v3cron
Well-known
I've been posting on a few product-specific threads, but I think I need to widen the search a bit. I'm looking for a digital mirrorless to use exclusively with my Leica M lenses via adapter, and given that it is difficult to try things in person right now, I'm not sure how amazing or terrible it is to manually focus these things.
I've been a film user forever, and only own a barely-touched Ricoh GR digital that is ok, but I plan to live out of a suitcase for a while soon and would like to keep things simple and give a digital a proper try. I'm not willing to spend for a digital Leica, and honestly, even the more expensive Fujis and Sonys are a bit uncomfortable, but possible.
Which mirrorless cameras are great for manual focusing? I wear glasses and like to see the edges of the frame. For example, I always use a .58x M6TTL for 35mm lenses and .72 for 50mm. Is the Fuji X-Pro3 the best due to its OVF? I've read opinions both ways. How about the cheap Fujis like the X-E3? Sony? Something else I haven't considered? I've only been looking at APS-C so far. I'm looking for small and streamlined too, which is why I've kept away from the more chunky Nikon and Canon models.
Oh, and do those autofocus adapters actually work? Fotodiox makes one for Fuji/M but that just seems too good to be true.
I've been a film user forever, and only own a barely-touched Ricoh GR digital that is ok, but I plan to live out of a suitcase for a while soon and would like to keep things simple and give a digital a proper try. I'm not willing to spend for a digital Leica, and honestly, even the more expensive Fujis and Sonys are a bit uncomfortable, but possible.
Which mirrorless cameras are great for manual focusing? I wear glasses and like to see the edges of the frame. For example, I always use a .58x M6TTL for 35mm lenses and .72 for 50mm. Is the Fuji X-Pro3 the best due to its OVF? I've read opinions both ways. How about the cheap Fujis like the X-E3? Sony? Something else I haven't considered? I've only been looking at APS-C so far. I'm looking for small and streamlined too, which is why I've kept away from the more chunky Nikon and Canon models.
Oh, and do those autofocus adapters actually work? Fotodiox makes one for Fuji/M but that just seems too good to be true.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Anything with a good algorithm for detecting focus and confirming it via focus peaking should serve you well. My Lumix GX85 is not APSC but the focus peaking available, when I mount a manual lens such as an ancient motion picture optic, or my Leica Summicron, is far more accurate than can be attained by a mechanical rangefinder.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
v3cron
Well-known
Ah, I should've specified that I don't mean technical accuracy, but rather quick and non-tedious usability.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I tried Nikon DSLR, Sony mirrorless, and Fuji mirrorless for manual focus. Selected Sony.
Sony has focus peaking and focus magnification. Magnification comes on automatically with electronically-coupled (modern) lenses; push a button with legacy lenses. Most of the time, focus peaking is enough. I thought the Sony system was easier and more workable than Fuji.
As for Nikon, there's the focus confirmation indicator. I found it not accurate enough for my taste.
Maybe not your interest, but for camera-scanning, 5x magnification with focus peaking is great. The little peaking dots show up in image details and some grain areas at 6x. Very reliable manual focusing at 1x.
Sony has focus peaking and focus magnification. Magnification comes on automatically with electronically-coupled (modern) lenses; push a button with legacy lenses. Most of the time, focus peaking is enough. I thought the Sony system was easier and more workable than Fuji.
As for Nikon, there's the focus confirmation indicator. I found it not accurate enough for my taste.
Maybe not your interest, but for camera-scanning, 5x magnification with focus peaking is great. The little peaking dots show up in image details and some grain areas at 6x. Very reliable manual focusing at 1x.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
In that case, I haven't seen a mirrorless that I prefer for manual focus. I was on the fence a while back about getting a Nikon Z6 but no matter how many times I tried the camera out, I couldn't get the viewfinder to really agree with my eyes. My GX85 is fine, even the small EVF, but that Nikon just didn't click. The last digital camera I used that was excellent for manual focus was a Nikon D3 with a Canon split-prism coarse grit focusing screen, and a DK-17M at the eyepiece. I think it may have been an E screen. That combo was outstanding. But you're looking for mirrorless, so I'm sorry I don't have any more to add.
Phil Forrest
I have owned both Sony and Fuji with adapted lenses, focus peaking works but for precise focus when shooting wide open you’ll usually need to use the magnify option. Both systems have that feature. If you’re shooting static scenes this works well.
OlivierAOP
medium format
If adapting Leica M, watch out for the thickness of the glass layer on the sensor (Canon and Nikon are thin I think, Sony is thicker, don't know about Fuji), otherwise image quality will suffer on the edges for non-retrofocus wide-angles (if the glass is thick).
Manual focus on Sony via focus-peaking works well at a thin DOF, but is not accurate otherwise. But via a single button you can magnify and focus.
I have the Fotodiox AF adapter for Sony. Works quite well! But there is some wobble on the design which may tilt the plane of focus a bit.
Manual focus on Sony via focus-peaking works well at a thin DOF, but is not accurate otherwise. But via a single button you can magnify and focus.
I have the Fotodiox AF adapter for Sony. Works quite well! But there is some wobble on the design which may tilt the plane of focus a bit.
v3cron
Well-known
Thanks, all. I'd be shooting mostly in the street, so I can't fiddle around too much. Most of the time, I will probably be using a 35mm Summaron 2.8. It just occurred to me that I'll need an optical finder since the viewing will always be through the stopped-down aperture. Crap. I guess that leaves the Fuji.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If you're looking to use M-mount lenses exclusively, the natural recommendation would be to buy one or another of the Leica M digital models. Any of the typ 240, 262, or M10 series would do a great job. With the 240 and M10 models, you can fit an EVF for TTL framing and focusing like a reflex camera. This nets you the ability to use the rangefinder as you're used to as well as have a TTL framing/focusing option that allows more precise critical focus for close up and adapted long lenses if you want. It also means that when using Leica lenses you can apply Leica's matched lens profile for optimized image rendering quality.
If you don't care about the rangefinder focusing, Leica's mirrorless cameras (SL, SL2, CL, and TL series) all have good TTL focusing tools and also support all the Leica M lens profiles for optimized rendering quality. They are all also designed with fluid use of M and R lenses in mind, unlike any third party mirrorless camera (aside from possibly the Panasonic S series models), and generally produce the best results with M lenses.
Another camera with good focusing capability as well as good imaging with M-mount lenses that I've used: The Ricoh GXR-M with the M-mount camera module is one of the best, but it's pretty old now and the EVF is not up to modern specs.
M-mount lenses don't work on SLR cameras (physical incompatibility with the swinging mirror) and have rendering problems with a lot of mirrorless cameras due to thickness of the sensor stack. Some are reputed to work well with some lenses at least, but I certainly can't relate experience with all of them. I know that my first generation Sony A7 was a major disappointment in this regard ... only two of my M lenses worked without issues on that body, never mind that I found the body itself to be difficult to use and remember anyway.
I use M lenses and R lenses exclusively on my Leica CL body; I've had film and digital Ms, and the SL, but to me the APS-C format CL digital body strikes just the right balance of size, focusing quality, sensor quality, and overall usability to the extent that I sold off all of my other Leica digital cameras once I had gotten used to the CL. It's a somewhat pricey option, but my Leica lenses are also pretty pricey and perform their best on a Leica body, to me it's money well spent.
G
If you don't care about the rangefinder focusing, Leica's mirrorless cameras (SL, SL2, CL, and TL series) all have good TTL focusing tools and also support all the Leica M lens profiles for optimized rendering quality. They are all also designed with fluid use of M and R lenses in mind, unlike any third party mirrorless camera (aside from possibly the Panasonic S series models), and generally produce the best results with M lenses.
Another camera with good focusing capability as well as good imaging with M-mount lenses that I've used: The Ricoh GXR-M with the M-mount camera module is one of the best, but it's pretty old now and the EVF is not up to modern specs.
M-mount lenses don't work on SLR cameras (physical incompatibility with the swinging mirror) and have rendering problems with a lot of mirrorless cameras due to thickness of the sensor stack. Some are reputed to work well with some lenses at least, but I certainly can't relate experience with all of them. I know that my first generation Sony A7 was a major disappointment in this regard ... only two of my M lenses worked without issues on that body, never mind that I found the body itself to be difficult to use and remember anyway.
I use M lenses and R lenses exclusively on my Leica CL body; I've had film and digital Ms, and the SL, but to me the APS-C format CL digital body strikes just the right balance of size, focusing quality, sensor quality, and overall usability to the extent that I sold off all of my other Leica digital cameras once I had gotten used to the CL. It's a somewhat pricey option, but my Leica lenses are also pretty pricey and perform their best on a Leica body, to me it's money well spent.
G
phrons
Established
If the intention is to use manual glass the best option is Sony. They have improved the EVF but in real world use I found that if you are manually focusing the Original A7 is more than enough. However, with prices dropping on the A7II I don’t see why not pay a little more for the better ergonomics and ibis.
viewing and focusing at shooting aperture shouldn't be a problem, as long as it's not at night.
The EVF will brighten automatically. In VERY dark situations this can result in some noise which can interfere with focus peaking, but for street, you probably want to just set it at f/8 or so, and hyperfocal distance, and not bother with focus.Bear in mind a 35/2.8 Summaron is probably best used on the 135-sized sensor if you're shooting street; it'll show a 53ish field of view on the Fuji.
You could also get the Tech Art Autofocus adapter (or the Fotodiox) along with a Sony body, and use AF with the Summaron. You'd need an A7-II or later for this. I got the Tech Art about 4 years ago when they first came out, worked very well, especially with small/light lenses like the Summaron.
v3cron
Well-known
Very pricey, considering I still have a hard time thinking of digital cameras as premium products.
I want to check out the Sonys. Aesthetically, the small a6000 series looks cooler to me, but the A7 series seems to get a lot of attention.
viewing and focusing at shooting aperture shouldn't be a problem, as long as it's not at night.
Bear in mind a 35/2.8 Summaron is probably best used on the 135-sized sensor if you're shooting street; it'll show a 53ish field of view on the Fuji.
You could also get the Tech Art Autofocus adapter (or the Fotodiox) along with a Sony body, and use AF with the Summaron. You'd need an A7-II or later for this. I got the Tech Art about 4 years ago when they first came out, worked very well, especially with small/light lenses like the Summaron.
I do shoot quite a bit at night, but the aperture will likely be open a bit more then
. That's good to know about the evf brightening to compensate.I'm aware of the focal length conversion, so this is to be my longish normal lens. Unfortunately my very deep 21mm SA 3.4 probably won't fit any of these cameras (right?).
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I had been using my M mount lenses on my Fuji XPro1 and Xe3 and wasn't too excited about how well they were to focus. I've gotten a Nikon Z7 with the same features mentioned about the Sony and I'm really happy with the results there. If you have big sensor needs I can recommend the Nikon.
v3cron
Well-known
The Nikons look like very practical choices, but I'll have to see and hold one in person. The visual design bothers me a bit - same with Canons. I was never into that look.
Forest_rain
Well-known
Might want to check the Fuji too for use with wide angles. I've read that many wide angles from film rangefinders suffer from sensor-related problems on digital cameras, where the edges are quite soft and there is perspective distortion, color cast, and vignetting. It depends on the design. According to Phil Reeve "The A7r is the worst, A7s(II) and A7rII fare much better". Maybe an A7II would fare better than an A7, but you'd have to check on the sensor design. Best to check on Fuji as well, I'm not sure Fuji would perform any better.
I think it also has to do with the way sensor imaging sites work, they are situated like pipes, so when light enters in at an angle it doesn't perform quite as well, which might be related to film wide angles. For example, the Jupiter 12 35mm works extremely poorly on A7 series, while it works great on film cameras. Retrofocus lenses without the protruding element should perform a lot better. 50mm and longer I imagine would work fine.
Also you can use specially designed anamorphic filters to even out the distortion but it must be designed for each individual lens model.
See this for more info:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/rangefinder-wide-angle-lenses-on-a7-cameras-problems-and-solutions/
Sony is supposed to have great focus peaking, but I've never used it. Never been a fan of it, I just use the focus zoom feature to get accurate focus, and I find that works better for me.
I think it also has to do with the way sensor imaging sites work, they are situated like pipes, so when light enters in at an angle it doesn't perform quite as well, which might be related to film wide angles. For example, the Jupiter 12 35mm works extremely poorly on A7 series, while it works great on film cameras. Retrofocus lenses without the protruding element should perform a lot better. 50mm and longer I imagine would work fine.
Also you can use specially designed anamorphic filters to even out the distortion but it must be designed for each individual lens model.
See this for more info:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/rangefinder-wide-angle-lenses-on-a7-cameras-problems-and-solutions/
Sony is supposed to have great focus peaking, but I've never used it. Never been a fan of it, I just use the focus zoom feature to get accurate focus, and I find that works better for me.
willie_901
Veteran
This is the point.
Focusing for static scenes is often straightforward for Leica M or adapted lenses on digital MF platforms. One exception would be close subjects where focusing is critical.
For some analog RF cameras the finder focusing patch is tedious to use in very bright light or low light. The camera effective base length determines how tedious focusing can be for either wide-angle or telephoto lenses.
I do not consider any M/LTM mount lens on a Leica digital M body to be an adapted lens.
What about dynamic scenes?
Obviously countless well-focused photographs of dynamic scenes exist for manual focus RF and digital cameras with adapted lenses.
Here are the MF operational options for adapted lenses on digital cameras with EVFs:
o finder magnification to visually confirm the focus point
o digital split-image focus patch simulations
o contrast detection focusing peaking
o focus detection indication (e.g. Nikon's LED system)
Many cameras combine magnification and contrast detection focusing peaking.
I general, newer bodies offer the most responsive MF experience for two reasons: the focus detection pixels are more sensitive and the camera CPUs and focus algorithms are more sophisticated.
FUJIFILM X-100 and X-Pro cameras offer these aids with an inverse Galilean OVF focusing system. Newer models incorporate a small, 3:2 aspect ratio, EVF projection of the focus region in real time in the OVF. This focus area can be set for zoom, digital spit image or focus peaking.
Using adapted lenses on any digital camera is tedious at first. You have to select a focus detect scheme (e.g. focus region size, location). You have to decide whether or not to move the focus detect region before focusing. You have to choose a focus confirmation method. You have to make sure the camera is not using any power saving options that would slow down the focus detection algorithms.
Switching between MF options on some cameras is easier than othersMF options. Different people prefer different EVF technologies. Eye relief differences are also important. Some lenses' focus barrel mechanisms may be more difficult to use with digital focus confirmation than other lenses.
With experience and practice one discovers a MF focus confirmation technique that works for them. So, focusing is no longer more tedious than using a M rangefinder.
I started using analog MF lenses on Nikon D200, 300 and 700 bodies. I found none of these acceptable because the single LED focus indicators were unreliable.
I tried focus peaking on a first generation M4/3 camera. This was impractical.
Since then I have used FUJIFILM X-100 and X-Pro bodies. But I decided to abandon using adapted lenses. Still, I have used the digital focus ring on FUJIFILM XF lenses for OVF manual focusing. For me this method first became practical with the X-100T and X-Pro 2. The X-Pro 2 works best with with the newer XF prime lenses. I use OVF focus peaking with and without the zoom function. The spit-image display works fine for well-lit static scenes. But it is inferior to the Zeiss Ikon ZM and Canonet QL-17 III RF patches I once used.
v3cron
Well-known
I wonder if it is still ok on the A6xxx series. The 6000 at $450 is pretty tempting. I'm debating going cheap or going to the ~$1800 price point. Since I'm not yet convinced that I don't hate digital in general, I'd prefer the former.
AlexBG
Well-known
I would get a MK1 Sony A7, you'll want full frame with the 35mm lens. Focus peaking should be enough and if not then I think you can program a button to peak.
I loved my FD50mm 1.4 on my A7, on my fuji X the crop factor meant it lost it's charm. Now I have an X-t3 and from memory it is easier to focus on an A7.
The new nikon Z's seem to be even better for manual focus lenses from what I have read but then a lot more money.
Alternatively why not go for an X100 model? Still get 35mm and I think it will be as close to what you shoot now on film but a digital version. Then lend your leica to a friend to try.
I loved my FD50mm 1.4 on my A7, on my fuji X the crop factor meant it lost it's charm. Now I have an X-t3 and from memory it is easier to focus on an A7.
The new nikon Z's seem to be even better for manual focus lenses from what I have read but then a lot more money.
Alternatively why not go for an X100 model? Still get 35mm and I think it will be as close to what you shoot now on film but a digital version. Then lend your leica to a friend to try.
v3cron
Well-known
Does anyone know if there are any currently produced cameras that can be adapted to accept the old 21mm Super Angulon f3.4? It's one of my favorite lenses. I believe neither Fuji nor Leica can take it.
Honestly, the higher resolution and biggest size EVF is going to help the most...I’ve heard some people say they don’t even need the focus aids with the latest, high end EVFs. For instance the Leica SL2 has an Electronic (OLED)Viewfinder Resolution of 5,760,000 Dots with a .79x magnification. That’s one of best right now.