Michael Markey
Mentor
I use both depending on the situation too.
I enjoy manual focus more so that`s why I use it ... no other reason.
Although I`ll add a caveat in that the AF on my SL2s and CL are not up to industry standards being only contrast detect .
When you really need AF ie when things start moving both bodies aren`t always up to the task.
That often drives me back to manual focus because if I miss focus on my RF then its down to me.
I can accept that.
If I were shooting other bodies with a modern AF maybe that wouldn`t be the case or at least not as often.
A
AndyCapp
Guest
The 21mm will be great fun once I get the guesswork out. Meaning LV and/or Visoflex.
Last edited by a moderator:
boojum
Mentor
You nimble-fingered lads may be faster with MF but I find AF faster. And more accurate, especially wide open. But I never seem to carry AF and MF with me together. But I can MF the AF cameras should I want to and I know it will be in focus not having to worry about the health of the RF mechanism. No matter how much you may love RF it is an anachronism. There is just too much delicate mechanical gear to go wrong. Yes, AF can fail but how often does it?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Delicate mechanisms? A focusing helicoid is all that's required: set-the distance on the scale, youre done.
A
AndyCapp
Guest
The tracking feature and eye focus with flexible spot on modern Sony bodies completely change the game of photographing people in motion.
Going back (in my opinion) can only happen for paraphotographic reasons.
Now I heard there is a fanatic movement against metronomes.
We are living in anti-truth, anti-quality, anti-meritocratic times. It will not end well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard G
Mentor
The Hexar AF has a scary insight into what to AF on. My X100 not so. As for a digital Leica with the 21, I used the accessory finder a couple of times and then just did without. That works. Focus technique not very relevant.
And I have three M film Leicas and two digitals and in nearly fifty years, now over ten with digital, none have needed horizontal RF adjustment.
And I have three M film Leicas and two digitals and in nearly fifty years, now over ten with digital, none have needed horizontal RF adjustment.
Last edited:
sojournerphoto
Mentor
I wouldn’t dispute that af is faster and, usually, more accurate. However, mf still has its place. It’s accurate enough and you get to focus where you want. Af’s win is when you are already set up to focus in the right place or can use the algorithm - eye focus, tracking etc.
I have questioned the notion of a 60Mp rf camera, but it actually seems to work OK.
I have questioned the notion of a 60Mp rf camera, but it actually seems to work OK.
boojum
Mentor
I do not doubt this to be true, for you. People who use their cameras a lot, i.e. pro's, seem to write of having the RF adjusted on a regular basis. On the basis of usage I'd say it is required. I have not have to have it done on my Leica RF's either. I am only one observation. So to describe Leica RF ruggedness on the basis of our own personal experience is interesting but not a broad survey of fact.
Michael Markey
Mentor
Using an SL2s when the light is flat ... as it often is in the North ..... more often than I`d like.
I take your point though AF can be easier and I use it 80% of the time.
I have 20 /20 in one eye and better than 20/20 (whatever that means) according to my Optician in the other .
I enjoy my manual focus as much as an exercise as anything else.
boojum
Mentor
20/10, for example, means you see at 20' what normal vision sees at 10'. We will start calling you Hawkeye.
I shoot Leica MF as I have no choice and really like my M9. I am learning to like the M240. Love the battery. OTOH I have better than a dozen M8/M9 batteries so in the real world it is not a problem.
All the cameras are fun. But on Flickr the images with the most hits have come out of a Hasselblad even though the same guy is using the camera as using the others. Go figure.
Michael Markey
Mentor
The only digital RF that I have is a 246 .I do like it. I did a little exercise the other day walking towards a group of friends on their horses and adjusting focus as I did. DOF covers you but I think that I was at F4 so maybe not to much. The frames were all in focus .If it had been a more critical shot though I`d have been grateful for AF. Even Leica`s less than ideal contrast detect.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I guess the honeymoon with the Pixii is finally over, huh?
As for the "delicate mechanical gear" of a rangefinder: I took a hard fall in London on Saturday. Ended up doing a judo roll in the road... rolling right across my backpack with a Leotax T2L and a Weston Master II in there. Picked myself up, checked nothing was broken (just a bit of blood), and found a quiet place to check everything over.
Nothing was broken - and, most impressively, nothing had gone out of calibration even a single bit. Things used to be made to last.
That said, rangefinders can drift out of calibration... but the benefit of those early Leicas and Leica clones is that they're very simple to calibrate. Two easily-obtained precision screwdrivers and a horizon is all it takes...
...but electronics? Well, if those fail, there's no user-serviceable parts or simple fixes. You may call the RF an anachronism, but I'm pretty certain a lot of 1930s Leica IIs will still be running (and focusing) long after every modern autofocus system has failed. And they will fail: even the most fancy piece of modern technology will fall foul of the laws of entropy eventually.
boojum
Mentor
The honeymoon with the PIxii is still alive but I have an X2D now and that really takes the lead on everything. It does color and IQ just so well. I was amazed at the image quality from the HB. It cost a ton, the wife and children were sold off into bondage but I suppose they will learn to love their new homes. After all, I needed the camera and I have my priorities. They will be alright, I am sure.
The HB is MF and AF. The MF is very nice with a circle with a point on top where an arrow can be moved to show "in focus". Or use AF and it has facial recognition in the latest firmware upgrade.
As for the defense of the RF on old Leicas, yes, I suppose it can be made to work. I hope you can find film. And then find someone to process it or have the great joy of doing it yourself. I know film has its fans. I read all about it. I can go to horse shows, too. Remember, I started with a camera back around '47 so I know about film. I did my own B&W darkroom work and that included enlargements. I bought bulk film, 200' rolls of Tri-X when that was considered as fast as film could go. I do not miss it at all.
And I have RF cameras, four of them, three Leicas and Pixii. So I pay my dues on that side of the street. The RF's are working fine but I know they can go out of whack and need tuning. I really like the M9 for color and have some sweet lenses to hang on it. I bought them for the M9. As for AF going out of whack, I will just have to take my chances. I can fix a carburetor but not fuel injection, same thing.
But the A7 or the X2D nail it more often, and the X2D does it best. It is what it is. And the nice lenses I got for the M9 work on the A7 and the X2D. Those Sonnars and Sonnar derivatives work so nice on the HB tuned Sony sensor. And the HB lenses are nice. I have the XCD 55V and the XCD 120, both nice lenses. What I need now is talent. ;o) Like so many of us, I live on hope.
Cheers
The HB is MF and AF. The MF is very nice with a circle with a point on top where an arrow can be moved to show "in focus". Or use AF and it has facial recognition in the latest firmware upgrade.
As for the defense of the RF on old Leicas, yes, I suppose it can be made to work. I hope you can find film. And then find someone to process it or have the great joy of doing it yourself. I know film has its fans. I read all about it. I can go to horse shows, too. Remember, I started with a camera back around '47 so I know about film. I did my own B&W darkroom work and that included enlargements. I bought bulk film, 200' rolls of Tri-X when that was considered as fast as film could go. I do not miss it at all.
And I have RF cameras, four of them, three Leicas and Pixii. So I pay my dues on that side of the street. The RF's are working fine but I know they can go out of whack and need tuning. I really like the M9 for color and have some sweet lenses to hang on it. I bought them for the M9. As for AF going out of whack, I will just have to take my chances. I can fix a carburetor but not fuel injection, same thing.
But the A7 or the X2D nail it more often, and the X2D does it best. It is what it is. And the nice lenses I got for the M9 work on the A7 and the X2D. Those Sonnars and Sonnar derivatives work so nice on the HB tuned Sony sensor. And the HB lenses are nice. I have the XCD 55V and the XCD 120, both nice lenses. What I need now is talent. ;o) Like so many of us, I live on hope.
Cheers
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
This is a good analogy.
A good friend of mine works for a specialist garage that only repairs Land Rovers. He's shown me some absolute nightmare jobs - things that are more rust than car, and some truly terrifying mechanical disasters that shouldn't have been on the road. All of them are repairable, and he's done some incredible fabrication to save vehicles from the scrapheap.
(As a side note, all this experience has led him to tell me to stay well away from any Land Rover I ever encounter on the road, as he's now firmly of the belief that 80-90% of the ones out there are disasters waiting to happen.)
Another friend of mine worked for a more general-purpose garage many years ago. His personal car was (if I remember right) a Volkswagen Bora. He loved that thing. And then one day an electrical fault sprang up; turns out the way those things were wired was an absolute disaster, and while I'm a bit hazy on the details, from what I recall a fairly minor electrical problem was so unrepairable the car was effectively considered a write-off.
I'm oversimplifying a bit, but as a general rule, mechanical devices can be fixed. Electrical devices are expected to be replaced. It's a sad state of affairs.
boojum
Mentor
VW especially and German cars in general are hopelessly complicated. I buy Honda and have for 45 years because they work and are affordably repairable. Toyota more so. But, the cost of so many repairs of the old gear is quite high. Folks do not rebuild carburetors much anymore. They are replaced with a factory rebuilt one. And while the VW was a horror show, most of the electronic stuff that fails can be replaced for less than a second mortgage. And as an aside, we would not have the efficiency and power of today's cars without the computer controlled fuel injection and engines. And while you may champion RF's like on Leica, the same camera depends upon a small computer to control exposure and is just as dependent as any camera today on electronics. Nostalgia is great but unless you are shooting film on a body without any electronics you are in the same boat as the folks with cameras juiced with electronics. And electronics are reliable. Look at how many things are run on them and run and run and run. It's 2024.
RF's are OK, they are a workable anachronism and this board is devoted to this method. And they are a better solution for some problems. But for most applications for most people it is auto that is the better way. Just like cars, it is almost impossible to get a stick shift anymore. My three cars are stick shift, yes. I like the shifting, they last and are cheap to fix should they ever fail. I have never had a manual transmission fail which I have owned. But they do fail. And at my age I will not be buying a new car. So I am set with my automotive anachronisms. ;o) As always, YMMV.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I used to rebuild carburetors for a living. And I've many successes at repairing both mechanical and electronic fuel injection. Any device can be repaired, if learn how it works with sufficient understanding and skills to figure out how to repair it. The simpler a device is, the easier it becomes to understand and repair.
AF is intrinsically more complex than a rangefinder...so are SLR mechanisms. Many more pieces have to work in precise sync for them to function. Neither RF nor SLR nor AF breaks particularly often in modern implementations, however. The reasons for choosing or preferring one vs the other are somewhat more esoteric than that.
I like to be in control of my cameras. Manual focus and manual exposure gives me the feeling of that control better than any convenience automation. Manual also requires that I both understand and exercise that control, or I get crappy results. I like that, it presumes that the users are knowledgeable and exercising their skills and knowledge.
Sometimes, automation is useful. I use automation when I encounter that situation. Most of the time, however, the problems found in photographic focus and exposure are pretty simple and there's little need for much automation if you are knowledgeable and skilled.
G
AF is intrinsically more complex than a rangefinder...so are SLR mechanisms. Many more pieces have to work in precise sync for them to function. Neither RF nor SLR nor AF breaks particularly often in modern implementations, however. The reasons for choosing or preferring one vs the other are somewhat more esoteric than that.
I like to be in control of my cameras. Manual focus and manual exposure gives me the feeling of that control better than any convenience automation. Manual also requires that I both understand and exercise that control, or I get crappy results. I like that, it presumes that the users are knowledgeable and exercising their skills and knowledge.
Sometimes, automation is useful. I use automation when I encounter that situation. Most of the time, however, the problems found in photographic focus and exposure are pretty simple and there's little need for much automation if you are knowledgeable and skilled.
G
Michael Markey
Mentor
Oh hec ... I drive a Land Rover .
Have done for over 20 years .
Better get it checked .
Don`t suppose your Land Rover friend is in Lancashire by any chance
Harry the K
Established
Late to the interview, but:
For landscape, travel, architecture I would not recommend a Leica M. The viewfinder is lovely for 35 and 50mm lenses, but not for anything shorter or longer. Any EVF is superior there.
Image quality: Any camera since 2010 should do. Lenses matter more than bodies, and you can find decent lenses in every company`s portfolio.
Focussing is easy with the Leica M. Just grab the thing and shoot.
It´s never a question of needing a Leica M, but of wanting one. Of Leica magic. Feel it or don´t. Borrow one before deciding.
Last edited:
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Been using my M 240 for landscape, architecture, travel & general photography for years. Usually only with 28, 50 & 90 mm lenses & the occasional 2 foot zoom
I do have shorter and longer, just rarely feel the need for them.
I don't know if it's the "best" or not for that style of shooting or if I would recommend it or not. But I never go out of my house with out it and a 50 mounted.
I do have shorter and longer, just rarely feel the need for them.
I don't know if it's the "best" or not for that style of shooting or if I would recommend it or not. But I never go out of my house with out it and a 50 mounted.
A
AndyCapp
Guest
The first camera trusted to me was a Voigtländer Vito C with a 50mm f/3.5 Color Skopar lens. Guess focus, exposure with a Seconic CdS light meter.
Now I got a Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5. It is a charming little thing.
Up the learning curve on M9. Exporting the JPEG in LRC lost some sharpness. The DNG is hair sharp.
Now I got a Voigtlander Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5. It is a charming little thing.
Up the learning curve on M9. Exporting the JPEG in LRC lost some sharpness. The DNG is hair sharp.
Last edited by a moderator: