Plasticmotif: chill out buddy. Between the motorcycle hate and the hobbyists with too much money comments you're knocking your chi out of calibration. Save the hate.
RF focusing is easy. The focusing patch on an M is so easy to use and it's very intuitive. Can it be tough to get razor sharp focus when sooting a 90mm at f2 with a .72 RF? Sure. But it's because you're handholding, probably moving, and shooting quickly. All the live view or other lcd methods require a more deliberate approach.
If you've shot an RF and liked it, you get it. If not, or you didn't like it...don't buy it.
The biggest thing the OP needs to understand before dumping any money into an RF system is that YOU HAVE TO TRY FOR YOURSELF! DO NOT GO ON THE BASIS OF INTERNET POSTINGS AND SPEND UPWARDS OF $10K FOR A BODY AND LENS. That would be dumb.
Jack White has been buzzing in my ear while watching this, also.
keithdunlop wrote:
Jack White once famously said, "technology makes it easier and you get home sooner. But, it doesn’t make you a more creative person.”
The focus system in the Leica M is not a "weak" point. I find it just completely stupid to say that if a photographer that can't focus with a rangefinder camera, it means that there is a fundamental flaw with the camera. If a photographer can't focus a Leica M camera (and I don't care if your talking about a 1954 M3 or a 2011 M9), then it's the fault of the photographer, NOT the camera.
I use a M9 with ZM 35/2 & ZM 50/2 with no focusing issues. The focus is bang on at all distances. The rangefinder focus experience has been nothing but great for me. Then again, I used a C/Y Zeiss 28/2.8 as a kit lens on the 1D2N for a long time so MF is not a problem for me.
I would also concur with others to try the rangefinder bodies before you get the M9. My copy was passed through two previous owners in under six months and less than 500 shots. Apparently, "it wasn't for them."
Oh, the comment about rich hobbyists? Guilty as charged. Are you jealous?
having a close the lens is to the sensor plane also dramatically increases the amount of processing in the camera needed to remove all sorts of artifacts from using a digital sensor with an actual depth to the pixel. i compare my M9 and 50 Summilux ASPH or 90 Summicron ASPH to my D3 and its 50s and 85/1.4 fairly regularly because i shoot the same things with both cameras at the same time.
the M9 is hands down winner in terms of per pixel resolution, microcontrast and lens rendering. in terms of dynamic range/noise and color fidelity, it's got a long ways to go. at the wide end, comparing my D3 and my Zeiss 25 with my M9 and my Zeiss 25 and the only thing that the M9 has going for it is higher per pixel resolution. overall image quality, even with the AA filter and Bayer array, the D3X can resolve finer detail at the same FOV with the highest quality lenses. color fidelity and noise is much better on the D3. the M9 wins on per pixel sharpness and microcontrast and the lenses are so much better in their secondary image qualities.
as for missing focus on a shot and tossing them, things that make getting my gallery shots take more time mean i don't get to try other shots or to lose something completely. the people who buy my images don't care how hard i worked to get them, only that i got them.
Herb...
keithdunlop wrote:
Where rangefinders really shine is in the file image/quality. The closer lens to focal plane distance dramatically improves overall image quality. When you see the files from an M9 and a good Zeiss lens like the 50mm f/2.0, you may never want to go back to your DSLR.
Graham Mitchell wrote:
If by perfect shot you mean in focus and correctly exposed, then yes. Personally I never liked a photo just because it was in focus or properly exposed. Achieving that shouldn't make you feel like a photographer - you need to take the medium well beyond that. Shock, inspire, create beauty, make a social commentary, etc - that's photography.
keithdunlop wrote:
Seriously? I have to qualify my post by saying that a Leica M rangefinder will focus properly IF it's in proper calibration. OK, so I'll speak real slow . . . assuming that the rangefinder mechanism is in proper calibration . . . oh nevermind.
This kind of logic is like saying, my car runs really great as long as I remember to put oil in the engine and replace the spark plugs when they go bad. When I forget to do those things and my car runs like shit, and therefore it's the fault of the car.
Yes, I'm a Leica shooter and have a certain bias, but I find that most people who find fault with rangefinders have no practical experience of actually working with them. ...Show more →
wow, i like how you ignore the sentences in my post that follow the one you quoted. i forgot how sensitive an issue leicas are. i actually really like rangefinder focusing, it just has some weaknesses and i'd like there to be another option for the situations it doesn't work in. i'm sorry i implied that a leica camera might not be the embodiment of perfection, pretend i was only referring to nonleica rangefinders. leica rangefinders are of course not subject to the intrinsic limitations of the rangefinder.
Graham Mitchell wrote:
The real diehards are still refusing to shoot digital Ms altogether But I agree, they would probably fight it (before even trying it) so Leica might have to introduce a hybrid model offering both focusing methods. Once people have accepted the new tech, they can drop the rangefinder. It is so obviously the weakest point in the system. I believe the M9 was a runaway success in spite of it due to quality of lenses and sensor all in a very compact and elegant package, not because of the rangefinder focusing.
I don't agree with this. I love focusing with the rangefinder, and although it has weaknesses, such as when there is no obvious line or easy-to-match pattern to focus on, it also has strengths, such as its superior accuracy with wides.
However, I do agree that the current implementation could bear an overhaul. LCD framelines which adapt to distance and are possible to calibrate, and perhaps an electronic viewfinder or live view, would go a long way towards improving it. The current implementation limits the near focusing limit, goes out of adjustment too easily, and makes it too hard to focus teles.
sv1cec wrote:
I sold the M6 and the lenses and never looked back.
What I am trying to say is that, while I still admire Leicas for the technology and aesthetics, these cameras are not for everyone. You can grab equally good pictures with other cameras as with the Leicas. I can never see myself getting a Leica again, especially an overpriced M9. Maybe a Fuji X100, at least its controls are laid out in the way I expect them to be.
It doesn't sound like you gave it much of a chance, to be honest. That doesn't mean that you would have ended up liking it, of course, but trying to shoot kids with a rangefinder is a sure-fire way to get frustrated. Did you try anything else with it, where you had a bit more time to put your fingers on the right ring and turn it the right way?
Graham Mitchell wrote:
I wouldn't recommend live view either, I was talking about focus masking in conjunction with live view. You have instant feedback on areas of critical focus:
AlexanderR wrote:
Plasticmotif: chill out buddy. Between the motorcycle hate and the hobbyists with too much money comments you're knocking your chi out of calibration. Save the hate.
douglasf13 wrote:
This is essentially what the new peaking feature in the latest NEX firmware does. It makes fast, handheld manual focus with the NEX quite easy.
Word is that it also works well with the Magic Lantern firmware for Canon DSLR's. The split image emulation sounds interesting as well.
Save the hate.
But I agree, they would probably fight it (before even trying it) so Leica might have to introduce a hybrid model offering both focusing methods. Once people have accepted the new tech, they can drop the rangefinder. It is so obviously the weakest point in the system. I believe the M9 was a runaway success in spite of it due to quality of lenses and sensor all in a very compact and elegant package, not because of the rangefinder focusing.