RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Fred Miranda wrote:
It comes down to spherical aberration. With the lenses I mentioned above, the under-corrected design means resolution and contrast don't peak at the same point in the focal plane. You basically have to decide whether to focus for maximum contrast or maximum resolving sharpness. With an EVF, we usually end up relying on tools that bias toward the contrast peak. With the rangefinder, those aberrations aren't part of what we're seeing, so it drives the lens to true geometric focus and consistently lands on maximum resolution, which is what actually matters.
If you mostly shoot modern, well-corrected glass, both EVF and RF can be accurate, but with an EVF you still have to magnify for critical focus. That extra step takes time, and if you're used to the rhythm of RF focusing, it can actually feel slower in practice. In the end, the right camera is the one that makes you want to shoot, because joy is the sharpest focus of all. 
...Show more →
Interesting point about SA wrt to focusing aids. I never gave any consideration to that before. Personally, I haven't found a lot of focusing aids (other than magnification) that I like ... never found them to be consistently accurate. But, then I was shooting (looking retrospectively) glass that was a bit under-corrected (by rendering choice). Kinda makes sense now (after the fact).
I also found the inverse to be true, where I'd get "too much" from the focusing aid being indicated as in focus ... such, that it is difficult to actually know where the plane of focus really is / isn't. Here again, you're point about understanding that the optic may be contributing to how the focusing aid responds ... light bulb comes on a bit, as to why my experience with them was inconsistent across my glass. The fact that I have been using different levels of correction in different optics, could very well be the "variable" that was driving that inconsistency in experience. 
As it turns out, I picked up my old Nikon FE with ground glass only yesterday (just playing, not shooting) just to see how I liked the feel of it from days of yore. I still find that experience to be my preference, even after shooting rangefinder patch and EVF. Depending on the ground glass that is put in, the experience of how "fuzzy" the view is vs. how much the focal plane "pops" into focus can be varied. While I realize that this requires a mirrored approach in the mechanism ... I certainly found it to be an "old friend" that I wish I could get in today's digital bodies (alas, not happening). I've mentioned before my "vision" that Leica would revise the X-axis partial area patch to a full frame area, Z-axis ground glass experience. Granted, this would require a significant engineering change to drive it, and it isn't going to happen (by choice, not be capability), but one can dream, right. 
That said, to Steve's point ... what we learn on goes a long way to what we like. 
|
