cpclee Posted November 26, 2015 Share #201 Posted November 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) We all know the reasons why wide lenses are harder to focus. I was just hoping the SL would be better here. For some of us, if focusing wide lenses is cumbersome or slow, then an M may just make more sense. Personally I shoot 90% of my pictures on a 28 or 35. That's up to the lens and your eyes. Wide lenses are never easy as easy to focus critically as normal to portrait teles due to their increased DoF. It's just much harder to see the focus transition point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 26, 2015 Posted November 26, 2015 Hi cpclee, Take a look here M lens performance on the SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
-Lss- Posted November 26, 2015 Share #202 Posted November 26, 2015 It's not perfect, and not really checking centering, but it's very good for general across the frame evaluations, provided one checks focus carefully from center to edge. An easy and generally sufficient trick to check for centering is to flip the camera upside down and shoot the same scene. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 26, 2015 Share #203 Posted November 26, 2015 We all know the reasons why wide lenses are harder to focus. I was just hoping the SL would be better here. For some of us, if focusing wide lenses is cumbersome or slow, then an M may just make more sense. Personally I shoot 90% of my pictures on a 28 or 35. It sounds like you are happy enough with the accuracy that an RF focusing mechanism can achieve, and find it faster. I don't find manually focusing wide lenses with the SL to be cumbersome or slow; I find achieving critical focus much faster and easier then with either RF or optical reflex finder. I don't know why you find it cumbersome and slow, or what your expectation might be that could make it "better." If you can clarify, I'd love to know what the issues are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpclee Posted November 26, 2015 Share #204 Posted November 26, 2015 Based on what I've read, I am under the impression that focusing wide lenses on the SL still requires switching on focus peaking or magnification or opening up the aperture temporarily. This adds extra steps, and at times one probably needs to cycle between different methods until a method is found to work. If this is true, then I will indeed find it cumbersome and slow. I have not come across a mirrorless where I can focus a 28mm reliably without focusing aids of some sort, let alone at f5.6 or slower. If this isn't the case for the SL, that will be very good news to me. I don't find manually focusing wide lenses with the SL to be cumbersome or slow; I find achieving critical focus much faster and easier then with either RF or optical reflex finder. I don't know why you find it cumbersome and slow, or what your expectation might be that could make it "better." If you can clarify, I'd love to know what the issues are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpclee Posted November 26, 2015 Share #205 Posted November 26, 2015 BTW I do focus very fast and accurately with a rangefinder. Probably within half a second to a second. Most importantly I feel a certainty of achieving focus which is never felt when focusing a mirrorless or SLR groundless with lenses wider than 50mm. There, it's always a bit of a struggle to determine whether I'm in focus. The only time a rangefinder fails to work for me is when shooting lenses longer than 50mm at f2 or wider with an off-center subject. There, the recomposing throws off the focus. But then that's a known weakness of RF focusing and any focus error is minor and it masked by a bit of sharpening. It sounds like you are happy enough with the accuracy that an RF focusing mechanism can achieve, and find it faster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 26, 2015 Share #206 Posted November 26, 2015 BTW I do focus very fast and accurately with a rangefinder. Probably within half a second to a second. Most importantly I feel a certainty of achieving focus which is never felt when focusing a mirrorless or SLR groundless with lenses wider than 50mm. There, it's always a bit of a struggle to determine whether I'm in focus. The only time a rangefinder fails to work for me is when shooting lenses longer than 50mm at f2 or wider with an off-center subject. There, the recomposing throws off the focus. But then that's a known weakness of RF focusing and any focus error is minor and it masked by a bit of sharpening. Just switch "rangefinder" with "mirrorless" in the above statement and you describe me. We simply have different opinions about this. I find focusing my Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 to be faster and more accurate using the SL than I do to achieve the same accuracy with my M-P, and when I focus it on the SL, I know for a fact that it's in perfect focus, where with the M-P I always have to chimp the exposure to check it (unless I use the EVF/LCD to check it first). I don't find it takes me any time at all to use magnification or peaking, they're hardly difficult or slow to use unless you're very unused to the new camera's control operation and unpracticed with how to use these aids. Once you're familiar with the camera and the focusing aids, and familiar with using your lenses on the camera, what to use and when takes no time at all to do—certainly no more time than squinting at the little focusing patch, finding a suitably contrasty edge or line to make coincident, focusing, than reframing for the exposure. The technique is simply different and takes a certain amount of practice and learning to be fast and fluid, just like using a rangefinder. Different strokes for different folks! ... BTW, I'm not basing my statements on "what I've read". I'm basing my statements on 40 years of using Leica RFs as well as 7 years of using mirrorless cameras and a week of using the SL specifically. ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpclee Posted November 26, 2015 Share #207 Posted November 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is very useful for me to know so I do have a few more questions. When you focus a wide lens like the 24/3.5, do you by default start with one particular focusing aid? Or do you start without any focusing aid and see how it goes first? And do you focus at your working aperture or do you open up? With every mirrorless or groundglass system I've tried, I've found that it is much more about your eye tracking the contrast changes on the subject as opposed to the changes in the details. (A lot of details just can't be seen on the screen.) Is that consistent with your experience with the SL? Just switch "rangefinder" with "mirrorless" in the above statement and you describe me. We simply have different opinions about this. I find focusing my Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 to be faster and more accurate using the SL than I do to achieve the same accuracy with my M-P, and when I focus it on the SL, I know for a fact that it's in perfect focus, where with the M-P I always have to chimp the exposure to check it (unless I use the EVF/LCD to check it first). I don't find it takes me any time at all to use magnification or peaking, they're hardly difficult or slow to use unless you're very unused to the new camera's control operation and unpracticed with how to use these aids. Once you're familiar with the camera and the focusing aids, and familiar with using your lenses on the camera, what to use and when takes no time at all to do—certainly no more time than squinting at the little focusing patch, finding a suitably contrasty edge or line to make coincident, focusing, than reframing for the exposure. The technique is simply different and takes a certain amount of practice and learning to be fast and fluid, just like using a rangefinder. Different strokes for different folks! ... BTW, I'm not basing my statements on "what I've read". I'm basing my statements on 40 years of using Leica RFs as well as 7 years of using mirrorless cameras and a week of using the SL specifically. ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted November 27, 2015 Share #208 Posted November 27, 2015 Ho Hum Interesting discussion. The crux of course is that with a rangefinder, when you focus, it doesn't make any difference which lens you have attached - that focusing patch works just the same way. and just like cpclee I can do this pretty fast ( especially when I'm really in practice). The upshot of this is that the focusing with a 28mm (where there is much much more room for error) is just as accurate as it is for a 50 (where there is less). But I have to say that I'm doubtful about the idea that wide angles are more difficult to focus on a ground glass screen - of course, I understand that it's more difficult to SEE what's in focus , but that's just because so much more of it is! Personally, with the SL, I don't use the focusing aids for anything other than macro photographs (and then I use zoom focus). I've long since thought that focus peaking was a red herring, and just manages to confuse the issue. I don't use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 27, 2015 Share #209 Posted November 27, 2015 Because you focus at full aperture i guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share #210 Posted November 27, 2015 Ho Hum Interesting discussion. The crux of course is that with a rangefinder, when you focus, it doesn't make any difference which lens you have attached - that focusing patch works just the same way. and just like cpclee I can do this pretty fast ( especially when I'm really in practice). The upshot of this is that the focusing with a 28mm (where there is much much more room for error) is just as accurate as it is for a 50 (where there is less). But I have to say that I'm doubtful about the idea that wide angles are more difficult to focus on a ground glass screen - of course, I understand that it's more difficult to SEE what's in focus , but that's just because so much more of it is! Personally, with the SL, I don't use the focusing aids for anything other than macro photographs (and then I use zoom focus). I've long since thought that focus peaking was a red herring, and just manages to confuse the issue. I don't use it. I agree, Jono. When I use the 15 Distagon on my Monochrom, it isn't even rangefinder coupled. I set the aperture and focusing distance at an acceptable range, and just take pictures. The depth of field is so big, there's no chance of anything being out of focus. Sacrilege, I hear LCT and others cry. Well, if you want to have your subject exactly at the best point of focus when using a wide angle lens, then focus wide and then stop down as LCT and Tim Ashley suggest. I won't be bothering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 27, 2015 Share #211 Posted November 27, 2015 Well i don't suggest anything like this and rarely do what Mr Ashley is suggesting if i understand well what you say John. I'm the bloke (the only one?) who's focussing stop down the same way with EVILs as RFs. Focus wide and then stop down is too slow for me. Reason why a well designed focus magnifier is mandatory for me because i use it all the time. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 27, 2015 Author Share #212 Posted November 27, 2015 I don't focus wide and stop down either, but then I'm happy that the depth of field is sufficiently big with wides, that focus isn't an issue ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toyfel Posted November 27, 2015 Share #213 Posted November 27, 2015 Like LCT I'd very much like to be able to use the magnifier in a manner that's fast and not disturbing my concentration on the task at hand and the subject I am about to photograph. The SL does not allow me to do this, simply because using the magnifier requires me to shift my left hand and move my chin to make room for my left hand to reach the BL button (which slightly but inevitably changes my viewing angle towards the viewfinder). In effect, this is very distracting and takes away focus from the subject. Not at all what I would associate with "Das Wesentliche" and really a shame because everything else that this camera has to offer is just fantastic in my opinion. Sorry to repeat this issue once more, but Leica should update the firmware as fast as possible to allow suitable reconfiguration of the button layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted November 27, 2015 Share #214 Posted November 27, 2015 Based on what I've read, I am under the impression that focusing wide lenses on the SL still requires switching on focus peaking or magnification or opening up the aperture temporarily. This adds extra steps, This is the problem...if you want the know the truth, you will have to ignore those that tested the camera in the store for a few minutes and posted their opinions, which likely were biased before they walked in anyway. I am able to focus just as quickly with all my lenses on either the M or the SL. I rarely use the focus aids on the SL...and when I do it its in conditions that would have been very difficult to focus with a rangefinder regardless. The SL is extremely fast to manually focus any of my M and R lenses. The only way you will know for sure though is to spend a few days with it. Honestly I am finding much higher success rate (especially with Noctilux) with the SL nailing critical focus than I am with my M...mostly due to the lack of having to recompose after focusing with RF patch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 27, 2015 Share #215 Posted November 27, 2015 This is very useful for me to know so I do have a few more questions. When you focus a wide lens like the 24/3.5, do you by default start with one particular focusing aid? Or do you start without any focusing aid and see how it goes first? And do you focus at your working aperture or do you open up? With every mirrorless or groundglass system I've tried, I've found that it is much more about your eye tracking the contrast changes on the subject as opposed to the changes in the details. (A lot of details just can't be seen on the screen.) Is that consistent with your experience with the SL? I'm still learning the SL so my workflow isn't entirely set yet. However, with wide lenses like the 24mm, I find that focus peaking can be a bit distracting with some subject (too much illuminates to give you a strong indication of the correct focus point) so I usually just tap on the magnification button to bring it up and focus. Most usually, I have the lens set to f/5.6-f/8 and don't bother to open up unless the light is pretty poor because I can see well enough to focus very accurately with magnification alone. As soon as I half-press the shutter release, the magnification is automatically dismissed and aperture simulation is engaged, so I can see the full field of view for framing and the illumination is reflects the final capture. If every thing is fine, I release the shutter; otherwise I'll tweak exposure a little bit and then release the shutter. It's fast and fluid. With the SL, clear view -> information -> histogram -> peaking -> grid/level are display overlays that operate in rotation, they're all on by default. With the EVF active, a single tap on the bottom-right button switches to the next overlay so it's very fast to tap-tap to the overlay you want, almost instantaneous. You can set the configuration to remove displays too, so if you want just clear view -> peaking, you configure the camera for that so tapping the button just flips you from one to the other; takes no time at all. Magnification is always on the bottom left button so tapping that once gets you 4x, twice 6x magnification. Again, it's very quick and disappears when you half-press the shutter release so tap, focus, half press to frame, release. It's hard to illustrate how fluid this is when describing it, but with camera to my eye it's so fast I forget I'm even doing anything other than focusing and releasing the shutter. I spend more time fiddling with the focusing ring to align the images in a rangefinder than tapping magnification, turning the ring until what want is sharp, and releasing the shutter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted November 27, 2015 Share #216 Posted November 27, 2015 I spend more time fiddling with the focusing ring to align the images in a rangefinder than tapping magnification, turning the ring until what want is sharp, and releasing the shutter. Interesting how it is now ok to say the RF is not ideal without odd reactions from other forum members How it was before the SL: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/227978-rf-vs-evf/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted November 27, 2015 Share #217 Posted November 27, 2015 Interesting how it is now ok to say the RF is not ideal without odd reactions from other forum members How it was before the SL: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/227978-rf-vs-evf/ I can't speak for other forum members. I only speak for myself and my experiences/observations, and I don't like to editorialize on how others have spoken in the past. I've always had SLR and RF side by side, and found them useful for different reasons. The SL just means I've replaced the SLR with a electronic viewfinder. To my eye, with the quality of the EVF in the SL, it's very comparable to an SLR: the RF-SLR differences are pretty much the same as RF-EVF differences to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 27, 2015 Share #218 Posted November 27, 2015 Interesting how it is now ok to say the RF is not ideal without odd reactions from other forum members How it was before the SL: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/227978-rf-vs-evf/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 27, 2015 Share #219 Posted November 27, 2015 Interesting how it is now ok to say the RF is not ideal without odd reactions from other forum members If you insist... Suggesting that an EVF is faster to focus than an RF is a good example of... auto-suggestion . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trond Posted November 27, 2015 Share #220 Posted November 27, 2015 If you insist... Suggesting that an EVF is faster to focus than an RF is a good example of... auto-suggestion . The EVF on the SL is exceedingly much faster that the RF on my M P 240. It took over three months to focus my SX28 on the M P 240. On the SL it takes less than a second. Best regards Trond Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.