Not OT: 2008 A Very Tough Year to Come

[j. white]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My little R4s VF is not far from 1:1 either. Why is it difficult to do the same in digital?

 

I don't believe this is a question of difficulty, but rather one of ergonomics and economics.

 

Consider how much more electronic componentry rests beneath the skin of a modern DSLR than in the R4, not to mention the already hulking size of most DSLRs. Keeping in mind that these miniature image-capture computers also need to fit within an acceptable range of size and weight, every design involves some compromise. It's easy to imagine a room of designers choosing to reduce the size of the pentaprism in favor of, say, an improved AF chip that requires more space than last years model.

 

As long as the market favors these kinds of technological advances along with a reasonably-sized viewfinder, then they would be congratulated and no doubt rewarded handsomely for that choice.

 

Leica users tend to be more quirky and seemingly vocal when it comes to these design decisions than (for lack of a better way of putting it) the mainstream photographic consumer.

[Advertisement]

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

[telyt]

The R4s has a 92% coverage at 0.85x (or 0.87x ... I'm not 100% sure) and the R9 does 93% at 0.75x, LCT ... I have never had a SL or SL2 and I couldn't find any accurate info about their viewfinder coverage and magnification factor. I do find some references in the Nippon Camera Yearbook, at its time, the only camera which provided 100% VF coverage is the Nikon F.

 

When I switched from the Nikon F to Leicaflex SL I initially thought the 93% viewfinder coverage would be a problem but in actual use it was better for me. I found it was far better to have little more on film than the viewfinder shows vs. having no more, for those all-to-frequent occasions where precise framing was impossible.

 

I think that Leica never had a camera having 100% viewfinder coverage ... correct me if I'm wrong please.

 

The DMR's crop lines show 100% of the image captured on the sensor, and I can see outside the crop lines just like on an M camera.

 

Anyways, the 1Ds Mark III's 100%@0.76x is already more than the R9's 93%@0.75x.

 

And it's less than the R4, which is less than the SL (I have both the R4 and SL in front of me). The magnification is significant but light transmission and viewing contrast are also very important factors in viewfinder quality, neither of which Canon is publicly addressing. The SL viewfinder is much brighter than either the R8 or R4 (or Nikon F/F2, both of which I also have in front of me) and has much more 'snap' so it's much easier to focus quickly and accurately than any of these other cameras.

 

It's really a shame that an $8,000 DSLR doesn't have a better viewfinder. It's certainly better by Canon standards, but much better viewfinders have been made.

[sdai]

It's really a shame that an $8,000 DSLR doesn't have a better viewfinder. It's certainly better by Canon standards, but much better viewfinders have been made.

 

Let's not forget the 1D/1Ds series aren't really designed for manual focusing, Doug. Actually, when you take a look the spec. of Canon's FD mount cameras, many of them offer a high magnification factor above 0.8x ... I think the highest one was with the AE-1, which was 0.86x.

 

In terms of auto focusing digital SLRs, Canon is at least one generation ahead of competition ... Nikon only does 0.7x for now.

 

I highly doubt that Leica would give us a high magnification viewfinder in the R10 ... it would be interesting to see what other focusing assistance they would provide to ease the use of MF lenses.

[telyt]

Let's not forget the 1D/1Ds series aren't really designed for manual focusing.

 

These are supposed to be Canon's professional grade cameras. Canon recommends against using AF in high-magnification/shallow DOF photos such as macro or with a long lens when the subject as composed doesn't fall on a focussing point (i.e., they recommend using manual focus instead of the Focus-Lock-Recompose technique). A camera for professional photographers should be able to handle these situations well.

 

when you take a look the spec. of Canon's FD mount cameras, many of them offer a high magnification factor above 0.8x ... I think the highest one was with the AE-1, which was 0.86x.

 

You're still addressing only one of many factors that affect manual focus. Even where the magnification matched the SL, I was not impressed by the FD-series viewfinder brightness or 'snap', still far behind the SL.

[sdai]

Actually, I just found that the 40D's viewfinder has a 95% coverage viewfinder at 0.95x magnification ... of course, it has a 1.6x cropped FOV picture frame and if you do this on a FF camera it'll probably turn out as a big head monster.

 

Many things still can be done ...

 

Electronic focusing confirmation

high precision screen matched with a VF magnifier ... the Nikon DG-2 does 2x for macro focusing

 

I hate to say "Live View" but while coupled to 10 times zooming ... this could be a killer function for manual focusing.

[sdai]

Even where the magnification matched the SL, I was not impressed by the FD-series viewfinder brightness or 'snap', still far behind the SL.

 

I've never doubted that Leica or some Japanese camera companies can do something to match (if not beat) the SL's viewfinder ... which is more than 40 years old technology. It's just a matter how they can be convinced that it is absolutely necessary ... I guess when there's not enough folks to "complain" then they'll think it's not a problem.

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The SL viewfinder is much brighter than either the R8 or R4 (or Nikon F/F2, both of which I also have in front of me) and has much more 'snap' so it's much easier to focus quickly and accurately than any of these other cameras.

The SL and SL2 had the brightest and best finders ever, IMHO. But the screens that did that were also extremely expensive to produce because they were covered with extremely fine microprisms instead of ground glass.

 

I wonder if any manufacturer today would be interested in putting such effort into a screen, and what disadvantages doing so might entail. How and why did top brands ever decide that mirrors could replace a porroprism?

 

--HC

[telyt]

Actually, I just found that the 40D's viewfinder has a 95% coverage viewfinder at 0.95x magnification ... of course, it has a 1.6x cropped FOV picture frame and if you do this on a FF camera it'll probably turn out as a big head monster.

 

WHAT ABOUT LIGHT TRANSMISSION AND CONTRAST???

 

Electronic focusing confirmation

 

Only as accurate as the AF system and still subject to the F-L-R failures.

 

I hate to say "Live View" but while coupled to 10 times zooming ... this could be a killer function for manual focusing.

 

A live-view electronic focussing system whether automatic or manual confirmation that actually reads the sensor pixels and can be placed anywhere in the image area is a very big step in the right direction. AF systems as they have existed on SLR cameras are a crude kludge that work best in average situations where DOF will cover the AF system's errors. Read Canon's advice for effective use of their AF systems and this is what they are saying. In unusual situations or where DOF is shallow they fail.

 

Here are a few examples where the SL's viewfinder made a big difference. These birds were in constant motion, seeing the exact focus at any moment on any part of the viewscreen made these photos possible.

 

 

 

 

 

The forum software limits me to four photos per post, I have many more examples. What makes the SL viewfinder work so well is not just the magnification (the one factor you've fixated on), it's also the brightness, contrast, clarity and lack of distortion. This viewfinder is easy to use no matter where the point of focus is on the viewscreen.

 

I've never doubted that Leica or some Japanese camera companies can do something to match (if not beat) the SL's viewfinder ...

 

Neither have I... but they haven't done so yet.

[sdai]

Good AF can go a long way ... here's one snap with a 1D Mark 3 at 400mm, the camera ignores the busy background and followed the Canadian geese.

 

FF downsized:

 

 

Look, the focus fell right down on the leading goose's eye. (1:1) I've only got 1/800" or it should look better.

 

 

To be honest, the only reasons why I care about manual focusing on a R10 are simply because:

 

1. I want to save some money and keep using the old lenses

2. I'm suspecting the R10's AF may not live up to the task

 

If it can prove itself ... then all my MF lenses may go on sale.

[telyt]

Look, the focus fell right down on the leading goose's eye.

 

Nope, it's on the near wing tip. A common AF error.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I just bought a 5D for a job and the damn AF is all over the place. Man do a i hate AF stuff. The only true way to count on it is center point focus point than recompose. Hmm sounds just like MF does it not.

[sdai]

I just bought a 5D for a job and the damn AF is all over the place. Man do a i hate AF stuff. The only true way to count on it is center point focus point than recompose. Hmm sounds just like MF does it not.

 

I guess you've probably forgotten how to use AF, Guy ... let me ask you. If MF is so damn good at the task, then why 99.99% of the world have gone AF?

[sdai]

Nope, it's on the near wing tip. A common AF error.

 

Doug, the near wing tip is blurred because of shallow Dof, shutter speed ... but, we may look at different places of course.

 

Now if you could tell me a MF system capable of focusing on a flying goose's wing tip or eyes from this far away, I'm all ears.

[telyt]

If MF is so damn good at the task, then why 99.99% of the world have gone AF?

 

Possible reasons include laziness, no experience with the SL viewfinder, not trusting your own reflexes, and not being too concerned about critical focus. However each AF user should answer for himself. I see LOTS of people using any and all of these excuses.

 

BTW here's where the focus should be on a bird in flight: on the eye.

 

 

technical stuff:

Leicaflex SL

400mm f/6.8 Telyt

Kodachrome 64, slight crop

1/125 sec @ f/6.8

 

This was about 1979 or 1980.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

because there LAZY:D :D

 

Well because it is available really and follow focus works pretty good . But there is a downside too, weight and bulk add to them and reason they need IS and VR stuff which probably adds more bulk and weight.

 

They certainly have there place in some shooting area's no doubt but i seen many MF shooters shoot sports too in my day. I used to shoot jets off of runways doing take off's and landings with a Nikkor 600 and 800 and these jets are coming in at 160 mph right at me. Never a issue that I can remember. When you have camera's set up for manual focus it is a lot easier the R9 is very good at it but the Canons and nikons are setup for AF and even with brightscreens and such it still is tough to manual focus there lenses. Honestly some of the old dogs around here can probably manual focus better in most cases than AF can. i know i am pretty darn good at it, but that comes with years of MF practice.

 

Also AF does miss there is no question about it, just like anything else it can't think like us.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Geez Doug we had the same lazy thoughts . LOL

[telyt]

Doug, the near wing tip is blurred because of shallow Dof, shutter speed ... but, we may look at different places of course.

 

If you consider the detail in your photo in the goose's head and neck to be adequate then I suspect we have different standards of quality.

 

Now if you could tell me a MF system capable of focusing on a flying goose's wing tip or eyes from this far away, I'm all ears.

 

This is focussed manually with the 280 f/4 APO and 1.4x APO extender on the R8/DMR:

 

[sdai]

These pics will all look good downsized ... I think my Canon geese are not too lousy when compared to the DMR geese, care to show us some 1:1 crops?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Watch it Simon, Doug is slinging that 280 F4 apo and man that lens is so sharp it is scary. Honestly never seen a lens this sharp in this focal length. If you are going R my friend do NOT overlook this purchase. It's like shooting the 100 macro

[sdai]

Watch it Simon, Doug is slinging that 280 F4 apo and man that lens is so sharp it is scary. Honestly never seen a lens this sharp in this focal length. If you are going R my friend do NOT overlook this purchase. It's like shooting the 100 macro

 

I know, I know ... Guy. I'm just curious to see how good this can be (at in flight stuff), because I know I couldn't do it (with manual focus).

 

Man, you shouldn't have forgotten your old friends on FM and let me know when you dumped your R system ... the 280/4 APO is the last thing left on my wish list.