Focusing question

[Jared]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the first sentence of your reply, I think you misinterpreted something in my previous post or I'm misunderstanding your point. As I take the situation you describe, I'd assert that EVF, on the M10 at least, has potentially superior value because, unlike OVF, you can reposition the focus point, zoom in and adjust without having alter the compositional plane and recompose.

 

Regardless, I suspect you may be thinking that I'm arguing against the value of EVF. Quite the contrary, I wouldn't own a camera without it, but not particularly for any narrow DoF focusing benefits. That's welcome, but not strictly essential in my view, at least when the RF and lens are properly adjusted. Rather, its precision in framing, ability to mitigate parallax issues in symmetrical compositions, visual feedback regarding the amount of lens distortion, exposure preview in tricky high DR situations, etc. I don't equate one or the other with particular focal lengths, rather my reliance on OVF/EVF is alternately dictated by a greater desire for speed versus a stronger requirement for compositional precision. Beyond the native glass, that, for me, is the beauty of an M body. Its the only FF that provides a choice to use one, the other or both as circumstance dictates.

 

What we see does indeed comes from the sensor, but you've omitted the fact that it undergoes significant downsampling and is only an approximation of whats being recorded. If what I see coming through the EVF when zoomed at 10x in average light was what I wound up with in post, I'd dust my old Rebel XT off, stomp down to Leica Boston and demand my money back. With the M10, the EVF resolution is more than good enough when DoF is thin and your just trying to hone an edge. No one would or should argue that EVF isn't inherently more reliable in those instances. But as DoF increases, and particularly on the wider end where everything is kinda in focus, there isn't enough resolution to critically judge where the central point of focus is. Its very easy to think you're on the mark, particularly with peaking enabled, when a quick glance in the OVF will show, you actually are way, way off. And if you fail to perform this check, alternately by at least opening the lens wide, what seemed fine at the time, can be quite disturbing in post. As this had caught me out at times and as there are many new first time Leica owners showing up these days, I mention this not to be argumentative, but purely to caution others. That scenario might not fit some folks model of what constitutes greatest accuracy, but in my work precision of focus point in a complex, deeper DoF scene, is just as critical as if I were trying to lock in on an eyelash with the Summliux 75mm wide open.

Fair enough. And, yes, I did misinterpret part of your post. My priorities do not exactly match yours in terms of my use of the EVF vs rangefinder, but I can't disagree with your points.

 

- Jared

[LesT]

A slight side track......

 

I had 3 lenses, 35, 50 and 90mm. The 35mm Summicron was 20 years old but I really liked it. On my M240 I seemed to miss focus occasionally at f.2.8,2.0. Using Live View and a tripod I photographed a rule and found that the lens  back focused for shorter distances. At infinity it was fine.  The 50 and 90mm were spot on.  The best advice I dug out was to get Leica to looked at the 240, the 3 lenses to get everything working perfectly. This sounded expensive and would entailed a good length of time in Germany.  Due to lack of funds I held off.

 

I also kept using the 35mm.  For a good proportion of my photos I didn't the use the lens wide open. From my tests with the rule I had a good idea what the focusing patch looked like when the lens was actually in focus. My focusing hit rate improved. I learnt how to use the lens with its problem. In fact I grew to like the  "off focus" view. In some ways it was easier to focus because the two images were very clear.

 

I suppose that's one advantage of manual focus over automated. 

 

Les T.

[satureyes]

I'd say that you're likely suffering from horizontal alignment issues with the patches. It's actually not too hard to adjust yourself but it's a careful and slow process. Lots about it on the forums. 2mm hex key is needed and read about it. I had the issue with all

My M's and sorted it myself. Way faster than leica.

 

The EVF when uses with an angled ruler or a focus chart is pretty accurate. You can see how far front or back focussing the RF is bu comparing the two. Use a tripod. There's lots about it on these forums.

[luigi bertolotti]

A slight side track......

 

 ...I had a good idea what the focusing patch looked like when the lens was actually in focus. My focusing hit rate improved. I learnt how to use the lens with its problem....

This could seem an oddity, but I can confirm is not : I used to do the same way, with the same good result, years ago, with a slightly uncalibrated Elmar 90, which I thought wasn't worth to be adjusted.

The only problem, you must use very often and regularly that specific lens, so that you got accustomed to the "right" displacement of the not coincident image: at those times the Elmar 90 (a retractable version... film times...) was my definitive 90 and lived for some years with this trick...