35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
The M9 looks pretty enticing. I'll pick one up next yr after the novelty wears off and it drops to ~$3500.
Digilloyd on RF Focusing Accuracy
- Thread starter Bill Pierce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 27
- Views 6K
The M9 looks pretty enticing. I'll pick one up next yr after the novelty wears off and it drops to ~$3500.
Ranchu
Veteran
True, I meant with handheld use. If I'm tweaking about focus accuracy, I'm usually worried about shutter speed as well, so I'm not looking at the back it's on my cheek. I only have one camera with live view, the G10 and the depth of field is huge anyway. I never could stand to look at an evf. Other people have different needs, I'm sure. I don't know what lloyd is doing but I usually am just taking pictures.
I think somebody did make an error up there, the G10 has live view and is a CCD.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Ah ... once again the superiority of the SLR is confirmed!
I feel vindicated! 😀
I feel vindicated! 😀
P
Pico
Guest
What works for you, works.
I'm just one of those nutcases who believes that the focusing mechanism of a manual camera should be accurate, it should work properly, as it was designed to function.
Ronald M
Veteran
Reports of poor focusing calibration are one reason I will not buy a digital RF.
I have put split image Katz Eyes in my D200 and D700. I can visually get perfect focus and the electronic file shows miss focus. Correspondence with Katz helped me achieve PERFECT focus every time. The focus screen needs to be raised or lowered a few hundreths of a mm with different shims or pro bodies have an adjustment screw to do it within limits. It seems the AF and visual focus are two different systems and nikon does not adjust the visual to perfection as most us AF lenses. I don have the problem with my three film pro Nikons. They are built to a precision standard..
I can confirm the required accuracy for digital is much greater. The RF mechanism is at its limit with film and some bodies/lenses do not work. Fortunately I do little work at F 1.4 so this does not bother me. However a $7000 digital better work no matter how I mix and match.
My experience with Nikon proves they are not perfect either, but at least I can bring it to perfection myself.
A friend recently got a 90 APO and put it on his D90 with a Nikon mount. I told him the focus was off, so we tried it on my cameras and it worked perfectly. The problem is the D90 does not have the nice adjustment screw so screen shiming is required. It was also off way more than either of my bodies.
As far as the green focus confirm light, forget it.
I have put split image Katz Eyes in my D200 and D700. I can visually get perfect focus and the electronic file shows miss focus. Correspondence with Katz helped me achieve PERFECT focus every time. The focus screen needs to be raised or lowered a few hundreths of a mm with different shims or pro bodies have an adjustment screw to do it within limits. It seems the AF and visual focus are two different systems and nikon does not adjust the visual to perfection as most us AF lenses. I don have the problem with my three film pro Nikons. They are built to a precision standard..
I can confirm the required accuracy for digital is much greater. The RF mechanism is at its limit with film and some bodies/lenses do not work. Fortunately I do little work at F 1.4 so this does not bother me. However a $7000 digital better work no matter how I mix and match.
My experience with Nikon proves they are not perfect either, but at least I can bring it to perfection myself.
A friend recently got a 90 APO and put it on his D90 with a Nikon mount. I told him the focus was off, so we tried it on my cameras and it worked perfectly. The problem is the D90 does not have the nice adjustment screw so screen shiming is required. It was also off way more than either of my bodies.
As far as the green focus confirm light, forget it.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think Leica will have to go to live view in subsequent models to overcome this issue. There are times when critical focus is important and giving the camera this capability would add to it's armoury without over complicating the design.
I was quite sceptical about the live view function on my D700 until I used it in a controlled situation ... it's definitely a bonus IMO!
I was quite sceptical about the live view function on my D700 until I used it in a controlled situation ... it's definitely a bonus IMO!
I have found my M8 to be very accurate for my lenses, and "pixel-peeping" the focus allows you to see errors that you would not see with film. Most of my lenses were "spot-on", and I have a lot (more than 20) of fast 50's. With the M8, I found I could optimize a Sonnar lens for wide-open, for F4, or for a compromise in between. I set a '53 J-3 and a 5cm F1.5 Sonnar conversion for best focus at F2. The Planar formula lenses do not have as much focus shift, and did not require shimming. The Canon 50/1.2 that I built out of parts was good on the M8, as it was on the M3 and Canon P.
I wonder if the offset microlenses cause some issues with lens-dependent focus problems. Variables such as angle of incidence could come into play. My friend switched over to an M9 from an M8, his Noctilux was spot-on but a type 1 Rigid Summicron was slightly off. The latter was also slightly off on my M8, so I shimmed it.
CCD's have a much slower read-out than CMOS sensors. I suspect the time-lag for liveview would be about the rate of the CCD sensor, 1/3rd of a second. That is the Kodak spec for the KAF-10500.
I wonder if the offset microlenses cause some issues with lens-dependent focus problems. Variables such as angle of incidence could come into play. My friend switched over to an M9 from an M8, his Noctilux was spot-on but a type 1 Rigid Summicron was slightly off. The latter was also slightly off on my M8, so I shimmed it.
CCD's have a much slower read-out than CMOS sensors. I suspect the time-lag for liveview would be about the rate of the CCD sensor, 1/3rd of a second. That is the Kodak spec for the KAF-10500.
Last edited:
charles.k
charles.k
Very interesting discussion.
I have just purchased my M9 with about 6 lenses. Having the 5DII with L series lenses, and now ZE's, I fully familiar with AF and MF issues. The problems don't go away. I had spend a lot of time, calibrating and adjusting the MFA until I had good results with 5DII.
With the M9 with 3 ZM and 3 Leica lenses, I was noticing a difference in focusing. I sent my camera to Melbourne, Camera Clinic, an authorized Leica repairer, and found that my M9 was front focusing, and 3 out of the 6 lenses were back focusing. Five days later, costing a $700 for all the work everything is full calibrated. In future any lenses just need to be sent, as the M9 is now set to the master calibration.
I have received the M9 and lenses back and what a change. Lenses that I thought were soft, are now tack sharp. Truly worth the effort.
I am now thinking of sending the 5DII with lenses, to fully calibrate the setup.
I have just purchased my M9 with about 6 lenses. Having the 5DII with L series lenses, and now ZE's, I fully familiar with AF and MF issues. The problems don't go away. I had spend a lot of time, calibrating and adjusting the MFA until I had good results with 5DII.
With the M9 with 3 ZM and 3 Leica lenses, I was noticing a difference in focusing. I sent my camera to Melbourne, Camera Clinic, an authorized Leica repairer, and found that my M9 was front focusing, and 3 out of the 6 lenses were back focusing. Five days later, costing a $700 for all the work everything is full calibrated. In future any lenses just need to be sent, as the M9 is now set to the master calibration.
I have received the M9 and lenses back and what a change. Lenses that I thought were soft, are now tack sharp. Truly worth the effort.
I am now thinking of sending the 5DII with lenses, to fully calibrate the setup.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
