Classic M vs. M EV1 - Focus Accuracy & Speed

[Jewl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi folks,

Reading different reviews and also videos on the newly released EV1, one very important question for me remains unanswered as no one really addresses it properly: how does the focus accuracy & speed is compared to the classic M? Is it from the handling similar? Cannot really imagine how you can get a sharp image just with focus peaking as compared to the RF focus patch or how to miss not every shot on the street if I need to use the focus zoom feature to double check whether the subject is in focus…

Would be great to get your perspective.

thx,
J

[Advertisement]

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

[Alexander108]

May I chime in? Your question leads to the question: In which style of photography is the M-EV1 better suited and where is the classic M (M11 / M10 etc.) better suited? If we look at the classic M, I would say without the use of the Visoflex 2 / 020.

For instance:

• Street
• Portrait
• Wildlife
• Fashion
• Sports
• Architectural and
• Event photography

Why is either camera (based on focusing capabilities) better suited?

[elmars]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Jewl:

Hi folks,

Reading different reviews and also videos on the newly released EV1, one very important question for me remains unanswered as no one really addresses it properly: how does the focus accuracy & speed is compared to the classic M? Is it from the handling similar? Cannot really imagine how you can get a sharp image just with focus peaking as compared to the RF focus patch or how to miss not every shot on the street if I need to use the focus zoom feature to double check whether the subject is in focus…

Would be great to get your perspective.

thx,
J

Ultimately, you'll have to try it out for yourself, because everyone copes differently with the various ways of focusing. Perhaps my analysis of focusing in my review (towards the end) will help you.

My personal conclusion for you would be: You can do street photography with the M EV1, and you can do it quite quickly and at open aperture (my hit rate with the 35 mm at open aperture was pretty good). But you have to practise a bit and get some experience, because it works differently than with a rangefinder. Besides, you don't always have to be in complete control. With the aperture slightly closed and pre-focused, you can simply press the shutter button without having checked the focus beforehand.

Some street pics:

 

Edited 17 hours ago by elmars

[Smogg]

Giving up the rangefinder is the first step towards the rubber woman😂

[newtoleica]

Street photographer myself. Have used a RF since 2009 and also AF cameras and Sony A7R with MF lenses (Olympus OM)

There are three factors to consider. 1. How quick you want to take the shot 2. whether you want shallow DOF or stopped down and how you focus with an RF (abs or not).

To take the last first, with a tabbed lens the muscle memory in my finder gets me very much in the ball park instantly as I know the positions for infinity, 5m, 3m, 1.5m. So if I have a 24 or 35mm and it's stopped down to 4 or 5.6 this will likely be good enough to not bother fine tuning with the RF. At f8 and a WA lens simply zone focussing is sufficient. All of these will work well with an EVF.

For shallower DOF (wide open or closer shots or 50mm-longer) I start at infinity - the resting point of my tab that I always return to. I then move quickly to almost the point I expect focus and watch the RF patch slide across, as soon as it aligns I'm done. I don't rack back and forth. The alignment actually 'pops' as a sharper contrast more than an alignment of edges - this is very clear. The problem with an EVF is that it's harder to spot when focus is achieved without racking back and forth to check maximum sharpness. This slows things down.

I have never used focus peaking as it's both inaccurate (esp wider lenses stopped down) and very distracting - the very thing we have an M to avoid.... 

Magnification on a button or indeed on auto is totally unsuited to street photography as it will distract from the scene and shift the view at the critical moment.

I'm not a big fan of AF either as I find it slower than MF..... and if I'm using zone and shooting blind (as  often do) the focus can latch onto stuff I don't want.

If you're more of a 'street landscapes - architecture' than quick shots of people I'm sure an EVF would be fine, but it wouldn't work for me. Hope that helps.

[lct]

Focusing technique is of paramount importance IMO. For example, here, few people seem interested in the autozoom feature of M11 & MEV1 cameras. Being my favorite feature together with focusing at working aperture and focus peaking, it is the first thing i will check when receiving the MEV1.

[beewee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An M camera has been my primary camera from around 2010-2020 and, over that time, I have gotten very proficient focusing with the RF. I mostly migrated to the SL system when the SL2-S came along and now shoot primarily with the Q3 and SL3. I still have my M kit but rarely use it because the Q3 is pretty ideally suited for my needs when I want a light and compact setup while the SL3 and SL2-S fills the need when I want to shoot with zooms, APO SL primes, ultrawide, and Astrophotos.

There’s been the rare occasion where I want to shoot with an APO SL prime, either 21 or 28mm, as my main lens in the SL3 and I wanted a high quality lightweight prime to cover a more normal range like 35 or 50mm without carrying another SL lens so I’ll take something like a 35 FLE or 50 APO M. In those times, although I can focus accurately just fine on the SL3, I feel it would have been way faster for me to focus my M lenses with an RF, just because I’ve had lots of practice in the past. However, I remember that it took a good 1-2 year of shooting on my M8.2 before I felt proficient at MF with a RF.

The one thing motivating me when I was learning to shoot with an M was that AF sucked back then and so if I was going to get a blurry image, I wanted it to be my fault and not be held back by the AF technology at the time. With very good AF from all brands these days, there’s a lot less motivation to really develop the skill of focusing with a RF. Plus, although Leica has improved the RF precision over the years since the M8, the resolution of the sensors on the M bodies have also gone up and I think it would be harder focus accurately as a beginner RF shooter today with an M11 that would give you the same hit rate as an SL3, or A7Rv, compared to an M8 vs Canon 5D or 30D.

Edited 16 hours ago by beewee

[elmars]

vor einer Stunde schrieb newtoleica:

Magnification on a button or indeed on auto is totally unsuited to street photography as it will distract from the scene and shift the view at the critical moment.

In this point I disagree: Manually activated magnification works reasonably good. At least for me and my style of street photography.

[jjroroek]

5 hours ago, Smogg said:

Giving up the rangefinder is the first step towards the rubber woman😂

whats wrong about a rubber woman. ?

[UliWer]

6 hours ago, elmars said:

But you have to practise a bit and get some experience, because it works differently than with an EVF. Besides, you don't always have to be in complete control. With the aperture slightly closed and pre-focused, you can simply press the shutter button without having checked the focus beforehand.

I changed the quote deliberately. Elmars wrote „…than with a rangefinder.“

Though doesn‘t this description fit both systems?

Going back to Alexander108‘s question why either camera (based of focus capabilities) is better suited to different „styles“ (I‘d prefer: different motives) of photography, I‘d like to add: using which focal length?

My proposal would be:

The optical rangefinder is better suited to any motive where you use 28 to 50mm. It is quicker, simpler to use and more precise. 

When it comes to 75 or 90mm I‘d say the same as long as you don‘t use lens openings larger than f/2.

With wider lenses I also prefer the combination of the rangefinder and an additional optical viewfinder. Even if seeing the whole picture at once may be taken as an advantage I don‘t like the  EVF as I get lost in DOF and there is often too much contrast.

Rests 135mm where the EVF is definitely better. And of course close focussing beyond the limits of the optical rangefinder. For real macro I put the camera on a tripod and use the display for focussing. 

So my answer is: I prefer the optical viewfinder in approx. 95% of my own photography.

[Tailwagger]

10 hours ago, lct said:

few people seem interested in the autozoom feature of M11 & MEV1 cameras.

For the record, my M/Viso is set permanently to zoom.  The standard MO is to carry out the initial focus via the OVF which  'pre-zooms' the image in the EVF.  A quick confirm of focus followed by a half press returns the image to full frame to verify the frame edges and shoot.  Years of this have made the process quick and reasonably painless.   I never cared much for zooming in and out within the EVF itself as I find it distracting.   This pre-focus, confirm focus and frame works  for me, though I'm sure others might find it impossible to come to terms with.

[IkarusJohn]

14 hours ago, Jewl said:

how does the focus accuracy & speed is compared to the classic M?

The differences with focal lengths (wides, better framing but less precision with the EVF, as opposed to rangefinder having the same precision across all focal lengths, but less effective with longer lenses) has been done to death, as has the relative inaccuracy of focus peaking.  No question, the rangefinder is faster, with practice.

For me, one difference that is often overlooked is the tendency to place the subject centre frame with a rangefinder, for the simple reason that is where the patch is.  This can make for boring images.  You can focus and recompose, but in doing this the plain of best focus will move behind the subject.  You can overcome this by rocking back slightly, but it will always be a guess.