Leica alternative (M10 related)

[Adam Bonn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

From my own experience, using the M is about speed and responsiveness: see the image, camera to the eye and focus almost as one (exposure usually preset in the right ballpark), press the shutter, and get the shot with no delay.

 

 

+1

 

In fact I doubt there's any camera that can't be used this way, especially if you zone focus and pre-set exposure

[LocalHero1953]

+1

 

In fact I doubt there's any camera that can't be used this way, especially if you zone focus and pre-set exposure

Hmm. I've had a few - EVF always behind the action, shutter released slightly after the button press. 

The M is rather quicker to set exposure and focus in manual mode than a good many other cameras that offer a manual mode. It is designed firstly for manual use, while others aren't.

Edited April 28, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

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

[Adam Bonn]

Hmm. I've had a few - EVF always behind the action, shutter released slightly after the button press. 

The M is rather quicker to set exposure and focus in manual mode than a good many other cameras that offer a manual mode. It is designed firstly for manual use, while others aren't.

I've never really got on seriously with EVF only cameras, I always found it paid to keep both eyes open.

 

One of the big draws with fuji is the full manual controls, I also like that in MF it rembers the last focal distance (even after a battery change)

 

If needed, shutter lag can be negated by half pressing as you bring the camera to the eye (best done in conjunction with full manual mode obv)

 

I guess I'm just from a time when we accepted tech limitations and adapted ourselves (NOT saying that you're not)

[LocalHero1953]

I've never really got on seriously with EVF only cameras, I always found it paid to keep both eyes open.

 

One of the big draws with fuji is the full manual controls, I also like that in MF it rembers the last focal distance (even after a battery change)

 

If needed, shutter lag can be negated by half pressing as you bring the camera to the eye (best done in conjunction with full manual mode obv)

 

I guess I'm just from a time when we accepted tech limitations and adapted ourselves (NOT saying that you're not)

Of course. All tech has its limitations and workarounds. The trick is choosing the tech that matches the way you wish to work.

 

I was misled by your statement that "In fact I doubt there's any camera that can't be used this way [i.e. speed and responsiveness]". I see you were only referring to Fuji.

[Adam Bonn]

Of course. All tech has its limitations and workarounds. The trick is choosing the tech that matches the way you wish to work.

 

I was misled by your statement that "In fact I doubt there's any camera that can't be used this way [i.e. speed and responsiveness]". I see you were only referring to Fuji.

Ha!

 

Yes I wasn't very clear was I, then I started talking about Fuji

 

I guess it should of read

 

In fact I doubt there's MANY cameras that can't be used this way, if you pre set focus and exposure

 

Equally, there wont be many cameras where you can see, stop, expose, focus and frame in the amount of time it takes for (say) someone's facial expression to change.... maybe an iPhone, but even then you'd need to be already in the camera app

 

IMO anyone wanting to shoot this way, and by this way I mean INSTANTLY use a camera that has NOT been pre-set to desired focus and exposure parameters is best served by a camera with very fast AF and fully automatic exposure modes (that work well and are accurate), equally if one is pre-setting focus and exposure then looking for the shot, one has all the time needed to do so

[jaapv]

Many experienced users can focus an RF as fast as Autofocus. Focus-recompose on an RF will beat fiddling with AF  focus points anytime.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Many experienced users can focus an RF as fast as Autofocus. Focus-recompose on an RF will beat fiddling with AF  focus points anytime.

And AF (on the SL) will beat focus-recompose (with an M) for ensuring your subject is actually in the best plane of focus every time.

 

I love my RF cameras, and I love manual focus, but let's keep to reality here. The hit rate of M lenses on the SL is, in my experience, better than on the M. Why? Well, because if we're talking focus accuracy (rather than fast and wrong), there's nothing better than actually focusing on your subject, rather than guessing through focus-recompose.

 

The M rangefinder has many marvellous attributes, but focusing accuracy with an off-centre subject isn't one of them. Try it wide open with a Noct or 75 Summilux with a near subject and your head still - moving your head back might help, but it's still guesswork. Hit the video button if you want a graphic illustration.

[LocalHero1953]

My experience, FWIW, is that the M RF beats AF for speed but not for accuracy. With AF one has to move a focus point onto the subject, and I find this is slower than focus and recompose with the M. I agree that, if immediacy of response is not needed, I'll get more reliable hits with AF, though a lot depends on what length lens and aperture I'm using, and how big and contrasty the subject is. For facial expressions and that fleeting body position immediacy is absolutely everything, though.

Edited April 29, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

And AF (on the SL) will beat focus-recompose (with an M) for ensuring your subject is actually in the best plane of focus every time.

 

I love my RF cameras, and I love manual focus, but let's keep to reality here. The hit rate of M lenses on the SL is, in my experience, better than on the M. Why? Well, because if we're talking focus accuracy (rather than fast and wrong), there's nothing better than actually focusing on your subject, rather than guessing through focus-recompose.

 

The M rangefinder has many marvellous attributes, but focusing accuracy with an off-centre subject isn't one of them. Try it wide open with a Noct or 75 Summilux with a near subject and your head still - moving your head back might help, but it's still guesswork. Hit the video button if you want a graphic illustration.

In my experience using multi-field AF to avoid recompose leads to the camera picking the wrong points to focus on from time to time, using the left thumb on the touch-screen with single-point AF which is quicker than a joystick is fiddly, causing a fall-back to center-point AF which leads to half-press lock and focus-recompose. Plus que ca change...

Using a full screen and manual focus, which you seem to be doing on your SL with your M lenses is certainly  the best technique with an off-center subject and is essentially the same as the full-matte screen I used on my SLRs in the past.

As long as one doesn't use central focus magnification for added accuracy, though.

 

I might add that you start off by extolling AF on the SL and then elaborate by the hit rate of your M lenses (???)

[IkarusJohn]

My experience, FWIW, is that the M RF beats AF for speed but not for accuracy. With AF one has to move a focus point onto the subject, and I find this is slower than focus and recompose with the M. I agree that, if immediacy of response is not needed, I'll get more reliable hits with AF, though a lot depends on what length lens and aperture I'm using, and how big and contrasty the subject is. For facial expressions and that fleeting body position immediacy is absolutely everything, though.

 

 

I guess my problem is the focus and recompose bit - with modern Leica glass, I've found Iive come a little picky about focus accuracy.

 

If the subject is central, the M wins hands down, sort of.  If I've left the focusing spot in the centre of the evf on the SL, actually speed isn't an issue with either camera.  Off centre, things get a bit more tricky.  I don't use multi-focal points as I have not found a camera that agrees with me on what to focus on.  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.

 

For fleeting moments, raising the SL to your eye can cause all sorts of uncertainty over where you left the focal point last time, or where it might have moved to in between times - so, you use the joystick, which as Jaap says can take time.

 

Each approach is different and has its benefits.  So far, I haven't missed many fleeting moment shots with the SL, so focusing speed hasn't been an issue I've noticed.  Focusing accuracy I'd say favours the SL.  In the past, I've hated AF - I'm getting used to it and it's better than I thought it would be.

 

For all the benefits of the optical rangefinder, though, the focusing patch will always be stuck in the middle and its utility inverted with focal lengths.  That for me, defines its purpose.

 

PS - One touch focus and release on the TL is probably the quickest of the lot, if you can frame and take using the LCD.  It works really well (highly under-rated camera, in my view).

Edited April 29, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[jaapv]

I agree, but let's not get overly picky. For many photographs DOF is your friend and will forgive the technical difficulties

[IkarusJohn]

Okay let's not get picky, because if you're relying on depth of field, who needs to focus anyway?  The Distagon 15/2.8 ZM isn't even coupled.

 

We were talking about focusing, though, right?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I guess my problem is the focus and recompose bit - with modern Leica glass, I've found Iive come a little picky about focus accuracy.

 

If the subject is central, the M wins hands down, sort of.  If I've left the focusing spot in the centre of the evf on the SL, actually speed isn't an issue with either camera.  Off centre, things get a bit more tricky.  I don't use multi-focal points as I have not found a camera that agrees with me on what to focus on.  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.

 

For fleeting moments, raising the SL to your eye can cause all sorts of uncertainty over where you left the focal point last time, or where it might have moved to in between times - so, you use the joystick, which as Jaap says can take time.

 

Each approach is different and has its benefits.  So far, I haven't missed many fleeting moment shots with the SL, so focusing speed hasn't been an issue I've noticed.  Focusing accuracy I'd say favours the SL.  In the past, I've hated AF - I'm getting used to it and it's better than I thought it would be.

 

For all the benefits of the optical rangefinder, though, the focusing patch will always be stuck in the middle and its utility inverted with focal lengths.  That for me, defines its purpose.

 

PS - One touch focus and release on the TL is probably the quickest of the lot, if you can frame and take using the LCD.  It works really well (highly under-rated camera, in my view).

I use the touchscreen on the SL. I know where I want the focus point so I can easily touch it as I raise the camera to my eye. That works well for me. Too many M lenses have some field curvature that makes focus and recompose tricky wide open. I do like the M10 EVF implementation which remembers the zoom point until you turn the camera off. But still, the SL is both faster and more accurate off centre.

 

Gordon

[Adam Bonn]

There's so much more to """the decisive moment""" than focus though... in fact a shot isn't necessarily ruined if it's SLIGHTLY OOF

 

Where the real issue is IMO is if many of the exposure parameters need to be set... if you need to change ISO, SS, Aperture and set focus then no Leica M, no Fuji X etctec is gong to be quick enough to catch (say) that guy slipping on a banana skin...

 

Maybe your odds go up with a SL or D4s or something like that... alternatively there's the iPhone

 

Whereas I don't doubt for a second that M shooters reach a connection with their cameras that makes them super fast at nailing focus, I also don't doubt that people using other cameras can't reach similar abilities...

 

So IMO what it comes down to is anticipation and presetting as much as possible beforehand, then it's kinda you making the difference, not the camera. Which I think the M is great for, but the Fujis aren't so bad, having similar controls.

 

(Personally I don't like PASM)

 

Which is why (as per my first post in the thread) I'd never say the Fuji is the same as an M and it certainly is not a RF, but with framelines and external dedicated controls it at least offers a way of working and seeing that's not 'yet another EVF only PASM mirrorless' camera

 

I wonder what camera the OP went for in the end?

[Adam Bonn]

When Leica lent me the M, they implored me not to write it off (both figuratively and literally as it happens ) because it doesn't have AF, and then looked at me like I was mad when I told them I never really use AF on my fuji anyway!

 

I suspect in the great scheme of things that MF and AF is a muchness.... you might for example take a AF camera and shoot your kid running round the beach, you get home with say 50 shots of which most are in focus, but only a handful are keepers (facial expression etc)

 

Or you take your MF camera to the same scenario, you concentrate more, anticipate the kid's movements more and come home with less shots, but pretty much the same overall number of keepers

[Robert M Poole]

When Leica lent me the M, they implored me not to write it off (both figuratively and literally as it happens ) because it doesn't have AF, and then looked at me like I was mad when I told them I never really use AF on my fuji anyway!

 

I suspect in the great scheme of things that MF and AF is a muchness.... you might for example take a AF camera and shoot your kid running round the beach, you get home with say 50 shots of which most are in focus, but only a handful are keepers (facial expression etc)

 

Or you take your MF camera to the same scenario, you concentrate more, anticipate the kid's movements more and come home with less shots, but pretty much the same overall number of keepers

I actually did exactly this. I left my m9 at home thinking the af on my Fuji x would mean more keepers. I ended up with an equal number of oof shots. Granted my xe1 and x100 aren't as good as the latest models for af.

[LocalHero1953]

Adam, I took your list of things to take account of as a given for any camera. Beyond that (repeating myself) it is picking a camera that offers technology that matches your shooting practice. I don't have some sort of connection with my M that makes me shoot quicker. It is just that the M, IMO, is designed to shoot quicker - within its own limitations, which I think we understand. Good luck with using an iPhone to capture the decisive moment.

 

I started responding to you because you made a blanket statement implying that most every camera could provide the speed and responsiveness of the M, which I disagree with. I have never used a Fuji, so I can't argue about its abilities. I have never considered it as an alternative because of its sensor size.

 

BTW, what's wrong with PASM? I'm not arguing, I just don't understand.

[Jager]

When Leica lent me the M, they implored me not to write it off (both figuratively and literally as it happens ) because it doesn't have AF, and then looked at me like I was mad when I told them I never really use AF on my fuji anyway!

 

I suspect in the great scheme of things that MF and AF is a muchness.... you might for example take a AF camera and shoot your kid running round the beach, you get home with say 50 shots of which most are in focus, but only a handful are keepers (facial expression etc)

 

Or you take your MF camera to the same scenario, you concentrate more, anticipate the kid's movements more and come home with less shots, but pretty much the same overall number of keepers

 

Yup.  

 

[LocalHero1953]

Yup.  

 

As a contrarian I would respond:

 

I have learned far more about photography, and become a better photographer, by taking 2000 shots and studying them closely, than I ever did by taking a single roll of 120 on my Rolleiflex - even if none were awesome. And the marginal cost of the latter was much higher.

Edited April 29, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Adam Bonn]

Adam, I took your list of things to take account of as a given for any camera. Beyond that (repeating myself) it is picking a camera that offers technology that matches your shooting practice. I don't have some sort of connection with my M that makes me shoot quicker. It is just that the M, IMO, is designed to shoot quicker - within its own limitations, which I think we understand. Good luck with using an iPhone to capture the decisive moment.

 

I started responding to you because you made a blanket statement implying that most every camera could provide the speed and responsiveness of the M, which I disagree with. I have never used a Fuji, so I can't argue about its abilities. I have never considered it as an alternative because of its sensor size.

 

BTW, what's wrong with PASM? I'm not arguing, I just don't understand.

 

For sure picking a camera that matches what you need from a camera is the key to having a camera that works best for you (and that doesn't even have to be a physical thing, if a camera gives one the feeling of cachet, then one tends to work better with it)

 

When I've quoted you Paul, I'm taking to you - when I haven't I'm being more general, many others have said things in addition to you and I in this thread.

 

My blanket statement is that people think focus speed (be it manual or auto) is the only key to the moment, but IMO it's not, IMO the other key is camera set up for exposure, I base this on my opinion that an in focus shot that's (say) hopelessly over exposed isn't a keeper & therefore being in focus counts for jack; and its also my opinion that it's comparatively quite slow to change all the exposure parameters on a camera in a very short space of time (compared to acquiring focus via MF or AF - I don't mean it's slow to actually do, just slower than focusing)

 

Therefore too reiterate: MANY cameras can very used quickly if you pre set focus and exposure

 

Because that's the bigger usage delay exposure, not focus.

 

Of course this is just an opinion, one I've derived from personal experience, but an opinion nevertheless.

 

I'm NOT SURE you mean this, but you kinda make it sound like if 2 people are walking down the road, both with cameras, both having their cameras preset to correctly expose for the light and both cameras pre focused to the correct spot, and one of them has an M, that because of some sort of Messsucher magic only the M will be able to get the shot.

 

I don't agree with that. I realise that you haven't actually said that - but that's the subtext I'm getting*

 

I don't own a iPhone, never have - but if anyone is looking for a point and shoot very quickly "camera" with little need to set anything up then I'm told they're quite fast (Bigheadtaco for example)

 

I'd being using cameras for over 20 years before I had one with a PASM dial, and 18 of those years was spent with a film SLR - so the PASM thing didn't come naturally, I like to roll SS dials with my index finger and rotate aperture rings with the other hand, not thumb little plastic wheels that are recessed into the body

 

There's no arguing for or against Fuji - it is what it is, you like it or you don't or in your case you're curious to try it or you're not - there's no battle cry there.

 

I came to this thread because hits from here kept cropping up on my site stats, and I like to see who's linking to me and why.

 

Someone here recommend the Fuji as a passable Leica alternative and others don't. I simply added what I thought to that (which to recap amounts too: Fuji = different animal, but with some cross over points in regards to features and usage)

 

*Of course if I'm imagining a subtext (entirely possible, subtext is ripe for that) and your opinion that the M is designed for speed comes from the external control set, then sure 100% agree - but (unlike the Messsucher viewfinder) the M isn't the only game in town that can do that!

 

Excuse the verbosity, but I hope to have explained comprehensively.