Stevez4 Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1 Posted October 23, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) There is no autofocus function when using M lenses. I have just tried out the camera. Focus is quick and accurate. Focus peaking better. But no autofocus. Is it worth the price and the weight? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Hi Stevez4, Take a look here No Autofocus with M Lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kkonkkrete Posted October 23, 2015 Share #2 Posted October 23, 2015 How could it autofocus a manual lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tmx Posted October 23, 2015 Share #3 Posted October 23, 2015 Indeed. No autofocus because it's manual ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeicaFFM Posted October 23, 2015 Share #4 Posted October 23, 2015 Who would have thought... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted October 23, 2015 Share #5 Posted October 23, 2015 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 23, 2015 Share #6 Posted October 23, 2015 Is it worth the price and the weight? It's debateable, a Nikon starts to sound cheap at £2.39 per gram, so you need to ask yourself if you need all the benefits of upgrading to £5.90 per gram. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted October 23, 2015 Share #7 Posted October 23, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) There is no autofocus function when using M lenses. I have just tried out the camera. Focus is quick and accurate. Focus peaking better. But no autofocus. Is it worth the price and the weight? I am sure this is a joke? Starting a thread making a point out of this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 23, 2015 Share #8 Posted October 23, 2015 So he didn't realise how M lenses work. No need to get the ice-picks out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fcomarin69 Posted October 23, 2015 Share #9 Posted October 23, 2015 It's debateable, a Nikon starts to sound cheap at £2.39 per gram, so you need to ask yourself if you need all the benefits of upgrading to £5.90 per gram. Steve you are right, or we can go other way. Instead of weight that really is not so important we go for the cost of each picture we take (usable or not). Price of the camera is USD 7,450 (just body) and they promise at least 200K actuations. Thats .037 per shoot. Compare with the 5DMIII (USD 2800 and 150K Actuations) @ .018 USD per shoot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 23, 2015 Share #10 Posted October 23, 2015 ...or cost per photo that's a keeper. So the first one with an SL and 24-90 cost $13K. By the 100th photo that's a keeper each one cost $130 By the 1000th photo that's a keeper only $13. ...a bargain! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoism Posted October 23, 2015 Share #11 Posted October 23, 2015 So he didn't realise how M lenses work. No need to get the ice-picks out. Or, he could have been expecting autofocusing by sensor movement? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 23, 2015 Share #12 Posted October 23, 2015 Or, he could have been expecting autofocusing by sensor movement? He wouldn’t have if only he had been listening to me. But then, who does … Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkonkkrete Posted October 23, 2015 Share #13 Posted October 23, 2015 Actually this has got me thinking. The M lenses are coupled internally to the RF mechanism on the M, so that moving the focus ring moves physical mechanisms inside the camera, right? So...Is there any reason why that mechanisms could not in principle be inverted and motorised? So that internal to the camera a motor would move the coupling mechanism and thereby adjust the focus ring of the lens? Perhaps it would require too much torque to be practical. Sorry if this idea has been discussed before, and already debunked. Curious to hear your thoughts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 23, 2015 Share #14 Posted October 23, 2015 .... So...Is there any reason why that mechanisms could not in principle be inverted and motorised? So that internal to the camera a motor would move the coupling mechanism and thereby adjust the focus ring of the lens? ... Take the lens off your M and have a look at the coupling mechanism. Chances are that the inverted mechanism would push the lens out of the socket. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 23, 2015 Share #15 Posted October 23, 2015 ...or cost per photo that's a keeper. So the first one with an SL and 24-90 cost $13K. By the 100th photo that's a keeper each one cost $130 By the 1000th photo that's a keeper only $13. ...a bargain! We could shoot large format transparencies for that $. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted October 23, 2015 Share #16 Posted October 23, 2015 Hello Kkonkkrete, Actually Hasselblad did that a while ago to automate the diaphrams on some of its lenses for the cameras in the 500 Series. These mechanisms made the lenses larger & more bulky. With today's advances in mechanical miniaturatization it might be possible to do this in a somewhat more elegant manner than these Hasselblad lenses. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted October 23, 2015 Share #17 Posted October 23, 2015 We could shoot large format transparencies for that $. We could improve on that rate by shooting keepers only. You begin. Actually Hasselblad did that a while ago to automate the diaphrams on some of its lenses for the cameras in the 500 Series. Nikon did that as well with the F2. If I recall that correctly, they merely turned the aperture ring with a motor and a friction wheel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 23, 2015 Share #18 Posted October 23, 2015 So...Is there any reason why that mechanisms could not in principle be inverted and motorised? So that internal to the camera a motor would move the coupling mechanism and thereby adjust the focus ring of the lens? Perhaps it would require too much torque to be practical. Sorry if this idea has been discussed before, and already debunked. I'm not even sure it is possible to turn the lens focussing mechanism by pushing on the cam, no matter how much force was applied. It sounds like an incredibly inefficient transfer of energy that will most likely result in simply distorting the material (brass?) of the lens focussing cam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 23, 2015 Share #19 Posted October 23, 2015 Chances are that the inverted mechanism would push the lens out of the socket. Or perhaps explode out of the back of the camera (removing the photographer's head in the process). (Not actually sure if that's possible – Newton's 3rd law and all that – but it sounds suitably dramatic). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papimuzo Posted October 23, 2015 Share #20 Posted October 23, 2015 [........................] So...Is there any reason why that mechanisms could not in principle be inverted and motorised? So that internal to the camera a motor would move the coupling mechanism and thereby adjust the focus ring of the lens? [...................] Curious to hear your thoughts. Yes, unfortunately, some mechanical transmission system are not reversible, definitively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.