Would you buy an EVF only camera with an M mount?

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, raizans said:

Leica is developing their EVF and focusing technology, but they clearly have more work to do. You might be feeling frustrated, but the last time people were extremely pessimistic about Leica technology (full frame M), things turned out well and all of that pessimism was for nothing.

BTW, if you have the time to focus wides in the RF, then switch to the EVF for composition, you’d have the time to magnify the view in an EVF, then zoom out to compose. It’s not as fast and seamless as peaking might be if they added a mid setting, but it looks like it would still fit your work style.

If you're replying to me, as I said, I'm perfectly happy with the OVF/EVF implementation on the M.  Could it be better, sure, but from an overall VF standpoint, no other FF camera can do what the M can. All the advantages of WYSIWYG and the ability to view the scene through glass at the same time. 

As for speed, again, I have many, many years of experience with this in a variety of scenarios from doing landscapes to concerts to protests. You can operate at speed using dual finders, it simply takes practice and good technique.  It takes almost no time to switch VFs.  The M11 is even better as the EVF is lower profile than either of the previous Visoflexes.  One can rapidly focus with the RF, faster than with an EVF in my view, and simply shoot -or- switch to the EVF, which if you have auto zooming set as I do, is already zoomed for focus confirmation if needed, a simple half press dismisses the zoom, a quick check of frame and fire at will.  No need for peaking whatsoever in the context of the M, which is why you rarely hear anyone complain about it despite how poor the implementation is.  All told, added a second at most. In more fluid situations, if you anticipate, no problem at all to use the EVF and come away successful. Otherwise,  just choose a spot, prefocus, wait for your subject and shoot via either VF. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Planetwide]

15 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Not really.

The suggestion is you focus wide open using the EVF, wherever your focus point is - you use focus peaking, magnification, whatever is your preferred option.  The point is, you set the focus on your lens with the aperture wide open.  This gives you the thinnest of depth of field, and therefore the plane of best focus.  You leave the focus setting where it is, and you then stop down to your preferred aperture and take the shot.  The theory is that even though you’ve stopped down, the plane of best focus has remained where you set it.

Why do this?  Because many people want to know that the core part of their subject is in the best focus it can be in, rather than relying on depth of field.  With the EVF, you don’t know where the best plane of focus is, unless you first focus wide open; unlike the optical rangefinder which gives you the best plane of focus in the centre of the viewfinder, regardless of your aperture.

The problem with this approach?  (1) two steps, which frankly is impractical for me, if not most, and (2) if your lens has focus shift, then you place of best focus moves when you stop down.

Before EVF, we had lots of talk here about whether your lens should be optimised for wide open or stopped down, etc etc.  The point being that focus shift was a problem with digital sensors.  Your rangefinder would give you the best plane of focus regardless of aperture, but if the lens suffered from focus shift, it was a problem.  So, people with problematic lenses (35 Summilux-M ASPH and the f/1 Noctilux) got them optimised wide open, and then didn’t use them between wide open and somewhere around f/8.

With the EVF, focus shift isn’t a problem, provided you don’t follow LCT’s grandpa, and focus at anything other that the aperture you’re going to shoot at.

Well, I disagree. On an RF, your lens, with focus shift, can only be optimized for the RF focussing patch at one aperture. If it is wide open, the RF is inaccurate stopped down. If is optimized for a higher aperture, it will miss stopped down. By its very nature, this is a limitation for RF focussing. With an EVF you can zoom at any aperture to confirm focus, it is inherently more accurate. The parallax associated with an RF can become a limitation at very wide apertures on lenses such as a Noctilux. The mechanical nature of this setup requires frequent adjustment just to be accurate with such a lens. I have owned M's and Noctilux's, trust me I know.

The thing is, if an RF floats your boat, then that's great for you. At no point has anyone suggested dumping the RF M mount camera, only adding another EVF based M mount body. The engineering is essentially done, use the M mount body and add a SL2 EVF and software and bingo you have a low cost (development wise) EVF Camera. The flexibility of an EVF M camera would probably be welcomed by most RF users as a second body for shooting wides, low light, R lenses and for people with eyesight limitations etc... I see it as a win for Leica and users.

[pop]

16 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

Well, I disagree. On an RF, your lens, with focus shift, can only be optimized for the RF focussing patch at one aperture. If it is wide open, the RF is inaccurate stopped down. If is optimized for a higher aperture, it will miss stopped down. By its very nature, this is a limitation for RF focussing. With an EVF you can zoom at any aperture to confirm focus, it is inherently more accurate. The parallax associated with an RF can become a limitation at very wide apertures on lenses such as a Noctilux. The mechanical nature of this setup requires frequent adjustment just to be accurate with such a lens. I have owned M's and Noctilux's, trust me I know.

The thing is, if an RF floats your boat, then that's great for you. At no point has anyone suggested dumping the RF M mount camera, only adding another EVF based M mount body. The engineering is essentially done, use the M mount body and add a SL2 EVF and software and bingo you have a low cost (development wise) EVF Camera. The flexibility of an EVF M camera would probably be welcomed by most RF users as a second body for shooting wides, low light, R lenses and for people with eyesight limitations etc... I see it as a win for Leica and users.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I think the reasoning is flawed.

Typically, people buy M lenses for using them with rangefinder cameras. Being able to use those lenses with other cameras is a welcome addition but not a first consideration, usually.

Given that lenses with focus shift are not a modern invention, most users of RF cameras have found their ways of coping with those lenses, such as:

1. avoid those lenses altogether; there are so many M mount lenses that you almost certainly will find one which does what you want
2. use the lens only for assignments where the characteristics of the lens are at least adequate:
   1. where you will use at one (or two) discrete aperture settings, such that it focuses where the RF says it should
   2. where the focus shift will be hidden by the depth of field
3. learn to compensate for the focus shift; while I myself can't do that, I realise that there are photographers who can. Hats off.
4. declare proper focusing to be a bourgeois concept or some such.

Obviously, rangefinder viefinders have their limitations, as have electronic viewfinders or video displays or groundglass screens, for that matter. Fortunately, they complement each other in parts.

In my eyes, the EVF can beat the RF in some aspects:

1. Perspective and framing in the image are exactly as seen in the viewfinder.
2. You may be able to see the image in the viewfinder where it's too dark to see much in the rangefinder.
3. You can (in theory) use the viewfinder off-camera, enabling you to aim where you can not possible peer into the camera.

Focusing with an EVF may be more accurate, faster or more convenient than using the RF in a rather narrow set of circumstances, mostly in stationary use on a tripod or copy stand.

• With longish focal lengths and largish apertures you can visually check for proper focusing without any assistance
• Focus peaking is useful when focus does not much matter or when the subject lets you judge where the middle of the indicated range lies
• Zooming in is mostly useful for stationary use as strong magnifications will be difficult to use on account of camera shake; weak magnifications will be no great help by definition. Focusing by zoom relies on the user having very good eyesight to the extent that he or she can tell where exactly the plane of sharpness lies.
• TTL focusing with a stopped down lens may be quite difficult. Focusing wide open and stopping down for the exposure defeats the purpose.

I observe that the RF is far more accurate and far more convenient for most of my photography. I also observe that I can operate the RF even with the wrong glasses on. The images snap into coincidence so clearly that I can see that even with my blurred vision. That's in marked contrast to focusing with an EVF (without focus peaking) where I have to judge the sharpness of the image.

I did not mention some artefacts of the EVF such as latency and poor optical eyepieces which used to hinder their use still more, because those are now much better than they used to be. I also merely mention that looking at a lit screen in a darkish environment is often not that pleasant or useful, either.

So. There are situations where I choose the EVF because it's the better tool for the purpose. Whenever I can, I use the RF which is for me technically and ergonomically much superior.

 

 

 

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, Planetwide said:

Well, I disagree. On an RF, your lens, with focus shift, can only be optimized for the RF focussing patch at one aperture. If it is wide open, the RF is inaccurate stopped down. If is optimized for a higher aperture, it will miss stopped down. By its very nature, this is a limitation for RF focussing. With an EVF you can zoom at any aperture to confirm focus, it is inherently more accurate. The parallax associated with an RF can become a limitation at very wide apertures on lenses such as a Noctilux. The mechanical nature of this setup requires frequent adjustment just to be accurate with such a lens. I have owned M's and Noctilux's, trust me I know.

The thing is, if an RF floats your boat, then that's great for you. At no point has anyone suggested dumping the RF M mount camera, only adding another EVF based M mount body. The engineering is essentially done, use the M mount body and add a SL2 EVF and software and bingo you have a low cost (development wise) EVF Camera. The flexibility of an EVF M camera would probably be welcomed by most RF users as a second body for shooting wides, low light, R lenses and for people with eyesight limitations etc... I see it as a win for Leica and users.

Apart from you comment about “frequent adjustment” (I have owned 6 M cameras, and I currently own 3 and the 50 Noctilux 0.95 and 75 Summilux), I agree with everything you say.  Not sure where “disagreement” is.  My post was simply to clarify what @tashley had posted.  His posts are worth reading, as are his reviews (though he stopped them some time ago).

I like the RF, but I fully understand its limitations.  When the M(240) was released with a CMOS sensor, there were a number of long debates about an EVF based M, which I did fuel a bit … 🙄  Now, I’m a bit more on the fence.  I don’t have any lenses with significant focus shift and my M cameras have never gone out of calibration - so, precise focus with the RF isn’t an issue for me, even with the 75 Summilux.  But, the RF fails in a number of areas - focus accuracy declines with increased focal length, framing is vague, focus is limited to the central patch (focus and recompose is too hit and miss with fast lenses, where focus is important), and I can’t use the RF with my macro adapter.  However, the RF is fast and accurate with the lenses I have (21mm to 75mm).

I have and use the TL2 with EVF, the M10-D with EVF and the SL, so I have extensive experience with EVFs.  I dislike having two viewfinders on the camera.  I know that the M has always had various add-ons, but I prefer the camera at its simplest and most elegant.  I also hate having the external EVF catch in my bag, and I’ve lost an EVF and a Leica 21mm optical viewfinder in the past (neither is cheap).  EVFs are great for accurate framing, exposure simulation, focusing just with the EVF and magnified is great and I never focus wide open then stop down, but … focusing with wides is not great* and no EVF is as fast as the RF in experienced hands.

Would I like an MEVF?  Sure.  I think it’s inevitable that Leica will release one, and it will only widen the appeal of the M system and M lens sales.  I suspect you were disagreeing with someone else.

*Edit - here’s an example of what I’m talking about, if you wish to try it - put a lens like the 28 Summaron-M onto a camera with an EVF; any camera will do; now try to establish exact focus with the EVF.  Focus peaking is just not accurate enough, and even magnification gives no clear idea where the best plane of focus is.   I use my Summaron on my TL2 because it will fit into the back pocket of my cycling jersey - 42mm equivalent field of view.  But, forget about accurate focus - I generally rely on depth of field, which is fine - wide open, it’s f/5.6 so there isn’t much bokeh on offer!

Edited March 15, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[Planetwide]

8 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Apart from you comment about “frequent adjustment” (I have owned 6 M cameras, and I currently own 3 and the 50 Noctilux 0.95 and 75 Summilux), I agree with everything you say.  Not sure where “disagreement” is.  My post was simply to clarify what @tashley had posted.  His posts are worth reading, as are his reviews (though he stopped them some time ago).

I like the RF, but I fully understand its limitations.  When the M(240) was released with a CMOS sensor, there were a number of long debates about an EVF based M, which I did fuel a bit … 🙄  Now, I’m a bit more on the fence.  I don’t have any lenses with significant focus shift and my M cameras have never gone out of calibration - so, precise focus with the RF isn’t an issue for me, even with the 75 Summilux.  But, the RF fails in a number of areas - focus accuracy declines with increased focal length, framing is vague, focus is limited to the central patch (focus and recompose is too hit and miss with fast lenses, where focus is important), and I can’t use the RF with my macro adapter.  However, the RF is fast and accurate with the lenses I have (21mm to 75mm).

I have and use the TL2 with EVF, the M10-D with EVF and the SL, so I have extensive experience with EVFs.  I dislike having two viewfinders on the camera.  I know that the M has always had various add-ons, but I prefer the camera at its simplest and most elegant.  I also hate having the external EVF catch in my bag, and I’ve lost an EVF and a Leica 21mm optical viewfinder in the past (neither is cheap).  EVFs are great for accurate framing, exposure simulation, focusing just with the EVF and magnified is great and I never focus wide open then stop down, but … focusing with wides is not great and no EVF is as fast as the RF in experienced hands.

Would I like an MEVF?  Sure.  I think it’s inevitable that Leica will release one, and it will only widen the appeal of the M system and M lens sales.  I suspect you were disagreeing with someone else.

I agree with most of your post, and for the same reasons. The problem with RF for me, and I emphasize "for me", is that with moving subjects it was just to inaccurate shooting fast glass wide open. I have found that, with an EVF, I can track the subject far more accurately. I am sure that we have members here that are equally adept at this using an RF, but it was just not for me. I love the M glass, with many being my favorite lenses, and I shall wait patiently for the Mevf - if it ever happens.

[pgk]

How did we ever get decent in-focus images back in the days before EVFs were a twinlke in an electronic engineer's eye? As the M has morphed into the equivalent of a medium format camera, new ways of ensuring optimal results seem to be needed, because its original desinf was never intended to fulfill the role of a medium format camera. The problem is that its not the only camera to be producing medium format results and the competition is much cheaper and their electronically integrated lenses are capable of extraordinarily good results. Just as the visoflex ultimately failed to compete with SLRs, an M-EVF will finally simply show up the flaws of an adapted system relative to an integrated-design system. This debate will rumble on and Leica seem to be going down the usual route they have taken in trying to compete instead of maintaining a different approache to othem makers. Withing its original design parameters the M is an extraordinaryily competent camera, still has excellent wide-angle focus capabilities and has petite jewels for lenses. trying to modify it into an EVF camera is not going to end happily I fear.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pgk said:

trying to modify it into an EVF camera is not going to end happily I fear

Nobody's suggesting such modification. Again, adding an EVF-M into the M system is just that, addition. The same way as adding a monochrome camera was just that. I said it already perhaps? Sorry for those repetitions...

Edited March 15, 2022 by lct

[Planetwide]

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Apart from you comment about “frequent adjustment” (I have owned 6 M cameras, and I currently own 3 and the 50 Noctilux 0.95 and 75 Summilux), I agree with everything you say.  Not sure where “disagreement” is.  My post was simply to clarify what @tashley had posted.  His posts are worth reading, as are his reviews (though he stopped them some time ago).

I like the RF, but I fully understand its limitations.  When the M(240) was released with a CMOS sensor, there were a number of long debates about an EVF based M, which I did fuel a bit … 🙄  Now, I’m a bit more on the fence.  I don’t have any lenses with significant focus shift and my M cameras have never gone out of calibration - so, precise focus with the RF isn’t an issue for me, even with the 75 Summilux.  But, the RF fails in a number of areas - focus accuracy declines with increased focal length, framing is vague, focus is limited to the central patch (focus and recompose is too hit and miss with fast lenses, where focus is important), and I can’t use the RF with my macro adapter.  However, the RF is fast and accurate with the lenses I have (21mm to 75mm).

I have and use the TL2 with EVF, the M10-D with EVF and the SL, so I have extensive experience with EVFs.  I dislike having two viewfinders on the camera.  I know that the M has always had various add-ons, but I prefer the camera at its simplest and most elegant.  I also hate having the external EVF catch in my bag, and I’ve lost an EVF and a Leica 21mm optical viewfinder in the past (neither is cheap).  EVFs are great for accurate framing, exposure simulation, focusing just with the EVF and magnified is great and I never focus wide open then stop down, but … focusing with wides is not great* and no EVF is as fast as the RF in experienced hands.

Would I like an MEVF?  Sure.  I think it’s inevitable that Leica will release one, and it will only widen the appeal of the M system and M lens sales.  I suspect you were disagreeing with someone else.

*Edit - here’s an example of what I’m talking about, if you wish to try it - put a lens like the 28 Summaron-M onto a camera with an EVF; any camera will do; now try to establish exact focus with the EVF.  Focus peaking is just not accurate enough, and even magnification gives no clear idea where the best plane of focus is.   I use my Summaron on my TL2 because it will fit into the back pocket of my cycling jersey - 42mm equivalent field of view.  But, forget about accurate focus - I generally rely on depth of field, which is fine - wide open, it’s f/5.6 so there isn’t much bokeh on offer!

I see your edit: Again, accurate focus with an EVF is no problem. Thousands and thousands of people are using it for stills & video. If you are having an issue, then perhaps you need to examine your methodology. I have no issues accurately focusing an EVF with M glass wide open or stopped down period.

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

How did we ever get decent in-focus images back in the days before EVFs were a twinlke in an electronic engineer's eye? As the M has morphed into the equivalent of a medium format camera, new ways of ensuring optimal results seem to be needed, because its original desinf was never intended to fulfill the role of a medium format camera. The problem is that its not the only camera to be producing medium format results and the competition is much cheaper and their electronically integrated lenses are capable of extraordinarily good results. Just as the visoflex ultimately failed to compete with SLRs, an M-EVF will finally simply show up the flaws of an adapted system relative to an integrated-design system. This debate will rumble on and Leica seem to be going down the usual route they have taken in trying to compete instead of maintaining a different approache to othem makers. Withing its original design parameters the M is an extraordinaryily competent camera, still has excellent wide-angle focus capabilities and has petite jewels for lenses. trying to modify it into an EVF camera is not going to end happily I fear.

I agree with LCT on this.

Way too much of the discussion of this over the last 10(?) years has been on the premise that changing the rangefinder for an EVF will  open Pandora’s Box, and be the death knell for the M cameras as we know them.  I think this rather misses the point - (1) the single biggest advantage of the M system is not the rangefinder, it’s the lenses (compact, of the highest quality Leica can manage, and they’re manual focus with no electronic connection to the camera), and there are coming on for 70 years of them; (2) adding an electronic viewfinder variant will not stop it from being an M camera in every other respect (M means manual, modest, Muppet … take your pick).

Ultimately, Leica will keep making the optical rangefinder based M camera.  Adding a variant will sell more cameras, and more lenses, and if they stick to their knitting, and keep it an M camera in all but the EVF, it will expand the system without impacting on the L mount cameras.  Then again, if they have an M(240) moment, and get lost on possibilities (L Mount with adapters), the camera will be doomed.  

As you say, Paul, the M works because it has a very clear paradigm.  You say it’s the optical rangefinder, I think it’s the M mount (flawed as it might be) and the lenses, with an otherwise totally manual interface.  If it didn’t have an LCD, I might be tempted …

[IkarusJohn]

24 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

I see your edit: Again, accurate focus with an EVF is no problem. Thousands and thousands of people are using it for stills & video. If you are having an issue, then perhaps you need to examine your methodology. I have no issues accurately focusing an EVF with M glass wide open or stopped down period.

Why do we seem to be posting at cross purposes?  I don’t have any problem at all focusing with an EVF.  My edit was to invite you to experience finding the best plane of focus with a slow wide using an EVF.  It’s a breeze with the optical rangefinder.  The answer, which I’m sure you will agree with (unless you’re looking for disagreement), is to let go the fallacy of perfect focus, and to accept that chasing the best plane of focus is like chasing windmills.

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Why do we seem to be posting at cross purposes?  I don’t have any problem at all focusing with an EVF.  My edit was to invite you to experience finding the best plane of focus with a slow wide using an EVF.  It’s a breeze with the optical rangefinder.  The answer, which I’m sure you will agree with (unless you’re looking for disagreement), is to let go the fallacy of perfect focus, and to accept that chasing the best plane of focus is like chasing windmills.

+ letting go of chasing infinite DOF for landscapes.

High magnification on-screen viewing is the shared illness.

[Planetwide]

15 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I agree with LCT on this.

Way too much of the discussion of this over the last 10(?) years has been on the premise that changing the rangefinder for an EVF will  open Pandora’s Box, and be the death knell for the M cameras as we know them.  I think this rather misses the point - (1) the single biggest advantage of the M system is not the rangefinder, it’s the lenses (compact, of the highest quality Leica can manage, and they’re manual focus with no electronic connection to the camera), and there are coming on for 70 years of them; (2) adding an electronic viewfinder variant will not stop it from being an M camera in every other respect (M means manual, modest, Muppet … take your pick).

Ultimately, Leica will keep making the optical rangefinder based M camera.  Adding a variant will sell more cameras, and more lenses, and if they stick to their knitting, and keep it an M camera in all but the EVF, it will expand the system without impacting on the L mount cameras.  Then again, if they have an M(240) moment, and get lost on possibilities (L Mount with adapters), the camera will be doomed.  

As you say, Paul, the M works because it has a very clear paradigm.  You say it’s the optical rangefinder, I think it’s the M mount (flawed as it might be) and the lenses, with an otherwise totally manual interface.  If it didn’t have an LCD, I might be tempted …

100% agree. Just an FYI for those that may not be aware, the SL2 has three settings for peaking - off, low & high.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Planetwide

[lct]

4 hours ago, Planetwide said:

100% agree. Just an FYI for those that may not be aware, the SL2 has three settings for peaking - off, low & high.

Makes 4 settings including "on" then . Just kidding. The err... modern SL2 has only 2 FP levels, low and high, vs 3 for my 7 years old plastic camera, low, medium and high. The Real Leica Man claims that FP is not necessary on Leica bodies though. You just have to aim at your subject, open your lens at the widest aperture, focus, then choose your working aperture, recompose and... oops your subject is gone... Just kidding again .

[Tailwagger]

On 3/15/2022 at 3:51 PM, Planetwide said:

On an RF, your lens, with focus shift, can only be optimized for the RF focussing patch at one aperture. If it is wide open, the RF is inaccurate stopped down. If is optimized for a higher aperture, it will miss stopped down. By its very nature, this is a limitation for RF focussing.

Perhaps I've just been living in a hole for too long as I don't pay much attention to whats going on with other manufacturers so correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK every MILC/DSLR on the market employs auto aperture. Focus is achieved with the lens wide open and stopped down when the shutter is pressed. From a focus shift perspective, what's the diff whether it's done independent of the lens via an RF,  by hand when using an EVF or automatically by CaNiFuSons? It's a universal issue, which in practice is only encounter in specific scenarios. 

[lct]

It's just that the focus patch is fixed on a rangefinder so one has to recompose each time the subject matter is not at the centre of the frame. Same issue when the focus point cannot move in old or outdated EVFs. But even in those old EVFs, focus peaking is not fixed at the centre of the frame.

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Perhaps I've just been living in a hole for too long as I don't pay much attention to whats going on with other manufacturers so correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK every MILC/DSLR on the market employs auto aperture. Focus is achieved with the lens wide open and stopped down when the shutter is pressed. From a focus shift perspective, what's the diff whether it's done independent of the lens via an RF,  by hand when using an EVF or automatically by CaNiFuSons? It's a universal issue, which in practice is only encounter in specific scenarios. 

Yes, the M camera is alone in this - the TL2 and SL both have auto-stop down, so there is no refocusing after you've pressed the shutter.  The only cameras that I'm aware of that  focuses at the operating aperture (rather than wide open, then stopped down - what we used to call auto-aperture) are those using M lenses (M with an EVF, CL/TL2 & SL).

[Tailwagger]

5 hours ago, lct said:

It's just that the focus patch is fixed on a rangefinder so one has to recompose each time the subject matter is not at the centre of the frame. 

Or pick an alternate target on the same plane.  But sure, that's been a limitation since the inception of the rangefinder. It's a fundamental limitation of focus/recompose whenever it's used, be it RF, SLR or mirrorless. 

Inaccuracies that result from focus/recompose aren't what I'd term focus shift. Focus shift, as I understand it, is the movement of the central plane when one alters aperture after focusing which results in the target going soft. If you use the M's EVF by moving the focus pointer, focusing on the selected point while wide open followed by stopping down, all you're doing is manually mimicking the dance that pretty much every AF camera has done since the dawn of autofocus. So I'm struggling to understand how focus shift is any more of an issue on the M than it is as a part of normal everyday operation for any AF camera you care to name. Color me confused. 🤔

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Focus shift, as I understand it, is the movement of the central plane when one alters aperture after focusing which results in the target going soft.

Sort of. Focus shift moves the plane of focus as the aperture changes and only really matters if its not covered by depth of field sufficiently and shows. So its really only noticable at wider apertures and at relatively close focus.

Most modern lenses use physical, optical correction to deal with both focus shift and performance issues at relatively close focus and have done so for decades. The M was an exception but most Leica lenses now do the same. Some obsolete M lenses don't though and focus shift may* be a problem when using a rangefinder which cannot compensate for focus shift at the working aperture. So using an EVF will require the lens to be at its working aperture when the conditions which result in focus shift are in place. The rest of the time either full aperture followed by stop down or working aperture can be used. But its a problem not encountered on other systems. As is being discussed, the problem of using an EVF at working aperture is how to specify the precise point of focus accurately enough.

* Depending on your type of photography. In practice it may not be an issue.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

But its a problem not encountered on other systems.

??? 

Sony: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4250896

Canon: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4590045

Fuji: https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/dealing-with-focus-shift-with-native-lenses-on-the-fuji-gfx/

Pentax: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/focus-shift---can-live-view-focus-stopped-down--62840

11 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

It's a universal issue, which in practice is only encounter in specific scenarios. 

Which was short hand for a specific lens, generally, but not exclusively, at close range. 

 

[pgk]

2 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

??? 

Sony: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4250896

Canon: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4590045

Fuji: https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/dealing-with-focus-shift-with-native-lenses-on-the-fuji-gfx/

Pentax: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/focus-shift---can-live-view-focus-stopped-down--62840

Which was short hand for a specific lens, generally, but not exclusively, at close range. 

The thing is that it shouldn't be a problem but if it is there is the potential (or in some instances correction may be in place already for all we know) for software correction with electronically integrated lenses which relay data to the camera .....