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!

Glad I resisted the urge to upgrade to the M240

wattsy

Active member
I've read your piece before, and it doesn't make sense. It assumes that all lenses have the same field curvature. The very flat field 50/2 AA would have issues if this was the case.
I don't think Tim's theory does assumes that (the shape of the focussing cam can presumably be 'tuned' to allow for the eccentricities of certain lenses) but I share your belief that the theory is substantively incorrect. IMO there is just too much slop in the manufacturing tolerances for the RF to be sensitive to lens design in the way Tim describes.
 

MPK2010

New member
The A7r looks great. I'm tempted to try one and see what kind of images it renders with various M lenses -- the 50AA and 50 Rigid in particular. I've noticed a few of these lenses generate a different look between various digital M sensors and of course the NEX sensors.

As for the idea that it could be a replacement for a rangefinder camera, thanks but no thanks. I've spent thousands of hours with both approaches to focusing M-mount lenses and there is no comparison. As Paratom observes, for manual lenses there is nothing like the easy split-second focusing action with uninterrupted view of the whole scene in a bright optical finder. And with the M240 the rangefinder always works, wasn't always true with past Ms.

But that doesn't take away from the apparent achievement of Sony. They weren't trying to make a rangefinder, and they've apparently created a small, high-IQ camera at a low price. I think it's probably most compelling with the native autofocus primes, but based on potential IQ I see the fun in using it with lenses of all kinds.

Sony's been on a roll recently with the RX1 and now this. What I really look forward to from them: moving-sensor method of autofocusing manual lenses.
 

douglasf13

New member
I'd imagine that, like with other Sony cameras, one of the best ways to quickly focus this camera is to crank sharpening all the way up (which doesn't affect raw) and not use magnification or peaking. This gives the areas of focus a kind of shimmery effect with some pop without fussing with other methods, and it works quickly.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I've read your piece before, and it doesn't make sense. It assumes that all lenses have the same field curvature. The very flat field 50/2 AA would have issues if this was the case. Rangefinders, which I love using BTW, can't even deal with focus shift (which is why a lot of lenses front focus at mfd when the rangefinder is calibrated properly,) let alone magically determine where the best part of the focus plane is at any distance.

Either way, it isn't applicable to the A7/r, since you can move the live view magnification box around to any spot you want. Or, you can just focus without magnification at all with that high res EVF.
1) I've made it very clear that some lenses are affected and others are not: of course different lenses have differing degrees and shapes of field curvature and I have been extremely explicit on that.

2) 'Rangefinders can't deal with focus shift if the degree of shift is greater than the extension of the field of focus as aperture is made smaller,' would be more accurate.

3) Move the live view box as much as you like if you only care about focus at that particular point. With certain M lenses that won't help you get optimal sharpness across the frame for a planar subject. With a well calibrated RF (which my M240 has) and correctly cammed lenses, the RF is often a better way of doing this, unless you always focus wide open and on center before stopping down.

But go ahead, get the Sony, bang on a Novoflex or Metabones, stick a 35 lux FLE on the front, focus at shooting aperture and have fun - just be ready to re-shoot when the results are not what you expect...
 
Last edited:

woodmancy

Subscriber Member
You folks have beaten me down. I'm going to go home, load my Spectra, and concentrate on eight glorious moments of instant print photography rather than techno-Leica-Sony quibbling. ]:)

G
Yes, analogue provides a welcome respite from all of this . . .

Some significant color shifts in a few of the early images from esoteric lenses and brand x adapters on these cameras will calm everyone down :angel:

Keith
 

ohnri

New member
... With a well calibrated RF (which my M240 has) and correctly cammed lenses ...
Yes, when these and a host of other conditions are met the RF focusing method can be superb and immensely rewarding.

But why so negative about the Sony? I had great results with a NEX 5N and WA Tri-Elmar. Easy to focus and frame.

For my Noct 50 f/1 I expect the A7R to work well. Maybe slower for some conditions and faster for others. Very likely it will be more rugged and certainly the framing will be more accurate than my M9.

I suppose we won't really know for a few months though.

Best,

Bill
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Bill, I would not characterize Tim's caution as negative.

One thing is for sure, any prized Leica lens shots with the A7r of favorite pets is going to be a disaster. :ROTFL: The shutter is that loud!

You can nail the focus but may not be able to get a sharp image. I can foresee a plethora of threads on which adapter is best because of this and some claiming Novoflex makes the best ones and the ones from China are not worth the bother, etc, etc.
 

ohnri

New member
Bill, I would not characterize Tim's caution as negative.

One thing is for sure, any prized Leica lens shots with the A7r of favorite pets is going to be a disaster. :ROTFL: The shutter is that loud!

You can nail the focus but may not be able to get a sharp image. I can foresee a plethora of threads on which adapter is best because of this and some claiming Novoflex makes the best ones and the ones from China are not worth the bother, etc, etc.
Yes, loud shutters always disappoint.

Best,

Bill
 

fultonpics

New member
more true than ever: you pay an extremely high premium for the Leica brand and limited production. this does not equate to getting the best product in the market. competition among manufacturers is wonderful for us and Leica is falling further behind. I hope all the capital they are spending on a new factory and expanded high-end retail stores doesn't sink them. I'll take the loud shutter and all the money I save....
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
more true than ever: you pay an extremely high premium for the Leica brand and limited production. this does not equate to getting the best product in the market. competition among manufacturers is wonderful for us and Leica is falling further behind. I hope all the capital they are spending on a new factory and expanded high-end retail stores doesn't sink them. I'll take the loud shutter and all the money I save....
Truth be told they aren't falling behind in the lens realm and I believe that's their bread and butter. I think they only sold 40,000 bodies of the M9 variants give or take. Their lenses are without fault and they produce the best lens line top to bottom in the 35mm segment. As for competition they are a niche maker that produces niche quantities. Their lenses and bodies are regularly back ordered.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
more true than ever: you pay an extremely high premium for the Leica brand and limited production. this does not equate to getting the best product in the market. competition among manufacturers is wonderful for us and Leica is falling further behind. I hope all the capital they are spending on a new factory and expanded high-end retail stores doesn't sink them. I'll take the loud shutter and all the money I save....
I am glad Leica is focusing on quality of glass and cameras, and not so much driven by trends of the market, cost reduction and mass production.
I dont see why they should be falling behind except maybe in regard of prices.
Without saying one is better than the other the user interface between the Leica M and other mirrorless cameras is quite different. I believe it is good to have the choice. between optical and EVF, between AF and rangefinder,between many buttons vs a more simple user interface.
 

fultonpics

New member
can't argue with Leica owners! they do make great products.

Leica does need to get their act together if they wish to continue to compete. It was silly of them to introduce the M240 without the production capacity to meet the demand of loyal M9 owners--many that wished to upgrade. Easy revenue. Camera's such as the A7r will now cause part of that segment to drift (and at a more attractive price). Opportunity lost for Leica.

Leica glass is nice. However, most images get posted to the net now, so the benefits of wonderful glass and large sensors is really becoming more of a pixel peeper problem rather than a creative user problem. Even the A7r is major overkill for just about any practical use I can think of. But I ordered one anyway.
 

sirimiri

Member
Leica should rue that they blew the M240's introduction.

As for the A7R, I'd certainly give that a shake before the M240, at this point.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Leica glass is nice. However, most images get posted to the net now, so the benefits of wonderful glass and large sensors is really becoming more of a pixel peeper problem rather than a creative user problem. Even the A7r is major overkill for just about any practical use I can think of. But I ordered one anyway.
Yeah but this is not a "Leica" problem.

Truth be told just about anything beyond a advanced P&S or an entry level system camera coupled with good glass is overkill for the web but that's the nature of digital versus film. You can experiment and practice for less money in the long run versus film. So yes more images get posted to the web than those that get printed but glass with impeccable perform and improved body/ sensor designs will always be welcomed. Some people still print their better work afterall and then there are the pros who rely on the best equipment to make a living.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
can't argue with Leica owners! they do make great products.

Leica does need to get their act together if they wish to continue to compete. It was silly of them to introduce the M240 without the production capacity to meet the demand of loyal M9 owners--many that wished to upgrade. Easy revenue. Camera's such as the A7r will now cause part of that segment to drift (and at a more attractive price). Opportunity lost for Leica.

Leica glass is nice. However, most images get posted to the net now, so the benefits of wonderful glass and large sensors is really becoming more of a pixel peeper problem rather than a creative user problem. Even the A7r is major overkill for just about any practical use I can think of. But I ordered one anyway.
I seriously doubt anyone springing for these new high-performance cameras have the objective of displaying sub one meg, sRGB color-space images on a back-lit screen ... a screen that is more likely a cell phone, tablet or lap-top than a 27" or 30" color calibrated monitor.

IMO, if the sensor quality is up to snuff, there's no such thing as over-kill when it comes to prints. There is good enough for certain imagery, more than enough for others, and as expansive as you may want it for yet others.

Those that work with the big Phase One backs on a tech camera with incomparable optics aren't after a cell phone sized display of the result.

Like them, most of my work has the ultimate objective of being printed. I may shoot hundreds of shots to get one worth printing ... but that is no different from when I shot film. I want the best I can afford going in, even if it is for that one in a thousand shot.

I just did an outdoor family portrait session with a mix of candid and pre-planned shots ... did over 300 shots total, edited to 60 plus variations for presentation, and sold almost 15 prints from that ... including three 17" X 22"s two of which were crops ... high performance can make a difference.

Frankly, it never ceases to amaze me what a print brings to the party after staring at a screen image while prepping it.

There simply is no comparison.

- Marc
 
Top