lct Posted August 16, 2015 Share #81 Posted August 16, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Do you mean that we should sacrifice our shootings of brick walls and rulers? ;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 16, 2015 Posted August 16, 2015 Hi lct, Take a look here Focus adjustment Odyssey. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted August 16, 2015 Share #82 Posted August 16, 2015 Do you mean that we should sacrifice our shootings of brick walls and rulers? ;) Perish the thought. If it wasn't for brick walls and rulers we'd have nothing to photograph! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share #83 Posted August 16, 2015 At the risk of seeming like a person who settles for less than the best [...] Thanks for your contribution! There is no risk Working with the M series of cameras is so comfortable No zoom, no AF, changing lenses on location, slow picture take rate, waiting for buffer to clear, difficult to compose with longer lenses due to small area in the finder, no precise framing possible (always a little guess), in LR slow DNG loading / meta-data re-writing etc. all makes using the M system a hassle for me. If one insists on perfect focus for their work with a variety of lenses I would look elsewhere for the right system, but recognize that something important may be sacrificed. I use the M system because of 2 reasons: the beautiful look of the pictures (rendering, color, 3D-pop, sharpness, oof-transition), and the other main reason is size / weight. I can't carry a haevy DSLR system around nor am I ready to go for those flat and artificial looking images generated by so many cameras / lenses... If I miss focus and decide to keep the picture because of my own reasons: this is a totally different situation then equipment with which it's impossible to get the focus right! Correct focus should be possible especially with gear advertised as "mechanical perfection", "rangefinder experiece", "compatibel with M lenses since the 50s", "high resolution sensor" etc. etc., simply because there is no point in selling expensive lenses and a 24MP sensor if correct focus is impossible to acheive. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share #84 Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) Do you mean that we should sacrifice our shootings of brick walls and rulers? ;) You like to be very funny... This is not about test scenarios, I am talking about real world usage such as concert / stage photography which usually the M system is considered perfect for. There are concert halls (one of the greatest in the world I know of is among them) which allow only Leica M systems to be used during performances because of the noise most DSLRs make. Just for the record: actually it's very easy to test focus on the M 240, just put the camera on a tripd, focus on any object using LiveView, check through the RF. If the RF patch shows correct focus, everything should be fine. If not, correct focus with the RF patch and take a photo: you will end up with an out of focus picture. Edited August 16, 2015 by jpk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 16, 2015 Share #85 Posted August 16, 2015 Been there since the seventies... Just a matter of practice... Sorry for your 75 but i won't repeat my posts above. If you want perfect focus with your gear perhaps rangefinders are not the best cameras for you. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share #86 Posted August 16, 2015 Been there since the seventies... I never had any focus problems with my film Ms... If you want perfect focus with your gear perhaps rangefinders are not the best cameras for you. What is your recommendation? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 16, 2015 Share #87 Posted August 16, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Depends if you want to use your M lenses. If so, i would stick to the M240 in LV/EVF mode for now unless you don't use wides and ultra-wides that much in which case i would be temped by the Sony EVILS, but i have no experience with them. I like much my little Fuji X-E2 personally but it is an APS camera and it tends to show smeared corners at infinity on wider M lenses than 35mm. FWIW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 16, 2015 Share #88 Posted August 16, 2015 I've just been editing a mix of M240 DNG and NEX 7 ARW files. Trust me, the problems are not just corner smearing. Trying to get good colour to my taste out of a Sony is hard work. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share #89 Posted August 16, 2015 Trying to get good colour to my taste out of a Sony is hard work. Thanks for sharing your experience! With Nikon D700 files I also needed much more time until the colors were to my taste, though with R lenses on the Nikon it was less work than with Nikkors... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted August 16, 2015 Share #90 Posted August 16, 2015 Thanks for your contribution! There is no risk No zoom, no AF, changing lenses on location, slow picture take rate, waiting for buffer to clear, difficult to compose with longer lenses due to small area in the finder, no precise framing possible (always a little guess), in LR slow DNG loading / meta-data re-writing etc. all makes using the M system a hassle for me. I use the M system because of 2 reasons: the beautiful look of the pictures (rendering, color, 3D-pop, sharpness, oof-transition), and the other main reason is size / weight. I can't carry a haevy DSLR system around nor am I ready to go for those flat and artificial looking images generated by so many cameras / lenses... If I miss focus and decide to keep the picture because of my own reasons: this is a totally different situation then equipment with which it's impossible to get the focus right! Correct focus should be possible especially with gear advertised as "mechanical perfection", "rangefinder experiece", "compatibel with M lenses since the 50s", "high resolution sensor" etc. etc., simply because there is no point in selling expensive lenses and a 24MP sensor if correct focus is impossible to acheive. I have a digital M that gets the focus right, so it's not impossible. My M9, M-P and 10 lenses all work perfectly together including my Noctilux and 90 APO. I'm over 90% in accurate focusing. If there's a focus issue it's because of the eight inches behind the camera. I am not one to accept that Leica ownership means I have to accept out of focus images. And as a working photographer I can't deliver an unsharp image to a client and say "look at the bokeh!!". I understand that using mechanical equipment means a regular servicing schedule but I also insist the Leica get my gear right before I will accept it. And I have returned more than one item to Leica because the service agent thought it was "good enough". I have found that a fast card solves some of the issues with buffers etc. And my Leica files take no more time to render in Lightroom than those from my Sony's, Fuji's or my shooting partners Canons. Sometimes, certainly there are better tools than a Leica but that is true of all systems. Sometimes the advantages outweigh the issues. A few on this thread have said that it's not always about getting perfect focus and that has merit. But I think that you should all insist that Leica get your cameras and lenses right because they certainly can be. It seems weird to me that someone would own these wonderful optics and not insist they operate at their full potential. And if we all insist that Leica do a better job of calibrating bodies and making the RF less susceptible to shift then maybe Leica will actually improve their processes and give us the product we should be getting out of the box, every time. I've been told "it's within spec" several times. That's not a valid excuse for sloppy workmanship on a 9K camera. Insist on better. For all of you who think that an RF can't be spot on all the time, I assure you that if you are prepared to make Leica get it right, like I have, it certainly can be very accurate and very reliable. Gordon 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 16, 2015 Share #91 Posted August 16, 2015 I would not expect that a rangefinder can work out of specs. It will never do. Just learn how to use it within specs and you will be happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share #92 Posted August 17, 2015 Just learn how to use it within specs and you will be happy. Please point us to the specs you are referring to! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted August 17, 2015 Share #93 Posted August 17, 2015 /me points to his nose Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 17, 2015 Share #94 Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) The rangefinder's accuracy depends upon factors like effective base length and image magnification. At full aperture, difficult lenses like 135/3.4, 90/2 and 75/1.4 are at the limit of the M240's accuracy if one does not use a magnifier, let alone an EVF. Edited August 17, 2015 by lct Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 17, 2015 Share #95 Posted August 17, 2015 It depends on user skill too... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 17, 2015 Share #96 Posted August 17, 2015 A bit of practice cannot hurt of course but most people did not use a microscope to check RF accuracy in the film days and they (we) were quite happy when prints looked sharp at normal viewing distance didn't we. Now some of us are expecting perfectly accurate results on our PC screens at 100% magnification w/o realizing that it is as senseful as using a loupe to watch a billboard more or less... Cameras are not endoscopes folks. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 17, 2015 Share #97 Posted August 17, 2015 A bit of practice cannot hurt of course but most people did not use a microscope to check RF accuracy in the film days and they (we) were quite happy when prints looked sharp at normal viewing distance didn't we. Now some of us are expecting perfectly accurate results on our PC screens at 100% magnification w/o realizing that it is as senseful as using a loupe to watch a billboard more or less... Cameras are not endoscopes folks. Actually, we did... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/248162-focus-adjustment-odyssey/?do=findComment&comment=2873022'>More sharing options...
571514M3 Posted August 17, 2015 Share #98 Posted August 17, 2015 Leica equipment is amazing, and like any tool requires operator skill. At 40m focussing distance you would barely turn the barrel 1 mm to adjust for the focus error that you did not like. Who can determine THAT difference in the RF patch? On my M4 I can do so a little better than with the M, on my M3 even better. But then film and digital differ in terms of DOF as well. Open 90's are not easy to handle fully open, and why would anyone do that except for with a portrait? More than likely this lens is perfectly ok, despite the prevalence of 'my xyz was sent back 3times...' on this forum. More than likely we expect more of our equipment than we can objectively handle in terms of our understanding of skill in handling our equipment in a particular situation. When it then comes to the result we complain, instead of having the skills to get the result with the tools we chose. This forum has ample evidence of that. There is some interesting reading: ".....Therefore the quality of the Leica images was of paramount importance. The aperture of 3.5 gave excellent optical performance and more importantly, it had an extended depth of field. So even if the Leica user misjudged the distance a bit, he was assured of high quality images. Berek rightfully assumed that the user of this new instrument needed to gain experience with the wide aperture and the focusing. " E. Puts, Leica M lenses - Their soul and Secrets, 2002, p77. As said by others, LV does not lie. I was surprised when I 'got the patch wrong' by half a mm, and LV resulted in perfect focus. I even measured and both lens and LV were right, I was not. Could not believe that and a very humbling experience. I did sell my 2/90 Cron, and now my favourite 90 (rarely used) is an ugly but light old 4/90 that works perfectly stepped down, and does magic with portraits. Looking at the 1:1 crop I wonder: why would you want to shoot that scene with open aperture, would it even matter in a print, would zone focussing not be better, if you really want the handrail in focus would not a tripod and LV be the solution? The optical RF gives us so much, and is so superior to SLR/EVF. But it has to be used in the context of its mechanical limitations. And is that not something we knowingly take into account when we buy this amazing piece of hybrid camera technology? With film we always took multiple shots with slight change in focus, this is still a reasonable thing to do with digital. Or rock slightly forward and back and take a few shots - one will always be the perfectly focussed shot. Here is a challenge: use that lens and then post 2 perfectly exposed and focussed pictures with a DR of min 6 to max 10 stops. One at distance, and one at under 5m distance. Show us the full frame and a 1:1 crop somewhere to prove it. Think about DOF. Step down from f2, as the subject demands. I am sure everyone will applaud. We will learn something. You will end up loving body and lens, with body and soul. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsprow Posted August 17, 2015 Share #99 Posted August 17, 2015 In my earlier post, my observation was that in looking over my most "successful" images, focus was imperfect in a number of them, but I feel that the M RF cameras (digital and film) allowed me to capture a moment in a way my other cameras (Nikon, Sony, Hasselblad) rarely do. Not to say that we (and Leica) should not try to continually improve the RF system, but I for one am very happy with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpk Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share #100 Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) Looking at the 1:1 crop I wonder: why would you want to shoot that scene with open aperture, would it even matter in a print, would zone focussing not be better, if you really want the handrail in focus would not a tripod and LV be the solution? Regarding the 1:1 crop: do you really believe that I tried to create that picture with an artistic intention...? Regarding skills: please be so kind and check the pictures I posted elsewhere on the forum and explain how I can improve my skills so that I can handle a lens with a focus error as pronounced as shown in my 1:1 crop. I use F2 lenses in situations where I need F2 otherwise I would not have bought an F2 lens. So please let us know: why does Leica offer F2 lenses (or even faster) if the M system is supposed to be used by zone focusing? Why is a 24MP sensor needed if the in focus area is as soft as a 4MP file? I always thought it's vice versa: if I need zone focusing I use zone focusing, if I need F2 hand hold I use my F2 lens(es), if I need detail I use a 18~24MP sensor. Let me summerize what I learnt from some of you folks: that the M system isn't made for in focus images, 18 / 24MP sensors are not made for making use of the 18 or 24MP, the M system isn't intended to be used hand hold, focus adjustment is done by Leica just for fun although customers don't really need correct focus other than for taking brick walls and rulers, photographers can cure mis-adjustement of their equipment by taking "2 perfectly exposed and focussed pictures with a DR of min 6 to max 10 stops. One at distance, and one at under 5m distance" and lot's of other helpful stuff. I am sorry, but this confuses me a lot. I really need to work not only on my skills but on my intellect to understand all of this. To all the others who tried to understand my experiences: warm thanks for the input and for sharing your thoughts! Edited August 17, 2015 by jpk 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now