aquaman75
Member
Hello.
As I said in another post I am trying to find the 35mm SLR camera with the easiest focus.
As wedding photographer i need obtain focus quickly and without doubt.
I have tried many cameras and until now I prefer the combination Olympus OM1 + 2-13 screen + zuiko 50 1.8.
Of course I am happy with this kit but nevertheless in certain lighting conditions is hard for me tell if the subject is in focus or not. I must play with the focus ring too much and it's a little frustrating.
So I decided to try a Leicaflex with Summicron 50.
I think that its bright and contrast finder together with its all microprism focus screen can do my life more easy.
It is heavier but in theory i will win focus easy and lens quality.
I would love to hear all your opinions about this theme.
Thank you very much.
Alberto
As I said in another post I am trying to find the 35mm SLR camera with the easiest focus.
As wedding photographer i need obtain focus quickly and without doubt.
I have tried many cameras and until now I prefer the combination Olympus OM1 + 2-13 screen + zuiko 50 1.8.
Of course I am happy with this kit but nevertheless in certain lighting conditions is hard for me tell if the subject is in focus or not. I must play with the focus ring too much and it's a little frustrating.
So I decided to try a Leicaflex with Summicron 50.
I think that its bright and contrast finder together with its all microprism focus screen can do my life more easy.
It is heavier but in theory i will win focus easy and lens quality.
I would love to hear all your opinions about this theme.
Thank you very much.
Alberto
teddy
Jose Morales
There Leicaflex would be about 5 to 10% better than an OM1 with similar screens but you can get a 1-3 centre micro prism screen identical to Leicaflex SL. You get more realistic DOF rendering with the Oly, but slightly more clarity with Leica SL. Then, try a 90mm with a Leica SL. Match made in heaven.
ferider
Veteran
You should try another Zuiko 50/1.2, one of the best 50s that I own.
That being said, if you really want bright and easy focus for people shots, get a Maxxum 9 with AF 50/1.4. Outstanding viewfinder, fast AF, and great lens, too.
AF works.
Roland.
That being said, if you really want bright and easy focus for people shots, get a Maxxum 9 with AF 50/1.4. Outstanding viewfinder, fast AF, and great lens, too.
AF works.
Roland.
FrankS
Registered User
If I remember correctly, there is a huge difference between the SL I once had and the SL2. The original SL only showed in/out of focus in the central circle, the rest of the frame was (like) an aerial image that was just always clear and n focus. It was like a RF that way.
Tejasican
Well-known
I use a focus screen on my OM2 that roughly is the same as the one in my Leicaflex SL and find that the Leicaflex is marginally better in low light. That said, when photographing in a quiet church the Leicaflex shutter noise is far more disruptive than the OM2. I found the R4 with the brighter screen (same type screen as the Leicaflex) offers the best of both worlds.
mike rosenlof
Insufficient information
It's the Original "standard" leicaflex with the non TTL CDS meter on the prism front that has the non-focusing screen. I have one, the viewfinder is lovely but easy to overlook the out of focus spot in the center.
the SL and SL2 focus over their entire screens.
FrankS
Registered User
You are right! Thanks for the correction.
It was the original Leicaflex that I had, and the SL that I have now.
awilder
Alan Wilder
I use to own the Leicaflex SL. It had unquestionably the best center microprism aid I've ever used or ever seen in an SLR. The reason is twofold; the center spot was a generous 4mm (matching the size of the spot meter) compared to 3mm as is typical in other cameras and it was optimized for f/2.8 rather than f/4.5 as is the case with many other camera. The result was greater accuracy but on the downside it would darken a little with an f/3.4 lens. The remainder of the screen used a very fine microprism design (as opposed to matte ground glass) enhancing overall brightness. As I recall about the OM1, the finder was very bright but at the expense of contrast. Nikon screens by comparison were the opposite; high contrast at the expense of brightness. I prefer Nikon approach but the Leicaflex SL was tops.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I had Olympus OM-1 and OM-2 cameras back in the middle 1970s, after I'd had the Nikon F for several years and kept dreaming about the then utterly unaffordable Leicaflex SL. Roll forward 44 years and the Leicaflex SL had became affordable for me ...
The problem for me with both OM-1 and OM-1 cameras was that the eye relief for the view finder was too short for my glasses. The Olympus lenses, while not built to the industrial grade spec that Leica (or manual Nikkor) lenses are, were all excellent performers and the focusing screens very good, but the viewfinder's short eye relief and magnification were always a bit of a chore for me.
When I finally assembled my long-wished-for Leicaflex SL kit, my expectations were met in full. This camera has what is, for my eyesight, one of the very best viewfinders and focusing screens ever made. And it goes without saying that the Leica Summicron-R 50mm f/2 and other R lenses are amongst the best you can get with crisp, clean imaging wide open, which makes it much easier to focus them.
As you've read in this thread already, the original Leicaflex has a center-only focusing screen where the SL and SL2 have full focusing screens. As long as you get a Leicaflex SL that's in good shape, you should be delighted by it. It's not light and smallish like an Olympus OM-1, but it has a superb feel, excellent and robust controls, and exceptional balance.
G
The problem for me with both OM-1 and OM-1 cameras was that the eye relief for the view finder was too short for my glasses. The Olympus lenses, while not built to the industrial grade spec that Leica (or manual Nikkor) lenses are, were all excellent performers and the focusing screens very good, but the viewfinder's short eye relief and magnification were always a bit of a chore for me.
When I finally assembled my long-wished-for Leicaflex SL kit, my expectations were met in full. This camera has what is, for my eyesight, one of the very best viewfinders and focusing screens ever made. And it goes without saying that the Leica Summicron-R 50mm f/2 and other R lenses are amongst the best you can get with crisp, clean imaging wide open, which makes it much easier to focus them.
As you've read in this thread already, the original Leicaflex has a center-only focusing screen where the SL and SL2 have full focusing screens. As long as you get a Leicaflex SL that's in good shape, you should be delighted by it. It's not light and smallish like an Olympus OM-1, but it has a superb feel, excellent and robust controls, and exceptional balance.
G
ferider
Veteran
Oh my. I'm stunned by all the suggestions above. Note that my dad has had a Leicaflex with 35/2.8, 50/2 and 90/2.8 since I was a little boy, and I just had Sherry overhaul it last year (among others, mirror and prism were de-silvering, which per Sherry, seems to be a now frequent problem), so I know the camera and how it feels.
How anybody can suggest an SL or SL2 with Summicron as easiest to focus for this application is beyond me.
First, it's irrational to not use AF for weddings, and there are wonderful fast film AF cameras with bright, 100% screens available for not much money. With respect to focusing accuracy and speed (also in the dark), they run circles around either OM or Leicaflex. As said above, pick a Maxxum 9, or the equivalent Nikon and a fast 50, it will cost you less than 500 bucks for a great combo.
Second, if you don’t like AF, fine. Still, in my experience, wedding photography also requires indoor shooting in low light. For several reasons (one of them that we are on RFF) my next choice for a 50mm film combo would be a Leica M3 with a fast 50. Summilux, Nokton 1.5 or 1.1, classic Nikkor or Canon 50/1.4 LTM, pick your poison. You gain 2 stops due to lack of mirror slap, the viewfinder is clear as glass, and easier to focus than any manual SLR (for me). And the camera will be quiet in church
Third, if you don’t like AF or Rangefinders, fine. Still, SLR viewfinder brightness is impacted by lens speed. Whatever the minuscule difference between OM and SL viewfinder brightness is, an OM with 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 will be brighter and easier to focus than a Leicaflex with Summicron. Even the lowly Zuiko 50/1.8 gives you 30% more light than the Summicron. Unless you are ready to pay > 1kUS for an R-mount Summilux, any classic MF film SLR will do better than an SL[2] if you put a 50/1.4 or faster lens on it. The Zuiko 50/1.2 (the last OM Zuiko ever made) is particularly nice in handling and IQ. You say in the other thread you got a bad one - it happens with used lenses. Try again. If you live close, I'll let you take mine for a spin.
That's BS.
All that being said, OP: enjoy whatever you choose.
Roland.
How anybody can suggest an SL or SL2 with Summicron as easiest to focus for this application is beyond me.
First, it's irrational to not use AF for weddings, and there are wonderful fast film AF cameras with bright, 100% screens available for not much money. With respect to focusing accuracy and speed (also in the dark), they run circles around either OM or Leicaflex. As said above, pick a Maxxum 9, or the equivalent Nikon and a fast 50, it will cost you less than 500 bucks for a great combo.
Second, if you don’t like AF, fine. Still, in my experience, wedding photography also requires indoor shooting in low light. For several reasons (one of them that we are on RFF) my next choice for a 50mm film combo would be a Leica M3 with a fast 50. Summilux, Nokton 1.5 or 1.1, classic Nikkor or Canon 50/1.4 LTM, pick your poison. You gain 2 stops due to lack of mirror slap, the viewfinder is clear as glass, and easier to focus than any manual SLR (for me). And the camera will be quiet in church
Third, if you don’t like AF or Rangefinders, fine. Still, SLR viewfinder brightness is impacted by lens speed. Whatever the minuscule difference between OM and SL viewfinder brightness is, an OM with 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 will be brighter and easier to focus than a Leicaflex with Summicron. Even the lowly Zuiko 50/1.8 gives you 30% more light than the Summicron. Unless you are ready to pay > 1kUS for an R-mount Summilux, any classic MF film SLR will do better than an SL[2] if you put a 50/1.4 or faster lens on it. The Zuiko 50/1.2 (the last OM Zuiko ever made) is particularly nice in handling and IQ. You say in the other thread you got a bad one - it happens with used lenses. Try again. If you live close, I'll let you take mine for a spin.
That's BS.
All that being said, OP: enjoy whatever you choose.
Roland.
Gregoyle
Well-known
Incidentally, the 2-13 focusing screen doesn't work with the OM-1 or 2 without some serious modification involving a file. The screen for the OM-1 works well; nearly as well as the 2-13, but the 2-13 and 2-4 focusing screens only fit on the OM-2SP, OM-3/ti, and OM-4/ti.
That being said, the OM-1 has a bright, huge screen with great focusing.
-Greg
That being said, the OM-1 has a bright, huge screen with great focusing.
-Greg
dtcls100
Well-known
OM focusing screens
OM focusing screens
I personally have and use most of the popular OM focusing screens for general use. While the 2-13 screens are excellent in the OM-4, OM-4T, OM-4Ti (also the OM-2s, OM-3 and OM-3Ti bodies which I don't have) models, they do not work that well with OM-1, OM-1n, OM-2 and OM-2n bodies (which would require filing down the focusing screen tab a bit), as the brighter 2-13 and 2-4 screens were designed for the slightly dimmer screens of the later OM-3 and OM-4 series bodies. I find using the 2-13, 2-4 or similar Beattie Brightscreens for OM bodies to actually make focusing seem a bit more uncertain with OM-1 and OM-2 bodies, as the images also look so clear and sharp that finding the critical focus becomes somewhat uncertain.
In my opinion, the best focusing screen for OM-1 and OM-2 bodies is the 1-2 focusing screen. That screen, which is not too common, has a central microprism on a matte field. Olympus specifies that it is optimized for use with standard and telephoto lenses. The benefit of the 1-2 over the standard 1-1 microprism, 1-3 split image, or 1-13 split image/microprism screens is that the microprism in the 1-2 does not darken until one stops down to somewhere between f5.6 and f8, so it remains easy to focus on lenses with maximum apertures of f5.6 (the 1-1, 1-3, and 1-13 become more difficult to use beginning at f4). The supposed and specified drawback of the 1-2 screen with wide-angle lenses (supposedly the microprism will darken) is non-existent. I have personally tested the 1-2 screen with numerous wideangle Zuikos that I have -- like the 18 f3.5, 21 f2.0, 24 f2.0, 24 f2.8, 28 f2.0, 35 f2.0, and 35 f2.8 shift -- and never had any problem with them or noticed any loss of focusing precision.
That said, in dim light, I like to use a capable AF camera like a Nikon d750 or Nikon F6, particularly since those cameras can work with the dedicated Nikon flash units (like the SB800) to focus using an IR pulse.
OM focusing screens
I personally have and use most of the popular OM focusing screens for general use. While the 2-13 screens are excellent in the OM-4, OM-4T, OM-4Ti (also the OM-2s, OM-3 and OM-3Ti bodies which I don't have) models, they do not work that well with OM-1, OM-1n, OM-2 and OM-2n bodies (which would require filing down the focusing screen tab a bit), as the brighter 2-13 and 2-4 screens were designed for the slightly dimmer screens of the later OM-3 and OM-4 series bodies. I find using the 2-13, 2-4 or similar Beattie Brightscreens for OM bodies to actually make focusing seem a bit more uncertain with OM-1 and OM-2 bodies, as the images also look so clear and sharp that finding the critical focus becomes somewhat uncertain.
In my opinion, the best focusing screen for OM-1 and OM-2 bodies is the 1-2 focusing screen. That screen, which is not too common, has a central microprism on a matte field. Olympus specifies that it is optimized for use with standard and telephoto lenses. The benefit of the 1-2 over the standard 1-1 microprism, 1-3 split image, or 1-13 split image/microprism screens is that the microprism in the 1-2 does not darken until one stops down to somewhere between f5.6 and f8, so it remains easy to focus on lenses with maximum apertures of f5.6 (the 1-1, 1-3, and 1-13 become more difficult to use beginning at f4). The supposed and specified drawback of the 1-2 screen with wide-angle lenses (supposedly the microprism will darken) is non-existent. I have personally tested the 1-2 screen with numerous wideangle Zuikos that I have -- like the 18 f3.5, 21 f2.0, 24 f2.0, 24 f2.8, 28 f2.0, 35 f2.0, and 35 f2.8 shift -- and never had any problem with them or noticed any loss of focusing precision.
That said, in dim light, I like to use a capable AF camera like a Nikon d750 or Nikon F6, particularly since those cameras can work with the dedicated Nikon flash units (like the SB800) to focus using an IR pulse.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It's my opinion from my use of this equipment. Sorry to hear you disagree, but does it matter?
The sharpness and contrast of the Leica Summicron-R 50 lens is FAR better than the Zuiko 50/1.8. It's much easier to focus, regardless of the camera it's being used on. I've used both lenses. There's no contest at all.
G
teddy
Jose Morales
The Zuiko 50/1.8 is soft at 1.8 and has chromatic aberration which is a deal braker for me. The blades can get sticky over time and the focusing barrel can suffer a wobble depending on some lenses. With colour compared to the Summicron R 50/2 (Version 1 and 2) is not as saturated and shadow detail is not as rich. Contrast and colour are more... subtle, articulated with more richness - I don't have the words. In all, the Summicron has more resolving power than the Zuiko 50/1.8.
... This doesn't mean that the Zuiko can't take great images. It's still a great lens for the price. Pair it with an Olympus OM1n and you have a light, portable sweet little package.
teddy
Jose Morales
All the info you've written here is really good, but I wonder if the 1-2 screen is limited to the accuracy of the light meter? I wonder if this is true; 1-2 stop compensation? I could be wrong.
dtcls100
Well-known
No exposure comp necessary with 1-2 for OM-1 or OM-2. Exposure readings are identical to 1-1, 1-4, 1-13.
x-ray
Veteran
It really comes down to your own eyes. A camera that's easy for one person to focus can be difficult for another. I owned two new SL's in the 70's and found they just didn't work for my eyes. I just couldn't focus them quickly or accurately. The microprism was just to fine for my eyes. In turn I've never had a problem with Nikon or Canon film bodies / screens.
if you go to an Olympus forum you'll get biased answers for Olympus as you will in a Nikon or Canon forum for that brand. The only way to know if something works for you is to try it for yourself. I no longer take responses seriously because of the bias and the lack of real experience of some contributors. When I have taken them seriously I've often lived to regret it. It all comes down to personal preference and biological differences.
My personal experience was my SL's were two of the most disappointing cameras I've ever owned in fifty years. Optically they were ok but no better than other brands. While Leica makes fine lenses not all were top notch in the era of the SL as were Nikon and Canons. No company has made every lens a top performer in the 70's. Nikons 20's weren't great but their 105 was and is amazing. The Leicaflex 28 wasn't as good as Nikons IMO from personal experience. Nikons are more easy repaired from what I understand. My understanding is the SL is not modular and is a costly and complex camera to repair. Consider too the SL was never very popular. It's more than just cost at the time. I had serious reliability problems with my SL and SL mot. The meters have been a problem as was the shutter in my mot.
Look at one and compare is my advice.
if you go to an Olympus forum you'll get biased answers for Olympus as you will in a Nikon or Canon forum for that brand. The only way to know if something works for you is to try it for yourself. I no longer take responses seriously because of the bias and the lack of real experience of some contributors. When I have taken them seriously I've often lived to regret it. It all comes down to personal preference and biological differences.
My personal experience was my SL's were two of the most disappointing cameras I've ever owned in fifty years. Optically they were ok but no better than other brands. While Leica makes fine lenses not all were top notch in the era of the SL as were Nikon and Canons. No company has made every lens a top performer in the 70's. Nikons 20's weren't great but their 105 was and is amazing. The Leicaflex 28 wasn't as good as Nikons IMO from personal experience. Nikons are more easy repaired from what I understand. My understanding is the SL is not modular and is a costly and complex camera to repair. Consider too the SL was never very popular. It's more than just cost at the time. I had serious reliability problems with my SL and SL mot. The meters have been a problem as was the shutter in my mot.
Look at one and compare is my advice.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Absolutely. I do listen to others' opinions, the information is useful, but the only way to know for sure what works for me is for me to use it for a while past the initial perception.
G
ferider
Veteran
Come on G, you are a writer, you know how to phrase an opinion vs. what sounds like a much over-generalized fact. Your original statement sounded like a quote from Ken Rockwell
There are at least 4 different versions of the OM Zuiko 50/1.8, which one did you try ? Another example: I've had two different versions of the Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS, one is built like a tank (great lens), the other one has a plastic barrel - impossible to say that all Nikkors are built to higher standards than all Zuikos.In any case, my major points were: (1) if the OP limits himself to MF SLRs (I wouldn't), a faster than f2 lens on any non-Leica, will be easier to focus than an f2 on a Leicaflex; and anything faster than f2 on a Leicaflex is very expensive. And (2), my OM Zuiko 50/1.2 is a stunner.
And of course I agree, Alberto's own experience will be more important in resolving his conundrum, than what any of us can put in words here.
Roland.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Come on G, you are a writer, you know how to phrase an opinion vs. what sounds like a much over-generalized fact. Your original statement sounded like a quote from Ken Rockwell
In any case, my major points were: (1) if the OP limits himself to MF SLRs (I wouldn't), a faster than f2 lens on any non-Leica, will be easier to focus than an f2 on a Leicaflex; and anything faster than f2 on a Leicaflex is very expensive. And (2), my OM Zuiko 50/1.2 is a stunner.
And of course I agree, Alberto's own experience will be more important in resolving his conundrum, than what any of us can put in words here.
Roland.
Roland,
I fail to see how "The Olympus lenses, while not built to the industrial grade spec that Leica (or manual Nikkor) lenses are, were all excellent performers..." can possibly sound like KR hyperbole.
I had two Zuiko 50s ... One bought new with my OM-1, the other given to me thirty five years later along with a black Nikon F Photomic FTn body (?? who knows why the guy had a Nikon body and an Olympus lens ??). I also have had Nikon 50/1.4 preAI, 50/1.8E, 50/1.2 AI-S, and now a new 50/1.8G AF-S (still have two of those, the 1.2 and new 1.8). The 50/1.8E was a single coated lens with mostly polycarbonate bits, the new 50 is multicoated and also has a lot of polycarbonate bits. Neither are built to the industrial grade, tank-like standards of the pre-AI and AI-S lenses. The OM 50 when new was half the weight of my pre-AI 50/1.4 and became rather loose feeling within three years. The used OM 50 was loose in the same way. They are not built to the same standards.
The 1964 Summicron-R 50mm f/2 single cam that I picked up two years ago for $150 (and use mostly with an adapter on the Olympus E-1 and E-M1 as a portrait lens nowadays) is better made than ALL of them, and sharper/more contrasty too—even wide open. Once I tried it on the E-1, I sold the Olympus 50mm as I no longer have any OM bodies.
Olympus E-1 + Summicron-R 50mm f/2
ISO 800 @ f/2 @ 1/125
The same feel as the Oly 50mm was shared by my Oly 28mm, 35mm, and 100mm: All very nice performing lenses, but rather lightly built compared to the similar Nikkor or Leica R lenses that I have or have used. That is the experience with these lenses that I'm speaking of.
The difference in brightness between f/1.8 and f/2 is practically invisible to my eye; my light meter can see the difference, my eye cannot. The Summicron 50/2 is sharper and more contrasty wide open than the Zuiko 50/1.8, and is much easier to focus even on a ground glass focusing screen without any focusing aids, even on the Olympus E-1's focusing screen compared to the OM 50/1.8. On the Leicaflex SL or R8 bodies, it snaps in and out of focus with perfect ease.
I also have a Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4, purchased with my second (black) Leicaflex SL body. Body (in near mint condition) and lens (with hood and caps in EXC condition) that cost me less than $500 all together; it's hard to call that "very expensive". It is nearly as easy to snap in and out of focus as the Summicron, but is softer and less contrasty than the Summicron when wide open. Its wide-open manual focusing performance is on par with the Nikkor 50/1.2 and Zuiko 50/1.8, not quite as crisp as the Summicron 50.
The fact of whether you do or don't prefer AF to MF is completely irrelevant. The question was about manual focus SLRs, not about whether AF is useful or desired. (I bought the 50/1.8G for the Nikon F6 and D750 bodies because I do find AF to be useful at time, also having a light-weight and fast 50 is very useful vs carrying the heavy, industrial grade 50/1.2 AI-S around all the time.)
You don't have to agree with me, but this is my opinion based on my own experience with these lenses and cameras. I find it rather insulting to be compared with Ken Rockwell hyperbole.
G