IkarusJohn Posted August 9, 2015 Share #141 Posted August 9, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why? That is wasting time by pushing buttons. Rhetoric question? Okay, I'll play - because in focus critical situations, focus and recompose results in back focus. Let me save you the time of responding - move your head forward, you say (repeating a post of yours some years ago); no, move it back, but by how much, etc etc. Movable focus points have been around for years and years, and have proven their usefulness (if I recall correctly, the first AF Nikons had a movable focus point). If you're happy with a fixed central focal point, that's fine - just leave it in the middle. Saying that it should not move because you don't need it is something else altogether ... In days gone by, SLRs had really fantastic focusing screens that let you check focus across the image. Limiting focus to a central, immovable spot is pointlessly limiting, in my view. If there was virtue in it, more than just "that's the way we've always done it", then I'd agree. It's a bit like the removable baseplate - without film? What on earth for? Cheers John PS - just to pre-empt another misapprehension, I understand that with the M, it is technically difficult if not impossible to move the focus patch. I'm not talking about the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here Does the Q Portend the Death of the M?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted August 9, 2015 Share #142 Posted August 9, 2015 The solution is to use a camera with a full-screen focusing system. Like a full-matte SLR. Or an EVF without magnification. Please point me to the recomposing post - I do not recall myself discussing focus-recompose except in the most general terms. Anyway, it is not that simple. If you turn the camera around its nodal point like on a tripod it needs to be pulled backwards, however, if you rotate your head in a handheld situation you move the camera in an arc backwards. Often you do not need to change the position at all. (Or maybe even forward depending on subject distance, rotation angle and the size of your nose :D) In the end, though, I prefer pushing the button on the top to pushing buttons on the back... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 9, 2015 Share #143 Posted August 9, 2015 No- the solution is to use a camera with a full-screen focusing system. Lika a full-matte SLR. That is one solution, agreed. "the solution" does tend to ignore the alternatives. Focus peaking (on the Nex-5n and the A7) was only so accurate; Tim Ashley's review of the M(240) suggested that it was at best as good as those systems, but not as good as the optical rangefinder (properly calibrated). You will recall his recommendation that you focus first at full aperture, then stop down. An accurate spot AF system (in my experience) does not suffer from these issues. Your statement "No - the solution ..." is hard to justify. You assume an SLR, which is a considerable leap (not a bad one, but a leap nonetheless). For the M, if the patented electronic overlay is used, rather than the traditional mechanical version we are used to, it will be interesting to see how all this might work. Red and green lights (like the F5), with a movable spot? Not sure how a "full screen focusing system" would work otherwise. A focusing screen needs an optical through the lens mirror box - I thought we were over the reincarnation of the R camera. If it's EVF, then focus peaking and a movable spot is what we already have with the T and Q cameras ... I hope it isn't EVF - I hate the blackout when you take a picture. So far, I haven't used a camera which has come close to an SLR or rangefinder in this respect. Photographing a moving subject and having the screen go black is worse than frustrating - it's the principle reason I got rid of my T. A combination? Never used one, but I can't being to imagine how a projected image would sit over an optical one ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 10, 2015 Share #144 Posted August 10, 2015 Tim Ashley is right- for short to medium focal lengths. Above 90 mm good focus peaking (like on the M) forges ahead. The focus peaking on the Nex-7 and A7 is optimized for medium focal lengths by lack of an alternative and as a tradeoff cannot match the accuracy of other systems. Personally I find that implementation useless. The patented system uses an LCD screen focus spot projected into an optical viewfinder as far as I can make out. That could work excellently, with only the focusing patch blacking out briefly. But moveable? I don’t know. Moving the mini cameras physically would lose precision, a digital movement would need oversized sensors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 10, 2015 Share #145 Posted August 10, 2015 [...] An accurate spot AF system (in my experience) does not suffer from these issues. [...] Is there any rumor of AF on rangefinders really? Just curious (dubious). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 10, 2015 Share #146 Posted August 10, 2015 Is there any rumor of AF on rangefinders really? Just curious (dubious). Not that I'm aware of - Michael has consistently said that the M mount is too small, and the M body too full of other things, to take AF lenses. The suggestion has always been that the T mount is big enough for full frame, so any full frame AF camera would use the T mount with adapters for M lenses. If the T mount is to be used, then there is little point in including a rangefinder mechanism, whether the new one or the old one. The question then is what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 10, 2015 Share #147 Posted August 10, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I do not believe this suggestion. Leica would not orphan the T lenses built for a smaller sensor by using an identical mount for full-frame IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 10, 2015 Share #148 Posted August 10, 2015 I do not believe this suggestion. Leica would not orphan the T lenses built for a smaller sensor by using an identical mount for full-frame IMHO. Not sure to comprehend what you mean. The T mount could be used for both full frame and APS lenses no? This way FF lenses could be used on the T and T lenses could be used in APS mode on the rumored FF EVIL... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 10, 2015 Share #149 Posted August 10, 2015 That's how I was thinking all the way through these discussions... I never really thought about a FULL autofocus camera... that would be pretty useless... but an AF with a small focus point ie. smaller than an M rangefinder patch, would be a great step up on an M with AF lenses, switchable with the standard optical (rangefinder patch) for manual focus. Now what Leica camera can do that now? The Q of course and that's why I am hoping the next M follows in the Q's footsteps AFA AF, EVF and a nearly no lag shooting is concerned to mention a few. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 10, 2015 Share #150 Posted August 10, 2015 AF on the M? Thanks no thanks but the rumored EVIL should do that very well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted August 10, 2015 Share #151 Posted August 10, 2015 OK, I called it an M-sorry, but ASAIC the Q is currently the closest thing to a mini-M to me. You are right it will be an QEVIL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted August 10, 2015 Share #152 Posted August 10, 2015 Not sure we are talking about an autofocus M. More likely a focus confirmation of some sort other than the coincidence rangefinder. Such as turn the focus ring on your manual lens and a spot lights up when it is in focus. Still a rangefinder but a digital aid rather than an optical aid to finding focus. BTW, there was some discussion above of moveable focus points. We have been using unmoveable central focusing on our M's for decades. If you want something specific in focus you focus on it with the RF patch and then recompose so that exactly what you want to be in focus is in focus. How different is that from a SLR or EVF camera using only the central focus point? Of course, one is totally manual (and you can see outside the frame) and the other is not but the technique of selecting the thing you want in focus and then recomposing if necessary is the same isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 10, 2015 Share #153 Posted August 10, 2015 Not sure we are talking about an autofocus M. More likely a focus confirmation of some sort other than the coincidence rangefinder. Such as turn the focus ring on your manual lens and a spot lights up when it is in focus. Still a rangefinder but a digital aid rather than an optical aid to finding focus. [...] I have that on my 5D1 for my R lenses but it is so inaccurate that i don't use it anymore. More modern cameras a perhaps better there but i find hard to figure out why a focus confirmation device would be more accurate than an optical or electronic rangefinder or an EVF with image magnification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted August 10, 2015 Share #154 Posted August 10, 2015 Accuracy is what I would want too and I agree with you. But I am not a camera engineer so I don't know what works or if anything is as accurate as the optical rf. I suspect there is a practical way to do a digital rangefinder patch but don't know for sure. We're all just speculating - but isn't that part of the fun? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 10, 2015 Share #155 Posted August 10, 2015 the M mount is too small, and the M body too full of other things, to take AF lenses. I also remember the following sentence: "it is impossible to have a digital M body" The only extra "big things" that would be needed inside an M body to take AF lenses are... big grains of salt. However, assuming Leica has been wise enough to design the T-mount so that it can take also FF lenses, then that will be the path. To avoid losing users in this transition, Leica will need a special version of the "T to M adapter" that embeds and adds a full RangeFinder system on top of the camera. The Franken-RangeFinder. Et voila, the new T is also the new M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 10, 2015 Share #156 Posted August 10, 2015 I agree that a focal point fixed in the centre of the viewfinder has been in the M cameras for 60 years. But then, a moveable focal point has been in other cameras for what, 30 years? What's the problem with focusing and recomposing? With a shallow depth of field and the relatively unforgiving nature of digital as opposed to film, if you focus and then rotate, contrary to what Jaap says, there is a good chance the subject will be out of focus. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 10, 2015 Share #157 Posted August 10, 2015 I hope it isn't EVF - I hate the blackout when you take a picture. Don't worry. In proper cameras, the EVF won't go black for long, and especially you don't get the horrible shutter delay you get with the M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted August 10, 2015 Share #158 Posted August 10, 2015 I don't know what works or if anything is as accurate as the optical rf. Modern AF sensors are more accurate than the optical RF+Human. However, focus confirmation will never work because it is an ON/OFF indicator, i.e. you can't see how far off you are from proper focus, and if it were tuned for precision, then you would overshoot it several times before achieving proper focus. I think a RF patch could be simulated digitally with phase-detect sensels. In any case I would use them for 3D focus peaking (i.e. each pixel can be one color if behind the focus plane, and another color if in front of the focus plane). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 10, 2015 Share #159 Posted August 10, 2015 Accuracy is what I would want too and I agree with you. But I am not a camera engineer so I don't know what works or if anything is as accurate as the optical rf. I suspect there is a practical way to do a digital rangefinder patch but don't know for sure. We're all just speculating - but isn't that part of the fun? Leica did more than speculating in this patent from 2012: http://www.google.com/patents/DE102012009975A1?cl=en 00120001.png Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 10, 2015 Share #160 Posted August 10, 2015 I agree that a focal point fixed in the centre of the viewfinder has been in the M cameras for 60 years. But then, a moveable focal point has been in other cameras for what, 30 years? What's the problem with focusing and recomposing? With a shallow depth of field and the relatively unforgiving nature of digital as opposed to film, if you focus and then rotate, contrary to what Jaap says, there is a good chance the subject will be out of focus. Cheers John That is the right word - good chance - like the chance it might be in focus as I said. If you manage to keep your head still, not sway naturally, the Gods blow the wind in the right direction and the spell that sets the Photons moving works. That is why photography is a craft. The amount that one needs to pull back could be calculated by trigonometry. Just calculate the amount that the camera moves back due to the position of the fulcrum of your neck relative to the thickness of your head, and thus the radius of the circle the camera is moving in and the angle of rotation. Calculate the distance needed from the subject distance and angle of turn and deduct. Then assume you are able to keep exact position during that turn. Are you really being serious about precision here? To me it sounds exactly like the arguments of EV compensation as opposed to spot metering. It is a guesstimate which cannot work half of the time, yet photographers manage to take decent photographs - based on experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.