Inaccurate Focusing M Lenses on the SL

[pkwok]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Will this be the same focus issue as mentioned in an earlier thread and by Diglloyd?

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255186-24-90mm-focus-shift-diglloyd/

[ramarren]

Will this be the same focus issue as mentioned in an earlier thread and by Diglloyd?

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255186-24-90mm-focus-shift-diglloyd/

 

 

No, it can't be because DL's issue was with the SL 24-90mm lens where the OP's issue is exclusively with M lenses on the SL.

 

One thing I haven't read in his posts is whether the exposures he is observing to be unsharp are being reviewed on the camera's LCD/EVF or on a computer screen via Lightroom or other image processing app. 

Edited January 20, 2016 by ramarren

[Advertisement]

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

[ramarren]

So- the discrepancy must be between the AF attaining correct focus and the user not doing so.

Which to me suggests either a maladjusted diopter or severe astigmatism, the latter being unlikely as there is no problem focusing a rangefinder.

 

 

(bolded) I don't know about that. I can't see clearly enough without my eyeglasses (or other optical correction) to focus an EVF or reflex optical image critically, but I can see well enough to line up the coincident images in the rangefinder patch, or just edges, with an RF camera. 

[Flu]

Are you shooting Raw (DNG) only? If this is the case the problem is just in the low resolution of the embedded jpeg used to review on the camera LCD. Change to DNG+JPEG and everything will be fine.

 

Like Ario said, If you are shooting the SL and you are NOT shooting in both JPEG + DNG, then you cannot use the EVF or the back LCD to chimp. It will show you a completely blurry picture if you shoot DNG only. I suspect this to be the issue.

[relms]

Like Ario said, If you are shooting the SL and you are NOT shooting in both JPEG + DNG, then you cannot use the EVF or the back LCD to chimp. It will show you a completely blurry picture if you shoot DNG only. I suspect this to be the issue.

Perhaps that is partly the issue, because I do shoot only DNG.  I appreciate all the comments and suggestions.  I plan to do more testing; however, I did not get home in time to do it this evening. 

[digitalfx]

Perhaps that is partly the issue, because I do shoot only DNG.  I appreciate all the comments and suggestions.  I plan to do more testing; however, I did not get home in time to do it this evening. 

 

Wait, you need to give us correct information. You stated in the first post that you reviewed the images in LR, implying that you viewed them on a computer and they were still out of focus.

 

Are you looking at the full res images on a computer or reviewing the images on the cameras LCD??

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

(bolded) I don't know about that. I can't see clearly enough without my eyeglasses (or other optical correction) to focus an EVF or reflex optical image critically, but I can see well enough to line up the coincident images in the rangefinder patch, or just edges, with an RF camera. 

That is what the OP said.

 

 

My suspicions were confirmed: focus is way off with both adapted M lenses on the SL, while spot on with the M240

[jaapv]

Wait, you need to give us correct information. You stated in the first post that you reviewed the images in LR, implying that you viewed them on a computer and they were still out of focus.

 

Are you looking at the full res images on a computer or reviewing the images on the cameras LCD??

You are right,but the OP said the images were blurred in Lightroom. Otherwise the solution is simple: wait for the firmware update:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255277-images-in-play-review-is-blur/

[larsv]

Can it be that the diopter marks are misaligned, and 0 isn't zero?

 

I meant not misaligned by you, but by the manufacturer.

[Jared]

Here are some assumptions I am making based on the original post:

 

* The M lenses in question work fine on the M(240), so it is very unlikely there is anything wrong with the lenses

* Images taken with the 24-90 are fine--the camera has been in use for over a month, but only just now with M lenses

* Neither the camera nor the subject moved between when the camera was focused manually using the EVF and when the exposure was taken

* There was no motion blur from camera movement during the exposure, i.e., the shutter speed was short enough and both the camera and subject were stationary enough to prevent the exposure itself from being blurred by motion even if focused properly

* The resulting images are blurry when viewed in Lightroom

* The user waited long enough after loading into Lightroom for images to stabilize--it can take up to ten seconds on my system if I am using my slower computer for the image to "sharpen up" as the full resolution image is calculated and displayed

* The camera was focused accurately by the user--eyesight was good enough and the diopter set well enough that accurate focus could be identified

* The images are, in fact, blurry--it's not a matter of the original poster being insanely picky about what constitutes a "sharp" image

* The location being used to judge focus is the same location that was used to set focus, i.e., the focusing aid was magnifying the correct part of the image, the main subject

 

If all of these assumptions are correct, it would be nearly impossible for the camera to produce good results with the 24-90 and bad results with M lenses.  I am confident that at least one of the assumptions above is wrong.  Relms, perhaps you could confirm whether all my assumptions are correct?  If one or more of them is wrong, could you identify which?  Please confirm the following in particular:

 

* Images with the 24-90 are fine

* You see the same effect even when you use a solid tripod and the self timer (or release the shutter using your phone)

* Subject is completely static

* You checked your results in Lightroom, not just on the back LCD 

* You wanted a few seconds after Lightroom displayed your image to let it sharpen up--display the full data, not just the enlarged preview image

* If you used the magnified view to set focus, you were sure that it was at the center of the field or at least set on your main focus point; one part of the page of a book can look like another, and if you had the magnifier set to the bottom of the frame, for example, you might not notice that you were focusing in the wrong place

 

A sample image might also help us diagnose the problem.  For example, mis-focus will blur different parts of the image different amounts, whereas motion blur would affect the whole image.

 

Thanks - Jared

[relms]

After further testing, I have discovered that there is nothing wrong with the camera, the lens, or the adapter.  The problem, as Jaap and others suggested, was caused, in part, by user error, and in part by the apparent poor quality of the DNG image when reviewed on the rear LCD.

 

My initial test, done with the APO Summicron-M 90 (which can be challenging at best) connected to the SL with the Adapter-M T, indicated considerable OOF results on the LCD, and similar, although better, results when imported into Lightroom.  The poor results that I was seeing on the LCD likely created a bias for what I perceived them to be in Lightroom.  In effect, I was expecting poor results; therefore, I saw poor results that were unacceptable, and in reality they were, but through no fault of the camera.

 

For the initial tests, I did not set the camera on a tripod since I do not yet have a bracket for the SL.  Instead, I had both the SL and an open book I was photographing for the test set up on a table.  For the camera rest, I had a stack of books laying flat on the table about four feet away.  Shutter speed was set to 1/125s, which as it turns out, was not fast enough to overcome the limitations of my makeshift setup.  Further testing last night at higher shutter speeds and a more stable setup resulted in images that were sharp and in focus.  They still look like crap on the LCD, but in Lightroom they looked as one would expect. 

 

My thanks to all of you for your insights and comments.  Had I not posted here, and had I not read and considered your comments, I would have returned the SL, reverted back to the M240, and waited for Leica to fix things that, in the end, do not need to be fixed.

 

Kindest regards,

Robert (relms)

Edited January 21, 2016 by relms

[digitalfx]

Two tips...

1- shoot 1/250 or faster and images look considerably better. I suspect at lower shutter speeds the camera shutter vibration affects critical sharpness. Once I started shooting at higher shutter speeds all of my images are extremely sharp.

 

2- shoot with JPEG. If you don't want the JPEG's just discard them. You can setup LR to do this for you. I just ignore them.

[ramarren]

Two tips...

1- shoot 1/250 or faster and images look considerably better. I suspect at lower shutter speeds the camera shutter vibration affects critical sharpness. Once I started shooting at higher shutter speeds all of my images are extremely sharp.

 

2- shoot with JPEG. If you don't want the JPEG's just discard them. You can setup LR to do this for you. I just ignore them.

 

 

(bolded) I've seen no evidence of shutter-induced vibration degrading sharpness. The problem is, simply, that for critical sharpness hand-held with a 90mm lens, you need upwards of 1/100 second. I tend to forget this sometimes when shooting casually and get results degraded by camera motion, but it isn't shutter vibration causing it; just the steadiness of my hands and grip. 

 

I find the SL's shutter ranks right up there with the best of Leica M cameras for lack of vibration. I've done some pretty long exposures on a not-quite-up-to-it tripod with the Telyt 250 plus 2x doubler that are amazingly free of vibration. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I just shot some with the SL at 1/5 sec on a monopod.  Haven't checked at 100% but they were sharp for webscale.  I shot a test target close up using a SC-R 90 at 1/15 from a sitting position and got crisp results.  And I drink 6 coffees a day.  So I usually have auto ISO going down to 1/focal length and use manual settings when I need more light.  It doesn't always work, but I am not worried about shutter vibration.

 

scott

[digitalfx]

key word is "critical sharpness".

I had the auto ISO set to 1/1 and images were in focus, just not extremely sharp. I switched to 1/2 and noticed a marked improvement in critical sharpness. 

When shooting M mode I also went from shooting below 1/60 to at least 1/200 with the same results. I am now getting consistent images that are extremely sharp. 

 

This is mostly with 35mm and 50mm lenses.

 

Maybe it is all coincidence, I'll have to do some tests.

Edited January 21, 2016 by digitalfx

[Cliff S]

same here. Handheld, and I am very steady, my shots at 2x 1/f are consistently sharper. With 50mm up

[ramarren]

key word is "critical sharpness".

I had the auto ISO set to 1/1 and images were in focus, just not extremely sharp. I switched to 1/2 and noticed a marked improvement in critical sharpness. 

When shooting M mode I also went from shooting below 1/60 to at least 1/200 with the same results. I am now getting consistent images that are extremely sharp. 

 

This is mostly with 35mm and 50mm lenses.

 

Maybe it is all coincidence, I'll have to do some tests.

 

 

Key word = "critical sharpness"? Seems to me that's a term, not a word. Yes, I'm being pedantic. 

 

"Consistently improved sharpness" is what I think you are claiming by going to the AutoISO 1/2f setting, and that's completely consistent with all good hand-held camera use, regardless of whether a particular camera's shutter induces some vibration or not. I've seen it too, with every camera and lens combination I've ever used. The "one over the focal length" rule for hand holding a camera is only a rule of thumb intended as a guideline to a minimum satisfactory sharpness. 

[digitalfx]

Key word = "critical sharpness"? Seems to me that's a term, not a word. Yes, I'm being pedantic. 

 

"Consistently improved sharpness" is what I think you are claiming by going to the AutoISO 1/2f setting, and that's completely consistent with all good hand-held camera use, regardless of whether a particular camera's shutter induces some vibration or not. I've seen it too, with every camera and lens combination I've ever used. The "one over the focal length" rule for hand holding a camera is only a rule of thumb intended as a guideline to a minimum satisfactory sharpness. 

 

 

 

Replying on an iPhone and an "s" was dropped.

"Key words"

 

I dont experience the same issue on my M240 shooting 1/60th with a 50mm lens that I do with the SL...which is why I suggested that the SL has more shutter vibrations than Im used to.

[relms]

Replying on an iPhone and an "s" was dropped.

"Key words"

 

I dont experience the same issue on my M240 shooting 1/60th with a 50mm lens that I do with the SL...which is why I suggested that the SL has more shutter vibrations than Im used to.

 

 

I agree; I can more often than not get good results with my M240 shooting at 1/S, but not so much with the SL, where 1/2S seems to be the sweet spot.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

I dont experience the same issue on my M240 shooting 1/60th with a 50mm lens that I do with the SL...which is why I suggested that the SL has more shutter vibrations than Im used to.

 

I agree; I can more often than not get good results with my M240 shooting at 1/S, but not so much with the SL, where 1/2S seems to be the sweet spot.

 

 

Quite the opposite for me. The SL gives me a better grip and more space to hold securely without straining. As a result, I tend to get sharper results at long exposures with it than with the M-P(240). I've gotten excellent sharpness with the Summicron-R 90mm lens at as low as 1/40 sec.