wolfloid wrote:

> Your objections sound more like a firm preference for SLRs and nothing more.

> I know what I want to photograph, which excludes macro, sport, long-shot nature stc. etc. and I prefer the ergonomics, size, accuracy and uncluttered viewfinder of a rangefinder, which frames accurately enough for my use.

> If you want the versatility that an SLR undoubtedly gives, and all the techincal aides that can help you, then fine. What I want is simplicity, the speed of working that I have developed and to see as clearly as possible what I'm shooting.

?

The list of rangefinder limitations I offered above was not a list of my preferences - it was a brief description of some of the limitations of rangefinders, which may affect some photographers. Your preferences for not shooting a great many things doesn't make that list redundant for other people.

I think just one feature in the 450D "Live-View" is enough to confirm its focus accuracy far more than the M8.
As far as image quality goes, the 450D's high pixel density with excellent NR works wonders.
It is a great camera for telephoto work.

IMHO, either you are a pro or not, these two features alone out weights the M8 body itself.

However, Leica is not just about camera body. It is the lens that really made it stand out of the crowd.

To get the best out of these M lens, the M8 might be still the only way to go until the M10 comes out

What's special about these mini M leneses? small and sharp and easy to travel with.

Meanwhile, many can enjoy the R lens on the Canon body from wide to telephoto plus the excellent Canon L long lenses and zoom lenses for actions.


In the end, regardless if you are a pro or not, photography is still a hobby and it will always remains as a hobby. Any choice one makes doesn't really matter. Equipments are just tools for creation and THAT'S ALL folks.

wolfloid wrote:
The Canon 5D with a 21/2.8 has an effective focusing base of 7.5mm x viewfinder magnification, which is .71, and = 5.325 mm. Or over nine times less than the EFB for the equivalent lens on a Leica. In other words the Leica is over nine times more accurate in focusing such a lens.

Even on the great 24/1.4 the EFB is only 12 mm. 4x less accurate than a 24 on a leica.

The 35/1.4 has an EFB of 17.5 mm, just more than a third of the Leica with the same lens, meaning the Leica is three times as accurate when focusing.

So unless these expensive Zeiss/Canon lenses are focused at infinity, it is highly likely that there is going to be focus error, which will only be compensated by depth of field.

Maybe this is why wide angle leicas can 'pop' the focus when shot close up and wide open.


Most folks here use AF confirm chips when adapting lenses

wolfloid wrote:
Wideangles on any SLR, whether accurately calibrated or not, are far less accurate in focusing than the same on rangefinders. This is due to the inherent focusing base.

In a rangefinder camera, focusing accuracy is dependent upon two factors, (1) the rangefinder base and (2) the magnification of the viewfinder. The rangefinder base in a Leica M6 is 68.5mm, multiply this by the viewfinder magnification which is .72 and you get an effective focus base length of 49.32 mm. This level of accuracy is constant for all lenses.

In an SLR, focusing "accuracy" is dependent upon the same two factors (1) the rangefinder base and (2) the viewfinder magnification. In an SLR, the rangefinder base is the focal length of the lens divided by the maximum aperture. For example, a 50mm F/2.0 lens has a rangefinder base of 25mm, 50mm/2 = 25mm. And a 35mm F/2.0 has a rangefinder base of 17.5, 35mm/2=17.5mm. A 24/2.8 used on an APS Canon (equivalent of a 38/2.8 on 35mm) has a base of 8.5. Multiply that by the viewfinder magnification, which is .87 and you have an effective base of 7.4mm. In other words almost SEVEN TIMES smaller than the Leica, or SEVEN TIMES less accurate.

Since our eyes don't see so well under low light - focusing an SLR camera with a wide angle lens under poor lighting conditions is neither rapid nor accurate. Even auto focusing can do nothing to compensate the tiny effective base length.
So, as you see this has nothing to do with calibration and everything to do with physics.

The rest of your remarks, I've already answered. As a photographer I don't want a camera that can fulfill all my hobbyist dreams. I know what I want to photograph, which excludes macro, sport, long-shot nature stc. etc. and I prefer the ergonomics, size, accuracy and uncluttered viewfinder of a rangefinder, which frames accurately enough for my use.

If you want the versatility that an SLR undoubtedly gives, and all the techincal aides that can help you, then fine. What I want is simplicity, the speed of working that I have developed and to see as clearly as possible what I'm shooting.


I would recommend you to use a 85L for a couple of days and maybe after this experience you could look at this
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/page49.html

You seem to have ignored my comments on how innaccurate your APS SLR is when using wide angles.

"Your preference for shooting etc... doesn't make that list redundant for other people."

I never said it did. I was quite clear about why I prioritise a bright viewfinder (uncluttered) and accurate wide angle focusing.

Andi,

Yes, once you get to the portrait range of lenses rangefinders and SLRs begin to equalise, and then with longer telephotos SLRs are more accurate. The 85L on a Canon 5d has an RBL of 70.8mm x VM .71 = an effective base of just over 50mm - almost the same as an M6 base length.

The article you linked is talking about focus issues and compatibility between Konica RF and Leica bodies and their respective lenses. What has it to do with innaccuracies of Wide angle SLR or rangefinder focussing?

wolfloid wrote:
"Your preference for shooting etc... doesn't make that list redundant for other people."

I never said it did. I was quite clear about why I prioritise a bright viewfinder (uncluttered) and accurate wide angle focusing.

What you said was "Your objections sound more like a firm preference for SLRs and nothing more". In fact the list of rangefinder limitations (not objections) that I offered is worth contemplating if you are wondering whether to get a rangefinder. The limitations I listed are not affected by my preferences. They are not opinion. They are intrinsic to current digital rangefinders.

wolfloid wrote:
You seem to have ignored my comments on how innaccurate your APS SLR is when using wide angles.

once you get to the portrait range of lenses rangefinders and SLRs begin to equalise...

Hilarious. Has this got enough pop for you?

http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/CZ351.4/0805.jpg

That's a camera jpeg BTW.

"Most folks here use AF confirm chips when adapting lenses"

This makes no difference to the inherent limitations of SLR focusing of wideangle lenses, since the AF is throught the lens and is limited in accuracy by the EFB. In otherwords AF focusing with wide angles is very inaccurate, unless a separate rangefinder mechanism, which is not through the lens is used. (which, as far as I know, none do use.)

I for one appreciate knowing the difference in rangefinder focusing. I didn't know that. I still think the Leica M8 is wildly overpriced, but if its what works for you, then go for it. I'd love a digital rangefinder with good lenses that won't break the bank, but none exists right now.

I do run into the difficulties in manually focusing wider lenses (focusing my Takumar 35 f/2 is quite difficult in dim light), though it's fine in brighter light.

"Hilarious. Has this got enough pop for you?"

Not really. It's typical of the characteristics of what can be done with close focusing APS SLR's. And what was the depth of field on this? A hell of a lot more than what you would get on 35/1.4 on a FF, if you could even focus that close. Depth of field on APS lenses covers focusing error - so what!

"The 450D's viewfinder craps on the M8's viewfinder in the following ways:"

Did not sound like it was serving the cause of neutral objectivity that you now claim.

wolfloid wrote:
"Hilarious. Has this got enough pop for you?"

Not really. It's typical of the characteristics of what can be done with close focusing APS SLR's. And what was the depth of field on this? A hell of a lot more than what you would get on 35/1.4 on a FF, if you could even focus that close. Depth of field on APS lenses covers focusing error - so what!

It was taken on full frame with a 35 f1.4. You can focus that close without an extension tube. That depth of field is the depth of field you get with a 35 f1.4 on full frame at that distance. If I had wanted an even narrower d.o.f., I could have opened up to f1.4. In fact, I shoot like that quite often so I can say with some confidence that this shot is 'typical of the characteristics of what can be done with close focussing' full frame SLRs.

wolfloid wrote:
"The 450D's viewfinder craps on the M8's viewfinder in the following ways:"

Did not sound like it was serving the cause of neutral objectivity that you now claim.


I accept that 'craps on' isn't the right technical term. However, on many of the points, the M8 simply has no equivalent, viz. autofocus, liveview etc. etc.. It's not like M8 AF is bad. It simply doesn't have it at all. With that in mind, you might think that 'craps on' was quite mild.

If you can have access to a store or someone that has one, try on an M8. you'll know right away if you hate it or not. the shooting style is sooooo different than a DSLR, that it on itself will be the driving factor to use it. Most LEICA M, RF and DRF shooters (including myself) are drawn to the style before anything else.

Brainiac,

I thought it was an example of a wide open shot, showing focus accuracy on an APS SLR, since that was, I thought, the context.

Taken on a FF, not at maximum aperture, what was it meant to show, other than how close you can get?

If you're not shooting wide open, then your increased depth of field, will, in proportion, cover focus error.

Andi Dietrich wrote:
[

I would recommend you to use a 85L for a couple of days and maybe after this experience you could look at this
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/page49.html


Erwin's article, while mechanically correct, it is academic in the field: I went through a shoot with a LUX 75mm 1.4 on my RD1, in very low light conditions (inside, at night, a stage show). This lens is the equivelant of a 105 1.4! I could focus it really well probably 8 out of 10 times; given that the RD1 has one of the shortest RFBs out there, this is commendable. RF has its limits, but where it works, it really works!

I like to shoot wides. I can put my 21mm (32mm equiv.) on, scale focus for f.5.6, set manual exposure and go. I am on the street with a very capable camera, that requires no focusing, not metering and no shutter lag in a package smaller than all the DSLRs I have come across, including the PENTAX with the pancake on it. People tend to either not be intimidated, or not take seriously this camera; this is an added bonus if this is your shoting thing

Without any intent of becoming part of any flamewar here is just a note:

tennclay wrote:
I had the M8 and 5D together for several months and did some testing. My conclusion, based on printing, was that the image quality was basically a toss up. Both produce outstanding files.



For most people, this statement is actually enough to make a case against M8. The impression which is created during various leica related discussions is that you would get much better image quality using leica gear. If the image quality is just about the same then for most people there does not seem to be any reason to think of buying the M8 (even if funds are no issue). Dont get me wrong, I am sure those who own an M8 have good reasons for buying it and get the most out of the money spent. It is also clear that there is more to a camera than just IQ. But this just tells me that us ordinary mortals are not missing out on some exotic out-of-this-world image quality which we can only dream about but never own .


And the DSLR technology is improving rapidly. Even better high ISO is there (D3, D700), things like Live View open up many new possibilities, autofocus capabilities are improving as well and are critical in some situations, etc etc. Chances that leica would improve at any rate even closer to that are rather remote.

rhameed wrote:
And the DSLR technology is improving rapidly. Even better high ISO is there (D3, D700), things like Live View open up many new possibilities, autofocus capabilities are improving as well and are critical in some situations, etc etc. Chances that leica would improve at any rate even closer to that are rather remote.


Why?? None of the things you mention are exclusive to SLR's. Live View, in particular, is much more easily implemented on a rangefinder. You can put the same chip you put in a DSLR can be put in a rangefinder. Rangefinders can even autofocus (i.e., the Contax G).

Sure, there are things that rangefinders will never be much good for, but there are a lot of things that they are great for. Digital rangefinder will advance as quickly as DSLR's. Leica will adopt those advances that benefit its clientele -- I suspect that auto-focus might not be among them, but higher ISO performance, Live View and other development certainly will.

I just hope that Leica accelerates it's traditional product development and shortens its product life cycles, or we might not see any developments in an M8-successors for at least 10 years. Hopefully they have adapted to the realities of this market, rather than one from 50 years ago.

Lotusm50 wrote:
I just hope that Leica accelerates it's traditional product development and shortens its product life cycles, or we might not see any developments in an M8-successors for at least 10 years. Hopefully they have adapted to the realities of this market, rather than one from 50 years ago.


yeah thats the big thing to me
typically 2nd or 3rd iteration cameras iron out the issues, thats a design session i'd love to take part in.

sincerely, despite the 'yet another bun fight coz its a leica' mentality that certainly has costed here in the past. The shooting regimes are so different there isnt really a comparison.

Anyone who figures that M wides can be substituted on an average SLR has rocks in their head, they offer the fastest and widest range of top quality glass, not all of it super expensive (although you wont be chasing an M8 with the average photogs earnings).

cheap way to find out if the hat fits is to pick up a film M mount and have a check ride on RF shooting, ymmv of course.....

I agree to whatever you said. However I didnt mean that Leica is not capable of introducing these changes, it is rather a question of whether we could expect shorter product update cycles from them or not. Digital SLRs at this point have become pretty much a consumer electronic item like a cell phone. The economy of mass production and the willingness of the consumers to buy an "upgrade" with just a "few more features" allows the SLR manufacturers to introduce new models and new features pretty rapidly. And with every new model they can fine-tune the features from last model. Leica M8 on the other hand is a rather specialized product which meets the demands of a relatively small group and it does not seem likely that they could have a similarly aggressive "upgrade" cycle. But its just my impression, I could be totally wrong.

Lotusm50 wrote:

Why?? None of the things you mention are exclusive to SLR's. Live View, in particular, is much more easily implemented on a rangefinder. You can put the same chip you put in a DSLR can be put in a rangefinder. Rangefinders can even autofocus (i.e., the Contax G).

Sure, there are things that rangefinders will never be much good for, but there are a lot of things that they are great for. Digital rangefinder will advance as quickly as DSLR's. Leica will adopt those advances that benefit its clientele -- I suspect that auto-focus might not be among them, but higher ISO performance, Live View and other development certainly will.

I just hope that Leica accelerates it's traditional product development and shortens its product life cycles, or we might not see any developments in an M8-successors for at least 10 years. Hopefully they have adapted to the realities of this market, rather than one from 50 years ago.

wolfloid wrote:
"Most folks here use AF confirm chips when adapting lenses"

This makes no difference to the inherent limitations of SLR focusing of wideangle lenses, since the AF is throught the lens and is limited in accuracy by the EFB. In otherwords AF focusing with wide angles is very inaccurate, unless a separate rangefinder mechanism, which is not through the lens is used. (which, as far as I know, none do use.)



congratulations, you are the first who discovered that AF is completely useless for WA lenses.

dasrocket wrote:
If you can have access to a store or someone that has one, try on an M8. you'll know right away if you hate it or not. the shooting style is sooooo different than a DSLR, that it on itself will be the driving factor to use it. Most LEICA M, RF and DRF shooters (including myself) are drawn to the style before anything else.


In some ways you are right, but OTOH it's easy to romanticise it, buy the camera, and then find that you come face to face with unforeseen limitations. That's why it's a good idea to start with a Bessa or an Epson, and that's why I go to the trouble of pointing out some of the problems of rangefinder which may come as a surprise to people who haven't used one extensively, and have just tried one in a shop for an hour or two.

Here's another data point for 'brainiac':

http://leica-users.org/v37/msg07609.html

wolfloid wrote:
This makes no difference to the inherent limitations of SLR focusing of wideangle lenses, since the AF is throught the lens and is limited in accuracy by the EFB. In otherwords AF focusing with wide angles is very inaccurate, unless a separate rangefinder mechanism, which is not through the lens is used. (which, as far as I know, none do use.)

Andi Dietrich wrote:
congratulations, you are the first who discovered that AF is completely useless for WA lenses.

No - the idea comes from Erwin Puts, the guy who compared 100% crops from a 5D with a zoom and an M8 with a prime, failed to allow for the extra 3 megapixels, declared the M8 to be superior, and then retracted it all when someone pointed out to him that he was effectively comparing different sized prints, and needed to uprez the M8 file to 13 megapixel before comparing at 100%. The guy who has spent years writing great long technical articles about the the unassailable superiority of all things Leica, despite not understanding the difference between a 100% crop from a 13mp camera and a 10mp camera. That Puts.