Classic M vs. M EV1 - Focus Accuracy & Speed

[Jewl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 1 Stunde schrieb maidenfan84:

Honestly, I’m still a little confused on this focusing how it works. Will it still have a focus patch like a traditional rangefinder where the two images need to align or is it gonna be more like a modern camera for the whole picture is either in focus or out of focus?

That‘s why I asked how fast/accurate can it be without the patch as you only rely on focus peaking and/or focus zoom… havent tried it yet but at least I imagined with the RF patch you will be faster especially if you stop down and everything in focus turns red (as almost everything might be in focus)

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, Jewl said:

That‘s why I asked how fast/accurate can it be without the patch as you only rely on focus peaking and/or focus zoom… havent tried it yet but at least I imagined with the RF patch you will be faster especially if you stop down and everything in focus turns red (as almost everything might be in focus)

IMO.

These are focusing methods by speed:

- prefocused (zone)

- rangefinder

- EVF/LCD

These are focusing methods by accuracy:

- EVF/LCD

- rangefinder

- prefocused (zone)

[BernardC]

8 hours ago, SrMi said:

These are focusing methods by accuracy:

- EVF/LCD

- rangefinder

- prefocused (zone)

I think it's a wash for accuracy. Rangefinders are better than EVF in low light, or when stopped-down. Prefocused can be extremely accurate if you do it like on film sets: with a tape measure and a calibrated lens.

[rouge_homme]

After having the M-EV1 for a few days, I can definitely say that the process of focusing feels more cumbersome than the traditional rangefinder (which I'm used to).

As others have stated, the peaking isn't reliable unless you're shooting wide open, which I rarely do. I also find that the auto-magnification when you start to rotate the lens has a noticeable lag, so the experience is less than seamless. Especially compared to the implementation on the Q3, which magnifies at the slightest touch of the focus ring in manual mode.

As it stands, I have turned off the peaking + auto-magnification and instead set the small function button next to the shutter to magnify instead (as it's easily within reach of my shutter finger).

So my process is as follows:
- Compose the shot and focus as best I can with the full-size image
- Use the function button to punch in and fine-tune focus
- Zoom back out to re-check composition and take the shot

It works and is fine for still or slower-moving subjects and I'm enjoying the EVF for precise framing and exposure visualisation, but the whole process just feels a bit clumsy to me.

Very open to any tips from others' experience!

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, rouge_homme said:

As it stands, I have turned off the peaking + auto-magnification and instead set the small function button next to the shutter to magnify instead (as it's easily within reach of my shutter finger)

I have played with various combinations (but only one focal length) and currently use the same setting. I think I may even skip "riding the aperture."

Looking forward to gain more insight with the camera and especially how it compares to shooting with the rangefinder M11.

It is fun to always have access to LPC framing and being able to optimize exposure instead of exposing blind (aka using experience), but I miss the OVF and the quickness and simplicity of the rangefinder.

So, I 'll probably keep switching between cameras, but for now I stick with M-EV1 for a while.

[JoshuaR]

Back when I used an SL2-S with my M lenses, I learned that a way to speed up the process is to turn on magnification as you bring the camera up to your eye, and then un-zoom to compose. This is faster than how I initially worked, which was to raise the camera, frame the composition, zoom, focus, unzoom, and snap. Instead, I'd raise the camera, focus, unzoom, and snap. It's just a habit you can get into.

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps Leica should introduce an M with optical rangefinder. It might attract new customers who find the learning curve with EVF too steep. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Each to their own but I'm not having issues focusing the EV1. I have it for the times where focusing with an RF is a pian. The 135 telyt, 50mm f1.0 etc. But I have also tried it with my more regular lenses and it's fine. I am quicker with the RF for 35 and 50mm lenses with tabs but the rest are a wash.

I did spend some time playing with the settings. Mostly I've settled on peaking only set to blue and low intensity.  much of the time I can focus quite well with no aids and this is better than setting the peaking to high for me. I didn't like the red for peaking. I have set the selector lever to push for magnification and pull to enable/disable peaking. I'm currently experimenting with setting another view profile for situations where the blue/low isn't appropriate.

Not everyone gets on with EVF's but so far no issues for me after I took the time to experiment with set up. With some practice I can see me getting to a single focus throw for focusing just like I do with the RF.

Gordon

[steve edmunds]

15 hours ago, SrMi said:

IMO.

These are focusing methods by speed:

- prefocused (zone)

- rangefinder

- EVF/LCD

These are focusing methods by accuracy:

- EVF/LCD

- rangefinder

- prefocused (zone)

you hit the nail on the head with this post , the challenge for Leica is to make the EVF as quick or even faster than the RF method,

[lct]

17 minutes ago, steve edmunds said:

you hit the nail on the head with this post , the challenge for Leica is to make the EVF as quick or even faster than the RF method,

Perhaps but after 50+ years with RFs and 10+ years with mirrorless cameras, both with M and LTM lenses, i've learned one thing, it is not the focus aid the slow factor, if any, it is me (or not). Funny to read that rangefinders have suddenly become the better focus aids on moving subjects. I would have said this 20 years ago, most people around me would have laughed. All this is a matter of practice. Some people are fast with a RF, others not, some are fast with an EVF, others not. Some people can or want improve, others not. The point is to know which focus aid we feel better with, the rest is just theory if you ask me. Just my 2 cents.

[steve edmunds]

20 minutes ago, lct said:

Perhaps but after 50+ years with RFs and 10+ years with mirrorless cameras, both with M and LTM lenses, i've learned one thing, it is not the focus aid the slow factor, if any, it is me (or not). Funny to read that rangefinders have suddenly become the better focus aids on moving subjects. I would have said this 20 years ago, most people around me would have laughed. All this is a matter of practice. Some people are fast with a RF, others not, some are fast with an EVF, others not. Some people can or want improve, others not. The point is to know which focus aid we feel better with, the rest is just theory if you ask me. Just my 2 cents.

i guess what i am thinking is that with the RF you focus and shoot with the EVF you magnify , focus and shoot which is slower maybe? people photography i mean 

[lct]

17 minutes ago, steve edmunds said:

i guess what i am thinking is that with the RF you focus and shoot with the EVF you magnify , focus and shoot which is slower maybe? people photography i mean 

Well with a RF you focus, recompose and shoot. Makes 3 steps. With an EVF, if i read some advices, we got a dozen steps... Just kidding. I don't try to sell anything 😎

[BWColor]

On 10/26/2025 at 8:10 AM, Jewl said:

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

Nobody can answer this question for you.  My perspective is that I learn to use whatever is in hand.  I have rangefinders in 35mm, 645 and 6x7 film, FF digital and autofocus in FF and medium forma digital.  That said, I like being able to use the Visoflex 2 because I can tilt it 90 degrees and I like using manual focus with my autofocus cameras.  For all 35mm/FF work I prefer wider lenses and much of the time I use zone focusing, sometimes with an external optical viewfinder.  If you gave me a choice of a low tech manual focus EVF option vs a rangefinder camera, I would choose the rangefinder.  Now, here’s the problem, you are not me.  So, back to my initial comment, only you can answer this question.

Edited Wednesday at 11:57 PM by BWColor
deletion

[charlesphoto99]

44 minutes ago, lct said:

Some people are fast with a RF, others not, some are fast with an EVF, others not. Some people can or want improve, others not. The point is to know which focus aid we feel better with, the rest is just theory if you ask me. Just my 2 cents.

This argument leaves out the lens. Don't master the lens, you won't master manual focusing. Neither viewfinder way will be of benefit if razor sharp photography is your goal and you don't know which way to turn the lens if your subject is coming at you or away from you. Of course this speaks to dynamic situations. Hunting back and forth with the rf or magnification out the garden door or hotel room window is easy enough. Landscapes - infinity and be there. The luxury thing about the digital age is it doesn't cost you anything, and if you can learn from your mistakes in real time. I think a lot of people just want an excuse for another toy. And that's okay too. 

[beewee]

7 hours ago, rouge_homme said:

So my process is as follows:
- Compose the shot and focus as best I can with the full-size image
- Use the function button to punch in and fine-tune focus
- Zoom back out to re-check composition and take the shot

It works and is fine for still or slower-moving subjects and I'm enjoying the EVF for precise framing and exposure visualisation, but the whole process just feels a bit clumsy to me.

This is what I do on the SL3 and clumsy is how I would describe it too.

To me, EVF may be preferable over a rangefinder if you are shooting in good light and either zone focusing with small aperture, or shooting wide open with shallow depth of field and require precise focusing whether it be with wide angle or telephoto. Rangefinder is preferable if you’re shooting in low light and stopped down with a larger depth of field.

For framing, there are tradeoffs to both optical viewfinders and EVFs. I specifically use the term optical viewfinder as it covers more than rangefinders. For wide angle lenses (18-24mm), you can get a hot shoe mounted optical viewfinder and get the same benefits of a rangefinder where you can see things outside of the frame lines - at least with the very nice Zeiss finders that I prefer. So if precise focusing is not needed and you want to know what’s just outside of the frame, an optical viewfinder is great. However, if you require precise framing then EVF is preferable.

What all this tells me is that if I am manual focusing, I would really prefer a camera that has both. However, if I have to compromise on both to have a hybrid option, then I would rather forego the hybrid viewfinder and get a camera with a standard rangefinder with the option to add an EVF like the visoflex. It’s a compromise but if I didn’t have to compromise on the rangefinder and EVF experience where I can reap the benefits of the M11 RF and the EVF of an SL3, then a hybrid viewfinder would be the holy grail for me.

[charlesphoto99]

What I think many miss when discussing this, is that with the rangefinder and optical finder, one can see the entire scene while at the same time focusing quickly and accurately (enough). So therefore one can take the photo simultaneously when focusing, whereas the EVF with magnification one has to punch in and then punch back out before one can see the entire scene at the decisive moment (which is no longer so decisive). Of course this doesn't matter with static subjects.

I still say that Leica missed an opportunity to have a magnified 'patch' that is a magnified small picture within the overall picture. That way one gets a real time confirmation of focus while never having to relinquish seeing the entire scene. This might not be the best option for those with aging eyesight, but it could/should be an option versus always magnifying the entire screen. Having a real time mini second screen (PiP) might be beyond the Maestro 3 CPU though. 

[Sharpdressed]

18 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

What I think many miss when discussing this, is that with the rangefinder and optical finder, one can see the entire scene while at the same time focusing quickly and accurately (enough). So therefore one can take the photo simultaneously when focusing, whereas the EVF with magnification one has to punch in and then punch back out before one can see the entire scene at the decisive moment (which is no longer so decisive). Of course this doesn't matter with static subjects.

I still say that Leica missed an opportunity to have a magnified 'patch' that is a magnified small picture within the overall picture. That way one gets a real time confirmation of focus while never having to relinquish seeing the entire scene. This might not be the best option for those with aging eyesight, but it could/should be an option versus always magnifying the entire screen. Having a real time mini second screen (PiP) might be beyond the Maestro 3 CPU though. 

Agree that PiP can be a solution but the best would be to have a virtual rangefinder patch linked to the focus cam of the lens.

I don’t know if it’s doable but that would solve the problem about focusing with a large dof.