If Leica goes liveview..

[Godfrey]

Sheesh, here I am trying to decide if I should buy a Leica M9 when along comes all these rumours of the M10 and liveview.

I'd value the option to actually be able to confirm focus in the field and I get the feeling I'm not alone. But what do I do, buy the M9 now and take a huge hit a while down the line, forget the whole idea and look elsewhere, or wait?

Yes, I know, only I can answer the above. Hey, go easy on me, this is my first post here.

Gear buying angst is everywhere. ;-)

I obtained the M9 recently and I'm delighted with it. My intent is to keep it a long long time.

If an M10 appears and is the same but also supports Live View to the LCD, that would be great. I'll put it on my wish list. No great hurry as the Ricoh GXR provides an excellent TTL electronic camera that uses all my M-bayonet lenses very nicely ... I really have no pressing desire or need for more features in the M. I bought it for the optical rangefinder and simplicity in operation. I would not be interested in the M10 if it does not have the optical rangefinder.

If/when Leica annouced their own entirely TTL electronic body and if it performs as well as the GXR does with my M-bayonet lenses, it will be on my wish list too. Again, no rush at all since what I have does such a nice job as it is.

If I was considering the M9 now, I wouldn't wait as whatever the M10 might be is a half a year away at least ... and the M9 is certainly a fine camera as it is. If a Leica M what you want, go for it. Otherwise, buy a GXR and A12 Camera Mount for a TTL electronic camera and wait to see what the M10 will be ... it's only $1200 or so, not a big deal compared to buying an M9 or M10 body, and it produces superb photographs with M-bayonet lenses.

Your options are open and varied. ;-)

 

[KeithL]

Your options are open and varied. ;-)

Indeed they are.

Really, the M9 is just about everything I want apart from a way to accurately evaluate focus in the field. A decent LCD would do the trick.

My options include buying a Sony NEX-7 or Fuji X-Pro1 as a stopgap until the specs of the M10 are known. There again I may take your advice and just go ahead and buy the M9.

 

[Godfrey]

Indeed they are.

Really, the M9 is just about everything I want apart from a way to accurately evaluate focus in the field. A decent LCD would do the trick.

My options include buying a Sony NEX-7 or Fuji X-Pro1 as a stopgap until the specs of the M10 are known. There again I may take your advice and just go ahead and buy the M9.

I presume you mean beyond what the rangefinder provides. You can easily set up the M9 to do full resolution JPEG + raw, focus, make an exposure, and then check that the focus is exactly what you want using the review facility. Live view allows you to check in this detail before you make the shot, but it isn't much faster in doing so. The rangefinder is very accurate.

BTW: The NEX 7 will not work as well with many of the shorter M-bayonet lenses as the GXR does; the NEX 5n does better but is still not quite up to the GXR performance. The Fuji is an unknown as yet as to how well it will perform with these lenses. At this point in time, if you want to use the largest variety of M-bayonet lenses and get the most out of them, the GXR is the best alternative to an M8 or M9. (And it might perform better with some M-bayonet designs than the Ms too .. that much I haven't explored fully yet.)

Many options...

 

[Vivek]

Live view allows you to check in this detail before you make the shot, but it isn't much faster in doing so. The rangefinder is very accurate.

How I wish I had known that earlier or is true. :shocked:

[BTW, anyone wishing to discuss the "shutter lag" in a camera ought to read this. ]

 

[KeithL]

I presume you mean beyond what the rangefinder provides.

Absolutely.

Godfrey, are you saying the comparatively low resolution LCD on the M9 is capable of reviewing critical focus? Everything I've heard up to now suggests otherwise.

 

[Godfrey]

Certainly it is. With a full rez JPEG, you magnify the image to about 8x in Review and can easily see whether the detail is crisp. That as good as you're going to get with any EVF or LCD on camera, including what I've seen with NEX 5n and EVF. Once you get the image magnification to about 1:1 with the display resolution, all pixel displays will show the same thing.

If you need a better evaluation than that, connect the camera to a computer, transfer the file, and check there. None of this ultra high critical focus checking is fast, neither is landscape work in general. Nothing's ever going to beat transferring the file to a big screen and checking it at 2x magnification for critical accuracy.

Not that I think such extraordinary focus precision necessary for 99.99999% of any pictorial photography.

 

[Godfrey]

How I wish I had known that earlier or is true.

[BTW, anyone wishing to discuss the "shutter lag" in a camera ought to read this. ]

Not sure I understand your comment, or how there is a relation to shutter lag.

 

[KeithL]

If you need a better evaluation than that, connect the camera to a computer...

That comes later, back at base.

Certainly it is. With a full rez JPEG, you magnify the image to about 8x in Review and can easily see whether the detail is crisp.

Godfrey, thanks, you have given me hope, but as I've said other folk have told me the resolution of the LCD is simply not up to evaluating critical focus. I think I need to try this myself. In the meantime if anyone else could chip in here it would be appreciated.

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey, thanks, you have given me hope, but as I've said other folk have told me the resolution of the LCD is simply not up to evaluating critical focus. I think I need to try this myself. In the meantime if anyone else could chip in here it would be appreciated.

So I hadn't done this myself yet (such extraordinarily critical focus evaluation is very rarely of interest to me) but I was curious. So I set the M9 on a tripod with the 40mm lens set to f/2 and focused on my bookcase after having "stair stepped" my issues of LensWork magazine to provide a focusing target. This full frame rendering closely approximates what I see on the normal magnification with the M9's review:

Clicking once goes to about 2x which looks similar to this:

and going to maximum magnification goes to 1:1 pixel view which looks like the magnified section in this:

The focus distance from Issue 80 to the image plane was 37 inches and I set the magazines stepped so that #79 was about a quarter inch in front of #80, #78 about a quarter inch behind, the others stepped back an inch at a time and about 3.5 inches from the row of them in the background.

This seems quite capable of discerning proper focus to me, and very similar to doing the same thing with focus assist magnification at 8x with the Ricoh GXR or Panasonic G1. For more precision in a camera than that, the only thing I've seen that does better was my Nikon F3/T with the high-magnification focusing reticle head fitted to it.

 

[KeithL]

Godfrey, Many thanks, I have to say that's far better than I had expected.

Puts my Hasselblad to shame.

 

[Brian S]

The Display of the M9 and M8 allows review of critical focus. I use it to collimate lenses. I've adjusted lenses "on the spot" based on reviewing the focus with the M8 and M9. It is also easy to detect focus shift in lenses using the magified view with the LCD.


I used the M9, reviewed critical focus with the LCD, to convert this F1.5 Sonnar to Leica mount.

Actual focus seems pretty close to what the RF indicates...

"Works for me"

 

[KeithL]

The Display of the M9 and M8 allows review of critical focus...

Brian, appreciated, thanks.

Amongst other concerns I had the focus shift of the Zeiss ZM Sonnar f1.5 in mind. Needless to say it is on my list.

 

[k-hawinkler]

So I hadn't done this myself yet (such extraordinarily critical focus evaluation is very rarely of interest to me) but I was curious. So I set the M9 on a tripod with the 40mm lens set to f/2 and focused on my bookcase after having "stair stepped" my issues of LensWork magazine to provide a focusing target. This full frame rendering closely approximates what I see on the normal magnification with the M9's review:

Clicking once goes to about 2x which looks similar to this:

and going to maximum magnification goes to 1:1 pixel view which looks like the magnified section in this:

The focus distance from Issue 80 to the image plane was 37 inches and I set the magazines stepped so that #79 was about a quarter inch in front of #80, #78 about a quarter inch behind, the others stepped back an inch at a time and about 3.5 inches from the row of them in the background.

This seems quite capable of discerning proper focus to me, and very similar to doing the same thing with focus assist magnification at 8x with the Ricoh GXR or Panasonic G1. For more precision in a camera than that, the only thing I've seen that does better was my Nikon F3/T with the high-magnification focusing reticle head fitted to it.

Hi Godfrey,

Many, many thanks for this topic and the demonstration. Fantastic.
I will repeat your experiment right away for my education.

I have been doing something similar to check the accuracy of my Visoflex IIIs. Instead of the M9, I have used my NEX-5N with an adapter. So, I use the Visoflex to focus, as good as I can, and check with focus peaking and magnification of the NEX-5N.

In the field I found, that depending on conditions, sometimes optical focus of the Visoflex works best, sometimes focus peaking, and sometimes magnification.

Now based on your explanations, I finally have a reason to shoot with DNG + JPG Fine to check the accuracy of my M lenses' adjustments. So I can use the M9 LCD display to iteratively focus precisely and then look through the rangefinder to see how far apart the two images are.

Of course, I can also use an USB cable to hook up the M9 to my MacBook Pro and use Image Capture to shoot images and download them automatically once I have manually adjusted aperture and focus, asuming fixed ISO and the A setting on the shutter speed wheel.

I had sent in a number of lenses and other gear for CLA, but unfortunately got some of it back in worse adjustment, others in perfect adjustment. For example, 2 of the Visoflexes I checked are now spot on, others I still have to check.

I feel, based on your input, I now have several procedures to accurately assess the adjustments of my gear without overly relying on my aging eye sight.

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge and insight.
Your posts in this thread have been most helpful indeed!

With best regards, K-H.

 

[Brian S]

Brian, appreciated, thanks.

Amongst other concerns I had the focus shift of the Zeiss ZM Sonnar f1.5 in mind. Needless to say it is on my list.

I have the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5, and the focus shift is easily detectable and can be compensated for with a little practice. when stopping down, leave the RF image slightly offset- stop a little bit on the close side. Stopping down shifts the focus towards infinity, past what the RF indicates.

 

[ohnri]

I also use my M9's LCD to check focus accuracy on my library.

It works well. I am not joking. I check for focus shift exactly that way.

For checking focus accuracy on people in the field, however, it is next to worthless. Those are two vastly different tasks. If you need to know if a shot is sharp enough to print larger than a postage stamp you will need to download your images.

Mind you, I routinely shoot action with my M9 and my Noctilux and I am highly motivated to find a way to use my LCD for this purpose. Unfortunately, it cannot be reliably done, which means it cannot be done.

The same was true for my M8.

My D3x is far better at this and even it is not as good as I would like.

Anyway, bottom line, the M9 LCD is not up to the task.

Please let me buy a M10 with a decent LCD, better high ISO performance, a reasonable buffer, an accurate battery meter, faster frames per second, live view with an optional EVF and fast write times.

Best,

Bill

 

[k-hawinkler]

Bill,

I agree.

Best, K-H.

 

[KeithL]

Thanks, Bill.

This is what I feared.

 

[cam]

Thanks, Bill.

This is what I feared.

and yet me and a zillion others are using the M9 and find the LCD perfectly adequate to check focus.

it's all in the eyes of the beholder and how proficient you get with the rangefinder and learning all your lenses inside and out.

i shoot frequently with the Noctilux at f/1, other lenses at f/1.4, and do not find the system wanting. if time/place allows, i will check focus on the back and find it is more than adequate. if there isn't time, i have learned to trust in myself and my equipment. (i would be miserable if all my time was spent chimping.)

honestly, there are a lot of reasons to get an M9 and a lot not to (you either like shooting rangefinders or you don't). frankly, for me, the LCD is neither here nor there, certainly not a barrier. to say it's not up to the task is laughable -- what about all those shooting film?

 

[KeithL]

to say it's not up to the task is laughable...

Let's be clear, I'm not saying the LCD is or is not up to the task, merely asking the question. It would seem that there are those who feel it is up to task and those who feel it isn't.

Clearly I need to suck it and see.

 

[cam]

Let's be clear, I'm not saying the LCD is or is not up to the task, merely asking the question. It would seem that there are those who feel it is up to task and those who feel it isn't.

Clearly I need to suck it and see.

precisely.

which is why asking everyone's opinion on the subject is not going to make a difference on whether it will work for you or not. it will or it won't... and nobody can make that call but you.