SL2 AFc...

[bsmith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Wow! Sensitive are we? This is a discussion forum. Differences of opinion kind of go with the territory, although I managed to keep the personal assumptions out of mine. I think I have been consistent that the AFC on the SL2 is worst in class. Not unusable in some situations but far behind Canon and Sony's efforts. I'm not arguing against that. Never have. Useless? Not entirely. But almost any thing else is better in the current market. Am I wrong?

The failings of DFD focus are well known and have been for years. If someone chooses a DFD camera for tracking focus they chose the wrong equipment. And if a working photographer chose an SL2 expecting class leading AFC then they are a fool. They should have chosen a different system. Simple as that. No amount of tantrums will make DFD focusing work as well as a good PDAF system. Feel free to jump up and down. It isn't going to make the SL2 focus like the R5.

In you post you wrote.. "OMG, that's like saying "my country love it or leave it!".". And unfortunately, yep, that's exactly it. Leica's whole business model is *our way or the highway*. Leica don't play in the same sandpit as Canon, Nikon or Sony. Arguments about whether they compete, or don't perform or that they're too expensive are pointless. Leica don't want to compete in that way. Secondly it is what it is. If you don't like the AFC in the SL2 then you need to look elsewhere. There are plenty of alternatives.

I'm just pointing out that a poor performance metric in one area doesn't make a poor camera. Different systems have different strengths and weaknesses. Dozens of posts slamming the SL2 because AFC is worst in class. Meanwhile far less emphasis on other features, good and bad that are just as important to MANY photographers.

Thanks for the tip on learning manual flash. But as I've been a working commercial photographer for 35 years I think I have that sorted. While you and I may like manual flash others don't. I'm not small minded enough to ignore the potential needs of other shooters. And really. The lack of high speed sync isn't an issue for a serious flash photographer? Riiiight.... You're welcome to prioritise AFC over HSS and others are free to do the opposite. But I am pretty sure more SL users would benefit more from a more robust flash implementation than Sony like tracking focus. Honestly, I don't really have a horse in the flash issue with Leica. I use leaf shutter systems in my studio mostly. For the rest the SL2 is more than fine.

As a working photographer I have a variety of gear to solve a variety of issues and different gear with different strengths. A carpenter has more than one chisel. I don't think any single camera can do it all. Or system or brand. Some systems offer more flexibility than others. Some do that in different ways. Just as I wouldn't choose a Leica for sports I wouldn't choose a Sony for portraits because I don't like Sony's skin tones. I don't spend all day bitching about it. I choose a different chisel and move on.

Maybe you should choose the right gear for the job and do a bit of pre-purchase research before buying instead of whinging about a performance metric that is widely known in the SL2? Maybe you did. But I thought you'd appreciate the same trite commentary as you gave me about manual flash and limited experience.

Gordon

Apparently, you are WAY more sensitive to criticism than me!   "Leica don't want to compete in that way."  Really?, since when were you appointed as the official spokesperson for Leica?   Maybe you just like to preach and assume the photo world should agree with your nonsense, or maybe you just like reading your opinions on the forum. But either way, don't tell me what I should buy, complain about or research!  Who do you think you are?  Apparently,  Leica's official spokesperson for one.  And btw, I passed the 35 years commercial photographer mark 14 years ago!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 hours ago, bsmith said:

Apparently, you are WAY more sensitive to criticism than me!   "Leica don't want to compete in that way."  Really?, since when were you appointed as the official spokesperson for Leica?   Maybe you just like to preach and assume the photo world should agree with your nonsense, or maybe you just like reading your opinions on the forum. But either way, don't tell me what I should buy, complain about or research!  Who do you think you are?  Apparently,  Leica's official spokesperson for one.  And btw, I passed the 35 years commercial photographer mark 14 years ago!

Perhaps I should have said that *historically* Leica haven't tried to compete in that way, rather than playing fortune teller, although I suspect I'm right. If we look at what Leica has done to date (rangefinders, Monochroms, wide angle fixed lens cameras, large mirrorless systems, DSLR medium format etc) it's clear that Leica do things a bit differently. They march to the beat of their own drum. And based on their pricing they simply can't compete on features alone. They sell watches and headphones, for goodness sake. Then there's the special editions. This is as much a veblen goods company as a camera manufacturer. I think it's a reasonable assumption to say Leica doesn't care what Sony and Canon are doing and I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum who thinks so. So when I buy a Leica I buy it based on what it can do not what I think it should do. Rather than complain I choose just to move on if I can't get what I need from a camera. It's just a camera after all. Not worth getting worked up about.

As for telling you what to do, I don't believe I did. In fact I clearly stated that maybe you had done your research. Maybe you missed that bit? Maybe not. It's just an opinion and like arseholes we all have one.

Gordon

[BernardC]

16 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

They sell watches and headphones, for goodness sake.

Sony and Panasonic sell headphones, and I'm sure they offer watches in some markets. They definitely sell alarm clocks.

I am not trying to be nit-picky, I just feel that this thread is getting a bit too "serious and personal."

[Simone_DF]

I think Leica has very little to say about what the camera can or cannot do AF wise, as most of the tech comes from Panasonic I reckon. 

[sillbeers15]

5 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

I think Leica has very little to say about what the camera can or cannot do AF wise, as most of the tech comes from Panasonic I reckon. 

Leica licences the AF methodology from Panasonic on CDAF/DFD technology only for the SL/2 cameras. For S cameras, the AF is phase detect but not much has been heard about the AF on those cameras.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

Leica licences the AF methodology from Panasonic on CDAF/DFD technology only for the SL/2 cameras. For S cameras, the AF is phase detect but not much has been heard about the AF on those cameras.

Do you know whether that includes the TL/CL as well?

Gordon

[sillbeers15]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Do you know whether that includes the TL/CL as well?

Gordon

I have not explored. But my guess is that both are likely to be CDAF/DFD. I am also not surprised if the AFC can be less competitive if the micro processor used is less powerful such as on the Q2 compared to SL2.

[lx1713]

In general, I keep my SL2 on AFs because I can get sharp images 99% of the time. I'd like to have that variable close to perfection.

I'd use AFc when I can go wide and have a sufficient depth of field for my standards in run and gun where my eyes cannot be in the EVF all the time, shooting from hip, overhead, running with the subject, etc Usually I couple that with face detect.

If the lighting is extremely strong and shadows distinct, I will risk using AFc for critical moments such as a wedding entrance of the bride.

That said, I usually set my focus to the joystick and tap on the zoom in to check on the focus as a prelude to the moment.

Lastly, I like to set image preview to shutter pressed to catch the images as they are shot.

I agree with Gordon, the SL2 is an excellent event camera.

And yes the AFc isn't as good as other brands in many situations, even my Canon 12 year old 1DmkIII was better at candle light at AFc. So I came from a camera that gave me 95-99% focus accuracy to the SL which is about 70-80%  hit rate. The images are what counted. So I change my habits. Trained up to the edge of the SL's limitations. Pull whatever tricks I could to get sharp images.

The SL2 is better. The original SL of mine delivers 99.9% sharp images with face detect with the 90f2 at f4.0 - f4.5 in studio portraiture so it stays relevant despite its poorer performance.

And don't jiggle the camera when shooting, keep it stable when you shoot, you will shave precious computational AF time. Lock down your stance.

Keep working on it, it's worth the sweat to know your camera better.

Edited December 5, 2020 by lx1713

[Dr. G]

2 hours ago, lx1713 said:

In general, I keep my SL2 on AFs because I can get sharp images 99% of the time. I'd like to have that variable close to perfection.

I'd use AFc when I can go wide and have a sufficient depth of field for my standards in run and gun where my eyes cannot be in the EVF all the time, shooting from hip, overhead, running with the subject, etc Usually I couple that with face detect.

If the lighting is extremely strong and shadows distinct, I will risk using AFc for critical moments such as a wedding entrance of the bride.

That said, I usually set my focus to the joystick and tap on the zoom in to check on the focus as a prelude to the moment.

Lastly, I like to set image preview to shutter pressed to catch the images as they are shot.

I agree with Gordon, the SL2 is an excellent event camera.

And yes the AFc isn't as good as other brands in many situations, even my Canon 12 year old 1DmkIII was better at candle light at AFc. So I came from a camera that gave me 95-99% focus accuracy to the SL which is about 70-80%  hit rate. The images are what counted. So I change my habits. Trained up to the edge of the SL's limitations. Pull whatever tricks I could to get sharp images.

The SL2 is better. The original SL of mine delivers 99.9% sharp images with face detect with the 90f2 at f4.0 - f4.5 in studio portraiture so it stays relevant despite its poorer performance.

And don't jiggle the camera when shooting, keep it stable when you shoot, you will shave precious computational AF time. Lock down your stance.

Keep working on it, it's worth the sweat to know your camera better.

I'll definitely spend some more time with it.  Perhaps using AFs with face detect for when I need it would be helpful - although I'm not sure if using point focus on the eye would yield better results.  

I went through the manual and didn't see something, so I thought I would ask.  If in AFs and using face detect, if there are multiple people in the frame I remembered seeing in a review that the joystick could be used to toggle between which face to lock onto.  I typically use the joystick for AF lock (BBF), keeping the camera in MF mode.  Would enabling touch AF be more advantageous in that situation, or would moving focus lock back to the half-press of the shutter and using the joystick to be better in situations where I'm trying to focus on one subject in a group?  

Edited December 5, 2020 by Dr. G

[FlashGordonPhotography]

11 hours ago, Dr. G said:

I'll definitely spend some more time with it.  Perhaps using AFs with face detect for when I need it would be helpful - although I'm not sure if using point focus on the eye would yield better results.  

I went through the manual and didn't see something, so I thought I would ask.  If in AFs and using face detect, if there are multiple people in the frame I remembered seeing in a review that the joystick could be used to toggle between which face to lock onto.  I typically use the joystick for AF lock (BBF), keeping the camera in MF mode.  Would enabling touch AF be more advantageous in that situation, or would moving focus lock back to the half-press of the shutter and using the joystick to be better in situations where I'm trying to focus on one subject in a group?  

I can't advise what's better for you. Only what I do in events and receptions. I often use BBF in normal shooting but not in a reception. I have a preset that sets AF to the shutter, Medium area AF with face detect on. The camera shows the faces it detects. I can choose between them with the joystick. *If* I press the joystick it turns off face detect and goes to medium sized area focus and I can now use the joystick to move the focus box around. Push the joystick again and face detect is back on. Usually I kind of know where I want the subject in the frame so I have the focus box there, ready to go. And then I bounce between that and face detect all night. I find the AFS fast and sensitive enough I can just mash the shutter and capture moments and expressions pretty quickly. If there's a particularly animate person I my switch on the drive and take a short burst.

I don't know if this is the best way but it's worked for me so far.

Gordon

[Michael Markey]

On 12/5/2020 at 4:30 AM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Do you know whether that includes the TL/CL as well?

Gordon

This is an interesting thread .

 I`m trying to establish a baseline in my own mind as regards the AF effectiveness in the SL .

I wouldn`t expect it to be on par with my Sony body but is it as effective as my CL ?

Michael

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 hours ago, Michael Markey said:

This is an interesting thread .

 I`m trying to establish a baseline in my own mind as regards the AF effectiveness in the SL .

I wouldn`t expect it to be on par with my Sony body but is it as effective as my CL ?

Michael

Oh yes. Much better. In AFS and great light it's similar(ish) but as the light levels drop it's superior. CL is close(ish) to the original SL but not the SL2. AFC is vastly better on the SL2 but not close to a Sony.

With the larger SL2 lenses there are some variation as well. The Summicrons are pretty good. The 24-90 is very fast. As is the 16-35 and Sigma 14-24. The 50 Summilux has to move a lot of glass and is noticeably slower but still reasonable. A bit better than the old Canon 85LII and better than the CL 60mm macro though. For the same reason the 90-280 focuses a hair slower than the Sigma 100-400. Some of the adapted Sigma Art lenses are slow but the newer native lenses are very quick.

Gordon

[Michael Markey]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Oh yes. Much better. In AFS and great light it's similar(ish) but as the light levels drop it's superior. CL is close(ish) to the original SL but not the SL2. AFC is vastly better on the SL2 but not close to a Sony.

With the larger SL2 lenses there are some variation as well. The Summicrons are pretty good. The 24-90 is very fast. As is the 16-35 and Sigma 14-24. The 50 Summilux has to move a lot of glass and is noticeably slower but still reasonable. A bit better than the old Canon 85LII and better than the CL 60mm macro though. For the same reason the 90-280 focuses a hair slower than the Sigma 100-400. Some of the adapted Sigma Art lenses are slow but the newer native lenses are very quick.

Gordon

Thank you .

That puts it into context for me .

Actually I have a copy of the old Canon 85 II so I can equate to that too.

The fastest things I shoot is horses going cross country and for about eight years I managed with my M3DS .

Anything faster is a bonus 

 

Very useful .

 

Michael

Edited December 6, 2020 by Michael Markey

[AKorenc]

On 12/2/2020 at 2:16 AM, sillbeers15 said:

I just witness a fellow amateur photographer I met over tracking BIF. He was using Nikon D850, his shots over the subject were completely out of focus. I however got my shots with the Good for nothing (AFC) SL2. In his disappointment, he was checking out my gear and said, if only I had gotten your camera and I would have gotten my shots!

a) science fiction
b) utter nonsense
c) your fellow doesn't have even the slightest idea of operating AF on D850

Your choice.

Edited December 6, 2020 by AKorenc

[lx1713]

23 hours ago, Dr. G said:

I'll definitely spend some more time with it.  Perhaps using AFs with face detect for when I need it would be helpful - although I'm not sure if using point focus on the eye would yield better results.  

I went through the manual and didn't see something, so I thought I would ask.  If in AFs and using face detect, if there are multiple people in the frame I remembered seeing in a review that the joystick could be used to toggle between which face to lock onto.  I typically use the joystick for AF lock (BBF), keeping the camera in MF mode.  Would enabling touch AF be more advantageous in that situation, or would moving focus lock back to the half-press of the shutter and using the joystick to be better in situations where I'm trying to focus on one subject in a group?  

I generally stay in BBF (AFs) in manual mode. My events tend to throw up unusual lighting and circumstances, so I'm in what I consider the safest baseline to work from. 

I will venture from this when general shooting conditions change to a steady state where its safe to go to different modes but usually when the pace is slower. So AFc when things are constantly moving back and forth. Focus mode to "Field" rather than tracking (is a recommendation I glean from one of Leica talks) but I haven't really hone my hand eye coordination to my satisfaction. Silbeers is the man to glean AFc info from.

When things get frantic, I usually cheat by pulling out the 11-23 and just close in on the action. And set focus manually via the top lcd display. The depth of field takes the work out of automatic focusing but check occasionally because it does run off out of the displayed range. If the camera is taking 2-3 seconds to focus, I usually dump AF and close in.

The SL cameras are built really solid so that rigidity translates to pretty good AF performance. You can test it out. Use a solid tripod with very little give and pair it with good ballhead like the RRS BH55 and shoot some fast moving subject, follow focusing it. Your hit rate will be substantially better.

[jplomley]

Why is the image blurry in the EVF with iAF or AFc on the SL2. I find it extremely annoying, almost a dizzying effect. 

[hillavoider]

19 minutes ago, jplomley said:

Why is the image blurry in the EVF with iAF or AFc on the SL2. I find it extremely annoying, almost a dizzying effect. 

yeah its annoying, its the contrast detect AF system constantly flicking to stay in focus - well thats my very scientific explanation 

[sillbeers15]

1 hour ago, hillavoider said:

yeah its annoying, its the contrast detect AF system constantly flicking to stay in focus - well thats my very scientific explanation 

I’ve gotten to live with the slight glitch of the camera as it does not affect the final image. Besides if you’re using a dot sight device to catch the fast moving subjects, it does not matter at all.

[sillbeers15]

In my experience of chasing after BIF, using zone focus mode is easier to lock on AFC tracking onto subject against the clear sky. However doing the same with a background full of bushes and a brown bird as subject makes the zone focus almost redundant and best bet falls back to tracking mode. Anyway biggest challenge isn’t with camera’s AFC but keeping the subject within frame.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

8 hours ago, jplomley said:

Why is the image blurry in the EVF with iAF or AFc on the SL2. I find it extremely annoying, almost a dizzying effect. 

That's the DFD in operation. I too find the *flutter* very annoying. The results are better than you might expect from what you see in the VF though. It's the system constantly defocusing to find what direction it needs to move. Something PDAF doesn't suffer from.

Gordon