Q2: Faulty distance scale makes zone focusing more difficult.

[Daedalus2000]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Irakly Shanidze said:

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.

He did the same in the last thread that discussed the same problem. Instead of allowing a discussion on a serious problem (if that is the case, I do not have a Q or Q2) at the moment he started discussing why one should not use hyperfocal focusing.

I mean it is good to have an opinion but it has to be relevant to the OP and help the discussion of the original issue, not to divert attention to his own view of the world.

[evenise]

I experienced the same problem with the Q2. At F8 and the infinity symbol set to infinity, I should not have an out of focus image for the far away part of the picture.

That lack of accuracy is a huge problem, what is the need to have it available on the lens if it's not correct, if we cannot use it? 

I am quite surprised that coming from Leica this can occur... 

[Advertisement]

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

[evenise]

Just tested with the manual focus peaking, the infinity symbol when the focus on infinity is good is... on the middle mark, totally out of use. 

So, I know now that if I want to use hyperfocal focusing, I first have to manually focus and... let the ring where it is. 

Very amateur from Leica!

[bullmoon]

Wow, the scale is so "compressed" and then from 6 feet, boom - infinity!  I don't see how you can test this other than at very close focus.  Focus at 1ft, 2ft, 3ft and 6ft seems about right when I try it.  Beyond that, the small scale is really not something I could take a guess on - like, where is 15ft?  Who knows; somewhere along the 1/4inch between the 6ft mark and infinity!

I put the edge of f8 on 6ft and took a shot at f8, (so the center mark is again between 6ft and infinity) and the other side of f8 is beyond infinity, and the door edge in my shot at 6ft away looks sharp enough when I zoom in all the way.  And object at 3ft or so look a little fuzzy as expected.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how there is enough relevant information on that scale / lens, for practical applications, to nit-pick. 

[rptdc]

So, the main point of this discussion is whether the depth of field scale on the Q2 lens is accurate or not (defective or not).  I have been using my Q2 for about six weeks. I just googled this topic today because my results using zone focusing with the Q2 have had such poor outcomes.

Has anyone contacted Leica regarding this? Any feedback from Leica regarding a resolution to this?

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by rptdc
Spelling error

[jaapv]

It is beyond me why somebody using a camera with good AF would want to zone-focus. I am not surprised that Leica did not design the distance scale with this method in mind.

[scroy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/13/2019 at 4:40 PM, jaapv said:

It is beyond me why somebody using a camera with good AF would want to zone-focus. I am not surprised that Leica did not design the distance scale with this method in mind.

I am quite surprised. The distance scale is a product feature. If a distance scale is included on a lens, it should be accurate.  If its not important, the scale should not be on the lens.

[jaapv]

Agree. But Leica clearly decided otherwise. 

[nicci78]

For Leica it is quite clear. If you want a proper depth of field scale : buy an M lens. Plenty of 28mm available in all flavours : Summilux, Summicron, Elmarit with or without asph. 😉

[lykaman]

3 hours ago, nicci78 said:

For Leica it is quite clear. If you want a proper depth of field scale : buy an M lens. Plenty of 28mm available in all flavours : Summilux, Summicron, Elmarit with or without asph. 😉

But, the OP might not want to own an M- his observation regarding the Q2 is correct. Obviously the Scale is a compromise.. L

[nicci78]

I don’t think it is compromise. Just use it to set hyperfocal. That’s it. 

But bear in mind that hyper focal with 47MP is kinda a challenge.

 

[lykaman]

3 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

I don’t think it is compromise. Just use it to set hyperfocal. That’s it. 

But bear in mind that hyper focal with 47MP is kinda a challenge.

 

Agreed on both counts...L (I went with a Q-P,  IMHO 47MP is overpowering/intimidating)...

[nicci78]

47MP is not a problem. Really. I like the extra resolution. 
The only issue is that Leica kept the old Maestro II. Same CPU than the Q ! It is ok with 24MP, not so much with twice the definition. It’s kinda ok. But when I see how the SL2 fly with Meastro III.... 

 

Just keep in mind that Q2 is a budget proposition in the Leica world. Yes it is an entry level. A very nice one indeed, and I like it this way. 
But if you want the best manual focus experience : buy an M lens. 
If you want the best body experience : buy an M10 or an SL2. 
 

An excellent compromise is the CL (another entry level Leica) with M lenses. Just bear in mind that you lose ultra wide angle due to 1.5x crop factor 

[lykaman]

8 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

47MP is not a problem. Really. I like the extra resolution. 
The only issue is that Leica kept the old Maestro II. Same CPU than the Q ! It is ok with 24MP, not so much with twice the definition. It’s kinda ok. But when I see how the SL2 fly with Meastro III.... 

 

Just keep in mind that Q2 is a budget proposition in the Leica world. Yes it is an entry level. A very nice one indeed, and I like it this way. 
But if you want the best manual focus experience : buy an M lens. 
If you want the best body experience : buy an M10 or an SL2. 
 

An excellent compromise is the CL (another entry level Leica) with M lenses. Just bear in mind that you lose ultra wide angle due to 1.5x crop factor 

Hi, I agree with most of your views, but, I don't think the Q range is an entry/budget camera! mostly aimed at a different/new target market... L

[Guest]

On 11/13/2019 at 1:40 PM, jaapv said:

It is beyond me why somebody using a camera with good AF would want to zone-focus. I am not surprised that Leica did not design the distance scale with this method in mind.

When I shoot street, I zone focus 90% of the time with my M6. There are times when I wish I have AF but not when I shoot street. Zone focusing allows me to shoot quicker and most importantly, pay attention to what's happening in front of me. I bought the Q2 so I could have both options. It's reasonable to expect Leica to make distance scales accurate to industry standards, whatever they may be.

I use zone focus as a guideline. Haven't measured the accuracy of my 28mm on M6 but it's been fine in the f8-16 range. As long as my Q2 is within fairly accurate in the same range, I'm happy.

 

[bags27]

If someone goes to all the trouble to develop a terrific focus-by-wire system on an autofocus camera, and includes a dedicated and inscribed shutter speed dial and a full aperture ring on a $5000 camera, the message sent is that this can be used as a fully manual camera. And therefore, the customer has a right to expect that if they also put a distance scale on the lens, that it is reasonably accurate and that owners can depend on it for whatever purpose they want, no matter what others may think of that purpose. If the scale is just "ballpark," Leica needs to say that. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by bags27

[Leica Guy]

On 4/2/2019 at 3:53 AM, dancook said:

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

That’s exactly my experience. I used focus peaking and focused on an object approx 6’ away. I then measured with a tape measure. It is 6’ away. I then looked at my lens distance and it says 6’. Absolutely more than accurate enough for me. 

[jaapv]

On 4/4/2019 at 10:14 PM, Daedalus2000 said:

He did the same in the last thread that discussed the same problem. Instead of allowing a discussion on a serious problem (if that is the case, I do not have a Q or Q2) at the moment he started discussing why one should not use hyperfocal focusing.

I mean it is good to have an opinion but it has to be relevant to the OP and help the discussion of the original issue, not to divert attention to his own view of the world.

However, the problem is that the traditional DOF scales on lenses are notoriously inaccurate in a digital world anyway. Especially on high-resolution sensors - and most brands struggle with an acceptably accurate distance scale in the EVF.

[Razvan M]

I had the same issue on my Leica Q2 but not on the old Leica Q. On the old Q I was sure that at F8 I had everything in focus between 1.2m and infinity, while on the Q2 it was off by about 30-40 cm  (at F8 set from 1.2 to infinity I was actually having proper focus from 0.8 - 0.9m). For me it was the main reason why I decided to sell my Q2 and move to an M body. I think it's unacceptable to have such an issue on a camera of this value.

Quote

On 11/13/2019 at 11:40 PM, jaapv said:

It is beyond me why somebody using a camera with good AF would want to zone-focus. I am not surprised that Leica did not design the distance scale with this method in mind.

 

Regarding this, your logic can be applied both ways. Why use only the AF on a camera capable of MF and zone focusing? Since the camera has this capability I expect it to work, just as you expect the AF to work properly.

As a feedback, I am convinced that if the camera had AF issues and you started a discussion about it you wouldn't like those who prefer MF and zone focusing to adopt such a dismissive attitude you adopt on this topic. We all have preferences and our own way to do things and it's preferable to not impose them on others or criticise them for choosing differently. Coming from a moderator, I feel your attitude is not encouraging the discussion but much rather inhibits it. I hope you can accept this feedback as it's meant to be constructive, not a personal attack. How you use your camera is for you to decide, how we use ours is for us, and neither one is right or wrong. It's the camera that may have some issues.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

Quite common in a discussion, I never had a problem with opposing opinions. It is not unusual on camera forums to discuss ways of operating a camera, personally this forum taught me a lot.  However, I can understand that one likes a feature to work properly - it appears that the jury is out on this one. The next question, what does working properly mean? Is it intended as a rough guide or as a precision tool?  On many EVF cameras I find the distance scale more of a toy than a useful tool, one nearly always has to fall back on other focus tools for critical focus. Leica appears to be no exception.