Q2: Faulty distance scale makes zone focusing more difficult.

[Learner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I COPIED THE FOLLOWING TODAY FROM dpreview.com >> DO YOU AGREE?

TO SEE THE TEST SHOTS, YOU'LL HAVE TO GO TO dpreview.com :

I've had my Q2 for a couple of weeks now, and in many ways it's a very nice camera. But I have noticed that my zone focusing was way off, and normally I'm pretty good at that.

So I took a series of test shots with manual focus on a target at different distances. I measured the distance to the target manually (both with a laser and a traditional tape).

Turns out that the scale on the lens is quite off. Look at the one in middle in particular, when I have set the focus on 2 meter (and confirmed that the picture is tack sharp), the distance scale show something else.

I realize that this doesn't matter for most people, but for those of us that use zone focusing it's a bit troublesome.

Could anyone else with a Q2 (or a Q for that matter) help me to find out if this is a general problem, or if it's just my camera?

Thanks in advance.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Learner

[Guest]

I only tested my Q1 at 3 metres, and it showed a similar variance to yours, i.e. actual 3 metres was slight less than halfway between the 2m and infinity marks.

The reviewers never seem to test these things, and just accept manufacturer's distance markings & ISO settings on good faith

Edited April 2, 2019 by Guest

[Advertisement]

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

[Leica Guy]

7 hours ago, Learner said:

I COPIED THE FOLLOWING TODAY FROM dpreview.com >> DO YOU AGREE?

TO SEE THE TEST SHOTS, YOU'LL HAVE TO GO TO dpreview.com :

I've had my Q2 for a couple of weeks now, and in many ways it's a very nice camera. But I have noticed that my zone focusing was way off, and normally I'm pretty good at that.

So I took a series of test shots with manual focus on a target at different distances. I measured the distance to the target manually (both with a laser and a traditional tape).

Turns out that the scale on the lens is quite off. Look at the one in middle in particular, when I have set the focus on 2 meter (and confirmed that the picture is tack sharp), the distance scale show something else.

I realize that this doesn't matter for most people, but for those of us that use zone focusing it's a bit troublesome.

Could anyone else with a Q2 (or a Q for that matter) help me to find out if this is a general problem, or if it's just my camera?

Thanks in advance.

John,

I’m completely unaware of this problem, but will check it out on my Q now. Normally I manually focus using focus peaking. I don’t zone focus although I absolutely see the value in the technique and expect in the future I will use it. Seems like a real error if the markings are so far off on the lens. Thanks for the alert. 

[dancook]

I used manual focus, f1.7 and used focus peaking to assess in-focus subject (not a measuring chart)

I then compare the distance gauge to a laser measuring device and it seems accurate.

 

Tested at various distances from 0.5 - 2 m

Edited April 2, 2019 by dancook

[Surfheart]

I have a thread on here where I highlight the inaccurate lens scale on my Q for hyperlocal work.

[jaapv]

On 2 april 2019 at 3:54 AM, Learner said:

I COPIED THE FOLLOWING TODAY FROM dpreview.com >> DO YOU AGREE?

TO SEE THE TEST SHOTS, YOU'LL HAVE TO GO TO dpreview.com :

I've had my Q2 for a couple of weeks now, and in many ways it's a very nice camera. But I have noticed that my zone focusing was way off, and normally I'm pretty good at that.

So I took a series of test shots with manual focus on a target at different distances. I measured the distance to the target manually (both with a laser and a traditional tape).

Turns out that the scale on the lens is quite off. Look at the one in middle in particular, when I have set the focus on 2 meter (and confirmed that the picture is tack sharp), the distance scale show something else.

I realize that this doesn't matter for most people, but for those of us that use zone focusing it's a bit troublesome.

Could anyone else with a Q2 (or a Q for that matter) help me to find out if this is a general problem, or if it's just my camera?

Thanks in advance.

Why do you want to zone focus? It is a technique that can be useful on a manual camera, but on an AF camera I cannot se any use.  

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Why do you want to zone focus? It is a technique that can be useful on a manual camera, but on an AF camera I cannot se any use.  

I think both Q/Q2 and CL work very well as MF cameras. Since BBF is not available with CL and Q2, the only solution for certain situations is to use MF with or without zone focusing.

[ricky1981]

MF/zone focusing can be useful when either AF gets confused (too many subjects, low light, low contrast, etc) or for street photography where even a small AF delay can mean missing the shot. It's pretty common to set an aperture around F5.6-8.0 with focus ~5m and be pretty confident that anything you're shooting will be in focus.

Personally I tend to use AF 99% of the time but the MF on the Q/Q2 is sublime so I don't blame anyone who uses or indeed prefers it.

[dancook]

Often I hipshoot street photography, I bought the Q because it had the distance gauge where other cameras didn't.

The area wide AF often can miss my subject and goes for the background instead which can reduce my keepers further from a street walkabout..

So zone focusing is a great fallback for me, I wouldn't want it to be inaccurate.

Edited April 3, 2019 by dancook

[jaapv]

That is what face recognition/multipoint is for.

1 hour ago, ricky1981 said:

MF/zone focusing can be useful when either AF gets confused (too many subjects, low light, low contrast, etc) or for street photography where even a small AF delay can mean missing the shot. It's pretty common to set an aperture around F5.6-8.0 with focus ~5m and be pretty confident that anything you're shooting will be in focus.

Personally I tend to use AF 99% of the time but the MF on the Q/Q2 is sublime so I don't blame anyone who uses or indeed prefers it.

My opinion on this differs. I am not a great believer of "everything within DOF is in focus" To me, DOF is the area of acceptable out-of-focus.  I think zone focusing is too haphazard, as I prefer critical focus on the subject.

[franzi]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

That is what face recognition/multipoint is for.

My opinion on this differs. I am not a great believer of "everything within DOF is in focus" To me, DOF is the area of acceptable out-of-focus.  I think zone focusing is too haphazard, as I prefer critical focus on the subject.

Absolute agreement!

[Stephen_C]

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I prefer critical focus on the subject

That doesn't work ideally with some landscape photography where you may need to focus on the hyperfocal distance to maximise the area that is acceptably sharp. That is particularly the case with the 28mm lens of the Q and Q2, which is ideal for dramatic landscape work encompassing everything from close foregorund to the visible horizon. As I can never remember how to calculate the hyperfocal distance an accurate zone focussing indication is very helpful. (I'm not say the Q2 does not have it—I've just not yet explored that on my Q2.)

Stephen

[jaapv]

Yes - but that is where focus stacking comes in.  In those cases "acceptable focus" does not exist. It must be in focus from foreground to background.

[Smogg]

12 hours ago, jaapv said:

Why do you want to zone focus? It is a technique that can be useful on a manual camera, but on an AF camera I cannot se any use.  

1. Prefocus on certain mark is common practice in street photo, without properly working BBF I should keep pressed button for a while before shot.

2. Focus&recompose doesn't work in continuous drive mode, Q2 focuses properly only on the first picture in series and refocuses automatically on consecutive shots even in the AFs mode.

3. Often I shoot from the hip (f8-f11) without notice. In this case I do not  know exactly where the autofocus mark is.

[jaapv]

Focus-recompose is not needed with multipoint or face recognition  

zone focus was a legitimatie technique in the past but has been renderend obsolete by modern AF systems. 

[Smogg]

30 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Focus-recompose is not needed with multipoint or face recognition  

zone focus was a legitimatie technique in the past but has been renderend obsolete by modern AF systems. 

Multipoint focuses on the nearest or more contrast subject, it's unreliable. Face recognition works properly only on Sony)) On Leica face should be at least 1/4 of screen's size to work so-so, otherwise focusing switches to multipoint (on Sony you can override every type of focusing with face recognition). Even in portrait session I prefer using spot focus vs face recognition because Leica can't provide reliable focus onto the leading eye.

Zone focus is a technique that guarantees that, for example, everything from 2 to 5 meters will be in focus and I can concentrate only on composition. In street photo skilled photographer usually shoot with small apertures (f8-f11-f16), only newcomers like thin DOF and bokeh, so Zone focus means always-in-focus for him - zero time.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Smogg

[jaapv]

You miss my point. Zone focus guarantees that everything between 2 and 5 meters will be out of focus to an acceptable -to the photographer and depending on subject and print size- degree, except in the plane of focus which is unlikely to coincide with the  plane of interest. 

Your last paragraph begs the question why one would even consider using expansive cameras and lenses, like the Q or M10/noctulux for street  photography. A cheap P&S or good  smartphone will perform as well or better at a fraction of the price. 

 

If if one would apply your technique it would not be possible to get results like this:

 

 

[Irakly Shanidze]

On 4/3/2019 at 5:12 AM, jaapv said:

That is what face recognition/multipoint is for.

My opinion on this differs. I am not a great believer of "everything within DOF is in focus" To me, DOF is the area of acceptable out-of-focus.  I think zone focusing is too haphazard, as I prefer critical focus on the subject.

The  fact that  your opinion on this differs has  no relevance whatsoever to the original topic. The question was "does anybody else experienced the same phenomenon with Q2?"  As a moderator, you should know better than hijacking a thread. If you want to discuss merits of focus stacking in  street photography, by all means, start a thread and go for it.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Irakly Shanidze
typo

[marchyman]

21 hours ago, jaapv said:

Focus-recompose is not needed with multipoint or face recognition

???   There are two faces in a scene: one in the forground, one in the background.   You are shooting an at aperture that that intentionally limits DOF.   Which face will be in focus and which will be blurred?  Your comment implies the photographers intent is not important -- let the autofocus system make the decision.

I try to understand how an autofocus system works so I know when NOT to use it.  When not using autofocus because it will do-the-wrong-thing Focus-recompose may be necessary.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

That is quite true, but that does not mean that shooting at f16/zone focus  is the answer. The answer is to either focus/recompose reluctantly (we all know about the body-swaying involved   ) or use a shifted single focus point. Or, indeed, just focus manually on the EVF, if needed, using peaking. )