Have they vastly improve Focus Peaking on the Q vs. the M?

[jeffu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After several months on the waiting list, I finally have a Q in my hot little hands, very nice camera!

 

I've had an M 240 for about a year and a half now and love the image quality I get with Leica, there really is nothing like it.  Part of my excitement with the Q is auto focus - I love my M, but I wear glasses and I'm over 50 so it's just not that easy to nail the focus and I've missed a lot of shots just not being fast enough.

 

Anyhow - I just played around with manual focus and with red focus peaking turned on on the Q and holy cow, it lights up really well.  I've used focus peaking on my M in the past and it's not been nearly as clear, it comes on, but nothing like I'm seeing on the Q.  Now it has me wondering if they've either vastly improved the feature on the Q or is there something wrong with my M?

 

Anyone else notice a difference or have an M to compare?

[pop]

Which lens, at what aperture?

[geesbert]

I always found the M's peaking quite useless. much better on the Q

[wda]

I don't have Q but will defend focus peaking on the M-240. I find it a valuable aid when needed and the firmware update gave a new range of colour options. I am rather older than you and enjoy rangefinder focusing  rather more than blind reliance on AF. I do use AF when available and mostly it is excellent and reliable (except for X Vario which can occasionally give false confirmation of correct focus when in practice focus is far from correct. (Currently being discussed with Leica and my dealer, but that is another story). There is something reassuring about using a rangefinder camera, a feature appreciated by older members with ageing eyesight.

[Cliff S]

The focus peaking on the Q is incredible. As good as the AF is, I can MF with peaking even sharper. I can pick out details far away and nail focus manually.

 

My M240 has passable peaking. In perfect conditions I'll get some outline. Nothing like the Christmas lights of the Q though. In dark the M240 may not even show peaking. This is with a Nocti full open and a 35 Lux open. The Q in darker conditions will still light up and get me tack sharp shots.

 

I would love the M240 to be upgraded to the Q's peaking quality with a future firmware update.

[wacka]

The peaking is next to useless on the M for a number of reasons, but you could argue that it's largely redundant in either case if you're prepared to work 'the M way'.

 

I was pretty concerned about it on the Q though because obviously it'd be the only way to focus outside of AF. And 'real' Leica AF - at least on APS-C - to date has been horrendous, which many Leica (and to a lesser extent, many Fuji) apologists of course call 'slowing down photography', ha. 

 

So I was shocked to discover that the Q's AF is Panasonic speed. Which I guess is probably not that surprising if you've come straight to a Q, but if you've owned a spate of X's as your M companions then it's like upgrading from an oxcart to warp drive.

 

Likewise, I was expecting peaking to be a lagfest. Nope. This is the best VF peaking implementation I've seen, period.

 

Again, unsurprising given the apparent grunt in the 116 as opposed to the 240 but I wasn't expecting Leica to actually take advantage of it.

 

I remain amazed at how little functional compromises this has electronically for a Leica - this has to be a first. But at the same time, I remain unsurprised at the build quality especially when Leica can't hide behind the highest-end differentiating materials.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The focus peaking on the M is perfect for the intended use: contrasty (read R) long lenses. As it is not as overdone as Focus peaking on for instance Sony, which is tuned for midrange  (and justly so) lenses, it is exceedingly precise in its intended envelope. It is just a matter of running through the learning curve, as any focus aid is. For medium focal length lenses use the rangefinder provided, for wideangles it does not matter.

 

In other words, the M focus peaking is useless on a Summilux 35, but very good on an APO-Telyt 280/4.0, the Q focus peaking is perfect for a 28 mm lens, but would be impossibly aggressive on the Apo Telyt, if it could be mounted. Which is the nature of focus peaking in general.

[wacka]

"As it is not as overdone as Focus peaking on for instance Sony, which is tuned for midrange lenses,"

 

HAHAHAHAHA

 

Where oh where do you get this from?

[jaapv]

From using the cameras. Just witness the red-out on a Apo-Telyt 135 on Sony camera,,, If you cannot understand the technical trade-offs and the reasons manufacturers choose their compromises...

 

I see I need to explain this in simple terms.

 

Focus peaking is not a one size fits all; it depends on focal length, aperture, and to a certain extent lens contrast.

Sony needs to assume that their customers will, in general, use a medium-range zoom lens, so they need fairly obvious focus peaking. However, Leica, on the other hand, provides their rangefinder for focal lengths, up to 90 mm and needs to assume their customers will be using the feature for longer focal lengths. this means it will have to be more subtle.

So the Leica  M implementation will be sub-optimal for focal lengths under 135 mm and the Sony one for focal lengths over 90 mm. Neither is wrong, given the design prameters.

[wacka]

From using the cameras. Just witness the red-out on a Apo-Telyt 135 on Sony camera,,, If you cannot understand the technical trade-offs and the reasons manufacturers choose their compromises...

 

I see I need to explain this in simple terms.

 

Focus peaking is not a one size fits all; it depends on focal length, aperture, and to a certain extent lens contrast.

Sony needs to assume that their customers will, in general, use a medium-range zoom lens, so they need fairly obvious focus peaking. However, Leica, on the other hand, provides their rangefinder for focal lengths, up to 90 mm and needs to assume their customers will be using the feature for longer focal lengths. this means it will have to be more subtle.

So the Leica  M implementation will be sub-optimal for focal lengths under 135 mm and the Sony one for focal lengths over 90 mm. Neither is wrong, given the design prameters.

 

You've actually just explained yourself why the peaking may not work well on an Apo-Telyt - and it has little to do with the comparison of the peaking performance for the M vs an e.g. A7II.

 

The rest, Sony-wise, is pure conjecture.

 

Bottom line: If we're talking peaking, 240 kinda sucks. 116 kinda rocks.

[jaapv]

You  really didn't read/understand the post, did you?
 
Focus peaking is a tradeoff between intensity and accuracy.
Sony peaking is not on its best on long focal lengths, too inaccurate, and if you try to use it on a structured subject the whole viewfinder goes red. That is fine, as it is not meant for that use. (another problem is that on the NEX series it will respond to noise, making the EVF shimmer red using high ISO, but that should be improved on the current A7 cameras with their better noise performance)
 
Leica focus peaking is not good for focal lengths under 135 mm because you have the rangefinder for that. It is the best implementation for contrasty  long focal lengths, enabling you to focus within a few cm using a long telelens on a distant subject.
 
That is not conjecture, it is a basic technical fact, which is easily seen each time one uses either a Sony (not just Sony, any non-RF camera that is set up for shorter focal lengths) or a Leica, which I use both, including extensive wildlife photography. The longer the lens, the more likely I'll use it on the Leica.
 
In general, horses for courses works better than trying to use a camera outside its intended envelope and then bashing.
Want  to use a 35 mm and focus peaking? Use the Sony. Or use the M and rangefinder.
Want to use a 400 mm? Use an M240 for focus peaking. On a Sony, switch focus peaking off and use magnification.
 

[jaapv]

But this whole discussion is completely moot.

@ the OP:Yes, focus peaking on the Q is optimized for the Q lens, so it is much better than an M using a 28 mm lens, as the M focus peaking is not intended for that focal length. Plus the EVF, being from a newer generation, is much better, which helps as well.

[viramati]

I should imagine that it also so much better because of the high res EVF which combined with the focus-peaking makes it so much easier to see where the plane of focus is

[wacka]

You  really didn't read/understand the post, did you?

 

Focus peaking is a tradeoff between intensity and accuracy.

Sony peaking is not on its best on long focal lengths, too inaccurate, and if you try to use it on a structured subject the whole viewfinder goes red. That is fine, as it is not meant for that use. (another problem is that on the NEX series it will respond to noise, making the EVF shimmer red using high ISO, but that should be improved on the current A7 cameras with their better noise performance)

 

Leica focus peaking is not good for focal lengths under 135 mm because you have the rangefinder for that. It is the best implementation for contrasty  long focal lengths, enabling you to focus within a few cm using a long telelens on a distant subject.

 

That is not conjecture, it is a basic technical fact, which is easily seen each time one uses either a Sony (not just Sony, any non-RF camera that is set up for shorter focal lengths) or a Leica, which I use both, including extensive wildlife photography. The longer the lens, the more likely I'll use it on the Leica.

 

In general, horses for courses works better than trying to use a camera outside its intended envelope and then bashing.

Want  to use a 35 mm and focus peaking? Use the Sony. Or use the M and rangefinder.

Want to use a 400 mm? Use an M240 for focus peaking. On a Sony, switch focus peaking off and use magnification.

 

 

No Jaap, you don't understand it by using Leica lenses on an A7 body and commenting on factors that you haven't controlled for. And what you're trying to also do is to twist around what you may be experiencing to favour your Leica worldview.

 

The simple fact is, Sony has lenses which work on the A7 family, just like Leica has lenses which work with theirs. Use those peaked before you start talking out of your butt. And check your adapter. You're not necessarily wrong in terms of the end result but what you're doing is effectively comparing apples and oranges.

 

And we need peaking on the 240 because the rangefinder mechanism as implemented on the Leica is so compromised in many situations, despite it's advantages within a fairly narrow range of focal lengths - there's no 'optimised for' in that statement. It is a workaround. And on the M240, not a very good one. Hopefully in whatever they have next they can throw the full weight of the Maestro II behind it - and possibly come up with a more elegant solution than the Fujis in terms of some sort of hybrid feedback in the VF, or even if we stick to the tacked-on carbuncle get it to a level that a high end mirrorless user would consider usable.

[pop]

I have removed three posts which were off topic.

[AndrewDD]

That's a very interesting explanation as to why I've found the focus peaking on my M to be useless.

 

Surely, though, if it just needs to be more intense on wide lenses, and the camera knows what lens is attached, it should be pretty much trivial to match the intensity of the effect to the lens?

 

Mind you, it would need to be like a searchlight for me, I can't see it clearly on the Q either!