Is Autofocus as relevant as it is often presumed

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will not have any problem should Leica choose not to make any DSLR.

 

I will not have any problem should Leica build a AF camera using the R mount.

 

In fact, the only issue is about Leica's rumored mount change ... I can not speak for others but that is a show stopper to me. If Nikon, Pentax could build AF lenses using the old mount, why couldn't Leica do the same?

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

...If Nikon, Pentax could build AF lenses using the old mount, why couldn't Leica do the same?

Same old question and same old response: because Leica would want to make a larger than FF sensor. Why so? Don't ask me i don't understand myself but more clever people seem to be convinced that this would be *the* solution. The solution to what? Don't ask me either i'm not clever enough to respond you...

[stunsworth]

LCT, if they do really want a larger than 24x36 sensor I'd suggest it's because they feel they can't compete against Canon and Nikon in the full frame 35mm race, and fancy their chances against the MF options that are out there at the moment.

 

If so I would _guess_ that they would offer backwards compatibility by automatically cropping the sensor when an R lens is fitted in order to offer a full frame 35mm option for the 'legacy' photographers.

[rick_dykstra]

If so I would _guess_ that they would offer backwards compatibility by automatically cropping the sensor when an R lens is fitted in order to offer a full frame 35mm option for the 'legacy' photographers.

 

Oh please no! I don't want the sensor cropped with 'old' R lenses! They're good for 36 mm so why not use them with a 36 x 36 sensor? It would be great having the whole sensor area for shooting - to crop later. But what sort of viewfinder would be needed? A whole new body design?

 

Wouldn't it make more sense for the R10 to simply be a full frame sensor dedicated digital body with 16 - 20 MP? With apologies to those who want AF, I don't need it. Yet. And don't want to buy new lenses to use it.

[stunsworth]

Rick, the old lenses won't work with a 36x36 sensor. It 'seems' logical that they ought to, but when you draw circles and rectangles you see it isn't the case.

 

The other problem is mirror design, which thinking about it will probably mean that existing lenses wouldn't work with a larger than full frame mirror

[rick_dykstra]

One of the weird things about the Leica forum is that so many people seem ready to condemn others' choices of machinery -- particularly the specialists and the traditionalists. I personally don't care whether AF can hold a flying bird, because I have to think, did I ever shoot a flying bird on purpose? Uh, no, I don't think so. Or maybe once, back in '86...

 

What's wrong with having a fully autofocus-capable camera, that also has manual controls and available manual lenses and interchangeable focusing screens? Don't like autofocus, turn it off. Let the rest of us have it.

 

Like everybody else of a certain age, I manual-focused for years -- wait, for decades -- because I had no choice. Now, as I get deeper into my sixties, I find that my eyes don't work as well as they used to, and that AF is much faster and more accurate than manual focus usually is (not always.) But I'm lucky -- I have a camera that offers both! When I'm working with my D3 and Nikon lenses, I get a much higher percentage of hits than I do with the M8. But sometimes I put a Zeiss ZF lens on the D3, and manual focus! Gee whiz!

 

I have to say, I think most people -- including most people on this forum -- also would get a higher percentage of hits if they bothered to learn how to use a good fast AF. I'm not talking about what they prefer to do, I'm talking about hits. If there was some way to set up a double-blind test, I think you could prove it. I even think you could prove it with bird photos, though the tester would have to know how to use AF.

 

But my main gripe here is the intolerance for something that's a major convenience for some people, while not harming others. It's like complaining about having a ramp outside of a public building, along with stairs. Sure, they used 1 penny of your personal tax money to build the ramp, but you only use the stairs, so your attitude is, screw all those wheelchair-bound people who can't use the stairs.

 

On a practical, non-rant basis, I think the R10, if there ever is one, needs autofocus capability, or its going to be in even worse competitive shape than it is now. That competitive shape is already terrible, and the R10 hasn't even appeared yet -- have you seen a Zeiss lens on a D3 or an R lens on a 1DsIII? How much better can the R10 be? IMHO, the R10 has to offer the best DSLR image quality, hands down, plus the basic modern conveniences -- autofocus, full "program" control, dual card slots, high ISO capability, etc. as well as full manual control -- or it's a dead duck.

 

JC

 

Hi JC - thanks for this interesting post. I'll not bite, but will take part in your double-blind experiment. (I also have a question for you, at the bottom.)

 

I shot soccer action with Leica 400, 280 and even 560 lenses for a couple of years - manual focus of course. I got many good shots, but almost blew my brain up with the mental effort required to focus accurately whilst also composing and shooting and not wasting any frames. I would go home totally exhausted after a day at it.

 

When, back in mid 1998 I received confirmation that the next R body would not be AF I bought a Nikon F5 and 300/2.8 AFS - then the new kids on the block. Wow - what a difference! My action shot sales went through the roof. That body and lens paid for themselves in one week at a tournament soon after. I've used Ms and Rs for candids, portraits and team shots for years and they are very good for that indeed.

 

Horses for courses!

 

I will bite a little. When we use an SLR we focus our eyes on the focussing screen. We might rely on spectacles or the inbuilt/supplementary diopter adjustment to help with this, but there isn't any ocular accommodation involved in viewing different objects in the viewfinder - near or far. As long as we can see well at one distance, we should be OK with an SLR.

 

I'm trying to keep my eyes flexible and choose not to use multifocal spectacles. I use my fixed lens specs as little as possible. I force my eyes to work and get a pat on the back from my optician. I'll let you know in 30 years if it's worked. What I do know is that my MF Leica lenses will still work then.

 

A question for you if I may - what kind of vision problem/s are you finding AF to help with? How good is your vision once corrected with spectacles? Do you use the specs when shooting? I'm genuinely interested - not only because I hope to be using my Leicas to take pics of the pretty nurses in the old folks home one day.

 

Regards, Rick.

[rick_dykstra]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rick, the old lenses won't work with a 36x36 sensor. It 'seems' logical that they ought to, but when you draw circles and rectangles you see it isn't the case.

 

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Rats!

 

What is this R10 gonna be then? There must be some out for testing by now. Keep your eyes open guys! I guess Guy will be keeping his mouth closed. hehe.

[stunsworth]

Guy's moved on from beta testing M8 firmware to Phase One medium format digital. I expect he knows no more than you or I do.

[wildlightphoto]

Now maybe the SL2 is much better than the Nikon F2.

 

Comparing my Nikon F2 with E screen and Leicaflex SL2 with a 400mm f/5.6 lens on each camera with diopter correction on each camera to compensate for aging eyes it's no contest, huge advantage to the Leicaflex.

[wildlightphoto]

What's wrong with having a fully autofocus-capable camera, that also has manual controls and available manual lenses and interchangeable focusing screens? Don't like autofocus, turn it off. Let the rest of us have it.

 

Because AF as presently incorporated into cameras hinders manual focus. Just because manual focus is possible with an AF camera doesn't mean that manual focus will be particularly usable or effective.

 

I have to say, I think most people -- including most people on this forum -- also would get a higher percentage of hits if they bothered to learn how to use a good fast AF. I'm not talking about what they prefer to do, I'm talking about hits. If there was some way to set up a double-blind test, I think you could prove it. I even think you could prove it with bird photos, though the tester would have to know how to use AF.

 

There are many bird photographers using AF equipment who focus manually because the AF locks on to a near wingtip or gets confused with the bird flies past a patterned background like a tree or a cloud.

 

But my main gripe here is the intolerance for something that's a major convenience for some people, while not harming others.

 

But it DOES harm others. There are LOTS of AF cameras available. I'd like a decent manual focus camera with DMR or better image quality. There are NO cameras like this available, new.

 

On a practical, non-rant basis, I think the R10, if there ever is one, needs autofocus capability, or its going to be in even worse competitive shape than it is now. That competitive shape is already terrible, and the R10 hasn't even appeared yet -- have you seen a Zeiss lens on a D3 or an R lens on a 1DsIII? How much better can the R10 be?

 

This is what many people were saying before anyone was able to test the DMR against the top-of-the-line competitors at that time. There's still room for improvement.

[jrc]

Doug Herr said: Because AF as presently incorporated into cameras hinders manual focus. Just because manual focus is possible with an AF camera doesn't mean that manual focus will be particularly usable or effective.

 

You probably know a lot more about manual focus than I do - I've only got one manual focus DSLR lens, a Zeiss ZF25 f2.8, but it seems to work just fine on my D3 and D300, as long as I've got a little time and the light. It doesn't seem any more difficult to focus than, say, an F3 was, or an M8 is. But I won't argue with you: maybe for your purposes, AF lenses don't focus that well. My point was more along the lines that Leica needs a modern AF camera to compete with the likes of Nikon, Canon and even the MF cameras. Autofocus is no longer rocket science...I don't think people will any longer buy an expensive camera without it; and I desperately want the R10 (if there is one) to succeed, because if it's a flop, it could drag down the M9.

 

Rick asked: A question for you if I may - what kind of vision problem/s are you finding AF to help with? How good is your vision once corrected with spectacles? Do you use the specs when shooting?

 

My vision is okay when corrected with glasses (to 20-20, or something close) but the problem is, I can no longer easily pick up the critical micro-edges of things. With a manual focus lens, I have to sort of grope for the edges, which slows me down a lot. My ophthalmologist tells me it's just my eyes getting older -- ten years ago I didn't have the problem. The chances of my seeing a highlight in the eye of a flying bird are non-existent. (I've seen some of Doug Herr's photos and they're terrific; I couldn't do that even if I had the interest.)

 

JC

[rick_dykstra]

Thanks JC. The 20-20 part is good - makes you 18 YO all over again. But the micro-edge part is not so much fun I guess. I see the point with AF. Curiously, I've been finding it tricky focussing manually of late (without really wondering why). I'll keep at it though.

 

If Leica can make a DSLR that hits the spot like the DMR did, that has AF and is still perfect for MF, well that could be a good product for their catalogue and profitability.

 

Good luck with your eyes and your photography.

[lct]

LCT, if they do really want a larger than 24x36 sensor I'd suggest it's because they feel they can't compete against Canon and Nikon in the full frame 35mm race, and fancy their chances against the MF options that are out there at the moment...

So Leica would create a new niche in the hope to escape both nicasony and mamyphase competition if i understand well.

Clever idea indeed, but why would legacy customers wish to pay a lot of money to get less pixels than other FFs behind a cropped viewfinder?

And why would new customers wish to gain a couple of millimeters instead of getting true MFs at a similar price or cheaper FFs with more pixels in the sensor?

[sdai]

And why would new customers wish to gain a couple of millimeters instead of getting true MFs at a similar price or cheaper FFs with more pixels in the sensor?

 

There is one area Leica could pick up because the high end of medium format digital is now going "fuller" full frame ... say "real" 645 size sensors, so Leica could do the cropped MF sensors ...

 

But to ditch the legacy R mount is an insult to its loyal customers (to say the least), it is truly humiliating.

 

And regarding AF, if one is satisfied with the performance of a D80, K20D or even a Digital Rebel, sure, it's not rocket science. But any one who knows about the amount of intelligence Nikon and Canon have injected into their top dogs won't downplay the sophistication of the AF system found in a 1D series or the D3. Just to name two things, who will give Leica a high end AF sensor? and who will program its AF processor?

 

I doubt that neither Nikon nor Canon will sell it even one is willing to pay for asking price upfront.

 

Front focus, back focus ... micro adjustment, here you go.

[wildlightphoto]

I can no longer easily pick up the critical micro-edges of things. With a manual focus lens, I have to sort of grope for the edges, which slows me down a lot.

 

Instead of looking for micro-edges try to maximize micro contrast. It's a trick that was in common use in the 1960s and 1970s with the Nikon F's E viewscreen.

[Alessandro Fanchin]

But my main gripe here is the intolerance for something that's a major convenience for some people, while not harming others. It's like complaining about having a ramp outside of a public building, along with stairs. Sure, they used 1 penny of your personal tax money to build the ramp, but you only use the stairs, so your attitude is, screw all those wheelchair-bound people who can't use the stairs.

 

Being one of the people here that do not agree with your idea about autofocus, I am really OFFENDED by your words. Please think for 20 seconds before answering again.

 

Do you think that we can have different opinion, write them down here on the Forum in a clear and short way without many "excuse me", "I would like to point out", "you are maybe right but", etc? On the contrary, it seems to me that everyone having different opinion than yours should excuse himself, becaus he/she could hurt you. Isn't it?

 

Do you think that if I write here that I like blondes the brunettes could go angry?

 

Come on!!

 

All of the above has been written while smiling, as when I write to a friend:

[pgk]

I asked this question because I, personally, would actually like a fully manual dSLR! I just wondered whether there were many others who might also see this as a useful asset? Given that Leica are a niche manufacturer, have no direct experience in autofocus, have an excellent existing set of lenses (I'm completely baffled by those who think that Leica should enter the 'MF' market of which they have no experience and which is very demanding too), and to whom producing such a dSLR should be a relatively easy task - and one which would suit a niche market. I have Canons and use them with Leica R lenses with little problem at present (although the lack of an auto diaphragm and the 'iffy' metering resulting from this can be irritating). But the (FF) Canons are big, bulky and heavy - I'd like a smaller, simpler (FF) dSLR!

[sdai]

If you have followed these "R10" threads (just in case), it's pretty clear that the majority of "current" R system users know exactly what they want and prefers Leica to stay with the R mount and build a full manual focus camera.

 

It's only those who don't currently own Leica R cameras/lenses advocating changes such as AF, "bigger than 35mm FF". This people apparently don't appreciate what Leica has done before, don't like what Leica is building now ... and probably won't like what Leica will do either.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

...Given that Leica are a niche manufacturer, have no direct experience in autofocus,...

 

Isn't it interesting that after AF SLR cameras have been available for about 23 years Leica has no experience with AF?

[pgk]

Nor have many other 'niche' manufacturers. Convergent evolution in products becomes exceptionally boring - I used to use Nikon dSLRs, I now use Canon. If I were to rechoose today, I'd be hard pressed to decide which to go for - in all honesty there isn't a vast amount of difference in a great many ways, and that which there is pushes you into one camp or another depending on your requirements/foibles. FWIW I chose Canon due to the 10 MPixel FF availability and the 24/1.4, and if Nikon were to produce a 24/1.4 alongside their D3 I'd be rechoosing merely on handling. I don't see much point in trying to compete with such cameras - far better to offer an alternative divergent system which offers REAL choice as opposed to marginal specification differences. Also FWIW I DO use AF and couldn't operate without it for a lot of my work, but for other sectors a smaller fully manual dSLR with superb lenses wouldf be a very welcome addition.