Bill Pierce
Well-known
One of my favorite writers (and photographers) is Kirk Tuck. He is both an accomplished professional and an enthusiast (or whatever you would call someone who takes pictures they know they won’t get paid for). He takes good pictures. I’m an admirer. With a lot of internet attention on the recently introduced Leica M11, he recently wrote a piece asking what the consensus was on image stabilization, auto focusing and adapting lenses
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2022/01/im-genuinely-curious-to-know-few-things.html
Different photographers have different needs, but it is a touch disconcerting to see what is probably a pretty good camera attacked for not having stabilization and auto focus, especially if that attitude applies to any future camera that you intend on using.
For me, image stabilization is primarily something to help me hand hold long lenses steady. If anyone ever develops subject stabilization, a switch on the camera that made your subject hold still, especially my dog, that would be really useful with all lenses. Perhaps the Leica M12 will have that. But I don’t find lack of image stabilization a deal breaker on a camera that is primarily used with wide and normal lenses. The bright frame Fujis, in many ways the Leica M’s biggest competitor, also lack image stabilization.
As far as autofocus, some very good lenses with outstanding performance even wide open like the Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar and Zeiss Loxia lenses are only available as manual focus lenses even when they have mounts to fit them on cameras that we think of as “autofocus” cameras. (And, minus autofocus motors they are small and light.) Frankly, in a lot of critical, wide-open, low light work I trust a magnified manual focus more than autofocus on many cameras and use it even with auto focus lenses. I’m also not a great fan of rangefinder focusing accuracy in difficult wide open situations, but when I have worked with digital M’s, the Visoflex viewfinder took care of that problem.
As far as Kirk’s questions about adopted lenses, I can’t answer because I no longer use any lenses that require adapters, but, boy, do I use lenses not made by the camera manufacturer - but that’s not Kirk’s question. I encourage you to read his column and reply to it.
And, of course, any thought on the absolute necessity of auto focus (pity the old masters who had to actually, manually turn those focusing rings) and image stabilization (they even had to use a tripod at times, but maybe it was OK because some of their cameras were pretty big and heavy) as replies to this column are clearly welcome even though your elderly moderator’s bias is clearly showing. More important, what do you think?
https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2022/01/im-genuinely-curious-to-know-few-things.html
Different photographers have different needs, but it is a touch disconcerting to see what is probably a pretty good camera attacked for not having stabilization and auto focus, especially if that attitude applies to any future camera that you intend on using.
For me, image stabilization is primarily something to help me hand hold long lenses steady. If anyone ever develops subject stabilization, a switch on the camera that made your subject hold still, especially my dog, that would be really useful with all lenses. Perhaps the Leica M12 will have that. But I don’t find lack of image stabilization a deal breaker on a camera that is primarily used with wide and normal lenses. The bright frame Fujis, in many ways the Leica M’s biggest competitor, also lack image stabilization.
As far as autofocus, some very good lenses with outstanding performance even wide open like the Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar and Zeiss Loxia lenses are only available as manual focus lenses even when they have mounts to fit them on cameras that we think of as “autofocus” cameras. (And, minus autofocus motors they are small and light.) Frankly, in a lot of critical, wide-open, low light work I trust a magnified manual focus more than autofocus on many cameras and use it even with auto focus lenses. I’m also not a great fan of rangefinder focusing accuracy in difficult wide open situations, but when I have worked with digital M’s, the Visoflex viewfinder took care of that problem.
As far as Kirk’s questions about adopted lenses, I can’t answer because I no longer use any lenses that require adapters, but, boy, do I use lenses not made by the camera manufacturer - but that’s not Kirk’s question. I encourage you to read his column and reply to it.
And, of course, any thought on the absolute necessity of auto focus (pity the old masters who had to actually, manually turn those focusing rings) and image stabilization (they even had to use a tripod at times, but maybe it was OK because some of their cameras were pretty big and heavy) as replies to this column are clearly welcome even though your elderly moderator’s bias is clearly showing. More important, what do you think?
