Switching from Q to M

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, evikne said:

How is the Q's EVF compared to SL? I haven't tried any of them, but I can imagine manual focus with an SL is a dream.

They are both good. The difference with the SL of course being that you can use all the M glass as well as the SL glass. I’m actually out shooting right now with a 50 Lux M - just shot into the sun wide open to get some flare and I was able to see exactly where the flare would be placed in the image. Try that on an M.

[Advertisement]

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

[dpitt]

1 hour ago, trickness said:

And I guarantee you that the M will not focus more accurately. Because you aren’t actually seeing a in focus image through the viewfinder, unless you lineup the two images. Which is nowhere near as fast as seeing the actual image in focus as you turn the focus ring on an EVF camera

And I guarantee you that I can focus a 28mm or 35mm almost perfectly before I raise it to my eye (by estimating the distance and finger position of the tab with tabbed lenses). Try to do this with an EVF and non tabbed lens 🙂
The RF is very hard to beat in MF speed, It is much faster to line up a vertical line or map an image compared to use magnification to focus... Even split screen reflex finders which I consider in second place to the RF patch are slower. And third of them all is the focus with magnification x6 or x10. Focus peaking is not accurate enough for critical focus in my experience. Mind you, I do not have a Q. I just refer to MF with the SL, which also has a very good EVF.
YMMV of course.

EVF will make much more sense with tele lenses (>135mm), but that is not what we are discussing here. The Q only has 28mm FL to deal with.

[trickness]

2 minutes ago, dpitt said:

And I guarantee you that I can focus a 28mm or 35mm almost perfectly before I raise it to my eye (by estimating the distance and finger position of the tab with tabbed lenses). Try to do this with an EVF and non tabbed lens 🙂
The RF is very hard to beat in MF speed, It is much faster to line up a vertical line or map an image compared to use magnification to focus... Even split screen reflex finders which I consider in second place to the RF patch are slower. And third of them all is the focus with magnification x6 or x10. Focus peaking is not accurate enough for critical focus in my experience. Mind you, I do not have a Q. I just refer to MF with the SL, which also has a very good EVF.
YMMV of course.

EVF will make much more sense with tele lenses (>135mm), but that is not what we are discussing here. The Q only has 28mm FL to deal with.

Perhaps you have developed M focusing skills that surpass what most garden variety users have. The fact remains that many people find focusing with a rangefinder to be challenging, and if you’re suggesting it’s an ideal tool to use for taking pictures of children, you’re in a very small club.

[T25UFO]

1 hour ago, trickness said:

Perhaps you have developed M focusing skills that surpass what most garden variety users have. The fact remains that many people find focusing with a rangefinder to be challenging, and if you’re suggesting it’s an ideal tool to use for taking pictures of children, you’re in a very small club.

Maybe, maybe not.  I remember watching an interview with Ragnar Axelsson where he described a similar technique.  I think the lens tab was positioned at 6 o’clock and that equated to a distance of 6 feet.  He used this for pre-focusing.  Maybe not absolutely perfect for pixel peeping but good enough for RAX.  I think he mainly uses SL cameras now but some of his best work has been with the M.

[trickness]

9 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

Maybe, maybe not.  I remember watching an interview with Ragnar Axelsson where he described a similar technique.  I think the lens tab was positioned at 6 o’clock and that equated to a distance of 6 feet.  He used this for pre-focusing.  Maybe not absolutely perfect for pixel peeping but good enough for RAX.  I think he mainly uses SL cameras now but some of his best work has been with the M.

I didn’t say that it couldn’t be done; I just said that it could be done a whole lot easier with a Q.

[Stevejack]

10 hours ago, trickness said:

Perhaps you have developed M focusing skills that surpass what most garden variety users have. The fact remains that many people find focusing with a rangefinder to be challenging, and if you’re suggesting it’s an ideal tool to use for taking pictures of children, you’re in a very small club.

I know I'm not the one you were responding to, but there is a reason why I might choose the rangefinder over a more capable camera.  When my kids were old enough to start running around I used a Sony A9, and the eye-AF never missed. I went to the A1 as soon as that was released and it's even better.   They can be sprinting towards me flat out and I will nail focus on the eye at f/1.4 every single time. The thing is, those kinds of shots get old very quickly.

The beauty of the rangefinder is that it did miss - the pictures were never perfectly in focus, but they looked more like photographs should look (to my eye). There should be chaos and fuzziness and imperfections when the action is fast, because that's what my brain expects that it should look like.

^ this was a huge realisation for me as a photographer, and I started focusing more on making pictures of the kids that expressed how a situation feels rather than capturing those scenes in a technically perfect way. When looking back at those photos I like that the brain has to fill in the blanks a little, it makes for a more engaging photograph overall I think.

Not necessarily an ideal tool for taking photos of kids, as you say, but definitely not a bad way to go.

[stindiri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think whatever you choose and keep shooting will be the one suiting you the most over time. 
 

I also believe using the M is a wonderful experience on one hand, but it has definitely a „dr. Oetker“ effect in it. Hence as you need to do the work of focusing with the RF, the end effect pleases you more - even when not perfectly in focus (you will find these same effects with IKEA furniture).

Nonetheless i would be really interested in - especially M11 users - how much % they use RF, zone and live view. So the M without considering the interchangeable lens topic makes IMO just sense if the RF focusing is used at least 40%. The other 2 modes i can do perfectly with the Q. 
 

In an ideal world i would just have both Q and M 😁

[evikne]

I bought myself a Leica M while I still had active kids because I wanted the rangefinder experience, not in spite of! I wanted to learn and get good at focusing, so instead of relying on zone focusing, I did the exact opposite and bought a Noctilux f/1 (!). I used this almost exclusively wide open for the first year, and I quickly learned techniques that worked.

I had a lot more fun taking these photos, and they are probably more valuable now in retrospect, than if a camera had done half the work for me.

[250swb]

I think nowadays you only buy an M to do the whole photographer thing, if manual focusing seems a hassle or changing lenses or even learning a bit about photography don't do it, it won't be fun. You can't do better than a snapshot camera for photographing the kids unless you are willing to be interested in the whole process, in which case an M could be the best choice. But beware and manage your expectations, far fewer people get along with a rangefinder camera than they do with DSLR's or mirrorless cameras, and cameras nowadays are so good you don't need a Leica camera or lens to get great photos. So owning an M requires some enthusiasm and putting up with the whole palaver and learning curve.

[evikne]

I saw some photos the other day taken with the M11 and 35 APO, some of the best and most expensive equipment Leica has to offer. The images were burnt out and suffered from banding because he had used a very small aperture to zone focus in a street at night. It's a bit sad when someone is not interested in learning how to use this great equipment properly. He would have been better served with a regular point and shoot camera.

Edited March 2, 2024 by evikne

[Smogg]

No camera in the world will give you the feelings that the Leica M can give. Only glass separates you from the subject, you see the real world, and not the footage that is obtained if you use an EVF. It’s as if you are preserving time itself. You see all the detail in the shadows, which is impossible even with the best EVF. Each camera certainly has its limitations, but in the case of the Leica M, these limitations work on your side, you take a more thoughtful approach to each frame

[dpitt]

14 hours ago, trickness said:

Perhaps you have developed M focusing skills that surpass what most garden variety users have. The fact remains that many people find focusing with a rangefinder to be challenging, and if you’re suggesting it’s an ideal tool to use for taking pictures of children, you’re in a very small club.

Because you said that you use MF with the Q, my statement is that you can focus manually better and faster with an M camera. The M is made for manual focus. The Q is not, it just allows you to do it if you really want to.

4 hours ago, Stevejack said:

I know I'm not the one you were responding to, but there is a reason why I might choose the rangefinder over a more capable camera.  When my kids were old enough to start running around I used a Sony A9, and the eye-AF never missed. I went to the A1 as soon as that was released and it's even better.   They can be sprinting towards me flat out and I will nail focus on the eye at f/1.4 every single time. The thing is, those kinds of shots get old very quickly.

The beauty of the rangefinder is that it did miss - the pictures were never perfectly in focus, but they looked more like photographs should look (to my eye). There should be chaos and fuzziness and imperfections when the action is fast, because that's what my brain expects that it should look like.

^ this was a huge realisation for me as a photographer, and I started focusing more on making pictures of the kids that expressed how a situation feels rather than capturing those scenes in a technically perfect way. When looking back at those photos I like that the brain has to fill in the blanks a little, it makes for a more engaging photograph overall I think.

Not necessarily an ideal tool for taking photos of kids, as you say, but definitely not a bad way to go.

That was my point. If you have a camera with perfect eye-AF focus in low light (indoors) then I rest my case. Nothing is faster and easier.

The M allows you to be more aware of hat happens outside of the frame. It will make you live the scene more because the VF sees it exactly as your eye does, not as a lens does. Also it triggers more of your photographic brain, you are forced to process the scene before you while thinking about focus and DOF and what your FL does...
All this makes it more enjoyable for me and it gives more satisfaction when you can nail it right... Maybe also more forgiving when it does not work out completely as intended, because it is your fault, nothing to do with some AI or AF mechanism failing on you.

Edited March 2, 2024 by dpitt

[trickness]

4 hours ago, Stevejack said:

I know I'm not the one you were responding to, but there is a reason why I might choose the rangefinder over a more capable camera.  When my kids were old enough to start running around I used a Sony A9, and the eye-AF never missed. I went to the A1 as soon as that was released and it's even better.   They can be sprinting towards me flat out and I will nail focus on the eye at f/1.4 every single time. The thing is, those kinds of shots get old very quickly.

The beauty of the rangefinder is that it did miss - the pictures were never perfectly in focus, but they looked more like photographs should look (to my eye). There should be chaos and fuzziness and imperfections when the action is fast, because that's what my brain expects that it should look like.

^ this was a huge realisation for me as a photographer, and I started focusing more on making pictures of the kids that expressed how a situation feels rather than capturing those scenes in a technically perfect way. When looking back at those photos I like that the brain has to fill in the blanks a little, it makes for a more engaging photograph overall I think.

Not necessarily an ideal tool for taking photos of kids, as you say, but definitely not a bad way to go.

Again, I didn’t recommend using AF, I said that riding the focus ring while looking through the EVF was very effective. Which can give exactly the kind of result you’re talking about.

[trickness]

20 minutes ago, dpitt said:

Because you said that you use MF with the Q, my statement is that you can focus manually better and faster with an M camera. The M is made for manual focus. The Q is not, it just allows you to do it if you really want to.

That was my point. If you have a camera with perfect eye-AF focus in low light (indoors) then I rest my case. Nothing is faster and easier.

The M allows you to be more aware of hat happens outside of the frame. It will make you live the scene more because the VF sees it exactly as your eye does, not as a lens does. Also it triggers more of your photographic brain, you are forced to process the scene before you while thinking about focus and DOF and what your FL does...
All this makes it more enjoyable for me and it gives more satisfaction when you can nail it right... Maybe also more forgiving when it does not work out completely as intended, because it is your fault, nothing to do with some AI or AF mechanism failing on you.

This response is a great example of selective listening.

Other than seeing outside the frame , there’s nothing you mention that can’t be done on a Q via the EVF. And for the unpteenth time, you don’t need to use AF. The manual focus is superb on the Q (as it is on the SL with M glass)

 

Edited March 2, 2024 by trickness

[dpitt]

21 minutes ago, trickness said:

This response is a great example of selective listening.

Other than seeing outside the frame , there’s nothing you mention that can’t be done on a Q via the EVF. And for the unpteenth time, you don’t need to use AF. The manual focus is superb on the Q (as it is on the SL with M glass)

 

Same can be said of you 🙂
Tell me... How do you use an M lens on SL? If you use it wide open, ok, your focus is quite good.
But try focusing a 35mm M lens set at F4.0 and you know what I mean.
Or try focusing your M lens at F11 with the SL... Of course this does not matter much with 35mm, but with 50mm or 90mm it does.

Edited March 2, 2024 by dpitt

[Smogg]

Moreover, it is worth adding that Q feels like a noticeably larger camera than M with a compact lens

[trickness]

1 hour ago, Smogg said:

No camera in the world will give you the feelings that the Leica M can give. Only glass separates you from the subject, you see the real world, and not the footage that is obtained if you use an EVF. It’s as if you are preserving time itself. You see all the detail in the shadows, which is impossible even with the best EVF. Each camera certainly has its limitations, but in the case of the Leica M, these limitations work on your side, you take a more thoughtful approach to each 

A photographer has to be thoughtful with every photograph, no matter what the tool. Saying that you have more intent when using a camera that does not show the exposure preview in the viewfinder or an accurate depiction of what will be in the frame is true - but to call it an inherent advantage is counterintuitive. But these beliefs are part of the religion (cult?) of the M. 
 

The M is a far better “happy accident” camera than anything EVF based. But that kind of contradicts the word “intent”. I think there’s far more intent in composing a frame where you know exactly what will be inside it, and exactly what the exposure will be before you press the shutter - because you actually see both of those things in an EVF viewfinder.

People very often speak here about how the M is so satisfying when they “nail it”. Obviously, if you use your tool frequently, you will have more ability with it than someone that does not. The intersection between intent and results on the M takes a lot more time to arrive at than on an EVF camera -which would logically translate to “rewarding” when you reach the skill level where you can get repeatable results on an M.

I use M glass 90% of the time on my SL2. I use the camera entirely with manual settings, sometimes on moving subjects. Manually focusing requires intent and I find it much more rewarding and faster then using auto focus lenses. When you combine the ability to see what is exactly in the frame, what the exposure is going to look like, and the ability to get precise focusing, especially with fast lenses because of the EVF, that to me is extremely rewarding.

I love M cameras because they are different, photographing with them feels different. But this mantra that a rangefinder is the superior way to take photographs, that it slows you down, that you have more intent - it’s not really a fact, it’s an opinion. Working with intent does not require a rangefinder camera. It requires a photographer who is intentful. 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2024 by trickness

[trickness]

16 minutes ago, dpitt said:

Same can be said of you 🙂
Tell me... How do you use an M lens on SL? If you use it wide open, ok, your focus is quite good.
But try focusing a 35mm M lens set at F4.0 and you know what I mean.
Or try focusing your M lens at F11 with the SL... Of course this does not matter much with 35mm, but with 50mm or 90mm it does.

90% of the time I use M glass on my SL. I shoot a lot wide open, mostly 50mm, but often 75 Nocti and 21 SEM. 
 

I don’t often shoot at f11, but probably neither would anybody trying to take pictures of their family. If I do need to shoot stopped down like that, I use the magnify function on the SL2 to zoom in and get critical focus. But I also use that function when shooting wide open if I want things to be absolutely pin sharp with a fast lens.

Most of the time though, I can get accurate focus just by looking through the viewfinder.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Smogg]

8 minutes ago, trickness said:

90% of the time I use M glass on my SL. I shoot a lot wide open, mostly 50mm, but often 75 Nocti and 21 SEM. 
 

I don’t often shoot at f11, but probably neither would anybody trying to take pictures of their family. If I do need to shoot stopped down like that, I use the magnify function on the SL2 to zoom in and get critical focus. But I also use that function when shooting wide open if I want things to be absolutely pin sharp with a fast lens.

Most of the time though, I can get accurate focus just by looking through the viewfinder.

The vast majority of famous street photos are taken at a small aperture, since the foreground, middle ground, and background are important. In street photography, using an open aperture is usually a failure of the photographer, his inability to find the right background and he tries to blur it. Therefore, the M camera is much more versatile when manually focusing

[trickness]

26 minutes ago, Smogg said:

The vast majority of famous street photos are taken at a small aperture, since the foreground, middle ground, and background are important. In street photography, using an open aperture is usually a failure of the photographer, his inability to find the right background and he tries to blur it. Therefore, the M camera is much more versatile when manually focusing

I don’t agree with any of these assertions.

What’s important in any photograph is “what is this photograph about”? 

Depth of field is just a tool to support what a photograph is about, whether that means being stopped down or wide open. Shooting wide open is by no means a “failure of the photographer” if it was an intentional creative choice.

M cameras don’t have a monopoly on manual focusing. This is just more myopic M rhetoric. You can have the exact experience shooting M glass (or SL glass on manual focus) on an SL body, or manually focusing a Q.