Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

43 minutes ago, jaapv said:

In fact it can be quite precise if one realizes that it has a kind of DOF; If one "walks" the plane of focus and puts it in the middle of the peaking zone, normally it is spot-on.

Depends on the aperture, lens, subject and more. Using focus magnification ensures a more precise point of focus and most of the time a marginal adjustment is needed. I suppose that is the point. A rangefinder is a precision instrument allowing a spot to be selected and focussed on. Using focus peaking (admittedly it improves with practice) is a less precise method. But if yu are changing from a precision to a more imprecise way of working then why bother with all the precision of M lenses and manual focus.

It seems to me that demands being made are for a 'hobbled' evf camera (manual focus, small lens throat, less precise/slower focus) from a presitious manufacturer. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

If someone finds rangefinder focusing is only 'capable enough' or 'good enough' but not perfect (for them), then why would one want only a 'capable enough' or 'good enough' but not perfect EVF-M to replace what already works to the same degree? If Leica do it, it has to be state of the art for what they charge. Hopefully it is, but I'm not holding my breath...

One of the premises for this discussion appears to be that each photographer has one and only one camera for all his work, or only one type of camera.

This is why the question of the superiority of one kind of viewfinder over another one is discussed so prominently here. However, we all know that many of the participants here have more than one camera anyway. And we all know that not every camera is suited equally well for each kind of job.

Therefore, it's not all that unlikely that someone vastly prefers a rangefinder for part of his work, a built-in EVF for other parts and, perhaps, an off-camera display for still others, not to speak of a camera without any finder at all for other situations. Of course, there's considerable overlap, so that you can happily shoot in quite a few situations with any viewfinder at all, or none.

I, personally, prefer my rangefinder cameras for taking pictures of the scenery or even for snapshots. For more ambitious work on architecture or close-up work an EVF is often much more useful, and so on. Often, it's a highly individual preference, so YMMV, of course.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 45 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

In fact it can be quite precise if one realizes that it has a kind of DOF; If one "walks" the plane of focus and puts it in the middle of the peaking zone, normally it is spot-on.

It very much depends on the lenses DOF. I mostly use LiveView on the camera‘s display with very close and macro distances. Here you can see the focus peaking slowly moving with fractures of a millimeter as you focus and can exactly define the position of max. sharpness. Similar with long focal lengthes, though they have to be very stabile.

Though when I recently tried different versions of a 3.5/50mm Elmar - on tripod - and relied on focus peaking on the display with a distance short before infinity I was astonished how unsharp some results were and how much better others: my focus peaking was sloppy, there was too much indicated as „sharp“ which really wasn‘t. With wide angle lenses - and especially with modern contrasty ones - focus peaking is as reliable as the lenses DOF-scale.

As I don’t have any Noctiluxes my EVF is only used with the 135mm Apo-Telyt.  No sufficient reason to wish the rumors become true. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, pgk said:

Depends on the aperture, lens, subject and more. Using focus magnification ensures a more precise point of focus and most of the time a marginal adjustment is needed. I suppose that is the point. A rangefinder is a precision instrument allowing a spot to be selected and focussed on. Using focus peaking (admittedly it improves with practice) is a less precise method. But if yu are changing from a precision to a more imprecise way of working then why bother with all the precision of M lenses and manual focus.

It seems to me that demands being made are for a 'hobbled' evf camera (manual focus, small lens throat, less precise/slower focus) from a presitious manufacturer. What could possibly go wrong?

I tend to use focus peaking with magnification. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Derbyshire Man said:

Focus peaking is too broad for f1.4 it simply doesn't work [...]

Different experience here. Been there done that for many years. Below with my first Sony and a Summilux 50/1.4 asph in 2016.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I tend to use focus peaking with magnification. 

So do I. But its slow, much slower than using arangefinder most of the time. And thereby lies the problem. Typically wide-angles are tricky - and with a rangefinder they focus best, which is just as well, because this is where rangefinder's strength lies.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, Stevejack said:


A lower quality evf doesn’t matter with most cameras because there is visual feedback from the autofocus system.
With manual focus you rely on either a high resolution display to nail focus, or you’re left with focus peaking. And focus peaking 1. Is useless at narrow apertures, and 2. obscures important information in the frame by covering it over with coloured pixels. Focus peaking makes it so you often can’t tell if a subject is even looking at the camera unless their face is filling enough of the display.  

So my fear is, that they just put in an EVF  equivalent to the Visoflex 2 (which is their stated aim according to the last user survey) and it will not be capable enough as a standalone manual focusing system. 

At the moment I find the Viso 2 on an M11 just fine. I never use focus peaking only magnified view for critical shots so for me whatever they put in a new camera will be just fine for manual focusing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve used focus peaking on multiple cameras multiple times, and it has never worked for me (cue @lct & @jaapv).  I find the EVF almost useless with M wides - the depth of field is so thick, I can’t confidently work out the best plane of focus - and no, “walking” focus peaking back and forth with a 28 Summaron-M on a TL2 or an SL does not result in best focus.

Neither the OVF nor the EVF is universally better, one than the other.  For the M, I mostly prefer the OVF, but I accept that the subjects in my photos will tend to be in the centre, and not accurately framed (I tend not to worry too much about the edges in that case.  But, the OVF is fast and generally accurate, until you want to focus a Noctilux or 75 Summilux wide open.  Then I use the EVF - the automatic magnification is great, and I can move the magnification point if I have the time.  It isn’t fast.

EVF?  Well, it works well with the SL and X2D, but that’s with AF.  Exposure simulation, off-centre focusing, accurate framing and no focus shift are advantages, but they come at a cost.  I don’t miss looking down the barrel of an SLR …

With practice with both EVF and OVF, the OVF is definitely faster, but the EVF has its uses - I carry my Visoflex with me whenever I take either my TL2 or my M10-D.  It’s a ugly thing, spoils the look of the camera and catches in the bag if I leave it on; but it’s useful.  I lost the first one after it fell off somewhere …

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I’ve used focus peaking on multiple cameras multiple times, and it has never worked for me (cue @lct & @jaapv).  I find the EVF almost useless with M wides - the depth of field is so thick, I can’t confidently work out the best plane of focus - and no, “walking” focus peaking back and forth with a 28 Summaron-M on a TL2 or an SL does not result in best focus.

Neither the OVF nor the EVF is universally better, one than the other.  For the M, I mostly prefer the OVF, but I accept that the subjects in my photos will tend to be in the centre, and not accurately framed (I tend not to worry too much about the edges in that case.  But, the OVF is fast and generally accurate, until you want to focus a Noctilux or 75 Summilux wide open.  Then I use the EVF - the automatic magnification is great, and I can move the magnification point if I have the time.  It isn’t fast.

EVF?  Well, it works well with the SL and X2D, but that’s with AF.  Exposure simulation, off-centre focusing, accurate framing and no focus shift are advantages, but they come at a cost.  I don’t miss looking down the barrel of an SLR …

With practice with both EVF and OVF, the OVF is definitely faster, but the EVF has its uses - I carry my Visoflex with me whenever I take either my TL2 or my M10-D.  It’s a ugly thing, spoils the look of the camera and catches in the bag if I leave it on; but it’s useful.  I lost the first one after it fell off somewhere …

Exactly my experience.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I’ve used focus peaking on multiple cameras multiple times, and it has never worked for me (cue @lct & @jaapv).  I find the EVF almost useless with M wides - the depth of field is so thick, I can’t confidently work out the best plane of focus - and no, “walking” focus peaking back and forth with a 28 Summaron-M on a TL2 or an SL does not result in best focus.

Neither the OVF nor the EVF is universally better, one than the other.  For the M, I mostly prefer the OVF, but I accept that the subjects in my photos will tend to be in the centre, and not accurately framed (I tend not to worry too much about the edges in that case.  But, the OVF is fast and generally accurate, until you want to focus a Noctilux or 75 Summilux wide open.  Then I use the EVF - the automatic magnification is great, and I can move the magnification point if I have the time.  It isn’t fast.

EVF?  Well, it works well with the SL and X2D, but that’s with AF.  Exposure simulation, off-centre focusing, accurate framing and no focus shift are advantages, but they come at a cost.  I don’t miss looking down the barrel of an SLR …

With practice with both EVF and OVF, the OVF is definitely faster, but the EVF has its uses - I carry my Visoflex with me whenever I take either my TL2 or my M10-D.  It’s a ugly thing, spoils the look of the camera and catches in the bag if I leave it on; but it’s useful.  I lost the first one after it fell off somewhere …

I've just tested this, no, I can't do it either and it's glacial (although I could do it in the sort of example that @lct has shot with a clear item with sharp edge miles away from the background, I just don't take photo's like that!). I can easily actually see the focussed area on my R5mk2 which has a higher resolution EVF.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I’ve used focus peaking on multiple cameras multiple times, and it has never worked for me (cue @lct & @jaapv).  I find the EVF almost useless with M wides - the depth of field is so thick, I can’t confidently work out the best plane of focus - and no, “walking” focus peaking back and forth with a 28 Summaron-M on a TL2 or an SL does not result in best focus.

No problem with the Visoflex 2. Here at f/8 with a 12mm lens. Instant focusing.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lct said:

Different experience here. Been there done that for many years. Below with my first Sony and a Summilux 50/1.4 asph in 2016.

Sorry, but I think most people, even those who have picked up an M for the first time, could isolate a leaf with the rangefinder at 1.4. Where it both becomes more problematic, and where the EVF becomes possibly more useful - while at the same time possibly more difficult (you choose depending on how skilled one is with either) is a shot like this, which if I recall was a 90mm 2.8 wide open, though it could have been a 90 f4 macro wide open. Anyway, one has to juggle focus, composition, and the right moment, and with squiggly lines and magnification popping all over the place that becomes difficult (for me at least). This shot is not in perfect focus, though close enough for me as merely an audience member with no access. Of course if I was shooting it for the client or performers, I would probably prefer my D850 (and better access), or an SL. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem with 90mm lenses either. Below M11, Visoflex 2, CV 90/2.8, f/2.8.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, lct said:

No problem with the Visoflex 2. Here at f/8 with a 12mm lens. Instant focusing.

 

Come on. A 12mm at f8 is a poor example as the depth of field will cover most everything. Where it gets much more difficult using focus peaking is a 28mm shot like this, where you want to see what's happening and have nothing obscured by focus peaking squiggly lines. There's a case to be made for both, and as said above, the cameras could be very complimentary. But isolating focus with wide angles can be difficult with an EVF. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@lct How to shoot this on EVF? People don't stand still. (28/f8)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

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

I tend to use focus peaking at small apertures as a guide to the best hyperfocal distance. When I see the most red back to front I click. If I want critical focus on something then I punch in but I find this distracting if there is motion as the moment is gone by the time I’m done. At small apertures the depth of field tends to iron out any focusing mistakes I make. 

Edited by costa43
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
×
×
  • Create New...