The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Lens Insight

Godfrey

Well-known member
... My understanding is that M240 magnified liveview is limited to the centre of the screen. Great if this coincides with the subject but useless if it doesn't. Hoorah for the introduction, boo for the implementation. ...
If true, that's a serious negative. It's not a restriction with the X2 or GXR, or any of the Micro-FourThirds cameras, and hasn't been with any of the other Live View cameras I've used. First I've seen it ... I checked and it was in Ming Thein's review comments on the new M, but that's the only placed I was able to find the reference.

Of course we don't have access to the new M instruction manual yet which would be the definitive source.

G
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
If true, that's a serious negative. It's not a restriction with the X2 or GXR, or any of the Micro-FourThirds cameras, and hasn't been with any of the other Live View cameras I've used. First I've seen it ... I checked and it was in Ming Thein's review comments on the new M, but that's the only placed I was able to find the reference.

Of course we don't have access to the new M instruction manual yet which would be the definitive source.

G
Well I do not see what else should be in LV if it is magnified? But I must say I almost never use magnified LV on my OMD, so I was not really disturbed about that.

But I could see using mainly focus peaking with LV or EVF on the M anyway. So it would not be an issue for me I think.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Ah, good old focus and recompose ;)
Well, the point is that with any of my Live View cameras I could compose and set up the scene, then focus critically. Your comment was the first time I'd heard that the "targeting zoom" facility that's in every other Live View camera I've had since 2004 wasn't enabled on the new M.

I've used this capability on the Ricoh GXR and Panasonic G1 countless times to set focus on an off-center subject element.

G
 

KeithL

Well-known member
If true, that's a serious negative. It's not a restriction with the X2 or GXR, or any of the Micro-FourThirds cameras, and hasn't been with any of the other Live View cameras I've used. First I've seen it ... I checked and it was in Ming Thein's review comments on the new M, but that's the only placed I was able to find the reference.

Of course we don't have access to the new M instruction manual yet which would be the definitive source.

G
Godfrey, central magnified liveview only has been confirmed by several beta testers. Apparently it cannot be rectified by firmware as it is a limitation of the sensor.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Well I do not see what else should be in LV if it is magnified? But I must say I almost never use magnified LV on my OMD, so I was not really disturbed about that.

But I could see using mainly focus peaking with LV or EVF on the M anyway. So it would not be an issue for me I think.
I find that focus peaking is great for getting the focus in the ballpark, but for critical focusing accuracy I want a 4x to 10x magnification (depending upon focal length) without peaking turned on (just like I used to do with an optical ground glass and a magnifier). Being able to target the center of the zoom area has been a major boon for static work that requires critical focus, for me anyway.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey, central magnified liveview only has been confirmed by several beta testers. Apparently it cannot be rectified by firmware as it is a limitation of the sensor.
Again, if true that is a major disadvantage to the implementation.

I can't believe it's a limitation of the sensor itself ... how could that be? ... the sensor just collects intensity information and transfers that data to a set of fast storage registers through an A->D converter. If it's a hardware limitation, it means that the design of the video system which takes that data and relays it, after conversion to RGB, etc, does not allow for windowing the sampled sensor data ... it has a fixed window on the center of the data field which it uses for magnification overlays.

Feh, that's an annoyance.

G
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Again, if true that is a major disadvantage to the implementation.

I can't believe it's a limitation of the sensor itself ... how could that be? ...
It's come from the horse's mouth via beta testers, Jono, Chris and Ming.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
It's come from the horse's mouth via beta testers, Jono, Chris and Ming.
Um, with all due respect to the beta testers, they can only state what they've been told or inferred from what they've been told about technical implementation details like this. I don't recall that Jono said anything about it (I'll re-read his report...), Ming sounded as if he was relaying what someone told him a little bit casually, and I'm not sure who Chris is ... :)

Ah well, another feature request for type 241. :)

G

addendum: Just read through Jono's review. He doesn't mention this limitation at all that I could find. Ming does. Who is Chris ...? ;-)
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
I can't believe it's a limitation of the sensor itself ... how could that be?
The hardware can't run full resolution at video frame rates. The sensor can't be read at those rates, and ADC can't sample it, and the DSP can't process it.

So there are a few possibilities:
1. The sensor allows capturing video from a center crop area.
2. The sensor allows capturing video from an arbitrary window.
3. The firmware switches from video to a simulation by continuously capturing stills and displaying a crop area. This would run at the max frame rate of the camera's still mode.

It sounds like Leica does #1 and the hardware can't do #2. They COULD do #3, if they can get up to 6-8 fps. At 3 fps it's too choppy probably. #3 requires shutterless capture as well (unless you don't mind the shutter rattling, and the wear and tear would be bad).
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
The hardware can't run full resolution at video frame rates. The sensor can't be read at those rates, and ADC can't sample it, and the DSP can't process it.

So there are a few possibilities:
...
Assuming that your first three statements are true ...
Do we know for certain that the hardware cannot run full resolution at video frame rates? that the sensor can't be read at those rates, etc etc?

Well, maybe you do. And maybe it's true that the new M can't target a different window in the sensor data. It's a bummer, as this is a very useful capability, and one I hope they address in the future.

Nothing's perfect, unfortunately or otherwise...
I guess I'll just keep my GXR which does this particular trick so very well.

There's enough other goodness in the new M to motivate me towards a purchase in the next year or two anyway. And maybe they'll have updated it to solve this lack by then.

Back to the Lens Insights ... sorry for the diversion.

G
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Jono had asked the question of Leica. I asked the question of Jono. I don't imagine Leica would have told Jono about this limitation if it didn't exist.
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
I have acquired a D800E (it arrived today), along with Sigma 85mm f1.4 and Nkkor 24mm PC-E D3.5D, Like Guy, I come from / still have medium format digital and expect - unrealistically I suspect - similar lens quality in 35mm format. The Sigma delivers, the 24mm PC-E the jury is still out on. I am now looking for a medium standard zoom and wonder if the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR is up to the job. I have already seen a number of my test shots are showing signs of camera shake, and VR looks a good bet and that lens looks to match the equivalent Nikon.

However, what really matters now is quality, quality, quality. I see no reason not to expect edge to edge to performance, and if its out there, I want it, preferebaly from Nikon but otherwise another manufacturer. Would the Tamron be a mistake? Should I stick to primes? There is a lot of choice....

I have always been a fan of Nikon, used to use an F100 and latterly a D700 for a while. I expect near-Hassy performance but with better high ISO.

Quentin
Hello Quentin,

I'm a Nikon user too and trust me, if you can stay in Nikon line (money speaking) STAY in Nikon line, even if some other brand can reach high optical quality. Of course I do not speak about Zeiss. The actual 24-70 AFS-G is very good on the D800; just pick a good copy and take time to test it.

My guess is the future turn in favour of SIGMA corporation. Optically and build wise, they start to be on par with the best of the best.

For now, I think you should stay with primes :

Your 24 PC-E, the very reliable and "effective at f1.4" 50 f1.4AFS-G, the 85 f1.8 AFS-G and just have a run with the 135 DC or, my precious, the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 IF ED.

Actually, a very effective trinity on latest Nikon DSLR is the 1.8 trinity which is excellent at all level.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Jono had asked the question of Leica. I asked the question of Jono. I don't imagine Leica would have told Jono about this limitation if it didn't exist.
Well, that explains why I didn't see it in his review... :)

G
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Um, with all due respect to the beta testers, they can only state what they've been told or inferred from what they've been told about technical implementation details like this. I don't recall that Jono said anything about it (I'll re-read his report...), Ming sounded as if he was relaying what someone told him a little bit casually, and I'm not sure who Chris is ... :)

Ah well, another feature request for type 241. :)

G

addendum: Just read through Jono's review. He doesn't mention this limitation at all that I could find. Ming does. Who is Chris ...? ;-)
I think you can safely take it as read that the AF point in Live View, whether magnified or not, can't be moved away from centre, using either the LCD or the EVF.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Hello Quentin,

I'm a Nikon user too and trust me, if you can stay in Nikon line (money speaking) STAY in Nikon line, even if some other brand can reach high optical quality. Of course I do not speak about Zeiss. The actual 24-70 AFS-G is very good on the D800; just pick a good copy and take time to test it.

My guess is the future turn in favour of SIGMA corporation. Optically and build wise, they start to be on par with the best of the best.

For now, I think you should stay with primes :

Your 24 PC-E, the very reliable and "effective at f1.4" 50 f1.4AFS-G, the 85 f1.8 AFS-G and just have a run with the 135 DC or, my precious, the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 IF ED.

Actually, a very effective trinity on latest Nikon DSLR is the 1.8 trinity which is excellent at all level.
Gosh, I could not disagree more with some of that! The 24 PC-E is IMHO (two copies) not very good at all even unshifted. Even a very good copy seems to get no more than a 'useful' rating from its owners.

The 24-70... not great. Known for doing what my new copy does, which is to have such different AFFT values at either end of the zoom range that no one value works well, and for being soggy apart from on centre at 24mm as a result of its bizarrely 'folded' field of focus, with poor control of CA and wide end distortions: it is surely superannuated on the D800 other than for the convenience it offers - which given its size, weight and lack of VR isn't much.

I think the D800 is more of a MF replacement than we originally thought: it needs manual focus primes to reach its potential, and they shouldn't have too wide a maximum aperture.

And as for the 1.8 trinity: I agree the 85 is excellent, the 50 I have not tried, and the 28 can be extremely sharp but it is 'tricky' - it has quite a lot of curvature and needs using accordingly.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I'm edging towards Tim's conclusions regarding the 24 PC-E but somewhat sceptical about the quality of some other Nikon lenses also. The Sigma 85 f1.4 is very sharp - maybe the (more expensive) nikon 85mm f1.4 is as good or better but the Sigma is a quality lens and also seems to focus accurately and pretty quickly. I'd rate it close to or a match for the Sony Zeiss 85mm f1.4, but with much less longitudinal CA.

And given the superb quality of the lens on the Sigma DP2M, in my view one of the sharpest lenses edge to edge I have ever used, it is clearly possible not just for Sigma but any lens manufacturer to do a good job on smaller formats. What then explains the frankly shoddy quality of some highly rated lenses?

I thought I'd buy the Nikon wide 24-70 but now wonder if I should go only with primes.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I think you can safely take it as read that the AF point in Live View, whether magnified or not, can't be moved away from centre, using either the LCD or the EVF.
Um ... the "AF point" ... on a manual focus camera? (I can only infer from the quotation that you were referring to the new Leica M ...)

Since the M is a manual focus camera, as long as the subject you want is in the magnified area of the FoV with Live View, you can critically focus there. The problem is that you can't move the magnified area to allow focusing on subject features that are outside of the central area without moving the camera, which can be a pain when working with setups that require precise camera positioning/framing.

Again, sorry for the diversion.

G
 
Top