M to L Adapter, What are you using?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You don’t need to, as you focus from the sensor.   As long as the lens can reach infinity the length of the adapter does not make a difference.  A DSLR needs fine adjustment as the flange-mirror-screen distance is critical. 

[Advertisement]

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

[ramarren]

22 hours ago, jaapv said:

The flange distance does not need to be super accurate on an EVF camera.

It should be accurate. Otherwise, the focusing scale and DoF markings are inaccurate and unusable, never mind that with very short focal length lenses you give up some portion of the close focus distance if the mount register is too short (and the inaccuracies are far greater with short focal length lenses too). 

I know you are not a big user of scale and zone focusing, jaapv, but many users are. Thus flange registration accuracy becomes important. 

G

[cp995]

vor 53 Minuten schrieb ramarren:

It should be accurate. Otherwise, the focusing scale and DoF markings are inaccurate and unusable...

EVF User don't care about focusing scale and DoF markings; as they us the EVF.
And for zone focussing, minmal differences are not important, as zone focussing is never correct in a 100% view.

So the only problem of adapter's is, that they don't focus to inifinity!
To avoid this, most adapters (novoflex too) are a bit shorter than they should be.

[cp995]

Am 28.5.2020 um 20:06 schrieb bherman01545:

I've heard some nightmares of certain 'el-cheapo' adapters either getting stuck on the body or the lens getting stuck on the adapter. ...

Never heard of this and I'm using adapters since a decade.
Pls. give us some links to evaluate these "nightmares"

Mostly these arguments are only some kind of prejudice without own verification.

Edited May 29, 2020 by cp995

[lct]

31 minutes ago, cp995 said:

So the only problem of adapter's is, that they don't focus to inifinity!

A good reason to avoid inaccurate adapters. Never seen too thick ones though.

[bherman01545]

1 hour ago, cp995 said:

Never heard of this and I'm using adapters since a decade.
Pls. give us some links to evaluate these "nightmares"

Mostly these arguments are only some kind of prejudice without own verification.

There are multiple threads all over the net, but you can refer to this one, right on this forum:

 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, cp995 said:

EVF User don't care about focusing scale and DoF markings; as they us the EVF.
And for zone focussing, minmal differences are not important, as zone focussing is never correct in a 100% view.

So the only problem of adapter's is, that they don't focus to inifinity!
To avoid this, most adapters (novoflex too) are a bit shorter than they should be.

Agree. Zone focusing is a throwback to another era and replaced by AF. 

[lct]

12 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Zone focusing is a throwback to another era and replaced by AF. 

Hard to use AF lenses with the M to L adapter though... I must be a throwback myself i guess

[jaapv]

As I said, throwback.  Nothing wrong there. 

[ramarren]

7 hours ago, cp995 said:

EVF User don't care about focusing scale and DoF markings; as they us the EVF.
And for zone focussing, minmal differences are not important, as zone focussing is never correct in a 100% view.

So the only problem of adapter's is, that they don't focus to inifinity!
To avoid this, most adapters (novoflex too) are a bit shorter than they should be.

It seems what the focus scale, DoF markings, and zone focusing are all about is incomprehensible to you. Sorry for your lack of understanding. Go to the library and pick up a copy of "Basic Photography" ... it will inform you as to why things parts of a camera are actually important. 

AutoFocus has nothing to do with zone focusing. 

G

Edited May 30, 2020 by ramarren

[cp995]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb lct:

A good reason to avoid inaccurate adapters. Never seen too thick ones though.

Unfortunately I had one (Canon FD -> Fuji X) some years ago, but I could send it back to the dealer.

[cp995]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb ramarren:

...AutoFocus has nothing to do with zone focusing...

I never mentioned this!

But: Zone focussing is a relict from the film area.
With today's high resolution sensors and their output possibilities, zone focus no longer has the former significance.

[lct]

37 minutes ago, cp995 said:

Zone focussing is a relict from the film area.

I guess that aperture rings are a relict too . All good for manual manual lenses and adapters this thread is about BTW .

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, ramarren said:

AutoFocus has nothing to do with zone focusing. 

That is correct technically, except that AF has replaced most of the function of zone focusing, i.e. to get an acceptably sharp photograph without losing any time by focusing manually, in order not to miss a fleeting moment.
My argument is that autofocus in its present  form, which can focus instantly, does the same thing with more precision.

Another argument against zone focusing is that it is imprecise and that DOF does not exist. It is an optical illusion based on the lack of resolution of the human eye. Therefore it will vary by the size of the final print* and through cropping, among other factors that cannot be influenced by camera settings. Thus plane of focus photography is preferable and fast AF has made that possible.

Obviously this is not applicable to manual focus lenses as LCT mentions. Still,, I would argue that even then it is desirable to perfect one's focusing technique in order to avoid zone focusing as much as possible. Fortunately Leica has been kind enough to provide focus aids and rangefinders for the purpose.

* In present times, replace by "size and resolution of the monitor"

 

[lct]

Indeed AF has little to do with manual lenses. Interesting that such a truism has to be repeated on a Leica forum. With manual lenses, zone focusing is irreplaceable when time doesn't permit to nail focus. EVFs have hardly changed anything to that. Especially with wides when focus peaking proves useless w/o magnification.

[jaapv]

Yes. Thanks for reinforcing the point. However, it may be my style of photography, I can count the number of times that I had to use it on my M cameras on my fingers. I trained myself to be really fast in focusing. 

[ramarren]

6 hours ago, cp995 said:

I never mentioned this!

But: Zone focussing is a relict from the film area.
With today's high resolution sensors and their output possibilities, zone focus no longer has the former significance.

 

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

That is correct technically, except that AF has replaced most of the function of zone focusing, i.e. to get an acceptably sharp photograph without losing any time by focusing manually, in order not to miss a fleeting moment.
My argument is that autofocus in its present  form, which can focus instantly, does the same thing with more precision.

Another argument against zone focusing is that it is imprecise and that DOF does not exist. It is an optical illusion based on the lack of resolution of the human eye. Therefore it will vary by the size of the final print* and through cropping, among other factors that cannot be influenced by camera settings. Thus plane of focus photography is preferable and fast AF has made that possible.

Obviously this is not applicable to manual focus lenses as LCT mentions. Still,, I would argue that even then it is desirable to perfect one's focusing technique in order to avoid zone focusing as much as possible. Fortunately Leica has been kind enough to provide focus aids and rangefinders for the purpose.

* In present times, replace by "size and resolution of the monitor"

 

Again, zone focusing implies something utterly different in picture taking workflow compared to autofocus, or any other form of critical focusing technique. Zone focusing means seeing the subject you're after with a different eye, not one tuned to maximum detail but tuned to the relationships of objects in three-dimensional space and how a lens renders them at different points in the acceptably sharp zone that you've chosen to work in. It has just as much significance to photography today as it did at any time in the past.

It means concentrating not on the technical aspect of maximum detail on the subject plane but on seeing how the lens sees the world, and exploiting that to your advantage. It takes as a basis the fact that a lens sees the the world in a way utterly different from how your eye sees the world, and that difference can be used to make expressions that suit your intent emotionally and graphically. 

If your notion is always "...that autofocus in its present  form ...does the same thing with more precision", you're simply missing the point entirely and locked into a different mindset. Autofocus (when it works, which isn't always) does an entirely different thing and implies an entirely different visual mindset in the approach to making photographs. It implies the notion "the machine can do this faster and better than I can most of the time" and surrenders the decision of where and how to place the plane of critical focus to the machine's determination, and focuses your mind on all of the many necessary tools included in modern cameras to help the machine do that correctly for the subject situation that you are confronting. Face detection, focus peaking and magnification, movable focus target selection, etc etc etc are all tools that let you assist the machine in making the critical decision correctly. 

Zone focus implies something completely different: "I know how this lens renders, at the set lens opening, as the subject moves closer and farther than the plane of critical focus, I know what distance establishes the perspective that I'm after, and I look for subject matter that fits the zone I've chosen and enhances the relationships between the things in that dimensional space in a way that supports what I am trying to express in my photographs." 

There is space in the aesthetic world of photographs for all these different approaches to seeing and thinking about making photographs. To disparage one as being "a relic of a different age, replaced by another, better one" is a very narrow-minded way of thinking, to me. It does not expand one's vision, it constrains it.

G

Edited May 30, 2020 by ramarren

[jaapv]

I won't insult you the way you did me by calling me narrow-minded, Godfrey, but will only say that I see no reason to invoke high-artistic philoshical justifications for what is, in the end, just a method  to get a reasonably sharp image. Everything else you mention about rendering etc. can be addressed just as well with any way of focusing, with more precision and exactly the same aesthetic intent..

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I won't insult you the way you did me by calling me narrow-minded, Godfrey, but will only say that I see no reason to invoke high-artistic philoshical justifications for what is, in the end, just a method  to get a reasonably sharp image. Everything else you mention about rendering etc. can be addressed just as well with any way of focusing, with more precision and exactly the same aesthetic intent..

As I said, you are missing the point entirely. You're entitled to your opinion, but it does not agree with mine, or what I said, at all. 

G

Oh yes: and there is nothing intended as "insulting" in anything I've written. You can always choose to take it that way, of course, but that interpretation is something that has nothing to do with my intent in writing it. I am simply interested in the discussion of this topic because focusing a camera to achieve the ends desired is one of the most important topics of all photography ... far more so than whether a SKOOPUM has a DINKUM or a DUNKUM.

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by ramarren

[Pyrogallol]

I like being a relic from the film era. When I use my Leica Standard my eyes are the rangefinder and my fingers are the autofocus, setting focus in the right zone.