Jamie123
Veteran
Wow, that sounds quite rude and condescending. I'm sure swoop is quite capable of focusing a rangefinder. No matter whether you want to call it 'contrast' or 'outline' focusing or whatever. Ultimately here's only one way to focus a rangefinder and that is making the elements in the patch align.
A properly adjusted rangefinder will ultimately always lose against a properly adjusted modern AF system when compared for focusing accuracy. There's no shame in admitting that.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That Jamie, is unsubstantiated, and simply not the case. An AF system will be accurate (according to Canon) to within 1/2 DOF. A properly set up RF system does much better than that from 90 mm downwards with progressively increasing accuracy towards the wider end. I can trundle out the math, but it has been explained so often.... And as for condescending, it certainly is not meant that way, and I apologize if one can interprete it so, but for those shots to be out of focus on a small web Jpg and at this smallish scale there must be something wrong, either with the camera system or with the technique used.
Turtle
Veteran
At shorter FLs, RFs are actually more technically and provably accurate than SLR AF/Manual focus and the shorter the FL the more pronounced this is. At medium to tele FLs, SLRs become technically more accurate.
The above fits in with my personal experiences too.
kitaanat
kitaanat
about WB:
IMO, Photoshop's camera raw have their own way to interpret the color. I experienced this with H3D & Leaf raw file too. The picture's color opened in Photoshop & Light Room are different when compare to the out put from camera's application.
IMO, Photoshop's camera raw have their own way to interpret the color. I experienced this with H3D & Leaf raw file too. The picture's color opened in Photoshop & Light Room are different when compare to the out put from camera's application.
Last edited:
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
Canon 50 1.0 on Canon 5D2
Leica 50 1.0 on Leica M7
I used to own the Canon 5D2 when the only AF lens I had was the Canon 50 1.0 AF. It was a great lens and a very nice camera. I did have a couple of converters so that I could use my Nikkor AIS glass on it. While the AF on the 50 1.0 wasn't blazing fast, it was deadly accurate -- at least, my version of the camera/lens. Manual focusing the Nikkor AIS glass was possible but could have been better with a different screen with some contrast. I got the camera to get my feet wet with HD video. And since you have to focus using the chimp screen, the viewfinder is irrelevant. Being able to zoom in on the big, bright and beautiful screen is a big plus on static subjects but isn't any help for moving subjects. In that case, your skill with MF is all you've got. Use the back screen in bright light and you've got your work cut out for you.
While I don't own an M9 yet
, I have used one and I'm familar with the focusing patch. In my experience, it's very accurate and the only trouble I've ever had is with shots like the one with the shoe. The busy foreground/background made it tricky. I agree about contrast being the ticket for ease of focusing with the rangefinder system. In low light like the shot I posted of the wall, which was a 30-second exposure, the difference between the shadow and the wall was all I needed to nail the focus. The same with the big machine behind the gas station.
As far as IQ between the Canon 5D2 and the M9, you have to consider all the links in the image chain (lens, focus, camera shake, processing ...OO) and that includes the photographer.
I think what it comes down to is you have to figure out which camera is the right one for you.
50 1.0 Noctilux on Leica M9
Last edited:
nasdak
Established
M9 at a fire
It was great to have the 5D at the conference because it was really tight and being able to autofocus while holding the camera above my head was a godsend as well as the ability to poke the lens through a wall of video guys and get a shot. I've been in the same scenario with the M8 and it's impossible to focus because you can poke the lens through the the rangefinder illumination window is blocked so you can't line up the patches. Very frustrating.
Covering a fire with the Leica is something I've done a hundred times over. Except the M9 seemed to be having trouble getting the exposure right using aperture priority. It was all over the place and often wrong. But it's nice to work with and light to carry. I can even fit an additional lens in my camera bag than I can with the 5D rig.
Each one definitely has its place.
here's my thought for a friday : what's the point in spending so much time and $$$ comparing great cameras and lenses, to end up with such pictures? They could have been made with any P&S camera.
I think the M9 is used by some artists and it does take good pictures.
No offense...
user237428934
User deletion pending
It's used for a reportage, the classical topic for a rangefinder. So I don't get you point right now.
nasdak
Established
i didn't want to be rude...i just think you cannot discuss IQ, or how a camera behaves, with such images.
rwchisholm
Established
I find that when arguing about differences in image quality between the M9 and 5d2 ( I have both), we are truly discussing lens choices. Both sensors at low to moderate iso levels are outstanding. The Canon has the edge at higher values. Everything else is just lens choice. The strength of the rangefinder system is the sheer amount of boutique lenses available, each with its own unique signature. The canon system certainly has standouts, the 85 II and 35 L lenses coming easily to mind. I find with the M9 it is not always the sharpest lens that I choose, but the one that gives me a certain look. And I love 50's. On the canon I shoot the sigma 50 but on the M9 I choose between my hexanon for clarity and pop, my 1.1 nok for dreamy wide open and low light, the 1.5 nok for old school summilux look, etc. I like the choices available on the M9 system, and I don't see such dramatic look variation on the canon system. Rob
TareqPhoto
The Survivor
I don't have Leica, but i am happy with Canon, have 5D, 1Ds2, 1DsIII as full frame cameras, i have another, but those 3 were the most used cameras and since i've got 1Ds3 i don't use 1Ds2 or 5D more often, and all my results are amazing sharp and happy with it, 1D3 has some issues with me but in fact i use it for sports where i don't care much about the results, they accept anything and i still didn't shoot wildlife to test this camera for real things rather than sports, now should i go for Leica because it is slightly better? for what purpose? i don't shoot reportage or documentary street and so, i have Mamiya 7II to be in this place, and for something else as fashion or studio portraits then none of those digital 35mm and RFs can beat my Digital Hasselblad.
swoop
Well-known
This is what I did. Focused on the "Made in China" sticker. It's really not hard to do. The two images line up/overlap, and it's in focus. Not much room for failure. Keep in mind the subject is only about an in diameter. So it's hard to accidentally focus on something else. There's also nothing around it to give an idea of just how off the focus is.
After retrying on a diagonal surface. I discovered that the 50mm Summilux actually is spot on. It's just a bit softer than I thought.
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
For pleasure I enjoy the M9 for for work I rely on the 5DII, 5d or 7D, depending upon what the needs are. I do not get the consistency wit the M9 and that may be me but for what ever the reason, I need good output so I rely on my other full from or cropped cameras. I have used the M system since 1971 and used Leica since 1969 so I feel comfortable with it but for me there appear to be limits. This is also having my M9 and lenses totally calibrated.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
You can't possibly compare the sensors in the 5D MkII and the M9.
Too many people are agog at the Leica legend, and not aware of the reality right in front of them.
Both are good cameras. The Canon has, by far, the more advanced sensor. Leica is behind the game from the start with its current sensors...hence the striking differences in images at the original post here.
They're both fine, but unless you're some independantly-wealthy person who can afford to base their decisions on label prestige there's no way a working professional would choose the M9 over the 5DMkII. Better files, less than half the cost...seems pretty straightforward to me.
(and I'm speaking as a Nikon fan and Leica owner...strictly business)
Too many people are agog at the Leica legend, and not aware of the reality right in front of them.
Both are good cameras. The Canon has, by far, the more advanced sensor. Leica is behind the game from the start with its current sensors...hence the striking differences in images at the original post here.
They're both fine, but unless you're some independantly-wealthy person who can afford to base their decisions on label prestige there's no way a working professional would choose the M9 over the 5DMkII. Better files, less than half the cost...seems pretty straightforward to me.
(and I'm speaking as a Nikon fan and Leica owner...strictly business)
dfoo
Well-known
striking differences? Besides the color balance I don't see anything to evaluate.
dfoo
Well-known
I definitely find the low ISO shots from my M8 better than the files from my (old) 5d. They are sharper by a fair margin, and the colors are better. Plus the form factor is better, and I love the lenses.
user237428934
User deletion pending
The sharpness at ISO160 is great but not much better than the 5D (old). Did a comparison myself.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I'm sure that many working professionals that use an M9 are properly chastized by this
. Even the well-known Mr Kamber who was highly (and partly unjustly imo) critical of the M8 has returned to the M9, for instance. I would say that in percentage of cameras sold,relatively more pros use a Leica M8/9 than a Canon or Nikon. Now I'll be the first to admit that that does not amount to much in absolute absolute numbers, Canonwill produce the number of cameras that Leica turns out per year in a few hours As to the sensor, I think it is a bit rash calling Kodak behind the times in sensor technology - as this is actually the newest generation CCD.
yanidel
Well-known
The problem with the contrast method is that is requires a back and forth scan around the focus point. Meaning you can only know where the maximum contrast was once you actually get to the lower contrast zone again.
Coincidence of structure is therefore much faster, especially with moving subjects and probably why most of us use it.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Not quite, you can see it "jump"into contrast and that is the point. But I agree it is easily done to overshoot the critical point and then you have indeed to pull back a fraction. With practice that does not happen to often. If you start "hunting"you are sill in the phase of getting used to the method.
Ben Z
Veteran
Sometime during the past 40 yrs of Leica usage I've managed to get pretty fast (and accurate) at focusing. The rangefinder has a few instances where it pulls ahead of reflex focusing. The only truly significant one to me is very low light levels where manual reflex focusing can be iffy even with the brightest of finders and autofocusing requires help from a light or IR beam. Slower lenses focus easier on a rangefinder, but most of us don't use slow lenses on our Leicas anyway. Wide angles focus easier on a rangefinder but minor focusing inaccuracies are typically masked by DOF anyway.
But as someone who uses both systems, I prefer reflex in most situations. The reason is that like early autofocus systems that everyone hated, the rangefinder forces focusing with a central spot and then recomposition, while a reflex can be aimed for composition and focused anywhere on the screen. Modern autofocus systems have from 9 to 45 focusing points covering a large part of the finder area, and while selecting them individually is slow, and the auto-selection doesn't always select the subject I want, most of the time, surprisingly, it does.
The purported adequacy of the Leica for action photography evades me. Sure if you stop down and zone focus it's fine, but that precludes using shallow DOF to isolate the subject. Pre-focusing on a spot works only if you can bank on your subject hitting that mark. Usually that happens when the subject is moving in a straight line. With subjects moving erratically and unpredictably, I find modern AF does the job much better than I can possibly do with a rangefinder. If anyone can shoot toddlers or pets at play with a 90mm @ f/2 on a Leica and get a high hit-rate, then I bow to their superiority as photographers. It plain doesn't work for me.
But as someone who uses both systems, I prefer reflex in most situations. The reason is that like early autofocus systems that everyone hated, the rangefinder forces focusing with a central spot and then recomposition, while a reflex can be aimed for composition and focused anywhere on the screen. Modern autofocus systems have from 9 to 45 focusing points covering a large part of the finder area, and while selecting them individually is slow, and the auto-selection doesn't always select the subject I want, most of the time, surprisingly, it does.
The purported adequacy of the Leica for action photography evades me. Sure if you stop down and zone focus it's fine, but that precludes using shallow DOF to isolate the subject. Pre-focusing on a spot works only if you can bank on your subject hitting that mark. Usually that happens when the subject is moving in a straight line. With subjects moving erratically and unpredictably, I find modern AF does the job much better than I can possibly do with a rangefinder. If anyone can shoot toddlers or pets at play with a 90mm @ f/2 on a Leica and get a high hit-rate, then I bow to their superiority as photographers. It plain doesn't work for me.