Photographer
Zael Photography
Posts: 111
New York, New York, US
35mm equivalent question: Does anyone shoot Leica in addition to Nikon/Canon/other brand DSLR?
If not for the price, I'd make the plunge tomorrow. I just love a) how Leica renders images and b) the idea of walking around with a full frame that doesn't sit around my neck like an albatross. (Yes, I know the Sony A7(R/S) technically fit that bill, but I don't relish an electronic view finder and the Sonys have some room to evolve before matching the M240.)
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
Zael Photography wrote:
....Yes, I know the Sony A7(R/S) technically fit that bill, but I don't relish an electronic view finder.... How do you like the idea of a viewfinder where a fairly large part of the frame is covered by the lens barrel?
Manual focus?
Have you considered FujiFilm? While not full frame the APS-C sensor matched with
he very good Fuji lenses that are specifically designed for the sensor size are quite a combination.
Significantly lighter than Leica.
Quite a few Leica enthusiasts seem to like Fuji too.
Leica makes some very nice lenses , but I personally find the camera hard to use for any very shallow depth of field work.
I was considering a Leica as I have several high end digital cameras ... but cameras I have bought for work. I decided to get a "personal" camera to live around my neck or in my jacket pocket. Leica was within the budget, but for a few reasons it just was not a good fit for me. Mainly shallow depth of field portraits and candid street photography.
That said the Leica is a wonderful camera from great company.
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 16713
Orlando, Florida, US
How does a Leica render images that is different than how a Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji does it?
Is it better? Different? How? Can you qualify this statement, or is it more of a feeling?
Photographer
DOUGLASFOTOS
Posts: 10604
Los Angeles, California, US
Good Egg Productions wrote:
How does a Leica render images that is different than how a Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji does it?
Is it better? Different? How? Can you qualify this statement, or is it more of a feeling? If I was going by just numbers...the price and what Leica's sensor can do. I am sticking with my Nikon D800. I have used a Leica and was impressed, by only the fact it was truly a carry around camera. If I am going to buy a smaller camera...Fred is right about...Fuji would be that choice.
Photographer
Zael Photography
Posts: 111
New York, New York, US
Fred: Good point on the Fuji. Good Egg: I don't mean to put down other manufactures. I use a 5D3. Personally, I love the way certain Canon lenses render pictures. For example, I think the 50L makes beautiful, creamy images. I do think that Summilux lenses make incredibly sharp, high contrast pictures that have a certain feel to them. (I know that it is technically easier to design a great lens for a rangefinder vs. a DSLR because there is a shorter distance between the lens and the sensor. That said, images like https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/4 … 2348644352 just look gorgeous.) Also, a huge part of what I want is a full frame camera with an optical view finder in a reasonable size/weight.
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
Zael Photography wrote:
Also, a huge part of what I want is a full frame camera with an optical view finder in a reasonable size/weight. I too thought I wanted a camera with an optical viewfinder until I spent a little time with the X-T1. The viewfinder is really nice with several viewing options.
Loup view with two farmes in the viewfinder. One for the composition and one loup zoomed in and quickly selectable magnified area.... Brilliant.
It even has a digital spit image ... I personally don't lie it, but some do.
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 16713
Orlando, Florida, US
Zael Photography wrote:
Fred: Good point on the Fuji.
Good Egg: I don't mean to put down other manufactures. I use a 5D3. Personally, I love the way certain Canon lenses render pictures. For example, I think the 50L makes beautiful, creamy images.
I do think that Summilux lenses make incredibly sharp, high contrast pictures that have a certain feel to them. (I know that it is technically easier to design a great lens for a rangefinder vs. a DSLR because there is a shorter distance between the lens and the sensor. That said, images like https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/4 … 2348644352 just look gorgeous.)
Also, a huge part of what I want is a full frame camera with an optical view finder in a reasonable size/weight. The point I was trying to make is very clear in that image you just posted. It's a twitter pic, taken from the internet. It could have been taken with an iPhone 4 and there would be very little difference.
Granted, different sensor and lens combinations are going to produce very subtle differences in the images captured, but how different, really, after they're converted from the RAW into a usable format, and then retouched and altered.
A Leica is like a hand made, tailored suit, or a Ferrari. Sure, it's pretty. Yes, it's expensive. Clearly, there was a lot of effort put into its creation.... but is it really better?
Or is it just a perception to justify the cost?
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
Size... the x-t1 wins and it is remarkable what quality comes from this dinky little camera.... https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2931/140 … d199_o.jpg Download this with save image as and open it in photoshop. Then look at this: ![https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7353/14011054562_69a1448e6c.jpg]() what is also remarkable is that the fuji and Ziess touit lenses track focus really well at 4 fps.
Photographer
You Can Call Me Pierre
Posts: 800
Loma Linda, California, US
I adapted the Summicron 90mm f/2 onto E-M5 and I like this combo a lot with focus peaking firmware update.
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 6895
Glens Falls, New York, US
Good Egg Productions wrote:
The point I was trying to make is very clear in that image you just posted. It's a twitter pic, taken from the internet. It could have been taken with an iPhone 4 and there would be very little difference.
Granted, different sensor and lens combinations are going to produce very subtle differences in the images captured, but how different, really, after they're converted from the RAW into a usable format, and then retouched and altered.
A Leica is like a hand made, tailored suit, or a Ferrari. Sure, it's pretty. Yes, it's expensive. Clearly, there was a lot of effort put into its creation.... but is it really better?
Or is it just a perception to justify the cost? I would argue that 'Leica lenses' are the best there is.
I would not argue that all Leica lenses are that great(a few of them flat-out suck by today's standards), nor would I argue that the improvements are proportional to the cost. It's a big upcharge, and the lenses aren't hugely better than pro-level DSLR lenses, and not much better than modern M-mount Zeiss glass at all.
I'm obviously shopping with my own wallet here ... but I think if you can live without AF and (mostly) without zoom, it's worth investing in a lens or two if you can afford it. But if you need those other features, I wouldn't lose much sleep over not having Leica lenses.
And to weigh in, I would much prefer to put my Leica glass on an A7r than an M9, for the reasons Fred already mentioned: namely, the viewfinder. Neither lens nor hood blocks the A7r's finder, and the EVF can be magnified for precise focusing.
Photographer
Friday Art Photography
Posts: 422
Atlantic, Iowa, US
The three small cameras I use the most are a Leica MP (film), a Nikon D700 and a Mamiya 7II (MF film). Each has advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I prefer cameras with manual controls. I also prefer rangefinders to SLRs.
A couple of people have remarked on the weight of the Leica. I prefer a heavier camera. I have tried lighter cameras, and they just don't feel right to me. I find it easier to hold and steady a heavier camera. I don't want to carry around a brick, but I also don't want a camera that is so light that it floats when shooting or that I jerk it when pressing the shutter.
I have used rangefinders for decades and find it easier to manually focus a rangefinder than a SLR. I recently did a couple of model shoots with both the Leica and the D700. I found it easier to focus on the model's eye with the rangefinder. I used the Leica for my images and the D700 for digital images to give to the model.
I enjoy the Leica, but you will have to decide if one is worth the price for you. The lenses I have are great. I prefer a rangefinder--YMMV.
I find the discussion of the Fuji cameras interesting because I have been looking at the X mount cameras to add as a travel camera along with the film Leica. I have tried them in the store and like them, even though they are small and light. I am thinking of getting the adapter so I can use my Leica lenses on them. I want to rent one for a weekend to see if one will work for me. The controls are similar to the Leica and Mamiya, which is a big plus for me.
If you think you'd like the Leica, try to rent one for a few days or weeks. Rangefinders are not for everyone. If you are experienced with SLRs, a manual focus rangefinder may drive you crazy.
Personally, I have decided not to spend the money on a digital Leica body. The technology changes too quickly for me to invest that much in a digital body. Hence the interest in the Fuji bodies.
Photographer
Hugh Alison
Posts: 2125
Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom
The Sigma DP2M compact produces BW shots at 100 ISO which come very close to the D800 or 5D3 and has one of the best (45mm equivalent) lenses I've seen.
It's also cranky to use, and gets about 100 shots to a fresh battery - but worth it for the results.
I've owned film Leicas, and I had a 50mm Summicron adapted for my 5D" for a while.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Good Egg Productions wrote:
How does a Leica render images that is different than how a Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji does it?
Is it better? Different? How? Can you qualify this statement, or is it more of a feeling? The contrast from the lenses is different.
Photographer
Ralph Easy
Posts: 6426
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Photographer
Jim McSmith
Posts: 794
Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
I find the 35mm rangefinder a bit of a poser's camera. When you consider what it offers over a DSLR then you have to think any rangefinder is about style over function. I would avoid Leica purely on the basis they're about snob value before real practical value.
Photographer
Mark Reeder
Posts: 627
Huntsville, Ontario, Canada
I'd say try out Fuji. And you could always go for a Leica film camera. Both are on my list.
Photographer
Hugh Alison
Posts: 2125
Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
The contrast from the lenses is different. I could tell between identical shots on the Canon FD 85/1.8 and the Summicron 90/2.0 just by looking at the negatives. More microcontrast on the Leica.
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Jim McSmith wrote:
I find the 35mm rangefinder a bit of a poser's camera. When you consider what it offers over a DSLR then you have to think any rangefinder is about style over function. I would avoid Leica purely on the basis they're about snob value before real practical value. I use rangefinder style cameras all the time.
Advantages:
Amazingly better low light focusing if you're relying on manual focus.
Much much smaller - no massive prism to lug about
More responsive (no mirror to flip)
People dont get freaked by someone pointing a great big DSLR at them.
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
Virtual Studio wrote:
I use rangefinder style cameras all the time.
Advantages:
Amazingly better low light focusing if you're relying on manual focus.
Much much smaller - no massive prism to lug about
More responsive (no mirror to flip)
People dont get freaked by someone pointing a great big DSLR at them. I disagree with the Leica being great for low light focusing. With manual focusing the newest mirrorless cameras are far better. One of the reasons I did not get a Leica.
First of all with the Leica the focus when done with the rangefinder is only the very center of the frame. Any composition with the subject away from the center and with shallow depth of field will be a bit hit or miss.
Second the live view focusing requires a loup on the LCD screen.
Lack of autofocus is very limiting in certain situations.
I also found the ergonomics of the very different shape of the lenses to a bit tricky. Quite a bit of hunting for the focusing ring.
While I'm on that subject the brilliant Zeiss Touit unfortunately has a very silly ultra smooth focusing ring... hard to find. This is an issue for me. While the normal focal length for me is very important I don't use it that much so when I pick up the 32mm Touit I have a bit of trouble finding the focusing ring.
One thing I really like about the FukjiFilm lenses on the x-system is that they have very similar focusing ring position all through the system. Also the focusing rings are reversable. Something Leica users like because they can set the focusing ring on the Fuji to match the direction of their lenses on other cameras. Motion picture DPs also like that feature.
Photographer
PANHEAD PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 1648
San Francisco, California, US
Yes, I do it's a good camera buy one
Or ask nicely and I'll let you borrow one
Of mine
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
As for the look of Leica lenses.....
There is not really a Leica look. Leica makes many different lenses and for example their APO lenses are quite different form others. For example the 90mm f2 APO does not have a particularly nice look to it while it is remarkably sharp, contrasty and very very well corrected for chroma.
Nearly every system has it's different looks within the lens range. Leica overall does do quite a good job with LoCA compared to some other brands, even expensive models. For example the very sharp, but over hyped Sony Zeiss 50mm 1.8 a-mount lens has bad LoCA correction despite being an expensive lens. The Leica 50mm f2 in comparrison is very clean, not quite as sharp.
IMO lenses are quite a subjective matter. However one thing I always do it shoot a 2d and a 3d test target of any lens I buy or rent and above all shoot this at the distance I will be using the lens (or distances). While lenses overall all have improved in many ways LoCA is still the Achilles heel in so many lenses. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art is a good example of that.
There are also Leica lenses along with fancy names that are real dogs.... the Leica 40 something mm Nocticron for 4/3 has pretty bad LoCA. That lens was the reason I was interested in a 4/3, until I tested one.
Photographer
Mark Reeder
Posts: 627
Huntsville, Ontario, Canada
Anyone ever shoot with a Voigtlander rangefinder? (i posted a new thread about this so..)
Photographer
Gallery-MG
Posts: 86
Arlington, Virginia, US
I have an M6 and an M8. I don't like to use them for studio work. As others have stated above, it's difficult (for me at least) to get critical focus (such as on an eye). Also, the visible framelines through the viewfinder are only an approximation, and their flash sync speeds aren't that high.
That being said, I love both cameras. They're great for carrying about during the day, and their craftsmanship is amazing. I do love the quality of the images they produce.
I would suggest renting a Leica before buying. Rangerfinders aren't for everyone. If one is budget-conscious, there are plenty of other great rangefinders available (film, mainly). For example, I also have a Minolta Hi-Matic 7S from the 1960s. I only paid ~$10 for it. It still works (mostly), and it's a lot of fun to use. Digital rangefinders are still a bit pricey for the average user, IMO.
Photographer
Leonard Gee Photography
Posts: 18096
Sacramento, California, US
It's a different camera.
It is very easy to focus - providing you learn how to pick it up and use it.
I tend to cringe with someone else picks mine up. They don't know how to hold and and the first thing they do - is put a fingerprint on the rangefinder window. Now the viewfinder window isn't a problem. But when the rangefinder window goes soft, it's the worst. An experienced Leica user never gets the rangefinder window dirty.
I like manual focus. There's no mistake about what I am focused on. There is no motor to break. I don't have to wait for the stupid AF to lock. Being able to see outside the frame is great. it's also parallax corrected and if you know where the coverage changes from "inside edge" bright line frame to "outside edge" of the bright line frame, it's very accurate.
I like aperture rings. I especially like the half/stop clicks and the long turn between. Hate one-stop clicks with almost no space between.
I do like the lenses. Leica takes more care to match the color between lenses. It's much better with the modern lenses than the older ones.
I have Nikon and Canon for the last 10 years. The digital Canon/Nkon systems have been in the shop as many times as the Leica M system in over 35 years. Lot less problems with Leica service. They've always been great ever since Cudabac closed in SF. Service is amazing; lots of stories.
Photographer
VancouverPhotographer
Posts: 32
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Zael Photography wrote:
35mm equivalent question: Does anyone shoot Leica in addition to Nikon/Canon/other brand DSLR?
If not for the price, I'd make the plunge tomorrow. I just love a) how Leica renders images and b) the idea of walking around with a full frame that doesn't sit around my neck like an albatross. (Yes, I know the Sony A7(R/S) technically fit that bill, but I don't relish an electronic view finder and the Sonys have some room to evolve before matching the M240.) I bought a couple of Leica R lenses used and converted them to Sony Alpha mount and used them mostly on my Sony A65 - works ok for me and the EVF with the focus peaking is great for me. I never shot with a Leica body before.
Photographer
Zael Photography
Posts: 111
New York, New York, US
Virtual Studio wrote:
Much much smaller - no massive prism to lug about
...
People dont get freaked by someone pointing a great big DSLR at them. That's precisely what I want! I'll try to rent one soon and also check out the Fuji.
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 6895
Glens Falls, New York, US
Jim McSmith wrote:
I find the 35mm rangefinder a bit of a poser's camera. When you consider what it offers over a DSLR then you have to think any rangefinder is about style over function. I would avoid Leica purely on the basis they're about snob value before real practical value. That's what I told my Dad when he bought a BMW. I told him that it wasn't really faster, more comfortable, or better-handling than my Taurus - it was all in his head, because he spent so much.
After all, nothing ever gets snob appeal because it's better - we all know this. Snob appeal is ONLY because something costs more.
Fred Greissing wrote:
As for the look of Leica lenses.....
There is not really a Leica look. Leica makes many different lenses and for example their APO lenses are quite different form others. For example the 90mm f2 APO does not have a particularly nice look to it while it is remarkably sharp, contrasty and very very well corrected for chroma.
Nearly every system has it's different looks within the lens range. Leica overall does do quite a good job with LoCA compared to some other brands, even expensive models. For example the very sharp, but over hyped Sony Zeiss 50mm 1.8 a-mount lens has bad LoCA correction despite being an expensive lens. The Leica 50mm f2 in comparrison is very clean, not quite as sharp.
IMO lenses are quite a subjective matter. However one thing I always do it shoot a 2d and a 3d test target of any lens I buy or rent and above all shoot this at the distance I will be using the lens (or distances). While lenses overall all have improved in many ways LoCA is still the Achilles heel in so many lenses. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art is a good example of that.
There are also Leica lenses along with fancy names that are real dogs.... the Leica 40 something mm Nocticron for 4/3 has pretty bad LoCA. That lens was the reason I was interested in a 4/3, until I tested one. There are also some amazing 'cheap' Leica lenses. The 40mm f/2 C series is incredible, considering how often you can buy them for $600. But the 90mm f/4 C is absolute rubbish, and I'm glad to be rid of mine.
Actually, I've found that most of their 90mm lenses are a little iffy, aside from the f/2, non-APO. That one, I like.
With the exception of Alpa and Linhof, who select "their" lenses from other manufacturer's stock, I don't think there's a single brand that is always good. And on the other end, I've found very few brands that are always bad, at least considering the price and the time when it was made.
Photographer
zhang2jg
Posts: 40
Atlanta, Georgia, US
if price is not an issue, go leica. there is simply no comparison in my opinion. It is the BEST for street photography. It is also the JOY to use. I sold rx1 and m8u to get a m9.
leica lens is very expensive but they keep value. beside one vintage leica 50mm lens, i only have zeiss/voigtlander lens which are excellent and affordable to me.
Photographer
zhang2jg
Posts: 40
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Zael Photography wrote:
That's precisely what I want! I'll try to rent one soon and also check out the Fuji. fuji is a pretty decent choice, but it is no where close to leica. Steve has done comparison and so do some of my friends who owned both....
like said, zeiss/voigtlander lens are great options
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 12327
Baltimore, Maryland, US
I just wish Fuji made a full-frame camera.
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
zhang2jg wrote:
It is the BEST for street photography. IMO there are many reasons why the Leica is not the best street photography camera.
Focus is only center frame
There is no way to shoot with a waist level finder for more discreet shooting.
Far to expensive to take on certain streets
Slow FPS rate
No EVF for undistracted image review
Focus and recompose not accurate enough for shooting wide open
Tracking focus on a moving subject is close to impossible.
It all depends on what one's definition of street photography is...
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Fred Greissing wrote:
IMO there are many reasons why the Leica is not the best street photography camera.
Focus is only center frame
There is no way to shoot with a waist level finder for more discreet shooting.
Far to expensive to take on certain streets
Slow FPS rate
No EVF for undistracted image review
Focus and recompose not accurate enough for shooting wide open
Tracking focus on a moving subject is close to impossible.
It all depends on what one's definition of street photography is... Most traditional street photographers use zone or hyper focal focusing. Even the best AF can't keep up with that.
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Most traditional street photographers use zone or hyper focal focusing. Even the best AF can't keep up with that. .... zone and hyper-focal can be set up on just about any camera.
"Traditional street photographers" had to use it.
IT works OK for some situations, but not for many.
Also hyper-focal forces you to use very deep depth of field.
Photographer
zhang2jg
Posts: 40
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Fred Greissing wrote:
IMO there are many reasons why the Leica is not the best street photography camera.
Focus is only center frame
There is no way to shoot with a waist level finder for more discreet shooting.
Far to expensive to take on certain streets
Slow FPS rate
No EVF for undistracted image review
Focus and recompose not accurate enough for shooting wide open
Tracking focus on a moving subject is close to impossible.
It all depends on what one's definition of street photography is... 1. i only use center to focus no matter i use m3/m6/m9 or canon 6D.
2. waist level is interesting but it is quite irrelevant thing here.
3. i only use single shot no matter rangefinder or DSLR
4. Focus and recompose is perfectly fine because if you are shooting on street, you seldom need or even have the chance to focus closely (~1m)
5. Tracking focus is actually much better than DSLR if you get used to it. It is just impossible to use ai servo tracking on street because people are constantly moving and crossing. I am learning to shoot while walking. Can you do it with DSLR?
6. By street photography, I mean the work from Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Alex Webb, joel meyerowitz...
obviously, rangefinder is not for everyone....
Photographer
Younique by Patrick
Posts: 3930
Tampa, Florida, US
I like zone with my Leica X2 for street. Pretty much, "F8 and be there!" I can set and forget the aperture and focus. I can focus more on the composition and content. Not worry about things.
Shutter sound silenced, compact size, inexistent shutter lag when in manual focus mode.. gives me the stealth camera I like.
I don't need to worry about evf, complicated menus, bells and whistles. Just slap the optical view finder on it, and im ready to go.
I think thats why Ive always enjoyed shooting with Leica. It's simple, and lets me focus more on what i'm shooting.
Photographer
Daniel
Posts: 5169
Brooklyn, New York, US
Fred Greissing wrote:
I disagree with the Leica being great for low light focusing. With manual focusing the newest mirrorless cameras are far better. One of the reasons I did not get a Leica... How so? The rest of that post didn't elaborate.
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 6895
Glens Falls, New York, US
Daniel wrote:
How so? The rest of that post didn't elaborate. Presumably because a mirrorless camera uses the ISO-boosted preview image to focus, and can be zoomed in for critical focusing.
Older models with crap ISO performance were much worse to focus in low light(manually and automatically), because you were working off of a super-noisy image. But now that some models have ISO performance as good or better than a similarly-priced SLR, you're getting a much brighter picture with much less noise.
I can confirm that the A7 focuses much better in low light than the NEX-7 for exactly this reason - it's much easier to see what you're doing.
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
Daniel wrote:
How so? The rest of that post didn't elaborate. Lets compare just using the viewfinders.
Leica
First of all the Leica depends on the manual overlapping of a double image in the viewfinder. It is not very detailed and it is the same regardless of the lenses aperture.
In low light you will be shooting with the lens wide open in most cases.
The rangefinder double image is also only center frame so any recomposition will throw the focus off when shooting wide open or close to wide open. Stopped down you have more depth of field, but absolute focus will still be thrown off somewhat when focus and recompose is used.
Fuji x-t1 EVF
There are several manual focus aids.
Dual View: Dual view displays both the full frame and a viewed in magnified area.
Full display for focusing and magnified area for fine focusing. However dark or light the scene is both will be clear, but with more noise in really low light. The magnified area can be selected from pretty much any area of the frame and can be moved around quickly. Light pressure on the release button hides the loupe for undistracted composition.
Single view with zoom in for fine focus. You can zoom in for fine focus and zom out for composition. It is very quick and can be assigned to any function button. A light tap to the shutter release and it zooms back out.
Focus peaking in the viewfinder: With full or magnified display you can use focus peaking. What makes it particularly good is that it is colored (you can choose from 3 colors) and it is superimposed on the full color image. A light pressure on the exposure release hides the focus peaking for clear viewing of the image.
You can even choose a black and white film simulation mode and use a colored focus peaking to make it even easier to read the focus peaking. You get a black and white image with colored peaking superimposed on it. Cool thing is the RAW is still a color image.
Then there is a last option that is digital split image. This gives you a large 4 section horizontal split image. While it is large you can hide it again with a light pressure on the release button. It is covers 1/3rd of the screen but cannot be moved. You can still use the zoom in button to magnify the spit image. It had absolute accuracy because it is right on the sensor.
On last thing. In all the manual modes depending on the detail in the subject the evf displays a slight moire when it hits 100% focus. It is very subtle but acts as a sort of unplanned focus aid. For example shooting a portrait when the eyes are totally focused moving the camera ever so slightly you see this subtle moire and it acts as a focus confirmation.
I can safely say that the x-t1 has the best manual focusing of any camera I have used, including all the rangefinders I have owned and used. Actually better than all the cameras I have used....
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6427
Los Angeles, California, US
zhang2jg wrote:
6. By street photography, I mean the work from Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Alex Webb, joel meyerowitz...
obviously, rangefinder is not for everyone.... Both Robert Frank and Henri Cartier-Bresson great photographers, but looking at the vast majority of their work there are few challenging focusing situations. Most of Robert Frank images are people standing still for camera. More of a street portrait photographer. He also used large format.
Photographer
Daniel
Posts: 5169
Brooklyn, New York, US
I think the point made my Zack was more in line with what I was wondering.
It sounds like your camera has a lot of potentially useful features, Fred. The focus and recompose limitation you describe, though, has nothing to do with low light. It's a limitation in broad daylight too-- if you're shooting wide open. That can be overcome with practice, experience, or chimping should one so desire. It's also in the spirit of scale focusing, I suppose (you're going to need to pay attention to how much further or closer away you now are from your subject so you can adjust accordingly).
It would also help to be aware of your lens' focus throw (an inch or so closer to infinity is going to be different for a 90mm than it is a 35mm, for instance). Referring to the depth of field scale helps. These sort of things don't take long at all to figure out, and become second nature once experience makes them common sense. Regardless, they have nothing to do with the light available.
Without giving my eyes more than a minute to adjust to turning the light off, I was able to focus reliably on the crack between one of my closet doors and the moldings around it. If one were to meter that scene it would be well below EV -5 (f/1.4, 1s, ISO6400).
That is to say, without an aid like Zack had described, your eyes are the only thing that will hinder your camera's (edit: rangefinder's) ability to focus in the dark.
|
