Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, ZHNL said:

Yes, the first time I found that my manual focus wasn’t adequate is when I put Zeiss Otus 55 and 85 on my Nikon. I was fine with either 80lux or 50lux R or ZF plan at 50. The in focus region is razor thin for OTUS, it make mis focus very obvious. 
80lux has a in focus “band” and within that band, if you slightly miss focus, it won’t be as aggressive as OTUS. The trick for portrait is always slightly front focus than back focus if you miss focus. Nikon’s PDAF focus confirmation is also have better implementation so you can alway focus from Minimum focus distance to infinity to avoid back focus. 

Am I missing something here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
x
On 4/5/2024 at 8:52 AM, BernardC said:

You are comparing apples an oranges. Those great Canon pro sports cameras had less than half the resolution of the S2, and less than a third of the S3. Terms like "front focus" and "back focus" only started to be popular once the D800 came-out, and photographers noticed that their images weren't as sharp at the pixel level as they used to be. Nikon offered 1Dx equivalents at the time (D3, D4), which also rarely mis-focussed.

That was an issue with all medium format SLRs. I have read (although I can't confirm) that Pentax, Mamiya/PhaseOne, Hasselblad, and Leica (and probably Rollei) all got their AF modules from the same Japanese supplier. They were stuck with single-point AF because 35mm multi-point sensors only covered the central part of the image (so they were effectively single-point). None of the OEM suppliers could be persuaded to manufacture a dedicated medium format AF sensor; the market only amounted to a few thousand units per year, and potential customers were going through bankruptcy crises. It wasn't the right environment to invest hundreds of millions of yen into new medium format DSLR PDAF sensors.

This is silly excuse making for Leica.  The R5 has a 50 MP sensor, more than the S2 and almost as much as the S3, and the AF is accurate to the millimeter using a f1.2 lens.  Regardless of the reason they used a single point sensor through the entire life of the system, they could have developed a multi point DSLR AF system like Canon or Nikon, but chose not to.   Neither one of us knows the reason why, or whether (doubtful) every MF camera shared the same AF system - please post your source.  The reality is that Leica, Hasselblad,  and Phase all concluded that slow, inaccurate single point AF was good enough for their pro systems.  There was nothing preventing them from making a better, multi-point system like Canon or Nikon, except not wanting to spend the money to do it.

Which is one of the reasons that Fuji is selling tons of GFX bodies.  I have 3 of them - 100, 100S and 100ii, and 3 S bodies, 2 006 and an 007.  You can shoot the Fuji in the studio like a normal camera with the subjects moving around freely and the camera tracking them  with near-perfect accuracy.  I defy anybody to shoot a moving subject in the studio with any of the others, Leica, Phase or Hasselblad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikelevitt said:

This is silly excuse making for Leica.  The R5 has a 50 MP sensor, more than the S2 and almost as much as the S3, and the AF is accurate to the millimeter using a f1.2 lens.  Regardless of the reason they used a single point sensor through the entire life of the system, they could have developed a multi point DSLR AF system like Canon or Nikon, but chose not to.   Neither one of us knows the reason why, or whether (doubtful) every MF camera shared the same AF system - please post your source.  The reality is that Leica, Hasselblad,  and Phase all concluded that slow, inaccurate single point AF was good enough for their pro systems.  There was nothing preventing them from making a better, multi-point system like Canon or Nikon, except not wanting to spend the money to do it.

Which is one of the reasons that Fuji is selling tons of GFX bodies.  I have 3 of them - 100, 100S and 100ii, and 3 S bodies, 2 006 and an 007.  You can shoot the Fuji in the studio like a normal camera with the subjects moving around freely and the camera tracking them  with near-perfect accuracy.  I defy anybody to shoot a moving subject in the studio with any of the others, Leica, Phase or Hasselblad.

You are right about the Canons or Nikons (I still use a D850, and share with a daughter a Z9), but I think that perfect autofocus in moving subjects was not that important for Leica, Hasselblad or Phase.

 I don't need to shoot wildlife or sports with the S3 or the Phase (actually when I do, I use the Nikons, which are way better for that). In the case of the GFX, although I had the first 50s, and as well the first 100, never thought of using the camera for that kind of purpose. And the reason I sold the Fuji was not the IBIS, which I really didn't need much, but the color and the need of further size and definition. I've defended here that Leica is not at the forefront of "computer" technology -any of the Japanese manufacturers is better at that-, but they still have an edge in lenses (or did two years ago). As does Phase. 

Edited by irenedp
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, irenedp said:

You are right about the Canons or Nikons (I still use a D850, and share with a daughter a Z9), but I think that perfect autofocus in moving subjects was not that important for Leica, Hasselblad or Phase.

 I don't need to shoot wildlife or sports with the S3 or the Phase (actually when I do, I use the Nikons, which are way better for that). In the case of the GFX, although I had the first 50s, and as well the first 100, never thought of using the camera for that kind of purpose. And the reason I sold the Fuji was not the IBIS, which I really didn't need much, but the color and the need of further size and definition. I've defended here that Leica is not at the forefront of "computer" technology -any of the Japanese manufacturers is better at that-, but they still have an edge in lenses (or did two years ago). As does Phase. 

Hey Irene,

I didn't use any of the pre-100 cameras, but all 3 100s have worked out great for me.  I'm surprised that you needed more size than 100MP, but phase has that.  I should mention to just get it "in the record" that I think Fuji has some amazing lenses, some average ones, and some real dogs.  I think the 110 f2 is one of the greatest I've ever used on any system.  The 32-64 zoom gets top marks from me.  The 45-100 is OK but not great.  The 100-200 is not a lens I enjoy and IMO the output is not even in the same league.  Dog.  The 80mm 1.7 is a "7" to the "10" of the 110.  The 23mm is also excellent.   I find that not having to worry about focus when shooting people allows you to concentrate on pose, expression and whether your lights are working.  I will occasionally have to shoot 20-30 athletes in the studio in one day, and having dependable AF is critical to getting usable material, but also being able to deliver edits quickly.  I pretty much trust the GFX AF 100%.  But if you only shot the 100-200 you probably would think the whole system was crap.

I use the S cameras when I don't have a gun to my head, usually alongside the canons if I am out in the wild, or on studio or portrait shoots where I only have one subject, and one goal, and can work slowly and carefully, use a combo of MF and AF, and shoot extra frames to make sure something is actually in focus.  With the excellent viewfinder, MF is actually a viable option.

I don't think it's worth defending Leica.  They make some great things, and do some really stupid things.  I would point to the lack of actual back button AF on the Q series as a really stupid thing.  I stay for the lenses.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing you are overlooking is that mirrorless cameras like the GFX determine focus off the sensor, either with contrast detect alone (like the first model), or a combination of phase detect and contrast detect sensors. Contrast detect is slower, but more accurate, while phase detect is faster, but generally a bit less accurate. Modern mirrorless cameras are now typically using both -- phase detect for maximum speed, and contrast detect to perfect the accuracy. When done well it is superb. Contrast detect is based on the raw output of the sensor, so you can use as many af points as you want, as it is just reading the data off the sensor. Phase detect requires actual separate sensors that have to be put somewhere and you need additional sensors for every AF point. In the S cameras there is no option to use contrast detect in anything other than live view, as it is an SLR and the mirror is covering the sensor the entire time other than exposure. So you cannot really compare the S and GFX in this way. A better comparison is the SL, which typically has faster AF than the GFX, as far as I recall hearing, but don't quote me on it. In general 35mm systems are going to be a lot faster to focus as they tend to have smaller and lighter optical systems and since they standardize on shorter focal length lenses, the lens elements don't need to travel as far to achieve focus. In the case of the S Leica designed the system in 2006-2008 using what they thought was the best balance of image quality and speed at the time. When it was released, there was not a medium format camera that was faster or more agile. You can certainly argue that they should have updated it, but they got caught out a bit by the market, launching a top class SLR system just as SLR cameras were dying. They let it last as long as they could, but it is now discontinued. The S4 will almost certainly be a mirrorless camera with faster AF, so if that is your desire, then you might as well wait a few more years. Or get an SL3.

In the case of the R5, you say it is silly excuse making for Leica....you are comparing a medium format SLR camera/system from 2008 to a 35mm mirrorless camera from 2020...it is not exactly a fair comparison. More like wondering why Usain Bolt can run faster than Mike Tyson in 2024.

Edited by Stuart Richardson
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mikelevitt said:

Hey Irene,

I didn't use any of the pre-100 cameras, but all 3 100s have worked out great for me.  I'm surprised that you needed more size than 100MP, but phase has that.  I should mention to just get it "in the record" that I think Fuji has some amazing lenses, some average ones, and some real dogs.  I think the 110 f2 is one of the greatest I've ever used on any system.  The 32-64 zoom gets top marks from me.  The 45-100 is OK but not great.  The 100-200 is not a lens I enjoy and IMO the output is not even in the same league.  Dog.  The 80mm 1.7 is a "7" to the "10" of the 110.  The 23mm is also excellent.   I find that not having to worry about focus when shooting people allows you to concentrate on pose, expression and whether your lights are working.  I will occasionally have to shoot 20-30 athletes in the studio in one day, and having dependable AF is critical to getting usable material, but also being able to deliver edits quickly.  I pretty much trust the GFX AF 100%.  But if you only shot the 100-200 you probably would think the whole system was crap.

I use the S cameras when I don't have a gun to my head, usually alongside the canons if I am out in the wild, or on studio or portrait shoots where I only have one subject, and one goal, and can work slowly and carefully, use a combo of MF and AF, and shoot extra frames to make sure something is actually in focus.  With the excellent viewfinder, MF is actually a viable option.

I don't think it's worth defending Leica.  They make some great things, and do some really stupid things.  I would point to the lack of actual back button AF on the Q series as a really stupid thing.  I stay for the lenses.

 

 

Mike, I don't think we disagree a lot. I really enjoyed the 110, and the 32-64 worked pretty well. It worked better with the 50s (but that might be my copy. In general, all my Fuji lenses worked better with the 50s). The 100-200 was a disgrace in either camera, albeit it improved somewhat after sending it to Fuji.

I think the difference is that with your work, as you mention, the GFX can be quite handy, and my shots are sloooow, so no big deal. I am now starting a project of family portraits, but it's very much a 'Crewdson' in terms of the planning and positioning of objects and people. So I have ample time to focus to 500% in the IQ back (or 100% on the S3's liveview) and nail it. If I did your kind of work, I would need something with a good autofocus. That is not the strongest point of the S3. Actually, in the past I used the D850 mostly and either the 85 1.4 or the 50 1.4

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/30/2024 at 10:37 PM, mikelevitt said:

This is silly excuse making for Leica.  The R5 has a 50 MP sensor, more than the S2 and almost as much as the S3, and the AF is accurate to the millimeter using a f1.2 lens.  Regardless of the reason they used a single point sensor through the entire life of the system, they could have developed a multi point DSLR AF system like Canon or Nikon, but chose not to.   Neither one of us knows the reason why, or whether (doubtful) every MF camera shared the same AF system - please post your source.  The reality is that Leica, Hasselblad,  and Phase all concluded that slow, inaccurate single point AF was good enough for their pro systems.  There was nothing preventing them from making a better, multi-point system like Canon or Nikon, except not wanting to spend the money to do it.

Which is one of the reasons that Fuji is selling tons of GFX bodies.  I have 3 of them - 100, 100S and 100ii, and 3 S bodies, 2 006 and an 007.  You can shoot the Fuji in the studio like a normal camera with the subjects moving around freely and the camera tracking them  with near-perfect accuracy.  I defy anybody to shoot a moving subject in the studio with any of the others, Leica, Phase or Hasselblad.

Gee. I guess shooting a moving subject in the studio was impossible in the past. How fortunate for photography today.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am 1.5.2024 um 16:52 schrieb mikelevitt:

Hey Irene,

I didn't use any of the pre-100 cameras, but all 3 100s have worked out great for me.  I'm surprised that you needed more size than 100MP, but phase has that.  I should mention to just get it "in the record" that I think Fuji has some amazing lenses, some average ones, and some real dogs.  I think the 110 f2 is one of the greatest I've ever used on any system.  The 32-64 zoom gets top marks from me.  The 45-100 is OK but not great.  The 100-200 is not a lens I enjoy and IMO the output is not even in the same league.  Dog.  The 80mm 1.7 is a "7" to the "10" of the 110.  The 23mm is also excellent.   I find that not having to worry about focus when shooting people allows you to concentrate on pose, expression and whether your lights are working.  I will occasionally have to shoot 20-30 athletes in the studio in one day, and having dependable AF is critical to getting usable material, but also being able to deliver edits quickly.  I pretty much trust the GFX AF 100%.  But if you only shot the 100-200 you probably would think the whole system was crap.

I use the S cameras when I don't have a gun to my head, usually alongside the canons if I am out in the wild, or on studio or portrait shoots where I only have one subject, and one goal, and can work slowly and carefully, use a combo of MF and AF, and shoot extra frames to make sure something is actually in focus.  With the excellent viewfinder, MF is actually a viable option.

I don't think it's worth defending Leica.  They make some great things, and do some really stupid things.  I would point to the lack of actual back button AF on the Q series as a really stupid thing.  I stay for the lenses.

 

 

What makes you keeping the S3 if you also own the Fujis MF? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 5/13/2024 at 7:35 AM, tom0511 said:

What makes you keeping the S3 if you also own the Fujis MF? 

I don't have an S3, just 2 006s and an 007.  They are suited for different things.  If I'm in a situation where I need fast, dependable AF and IS with a modern look, it's usually Fuji or Canon.  If I have the time to slow down, have plenty of light, and don't need much in the way of AF, I'll use the Leica S.  The 006 has a look all of its own because of the CCD - which I fell in love with more than 10 years ago when I got my new M9.   They are all good, it's just a matter of what I think the best tool is for the job at hand.

Current issue of Racer mag has 2 of my shots printed DPS.  One is a studio shot with the 006 and 100MM which would have been inferior if I chose ANY other camera/lens combo.  I tested it with a canon and it looked awful compared to the S.  Other shot was a Canon with a 100-400 which needed AF and IS - and would have been impossible with any other camera/lens combo.  Just a matter of the right tool for the job.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...