the images line up.

 

- With a subject that has straight lines, you want to keep the lines as perpendicular as possible to the direction of movement of the RF image, so sometimes it helps to rotate the camera for focusing.

 

- Because of the sharp edges of the RF patch (some other RF's had round patches with fuzzy border) it can also be used as a split-image RF by aligning the movable image with the image outside of the patch.

 

- With some subjects even if you can't easily determine the point of coincidence or use it as a split-image, you can focus by contrast, that is, when the target appears darkest/crispest it's in focus.

 

- With subjects that defy all the above, look for an object on the same plane (same distance) and use that as your focusing target.

 

-Sometimes it's faster to pre-set a distance (by focusing on a static subject) and shoot when your subject arrives at that point.

 

- It's tempting when you paid a crap ton of money for a Leica lens because it has superlative performance at maximum aperture, to shoot it wide open more often than necessary. Sometimes you need to, to keep the shutter speed high enough to avoid camera shake blur, or to achieve the look you're after. But if not, then stopping down a stop or two to increase DOF can be to your advantage in fast-moving situations.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[DTM]

bocaburger,

Thanks for your advice. It is very helpful. The first two items are what I find myself doing; inadvertently focusing in the wrong direction and then moving back and forth after I find focus. I need to specifically concentrate on this, but not overthink the focus.

 

I tried to preset the distance and then wait until the subject moved to that distance but wasn't very good at judging when they were there. That takes practice also.

 

I took pictures of a parade this past weekend and purposely stopped down to 4 and 5.6 to increase the depth of field. Most pictures came out fine but I found myself struggling with the things you said.