Leica alternative (M10 related)

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Had he known his gear better he could have been doing the same. Leica makes it easier but does not have a manly monopoly.

 

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

For focusing I disagree. Focus ring of AF lens can very easily turned manually by accident. There is no substitute to focusing every time you click. Edited April 30, 2017 by jmahto

[Advertisement]

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

[Robert M Poole]

For focusing I disagree. Focus ring of AF lens can very easily turned manually by accident. There is no substitute to focusing every time you click.

But, he could have turned af off and used his camera in exactly the same way as the M user. Yes, often more complicated on a DSLR than the very simple M but not beyond someone who knows their camera. Even easier on a Fuji x with most controls on the body and not really much need to use the menus.

 

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

[Robert M Poole]

That is a matter of adjustment, it could easily be the other way around. It may be, however, that variables like focus throw and smoothness make one lens easier to operate than another.

Sorry, I didn't make my point very clearly. I'm sure in a tripod test with a perfectly calibrated lens and camera there shouldn't be a difference necessarily. What I meant was that I find it easier to operate which I think it's down to focus throw as you say.

[Peter H]

 ........ Also, the focus patch on the M covers a reasonably large area, which increases (as a proportion of image area) with longer lenses, so what you're focusing on really isn't as accurate as the spot focal point on the SL.

 

..........................

 

 

 

That's not quite correct is it John? Within the focus patch on an M, there is still a range of what is in and out of focus, so it is precise down the the finest point. It doesn't present everything within the patch as being in focus, just the specific point you've chosen to focus on, unlike how an EVF works. Ultimately, the RF is more precise in that respect.

 

Whether that degree of precision matters is a personal thing.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Peter H

[tappan]

Leica Store Boston, doesn't even have a demo M10 yet. What does that say, that the actual LEICA DEALER does not have one to show customers? I called yesterday and they are still on a list to get one.

[LocalHero1953]

It's good to hear that we're all expert photographers on this forum, knowing our kit intimately, and with it always at the ready. And of course 24/7 we're anticipating the photo that's coming round the next corner. And not distracted by other forms of life like children and spouses.

Ahem.

 

(This is a mild tease, not aggressive sarcasm, but I can't find the right emoji)

Edited April 30, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Robert M Poole]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's good to hear that we're all expert photographers on this forum, knowing our kit intimately, and with it always at the ready. And of course 24/7 we're anticipating the photo that's coming round the next corner.

Ahem.

Do people on here actually take photos? I thought we all just talked about gear

[LocalHero1953]

Do people on here actually take photos? I thought we all just talked about gear

Certainly. I think I took one when Harold Wilson was first elected.

[scott kirkpatrick]

.... And not distracted by other forms of life like children and spouses.

Ahem.

 

Well, maybe a sleeping cat.

[jmahto]

Do people on here actually take photos? I thought we all just talked about gear

We do both.

[Robert M Poole]

We do both.

I'm waiting to see the evidence of the former

[jmahto]

I'm waiting to see the evidence of the former

You can click on the links in the signature or search in photo forums.

 

Can I talk about gear now?

[IkarusJohn]

That's not quite correct is it John? Within the focus patch on an M, there is still a range of what is in and out of focus, so it is precise down the the finest point. It doesn't present everything within the patch as being in focus, just the specific point you've chosen to focus on, unlike how an EVF works. Ultimately, the RF is more precise in that respect.

 

Whether that degree of precision matters is a personal thing.

To a degree. The point I was making (badly) is the focus patch remains the same size, regardless of what lens you have on the camera. Now, when I use my M cameras (I'm using my M-A at the moment - sunny 16, boy how life gets simple!), I select something I can focus on which is near as I can get to the plane of focus; somthing vertical. Now, Peter is corrct when he sayd provided lens and camera are calibrated, the size of the patch is irrelevant - the spot I've chosen will be in focus; as in focus as any focusing system this is undoubtedly true. If the patch occupied the entire viewfinder area, then you could chose any part of the viewfinder to focus on.

 

That isn't the point I was making.

 

When using a wide angle lense, the point I'm focusing on occupies a tiny proportion of the image area, and the depth of field is very forgiving. So, minor errors don't matter quite so much. Comversely, with faster, longer lenses - Noct, 75 Summilux, 90 AA Summicron - the patch remains the same size, but represents a greater proportion of the image area and there is a corresponding reduction in depth of field.

 

You're looking at the same size of patch through the vf, still chosing something to focus on, but it occupies a greater proportion of the image area and the tolerances are tighter. Hence, the rangefinder has a natural and narro sweet spot. It is a sweet spot in which a lot of very good photography is done, but it's limited nonetheless.

 

Conversely, the SL shows you what the sensor will record (with the loss of the surrounding area, it's true), and you can move your focal point anywhere in the images, and magnify if you chose. Short point? My hit rate is far better with the SL than any M camera. I still love my two M cameras, and using the optical rf, but I get more focusing errors with the M, and if I want anything longer than 75 or wider than 24, the SL is a better option.

 

Cheers

John

[Mantice]

Get an film M for experience. 

 

Still going to take M240 for a final intensive shooting these months but:

• Its been hopeless for glass wearer to see 28mm frame-line; its not progressing enough to take advantage of newer generation of users.
• Its way below competition for mega-pixel race; you can't have anything lagging so much inside image-creating chain and expect you could attract next generation of niche customers, when everyone else including cellphone, is progressing.
• Insufficient technically perfect small lenses; bet there's demand for more APO-ASPH lens in 39mm filter size, for the remaining focal lengths (35, 28...) then recent Noct. hype; plus, in digital age lens are not always backward compatible - who knows if Leica will be forced to use different sensors that require different lenses?

YMMV, I regret selling M6 0.58 finder and found out in 2018 the prices on film cameras had nearly doubled. I think I may end up leaving Leica "Digital" M as well....

 

Seriously, this sucks...

[adan]

To a degree. The point I was making (badly) is the focus patch remains the same size, regardless of what lens you have on the camera. .......etc.

 

The fixed size of the focus patch is not what limits focusing precision with longer lenses on an RF camera.

 

It is the fixed size of the rangefinder base length - the distance between the two RF windows. or more accurately, the effective base length, which is that distance multiplied by the viewfinder magnification (e.g. 0.72x or 0.68x or 0.85x).

 

RFs measure by way of triangulation (Triangle window - subject - window) - if you know the length of one side of the triangle (the fixed distance between the two RF windows) and the two angles at either end (90° through the main finder, and a variable angle changed by turning the lens focus ring to move the image in the small window), then the distance to the subject is can be found.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(surveying)

 

In theory you could make the secondary RF window (the small one over near the shutter button) as large as the main viewfinder, and get focus coverage over the entire viewfinder area, but it would add a couple of cubic inches/cms to the volume of the camera body. And it would not improve the precision (no change to the base length).

 

Now, with ttl viewing systems (EVF, or even classic mirror-and-ground-glass SLRs), the lens itself adds magnification for better focus precision - a 135mm lens enlarges your view of the subject ~4x over a 35mm lens (while including less of the subject in the frame). Maybe that is what you meant by "size of the focusing patch?"

[proenca]

Good to see that people are busy taking pictures and the M10 is mainly without faults that to keep conversations going, we have to "ressurect" threads with almost a year old, from 2017

[Mantice]

Are you sure its not both? 

 

Happier gets happier, and the others begin to move on (out)?  BTW I just don't feel like starting a new thread when there's one already @ it.  The sunk cost of my M240 will likely be continued to use until its end of life, with a 50mm only (the only lens wide enough that works for most glass wearer)

 

Good to see that people are busy taking pictures and the M10 is mainly without faults that to keep conversations going, we have to "ressurect" threads with almost a year old, from 2017

Edited April 11, 2018 by Mantice