Adam,
Thanks for the info topic number 1 was the one I was looking for - I've had my pre-order in and was really debating canceling however now I'm excited again. I really love the RX1 and basically I can live with one focal length (28 or 35) but the add on viewfinder and crappy AF in low light is frustrating- I really liked the Nikon coolpix A (same issues as the RX1)and love the IQ of the Sony so the Q looks to be the perfect camera for me!!!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Ha! So "really good" in the sense that it has a dof scale. Gotcha. For someone who makes use of a dof scale for zone focusing though, it's not really good.
I use them (DoF scales) all the time and I found no problem with the ones on the new Q and I found them to much better than any other auto focus lens I have shot with. Are they as good ad the ones on my 35 Lux no but the 35 lux is not auto focus.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I use them all the time and I found no problem with them and I found them to much bettrt than any other auto focus lens I have shot with.
It may be better than any AF lens you have shot but there is no denying that there is not the more useful finer distance increments that exists on the Leica manual focus lenses. The argument that "A 28mm lens at f11 what everything from about 5 ft to infinity will be in focus" is not very practical for probably most folks who actually make full use of a distance scale for zone focusing. This group of shooters are not likely always shooting stopped down that far and need those finer distance increments to ascertain zones at brighter F-stops. I would guess that includes many "street" photographers.
The other argument posted concerning the distance markings and zone focusing by Adamdewilde struck me as falling into the non sequitur logic zone: "I didn't have any problems with zone focusing the Q this whole trip. I also don't have problems with using it in AF mode. I walked around HK and used it with face detect and it worked perfectly shooting from the hip. In fact, FD AF is a far better option then zone focusing." That reads to me like he did not actually end up using zone focusing that much as AF and AF FD worked so much better. Sounds like the AF is really great (and I also found FD AF to work reasonably well on the RX1) but that has little to do with zone focusing and making use of the dof scale. In the end, folks can easily decide for themselves if no finer distance markings between 6ft and infinity is an issue for them with the type of zone focusing they use. My only point is the fact that there are not fine distance increments marked on the lens beyond 6ft as there are with Leica M lenses AND that there are a group of shooters who actually make use of such a feature and use those finer distance increments when zone focusing (something not possible with the Q).
Again I found no issues with hyper focusing and I have yet to find auto focus faster than being prefocused. Have I shot with lenses with better scales? Yeah. the scales on my Hasselblad Zeiss 80 CF and 50 CF FLE lenses were about as good as it gets but I found these scales on the Q to be very usable and if I owned one I would not hesitate to use them all the time. For the street work I do I have found no auto focus to be fast enough or accurate enough.
I still need to see the Q in person. Based on the product photos, the distance scale naturally has to include the much closer focusing ability of the lens compared to the 70cm MFD of M lenses. Leica could have made the focus throw similar to a 28mm M lens between infinity and 70cm, then extended the throw to accommodate 30cm. This would have allowed the finer distance markings but the tradeoff would be a longer, more difficult to accommodate focusing throw from infinity to MFD while using the focusing tab. For example, on the 28 Cron, the tab's throw is about 90 degrees, which just remains comfortable to manipulate with the left hand without having to completely reposition the hand when approaching MFD. With a longer throw to accommodate 30cm, this would no longer be the case with the Q. Sure, it's a tradeoff and less desirable if one wants/needs distance markings between 6' and infinity. But it keeps the focus throw fast and keeps left hand repositioning to a minimum. A potential problem I anticipate, for those coming from a 28mm M lens, is that over time you get to know tab position and the corresponding focusing distance simply by feel. On the 28 Cron, tab straight down is just shy of 5'. I would guess this is different with the Q. But it's probably a minor point. I'll have to try one to see how much it would bother me. It could be that the AF is so good I might not MF much.
rscheffler wrote:
I still need to see the Q in person. Based on the product photos, the distance scale naturally has to include the much closer focusing ability of the lens compared to the 70cm MFD of M lenses. Leica could have made the focus throw similar to a 28mm M lens between infinity and 70cm, then extended the throw to accommodate 30cm. This would have allowed the finer distance markings but the tradeoff would be a longer, more difficult to accommodate focusing throw from infinity to MFD while using the focusing tab. For example, on the 28 Cron, the tab's throw is about 90 degrees, which just remains comfortable to manipulate with the left hand without having to completely reposition the hand when approaching MFD. With a longer throw to accommodate 30cm, this would no longer be the case with the Q. Sure, it's a tradeoff and less desirable if one wants/needs distance markings between 6' and infinity. But it keeps the focus throw fast and keeps left hand repositioning to a minimum. A potential problem I anticipate, for those coming from a 28mm M lens, is that over time you get to know tab position and the corresponding focusing distance simply by feel. On the 28 Cron, tab straight down is just shy of 5'. I would guess this is different with the Q. But it's probably a minor point. I'll have to try one to see how much it would bother me. It could be that the AF is so good I might not MF much....Show more →
I suspect a longer focusing throw might compromise AF performance and that likely has a lot to do with the lack of a finer, more useful distance scale between 6ft and infinity. I can't really recall a single AF lens I have used that has finer markings between around 6/7ft and infinity. It is funny though to look at how finely detailed the older manual focus lenses are marked. For instance, my old Zeiss Sonnar 50/2 displays 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, 50, 100 feet and infinity!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It may be better than any AF lens you have shot but there is no denying that there is not the more useful finer distance increments that exists on the Leica manual focus lenses. The argument that "A 28mm lens at f11 what everything from about 5 ft to infinity will be in focus" is not very practical for probably most folks who actually make full use of a distance scale for zone focusing. This group of shooters are not likely always shooting stopped down that far and need those finer distance increments to ascertain zones at brighter F-stops. I would guess that includes many "street" photographers.
The other argument posted concerning the distance markings and zone focusing by Adamdewilde struck me as falling into the non sequitur logic zone: "I didn't have any problems with zone focusing the Q this whole trip. I also don't have problems with using it in AF mode. I walked around HK and used it with face detect and it worked perfectly shooting from the hip. In fact, FD AF is a far better option then zone focusing." That reads to me like he did not actually end up using zone focusing that much as AF and AF FD worked so much better. Sounds like the AF is really great (and I also found FD AF to work reasonably well on the RX1) but that has little to do with zone focusing and making use of the dof scale. In the end, folks can easily decide for themselves if no finer distance markings between 6ft and infinity is an issue for them with the type of zone focusing they use. My only point is the fact that there are not fine distance increments marked on the lens beyond 6ft as there are with Leica M lenses AND that there are a group of shooters who actually make use of such a feature and use those finer distance increments when zone focusing (something not possible with the Q).
Let me put it to you like this.. You're not out there with a tape measure, so how do you know how accurate your judge of distance is, while walking, while someone else is walking?
If I were to be honest here, the scale is going to be about as accurate as my brain would be at judging distance.
Maybe you're spot on.. If so then you'll probably want to stick the the M lineup (though looking over my collection, not all lenses have superior DOF scales). But the admittedly limited amount of time I spent with the scale, it was fine. Granted, your point about stopping down is true. If I were to zone focus I wouldn't do it very often under f/5.6... Though I have on occasion done it with f/1.4 but results are usually 30% at best, even with the 21 Summilux it's difficult at 1.4 to zone focus even remotely accurately. At that point, I'd rather stop down, or man up and put the camera to my eye and risk having someone scold/fight me.
adamdewilde wrote:
Let me put it to you like this.. You're not out there with a tape measure, so how do you know how accurate your judge of distance is, while walking, while someone else is walking?
Experience and the ability to get much closer to the actual distance if you have finer increments on the focusing scale to go/ judge by. If you only have 6ft and then infinity, there is no real way to shoot at say F4 and get the zone between say 8ft-15ft or 15ft - infinity in approximate focus. The ability to judge those zones is, well, what zone focusing is all about. The finer the scale increments the easier it is to consistently get close. I suspect Ron's point about the position of the focusing tab and knowing the approximate distance at certain orientations is a good one though. Through experience and use of the Q in manual focus, one would likely get to know the rough distances associated with it's position (though of course not as handy as having the actual fine distance markings to make use of zones with the dof scale).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Experience and the ability to get much closer to the actual distance if you have finer increments on the focusing scale to go/ judge by. If you only have 6ft and then infinity, there is no real way to shoot at say F4 and get the zone between say 8ft-15ft or 15ft - infinity in approximate focus. The ability to judge those zones is, well, what zone focusing is all about. The finer the scale increments the easier it is to consistently get close. I suspect Ron's point about the position of the focusing tab and knowing the approximate distance at certain orientations is a good one though. Through experience and use of the Q in manual focus, one would likely get to know the rough distances associated with it's position (though of course not as handy as having the actual fine distance markings to make use of zones with the dof scale).
You're right 100%.. I just think zone focusing in general is going to be hit or miss unless you're willing to stop down significantly.
I for the most part have an idea of where my tab is suppose to be with my more commonly used lenses (50APO, 35FLE). But not all lenses have tabs (75APO). I'd reckon I could zone focus without looking at the scale using the 35FLE and a decent aperture. But again, decent aperture, so the same could be said for the Q with a bit of practice since it also has a tab.
IMO, lack of focusing tab on the 21 Lux adds to the difficulty of hitting the right distance, by feel, especially at wider apertures. I don't do it often, and when it works, I consider it sheer luck. It's usually a matter of suddenly someone moving towards me at a distance of 3-5 feet and I just crank the lens and hope it worked.
Tariq, I thought the Q is fly by wire manual focus? if so, it wouldn't matter how long the throw is since it isn't physically coupled to the helicoid.
rscheffler wrote:
...over time you get to know tab position and the corresponding focusing distance simply by feel. On the 28 Cron, tab straight down is just shy of 5'.
When I first entered the M system, I felt the focusing tab was a bit goofy. Now I see it as such an integral part of the system and I use the relative positioning all the time for faster paced shooting. I can basically pre-focus without even lifting the camera.... It works very well.
" I'd reckon I could zone focus without looking at the scale using the 35FLE and a decent aperture. But again, decent aperture, so the same could be said for the Q with a bit of practice since it also has a tab."
It takes some practice to get good at and I also, like Gary. look down at the scales and shift focus as needed.
rscheffler wrote:
Tariq, I thought the Q is fly by wire manual focus? if so, it wouldn't matter how long the throw is since it isn't physically coupled to the helicoid.
Yes I think you are right so I guess the argument for AF speed vs longer focus throw is only valid for the non focus by wire lenses maybe (like some of the screw drive, Pentax limited's for instance which have short throws).
It helps them net sales in market segments they fear might not resound with their traditional buyers, or diminish their hard-earned reputation as rear-wheel drive vehicles with impeccable driving dynamics...among other qualities.
I have had my Q for one week today. These are my first thoughts about the camera.
1) Size/weight: The size is slightly smaller than an M...slimmer body and not quite as long but the height with the optional grip is almost identical to the MM. The camera, while still feeling 'solid' is noticeably lighter than a comparable M body and lens. This would be an appreciable benefit in travelling. I took a short trip with the Q and two M digital bodies with three lenses and I wished had left at least one M at home.
The lens seems large by Leica standards, but side-by-side it's comparable in length to my 35 Lux Asph (both with hoods), but with a fatter lens body.
2)Ergonomics: The camera with the grip balances well and is comfortable in use. The lens and dials are easily accessible and operate smoothly. The EVF is easily the best I have used and very comfortable.
3) Operation: Pretty much as every review has stated. The AF is fast and accurate. Metering accurate, shutter release good. Easily the best digital camera of this style that I have used. Macro mode works nicely, although no true macro.
4) IQ: Very nice IQ. No noticeable impact of the software corrections as far as I could see. The jpg colors are a bit too vivid for my taste, DNG is better with Lightroom. There may be further improvements in store here once Lightroom offers full support.
As I said, this is only my first week of use, so time and use will likely reveal more. I've pretty much exclusively kept settings on Auto everything so far and need to start seeing the effect of taking more control. The camera seems to be a bit biased to keeping the aperture wider and ISO lower than I would typically. I traded a couple of nice M lenses to make this purchase and so far I'm pleased with the decision
rscheffler wrote:
IMO, lack of focusing tab on the 21 Lux adds to the difficulty of hitting the right distance, by feel, especially at wider apertures. I don't do it often, and when it works, I consider it sheer luck. It's usually a matter of suddenly someone moving towards me at a distance of 3-5 feet and I just crank the lens and hope it worked.
Tariq, I thought the Q is fly by wire manual focus? if so, it wouldn't matter how long the throw is since it isn't physically coupled to the helicoid.
Q is fly by wire unless Leica tells me otherwise. Feels like the best fly by wire I've handled though.
It's funny I'm more likely to use the 21Lux stopped down all day shooting from the hip, then I am to take the 21SEM out. And yes I dislike the no focus tab Leica lenses. The 75APO drives me crazy since I use and rely on it for work.
michael49 wrote:
My wife has a Mini Countryman S AWD 6 speed - One of the most fun cars I've ever driven......and its better in the snow than my AWD CRV!!
That's not surprising, the CRV's AWD is almost vestigial, it's more a FWD vehicle with AWD assist and it's quite difficult to get it to actually shift power to the rear wheels while the Mini's is a full-time system with 30% of torque by default to the rear wheels (similar to a Subaru with the Auto tranny).
I talk about the Leica Q in my latest blog post (RX1 photos!), but I really think that this new camera could be everything I want in a camera... for a while!
For someone who makes use of a dof scale for zone focusing though, it's not really good.