24-90mm Focus Shift (Diglloyd)

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So my current best guess is that some units have a hardware error.

 

Uhm... CDAF should move the lens until the firmware "sees" the contrast peak in the focus area.

The peak is usually detected by means of overshooting (i.e. it does not see the peak until it goes past it, so it goes back and reiterates the process).

There is a nice example here:

With such a process, I don't see how it could fail, at least wide open (no lens focus shift).

It is also interesting to note that I remember my old Canon 24-70 had faster focusing than shown in the video.

 

Note however, that in the above video, the camera had been set in "video mode" so "photo mode" may behave differently (including faster ?).

 

Edited March 7, 2016 by CheshireCat

[tashley]

Sadly not. I'm returning mine tomorrow so I'll have to bystand while this plays out!

Edited March 7, 2016 by tashley

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[thighslapper]

100% crops ..... same adjustments.... exposure/NR/sharpening....

 

One is AF, the other is MF 90/4 ois on spot focus and metering, focus point is the top of the pair of sticks 2nd in from the right.

 

Any difference ????

 

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!

   

[ramarren]

There's no convincing someone who believes he is right. "Believing" isn't the same as "being", but it's often stronger. 

 

Whatever the problem, I'm sorry the SL didn't work out for you, Tim. It's unfortunate in that it has worked so well for many of us already.

 

It's still a very very young camera system, with a lot of future in front of it. There's much development yet to come. Perhaps you'll be interested again in another six months. 

[tashley]

There's no convincing someone who believes he is right. "Believing" isn't the same as "being", but it's often stronger. 

 

Whatever the problem, I'm sorry the SL didn't work out for you, Tim. It's unfortunate in that it has worked so well for many of us already.

 

It's still a very very young camera system, with a lot of future in front of it. There's much development yet to come. Perhaps you'll be interested again in another six months. 

 

Well, that one was easy to rise above!

[tashley]

100% crops ..... same adjustments.... exposure/NR/sharpening....

 

One is AF, the other is MF 90/4 ois on spot focus and metering, focus point is the top of the pair of sticks 2nd in from the right.

 

Any difference ????

 

L1301571.jpg    L1301572.jpg

I loaded those into LR and there seems minimal difference between them - thank you for posting. Ironically that is the sort of subject I would expect there to be a high chance of misfocus on because there's plenty of detail in the background and the foreground target doesn't have much spread. Hey ho!

Edited March 7, 2016 by tashley

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, that one was easy to rise above!

 

 

Why did you feel you had to "rise above" something? I just don't get your attitude, Tim. 

 

No matter. Do what makes you feel good.

I will too: I've unsubscribed from this thread. 

Edited March 7, 2016 by ramarren

[tashley]

Why did you feel you had to "rise above" something? I just don't get your attitude, Tim. 

 

No matter. Do what makes you feel good.

I will too: I've unsubscribed from this thread. 

 

I will explain, since you ask: everyone else in this thread has been sharing information and trying to get to the bottom of what is quite clearly an issue, or series of issues, for some units. You, on the other hand (and before I even entered the thread) were the first to introduce the words 'insanity' and 'pixelbator' and then the profoundly patronising "Pick up your cameras and lenses, charge up your batteries, and go out and study your subjects more than you're studying your cameras. That's how you get better photos" -  which is not, AFAIAC, the right sort of thing to go saying to a group of well-informed adults, many of whom are very accomplished photographers.

 

​So, what I was rising above was the expertly insinuated put downs you've been peddling for a few pages now. But your version of plausible deniability when it comes to the veiling of insults is, I'm afraid, thinner than the DOF of a Noctilux shot wide open. It's funny, I haven't seen this sort of thing in a forum for quite a while. I'd forgotten how simultaneously irritating and amusing it is.

Edited March 7, 2016 by tashley

[thighslapper]

I loaded those into LR and there seems minimal difference between them - thank you for posting. Ironically that is the sort of subject I would expect there to be a high chance of misfocus on because there's plenty of detail in the background and the foreground target doesn't have much spread. Hey ho!

 I did a lot of pairs like this ....... just single shots not 'best of 3's' etc. .... and the results were very uniform throughout ..... plenty of subjects that would normally befuddle average AF on most cameras. 

 

I 'hope' you just had a duff lens ...... or camera ...... without trying a different body or replacement lens you will never know which is at fault.

 

Any way this is not the first thread where Leica QC is found wanting ...... and I suspect it will not be the last ...... 

 

........ and I have become very wary of 'right' and 'wrong' in all these sort of issues ...... as the truth usually lies somewhere in between .... and it is fatal to discount someones opinion without actually trying to test it yourself ...... a poor Italian chap was lambasted here for pointing out the yellow cast in the JPG's when exposure was pushed ....... and just because everyone else uses DNG's doesn't mean it didn't exist or that he didn't have a valid point .... which Leica acknowledge and are fixing 

Edited March 7, 2016 by thighslapper

[ramarren]

I will explain, since you ask: everyone else in this thread has been sharing information and trying to get to the bottom of what is quite clearly an issue, or series of issues, for some units. You, on the other hand (and before I even entered the thread) were the first to introduce the words 'insanity' and 'pixelbator' and then the profoundly patronising "Pick up your cameras and lenses, charge up your batteries, and go out and study your subjects more than you're studying your cameras. That's how you get better photos" -  which is not, AFAIAC, the right sort of thing to go saying to a group of well-informed adults, many of whom are very accomplished photographers.

 

​So, what I was rising above was the expertly insinuated put downs you've been peddling for a few pages now. But your version of plausible deniability when it comes to the veiling of insults is, I'm afraid, thinner than the DOF of a Noctilux shot wide open. It's funny, I haven't seen this sort of thing in a forum for quite a while. I'd forgotten how simultaneously irritating and amusing it is.

 

 

Okay, you're ignored now. I'll never have to read your messages again. 

[ramarren]

I must apologize to the rest of the community for this little spat with Tim Ashley. He acts like this whenever I've tried to have any discussion with him, on any forum. I should have known better than to respond to any of his posts. Sorry. 

Edited March 7, 2016 by ramarren

[LocalHero1953]

Sorry, Godfrey, but I disagree - his responses to your comments were measured and courteous. I have valued his thorough studies of lenses in the past (e.g. the 35mm Summilux FLE), and appreciate his photographic work - so when he comes up with a problem as shown here, I take notice of it and don't doubt it, even if I haven't seen it myself.

(And he is no relation - AFAIK  )

Edited March 7, 2016 by LocalHero1953

[tashley]

 I did a lot of pairs like this ....... just single shots not 'best of 3's' etc. .... and the results were very uniform throughout ..... plenty of subjects that would normally befuddle average AF on most cameras. 

 

I 'hope' you just had a duff lens ...... or camera ...... without trying a different body or replacement lens you will never know which is at fault.

 

Any way this is not the first thread where Leica QC is found wanting ...... and I suspect it will not be the last ...... 

 

........ and I have become very wary of 'right' and 'wrong' in all these sort of issues ...... as the truth usually lies somewhere in between .... and it is fatal to discount someones opinion without actually trying to test it yourself ...... a poor Italian chap was lambasted here for pointing out the yellow cast in the JPG's when exposure was pushed ....... and just because everyone else uses DNG's doesn't mean it didn't exist or that he didn't have a valid point .... which Leica acknowledge and are fixing 

 

I know from long chats I've had with Jono that he is really super happy with his, and he knows a good system when he sees one, too. But as you say, Leica QC can be variable so maybe that's the issue? About a month ago I took a Q in for service (spots on sensor and a non clicking rear controller) and they sent it to Solms, who simply replaced it with a brand new one. So they do take it seriously when they get it wrong and kudos to them for that!

 

I missed the thing with the Italian but I'm glad to hear he was vindicated. 

[k-hawinkler]

Sorry, Godfrey, but I disagree - his responses to your comments were measured and courteous. I have valued his thorough studies of lenses in the past (e.g. the 35mm Summilux FLE), and appreciate his photographic work - so when he comes up with a problem as shown here, I take notice of it and don't doubt it, even if I haven't seen it myself.

(And he is no relation - AFAIK  )

 

+1

 

In my experience Tim is very knowledgable and astute in his observations and always gentlemanly.

[talt03]

Sadly not. I'm returning mine tomorrow so I'll have to bystand while this plays out!

When you return the SL, why not try another lens and quickly compare? I am now more inclined to believe, it is the lens with the problem. Maybe you only needed to return/replace the lens.

[tashley]

Too late! 'Tis gone!

[jaapv]

You can always return when the issue (with some or all cameras? nobody knows) is solved, However, the mutterings about the coming M sound interesting too.

[tashley]

Possiblypopp

 

You can always return when the issue (with some or all cameras? nobody knows) is solved, However, the mutterings about the coming M sound interesting too.

I might do... Honestly, the reason I wanted the camera was because of the lens: a best in class mid range zoom would suit me very well - so I'll try the sony G master and see how good it is. The Lecia 24-90 was certainly very impressive indeed, AF issues aside. 

Edited March 8, 2016 by tashley

[CheshireCat]

I might do... Honestly, the reason I wanted the camera was because of the lens: a best in class mid range zoom would suit me very well - so I'll try the sony G master and see how good it is. The Lecia 24-90 was certainly very impressive indeed, AF issues aside. 

 

 

Curious to know how the Sony G works. Please keep us posted.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tashley]

It will be an interesting comparison... The 24-90, at the short end, looks very sharp indeed but if you open the files in raw digger so that no corrections are applied (you can't do this in LR) you see that (like the Q) the original raw data is quite heavily cropped to make the DNG. I haven't done the exact numbers but I suspect that the DNG is an upscale from about 21-22 of pixel area data. So the fist thing to check with the GMaster will be if anything similar is happening.