ramarren Posted October 30, 2015 Share #61 Posted October 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Are you familiar with my photos? Visualizing DOF is the least of my worries. For my subjects it's really simple, there isn't any DOF. When I do have the luxury of being concerned with DOF or the appearance of out-of-focus areas DOF preview is as simple as pressing a button, and I do that long before the subject is in the viewfinder. The DOF preview is 1959 technology. When DOF is an issue I have time to push a button. What I don't have time for is manually stopping a lens down when subjects like a hummingbird are within the field of view for a fraction of a second. In that fraction of a second I find I can get much closer to precise focus with the lens at full aperture. I don't have time to magnify, move the magnified box and focus, I don't have time to tweak the focussing ring back and forth when the lens is stopped down and the transition between 'focussed' and 'almost focussed' is much less abrupt. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? PS just to clarify I am currently using the 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R and other longer lenses on a Sony a7II. I am familiar with the benefit of the brighter viewfinder when the lens is stopped down. Well, if you're already familiar with the behavior of the 280mm on the Sony, I can't see what will be different about using it on the SL with or without the auto diaphragm operation. Shooting as you do, with these sorts of subjects and lenses, I'd never do th "open up, focus, stop down" dance at all. I'd just wait for the moment and make the exposure after focusing, as if it were the R8 and had the auto diaphragm. It shouldn't make any difference whatever, as I said before. (And yes, I'm very familiar with your work. I've recommended it to many folks asking about bird photography over the years. You are a magician with your timing and vision!) Working with my Olympus gear using the E-5 (SLR) or E-M1 (mirrorless) and the dedicated ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5 lens and 1.4x teleconverter nets the equivalent of 580mm f/4.7 lens. I have no idea what either of those cameras are doing with the aperture of the lens as I'm shooting, but I know it's not quite the simple old "open for focus, stopped down for exposure" automation. The thing is, I just focus, frame, and shoot, just like I do with the same cameras using an old Nikkor 400mm that's utterly dumb on either. It simply doesn't make any noticeable difference, to me. What behavior are you seeing using you lenses adapted to the Sony that makes you think there might be a problem with the same lenses fitted to the SL? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Hi ramarren, Take a look here Would you prefer an R10 over SL?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted October 30, 2015 Share #62 Posted October 30, 2015 [...] Try now to photography the subjects Douglas likes (with as good results) or walk with an M lens and be ready anytime should the " decisive moment " comes is really something else. [...] You should try a faster EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted October 30, 2015 Share #63 Posted October 30, 2015 My " didactic surety " comes from experience having tried R, M lenses (and Otus) on an A7r. If you have time and photography static subjects, it can be done perfectly aperture closed using magnification and eventually bracketing. Try now to photography the subjects Douglas likes (with as good results) or walk with an M lens and be ready anytime should the " decisive moment " comes is really something else. In the good old days testers measured the lag when trigerring the shutter and the quickest was best. With an EVF (on the Sony, i don't know about the Leica) first you must wait for it to start functioning, and this do not take milliseconds... At last for me. My experience (shooting diverse subjects like scenics, street, motor racing, social events, theater, wildlife albeit not birds so much, etc) differs; I disagree. No need to debate it, as I'm not able to change the experiences I've had. It's ok to disagree. The better, more responsive EVF in the SL is one of the things I'm particularly looking forward to compared to the A7. The A7 EVF isn't as good in this way as the E-M1's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted October 30, 2015 Share #64 Posted October 30, 2015 What behavior are you seeing using you lenses adapted to the Sony that makes you think there might be a problem with the same lenses fitted to the SL? I don't think there would be any additional problems using the 280 on the SL vs. the a7II. What I have noticed is that I cannot focus as quickly with sufficient accuracy when the lens is stopped down as I can when using the same lens on the same camera with the lens at full aperture. I prefer to stop the lens down one or two stops (depending on light and backgrounds) in the hope that DOF will cover the bird's eye and bill instead of just the eye. The better, more responsive EVF in the SL is one of the things I'm particularly looking forward to compared to the A7. Likewise! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted October 30, 2015 Share #65 Posted October 30, 2015 You should try a faster EVF. What i do is use the needed tool, that means M lenses on a M camera and sometimes R lenses on a Sony with the limitations i wrote about, because there was nothing better or more convenient availiable. I still hope some day someone (Leica or another manufacture) will make an adapter closing the diaphragm automatically and without lag. But my hopes are light... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted October 30, 2015 Share #66 Posted October 30, 2015 I don't think there would be any additional problems using the 280 on the SL vs. the a7II. What I have noticed is that I cannot focus as quickly with sufficient accuracy when the lens is stopped down as I can when using the same lens on the same camera with the lens at full aperture. I prefer to stop the lens down one or two stops (depending on light and backgrounds) in the hope that DOF will cover the bird's eye and bill instead of just the eye. I think that we're on the same page, Doug. You're looking at it as a useful plus... A way to get just a little more manual focusing speed along with an auto stop down for a little DoF insurance and I completely agree that having the feature in the dedicated R Adapter SL would be very useful in that context. I can see the same myself in other contexts. I just dont don't see the hyperbole I've reading as in "Unusable without this feature!" To me, that's just way over the top. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 30, 2015 Share #67 Posted October 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Can someone please explain to the luddite why this camera must have telecentric lenses (if I understand the comments above correctly). It was a misconception a few years ago that by removing the mirror from the way, one could design smaller and shorter lenses. Then the shock came that mirrorless lenses are equally as large as DSLR lenses. The fact is the mirror box is not the limiting factor with digital as it used to be with film. It's the sensor technology that requires the light rays to hit the sensor as perpendicularly as possible, with all sorts of problems with oblique light rays from vignetting to color shading to the sensor not able to see and use large aperture rays. Let's not forget also the thick sensor cover required because as Leica realized on its own expense that thin covers do not filter IR well causing color issues, break easily and delaminate. A thick cover doesn't like oblique rays, causing astigmatism and field curvature in the image periphery but is a necessary evil especially if there is auto sensor cleaning and ibis that are nowadays obligatory functions, on top of the thin cover issues I already mentioned. So until sensor technology improves so that sensors can see wide variations of incident light rays just like film, and until sensor cover glass is unneeded and removed, lenses will have to remain as large if not even larger than SLR lenses designed for film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share #68 Posted October 30, 2015 Thanks for the responses! I have found only a few responses touting the merits of the EVF over the mirror and pentaprism 1) Bright screen when stopped down but harder to focus than wide open with auto aperture 2) No AF calibration issues with EVF. (Or MF) 3) No vibration with EVF 4) Ability to use a variety of lenses with adapters 5). Other? Very few responses have stated a preference for a EVF over a well calibrated OVF SLR. Are the 4 reasons I gleaned from the posts the reason for the mirrorless revolution -or is there something else? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgmb Posted October 30, 2015 Share #69 Posted October 30, 2015 For long lenses, for very fast lenses, for AF and IS lenses, it is true they will be very large and heavy whether mounted on mirrorless or dSLR. But this is not necessarily so for slower primes and UWA lenses on mirrorless, i.e. Zeiss Loxia for E mount. Those are manual focus of course, but the Sony AF 55mm 1.7 is still quite compact. What precludes Leica from offering compact Elmarit and Elmar WA primes designed specifically for the SL sensor? Must we assume that all SL lenses will be AF like the first three announced? AF is not really needed for landscape and architecture. It remains to be seen what Leica's roadmap will be for the SL lens lineup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 30, 2015 Share #70 Posted October 30, 2015 Yep - not all optical mirrors and pentaprisms are created equal. My choice would be the S(007) or the SL EVF ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgmb Posted October 30, 2015 Share #71 Posted October 30, 2015 Unless I missed it - not one poster has stated a preference for a EVF over a well calibrated OVF SLR. Are the 4 reasons I gleaned from the posts the reason for the mirrorless revolution -or is there something else? Here are five more EVF advantages that are behind the mirrorless revolution: 1) WYSIWYG - Seeing exactly what the sensor sees in real time with live view. 2) Depth of field preview at shooting aperture 3) Exposure and WB preview 4) Live histogram in viewfinder 5) Focus peaking and zebras, ability to focus in low light I absolutely prefer shooting with an EVF over an OVF under any circumstance, for the above reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted October 30, 2015 Share #72 Posted October 30, 2015 Thanks for the responses! I have found only a few responses touting the merits of the EVF over the mirror and pentaprism 1) Bright screen when stopped down but harder to focus than wide open with auto aperture 2) No AF calibration issues with EVF. (Or MF) 3) No vibration with EVF 4) Ability to use a variety of lenses with adapters Unless I missed it - not one poster has stated a preference for a EVF over a well calibrated OVF SLR. Are the 4 reasons I gleaned from the posts the reason for the mirrorless revolution -or is there something else? > "Are the 4 reasons I gleaned from the posts the reason for the mirrorless revolution -or is there something else?' Almost, eliding the bolded portion above, which is incorrectly stated. It's easier to see the critical focus point when a lens is wide open, assuming that the lens has good contrast when wide open. This can increase your focusing speed. That doesn't mean that it is "harder to focus" and has no implication about auto aperture. Auto aperture was essential to fluid use of an optical SLR as otherwise the viewfinder is too dim to see and you cannot use one quickly. Further: - high quality EVFs reduce cost of manufacture due to economies of scale. Once you get into large scale production of high resolution EVFs, the cost per unit drops precipitously. Precision optical finders with 100% coverage never cost less to manufacture, in fact they always cost more as time goes on and as the required volume goes up. - The ability of an EVF to amp up its brightness presents a better, more adaptive viewfinder in varying light situations. - The ability to add overlays and implement magnification for focus assist, peaking for focusing speed, histograms and other exposure tools overlaid on the viewfinder experience is almost impossible to do with any kind of optical viewfinder. > "Unless I missed it - not one poster has stated a preference for a EVF over a well calibrated OVF SLR." I've said at least four times in this thread: "Having moved from mirrorless back to SLR multiple times in the years between now and 2008, every time it has been a retrograde experience. I moved back to an SLR for reasons of system capabilities that had NOTHING to do with the viewfinder experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 30, 2015 Share #73 Posted October 30, 2015 For long lenses, for very fast lenses, for AF and IS lenses, it is true they will be very large and heavy whether mounted on mirrorless or dSLR. But this is not necessarily so for slower primes and UWA lenses on mirrorless, i.e. Zeiss Loxia for E mount. Those are manual focus of course, but the Sony AF 55mm 1.7 is still quite compact. What precludes Leica from offering compact Elmarit and Elmar WA primes designed specifically for the SL sensor? Must we assume that all SL lenses will be AF like the first three announced? AF is not really needed for landscape and architecture. It remains to be seen what Leica's roadmap will be for the SL lens lineup. The 55/1.8 is larger than the Canon 50/1.8. The Loxia 50 and 35 are modified ZM designs that perform below average in the image periphery. The only Loxia that has been designed from scratch for the A7 mount, the 21/2.8, is as large as the DSLR one. Leica can design somewhat compact manual focus lenses for the SL if it wants to, because the sensor cover is still quite thin, though not as much as the M. The question is, would they want to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted October 30, 2015 Share #74 Posted October 30, 2015 Lens quality? This is Leica we're talking about...What recent Leica lens has been less than stellar on release? The 50mm APO Summicron. Priced like a Noctilux but with veiling flare to shame a Holga on release. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 30, 2015 Share #75 Posted October 30, 2015 Here are five more EVF advantages that are behind the mirrorless revolution: 1) WYSIWYG - Seeing exactly what the sensor sees in real time with live view. 2) Depth of field preview at shooting aperture 3) Exposure and WB preview 4) Live histogram in viewfinder 5) Focus peaking and zebras, ability to focus in low light I absolutely prefer shooting with an EVF over an OVF under any circumstance, for the above reasons. While recognizing the EVF many advantages, it would be also fair to mention the drawbacks. I can think of the image blackout after each exposure. I remember it is around 1 second on the new Sony, and that is considered super fast. On my M240 it is like 2-3 seconds. Add to that the exceeded DR under direct sunlight, that makes both focusing and viewing very difficult and inconvenient. Add to that the noisy slow refreshing image in low light. Overheating of the sensor due to continuous live view that causes cameras to turn off and generates more noise. That's what I can think of right now but I'm sure there are other drawbacks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share #76 Posted October 30, 2015 Ramarran - I stand corrected. I have modified my post. To all: I am genuinely looking to understand the attraction of the EVF. I have not used one with the exception of my iphone. I am intersted in all points of view and user experiences with EVF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgmb Posted October 30, 2015 Share #77 Posted October 30, 2015 While recognizing the EVF many advantages, it would be also fair to mention the drawbacks. I can think of the image blackout after each exposure. I remember it is around 1 second on the new Sony, and that is considered super fast. On my M240 it is like 2-3 seconds. Add to that the exceeded DR under direct sunlight, that makes both focusing and viewing very difficult and inconvenient. Add to that the noisy slow refreshing image in low light. Overheating of the sensor due to continuous live view that causes cameras to turn off and generates more noise. That's what I can think of right now but I'm sure there are other drawbacks. Of course there are drawbacks to any technology. But while OVF technology is mature and unlikely to ever improve, EVF technology is in its infancy and constantly improving, i.e. the difference between EVF in M240 vs EVF in SL. The future is with EVF despite its current temporary drawbacks. I believe Leica is on the right path by embracing the EVF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted October 30, 2015 Share #78 Posted October 30, 2015 While recognizing the EVF many advantages, it would be also fair to mention the drawbacks. I can think of the image blackout after each exposure. I remember it is around 1 second on the new Sony, and that is considered super fast. On my M240 it is like 2-3 seconds. Which Sony are you thinking of? The blackout on the A7 series is nowhere near a second. It's fast enough to be comparable to the very brief blackout of a DSLR. The one real disadvantage of EVFs is in very bright sunlight where they're still dim in comparison to an optical viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted October 30, 2015 Share #79 Posted October 30, 2015 While recognizing the EVF many advantages, it would be also fair to mention the drawbacks. I can think of the image blackout after each exposure. I remember it is around 1 second on the new Sony, and that is considered super fast. On my M240 it is like 2-3 seconds. Add to that the exceeded DR under direct sunlight, that makes both focusing and viewing very difficult and inconvenient. Add to that the noisy slow refreshing image in low light. Overheating of the sensor due to continuous live view that causes cameras to turn off and generates more noise. That's what I can think of right now but I'm sure there are other drawbacks. I have not seen anywhere near this much blackout with the a7II Nor have I had difficulty focussing or viewing in daylight In dim light the viewfinder, unlike the R8, is noisy and jittery and, also unlike the R8 I can still focus it easily I have not used live view extensively so I can't comment on overheating. The R8 doesn't have live view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted October 30, 2015 Share #80 Posted October 30, 2015 Which Sony are you thinking of? The blackout on the A7 series is nowhere a second. It's fast enough to be comparable to the very brief blackout of a DSLR. The one real disadvantage of EVFs is in very bright sunlight where they're still dim in comparison to an optical viewfinder. The A7rII. I tried it at the dealer and I estimate the blackout to be one second but of course I didn't time it with a chronometer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.