lct Posted February 6, 2015 Share #21 Posted February 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Ha ha! They said this when i bought my fist M in 1971... Still Resisting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Hi lct, Take a look here Would an electronic rangefinder-lens coupling be relevant?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Alberti Posted February 6, 2015 Share #22 Posted February 6, 2015 Back to the RF, I find it unusable in low-light, unless there is a very visible pattern (for the human eye) near the focus point. The Leica RF effectiveness in low light is very dependent on the camera type. [The M240 is superb, and I found my M6 was harder to handle than my M3.] In defense of the RF: Autofocus by nature is a different game. I saw a picture of Cabu (yes him) and the focus ... was on his glasses, that is, the rim, and the front part of the nose was sharp. A very pale picture. A RF shooter would have taken the pupils and gotten clear eyes. That would have given depth to the sitter. I think this is above a personal taste of mine, it is a characteristic of a way of photography. Low light (0 EV) is not in the interest of a RF shooter, that implies a tripod. Or a flash. The RF shooter specifically, as you well know of course, likes a picture without any pre-flashes or red beams for focussing. Having a 0 EV auto focus (with its inherent lack-a-daisy specs like longer time to establish) does not solve the regular 'requirement' imho of fast and effective focus in available light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 7, 2015 Share #23 Posted February 7, 2015 Low light (0 EV) is not in the interest of a RF shooter, that implies a tripod. Or a flash. I don't see why. Tripod and flash have nothing to do with a RF but with ISO performance. The RF shooter specifically, as you well know of course, likes a picture without any pre-flashes or red beams for focussing. I think every shooter likes a picture without these. I for one do not even own a flash Modern DSLR cameras do not need pre-flashes nor assist beams. Having a 0 EV auto focus (with its inherent lack-a-daisy specs like longer time to establish) does not solve the regular 'requirement' imho of fast and effective focus in available light. I have not yet used the Canon 7D2, so I don't know how long it takes to get focus at 0 EV. I expect it to be faster than any human with a RF in the same conditions. About fast focus in available light, it really depends on the definition of "available". But "electrons" (i.e. proper hw and sw) are faster than humans when focusing pictures As usual, the big advantage humans usually have is restricted to the word "effective", e.g. focus on the eye and not on the rim. This essential human-machine interaction is not a prerogative of RF. Just have the machine focus on the rim in 30ms, then grab the focusing ring and adjust for the eye manually. Or just use full MF with a good EVF implementation. I do this all the time with my 5D2 and manual lenses, and I can focus faster and much more precisely than with the RF on my M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 7, 2015 Share #24 Posted February 7, 2015 [...] Or just use full MF with a good EVF implementation. I do this all the time with my 5D2 and manual lenses, and I can focus faster and much more precisely than with the RF on my M. Are you using a Z-Finder with your 5D2? Which button do you have to push to bring up image magnification with manual lenses then? Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 7, 2015 Share #25 Posted February 7, 2015 Are you using a Z-Finder with your 5D2? Which button do you have to push to bring up image magnification with manual lenses then? Just curious. I am, and very much mocked for this by a couple forum users here Half-pressing the shutter button will toggle between magnified PIP and focus peaking. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-type-240/274855-m-rangefinder-vs-evf-focus-accuracy-3.html#post2704038 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 7, 2015 Share #26 Posted February 7, 2015 I don't see why. Tripod and flash have nothing to do with a RF but with ISO performance. I think every shooter likes a picture without these. I for one do not even own a flash Modern DSLR cameras do not need pre-flashes nor assist beams. I have not yet used the Canon 7D2, so I don't know how long it takes to get focus at 0 EV. I expect it to be faster than any human with a RF in the same conditions. About fast focus in available light, it really depends on the definition of "available". But "electrons" (i.e. proper hw and sw) are faster than humans when focusing pictures As usual, the big advantage humans usually have is restricted to the word "effective", e.g. focus on the eye and not on the rim. This essential human-machine interaction is not a prerogative of RF. Just have the machine focus on the rim in 30ms, then grab the focusing ring and adjust for the eye manually. Or just use full MF with a good EVF implementation. I do this all the time with my 5D2 and manual lenses, and I can focus faster and much more precisely than with the RF on my M. What you are describing is not an M(esssucher) camera. Leica would be pretty stupid to give up their signature product and their core niche. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted February 7, 2015 Share #27 Posted February 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Having had an M9, but living in a country with no access to Leica services, I got more and more uncomfortable with the rangefinder calibration issue as the number of my lenses grew.. Isn't easier just to sent the camera abroad to a repairman to calibrate? It's gone for not more than a two weeks... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 7, 2015 Share #28 Posted February 7, 2015 The Leica RF effectiveness in low light is very dependent on the camera type. [The M240 is superb, and I found my M6 was harder to handle than my M3.] In defense of the RF: Autofocus by nature is a different game. I saw a picture of Cabu (yes him) and the focus ... was on his glasses, that is, the rim, and the front part of the nose was sharp. A very pale picture. A RF shooter would have taken the pupils and gotten clear eyes. That would have given depth to the sitter. I think this is above a personal taste of mine, it is a characteristic of a way of photography. Low light (0 EV) is not in the interest of a RF shooter, that implies a tripod. Or a flash. The RF shooter specifically, as you well know of course, likes a picture without any pre-flashes or red beams for focussing. Having a 0 EV auto focus (with its inherent lack-a-daisy specs like longer time to establish) does not solve the regular 'requirement' imho of fast and effective focus in available light. Unless you have a clear horizontal or vertical line (depending on if you are shooting in portrait or landscape orientation) then the M240 is really not good in low light. It's quite simple, it's the basis of how the optical rangefinder works: It needs you to line up items for them to be in focus, and if it's too dark and you don't have a clear pattern or details to focus on then.. well... you can't really focus well. The EVF with magnified view works much better for this. The Sony A7S which AF's down to -4 EV does it even better however. And saying that low light (0 EV) is not interesting for RF users are just pure BS if you ask me. Talk about generalization. Everyone is under the same umbrella, right? Just because you aren't interested in low-light shooting doesn't mean that everyone shares the same opinion. I haven't used tripods or flashes in an eternity. Yet I've made pictures with a Monochrom and 0.95 lens at 10000 ISO at 1/30 at 50mm, hand-held. Based on what you're saying you really give the impression of not knowing much about what modern contrast based AF systems are capable of. How about AF down to -4 EV with face detection and eye-based AF on top of that, all in one unit? Yep, it is available. And it does work well, actually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 8, 2015 Share #29 Posted February 8, 2015 What you are describing is not an M(esssucher) camera. Leica would be pretty stupid to give up their signature product and their core niche. M(essSucker) --- sorry, couldn't resist The only stupid thing is ignoring new technologies. Niche will be smaller and smaller. Perseverare diabolicum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 8, 2015 Share #30 Posted February 8, 2015 Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum... I'm sure you understand that some people do like rangefinders and are not prepared to trade them for any TTL camera, SLRs, EVILs and the like. Same people may like EVFs as well but for them they are just another Visoflex devices sort of, nothing to dissuade them from using a rangefinder in any way. Repeating them ad nauseam that they belong to an endangered specie will hardly dissuade them either as they've been hearing such gossip for 30+ years and Leica Ms are still alive and well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 8, 2015 Share #31 Posted February 8, 2015 M(essSucker) --- sorry, couldn't resist The only stupid thing is ignoring new technologies. Niche will be smaller and smaller. Perseverare diabolicum. Ah yes, new technologies are, of course, always better, and deliberately choosing the "old" over the "new" for functional reasons is "ignoring new technologies". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 8, 2015 Share #32 Posted February 8, 2015 Repeating them ad nauseam that they belong to an endangered specie will hardly dissuade them either as they've been hearing such gossip for 30+ years and Leica Ms are still alive and well. For 30+ years, until recently, EVF has been more science-fiction than gossip; and SLR the only alternative with the huge downsides of size and weight. Same happened with film vs digital. The gossip was around for 30+ years, with old farts mocking digital sensors until one day all downsides suddenly disappeared (the magic of technology !) and the switch happened. The same will happen with EVF, which is still an immature technology. Let's resurrect this thread in a few years, when you'll be happily using an EVF on your 100 MP camera, and never look back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 8, 2015 Share #33 Posted February 8, 2015 The gossip did concern TTL cameras in general. EVILs, or whatever way one calls digicams with EVFs, are just another kind of TTL cameras. What you seem to take joy in repeating time and again, i've heard it dozens of times since the seventies with respect. Self appointed experts never stopped claiming the so-called superiority of reflex cameras, split image focus screens, stop down metering and so on whilst people like me did prefer rangefinders. Nothing has changed since then from this viewpoint. There are still two ways of seeing the world as far as cameras are concerned: through the lens (TTL) and outside of it (RF). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 8, 2015 Share #34 Posted February 8, 2015 Ah yes, new technologies are, of course, always better, and deliberately choosing the "old" over the "new" for functional reasons is "ignoring new technologies". I never said that. I for one bought the EVF for my M, tried it, and then deliberately chose the RF over it. I bought all sort of early digital cameras for many years, tried them, and then deliberately chose to use film over them. Until the "new" was better than the "old". But I never ignored new technologies. I always appreciated their potential. I have always been an early adopter (when money allows). Yes, often to be disappointed, but happy to have contributed my part to those companies who try to innovate, even if they miserably fail. And I am ready to buy an M camera again, where M stands for M(oreInnovation). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 8, 2015 Share #35 Posted February 8, 2015 There are still two ways of seeing the world as far as cameras are concerned: through the lens (TTL) and outside of it (RF). This is an irrelevant detail. What matters is the final picture, and that is going to be through the lens. If you want to see the world outside of it, just keep the other eye open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted February 8, 2015 Share #36 Posted February 8, 2015 What matters is the final picture Perhaps so, but that's not what's being discussed here. What's under discussion here is the User Interface and its assorted paradigms of the tool we're using to take an image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 8, 2015 Share #37 Posted February 8, 2015 Perhaps so, but that's not what's being discussed here. What's under discussion here is the User Interface and its assorted paradigms of the tool we're using to take an image. And if you read my entire previous post, you will see I am perfectly on topic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 8, 2015 Share #38 Posted February 8, 2015 This is an irrelevant detail.What matters is the final picture, and that is going to be through the lens. If you want to see the world outside of it, just keep the other eye open. "Just keep the other eye open". Never stopped to hear that as if RF users were disabled people. What i find curious is reading this on an RF forum but M cameras have always had Visoflexes after all so no wonder why they can be confused with TTL cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 9, 2015 Share #39 Posted February 9, 2015 This is an irrelevant detail.What matters is the final picture, and that is going to be through the lens. If you want to see the world outside of it, just keep the other eye open. Provided the viewfinder is not too far off 1:1.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 9, 2015 Share #40 Posted February 9, 2015 M(essSucker) --- sorry, couldn't resist The only stupid thing is ignoring new technologies. Niche will be smaller and smaller. Perseverare diabolicum. Couldn’t resist what? The niche appears to be expanding, judging by sales. There is nothing more stupid than throwing away core values for tail-chasing “technology” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.