Urrg, questions I never wanted to find myself asking

[Godfrey]

I know that 🙂 but the problem there is that I shoot from the hip a lot, and if I am not looking through the viewfinder, I can't be certain that the autofocus grabbed what I wanted it to. Also, autofocus is slow compared to the good ol' f16 hyperfocal distance 🙂

I have a lot of experience with AF cameras now. Every time I think I'm happy with a particular AF camera's performance, something comes up, it screws up, and I curse the darn thing again.

I'm both much faster and much more consistent when setting focus myself with a simple manually operated lens than any AF camera has proven to be in the interesting circumstances of complex scene dynamics and low light. In average light, with simple scenes, AF works fine. However, manual focus works just as well in those circumstances too.

That's one reason why I've moved entirely to the M-bayonet lenses as the basis of my system camera kit, and sold off all but a couple of bits of my DSLR cameras.

 

[Merkin]

If you are shooting from the hip, then a NEX-6 or 7 (or even 5N/5R) would be a good option, given the tilting LCD display, as well as the built-in EVF in 6 and 7, or the optional tilting EVF of the 5N/5R.

Sounds like you just need a Leica because you want a Leica. If you are gonna shoot primarily 35mm, then why not get a NEX-7 with a 50mm Leica lens and a Sony RX1 for the Full Frame 35mm experience? 🙂

I don't like shooting off of LCD screens. I like a viewfinder.

My favorite camera to shoot with is my Olympus Pen FT. I get fantastic results from it, and I am comfortable with (and good at) my method of shooting with it. If it was feasible to carry a darkroom around with me everywhere I go, I would just use it for my upcoming project, but it isn't. I will basically be living out of a backpack for a year or so. That means digital, as you can't get black and white film processed and scanned at high resolution at the corner drugstore. Considering that, here is what I need out of a digital camera: Lenses with hyperfocal distance scales. An optical viewfinder that can be focused through. Small size and light weight. APS-C or larger sensor. Interchangeable lenses. Easy manual focus, since none of the small camera autofocus lenses have hyperfocal distance scales, which are a must. If I was willing to schlep 20 pounds of gear with me everywhere I go, I would just take my D700, even though I get 'busted' with it by people I am photographing way too often. I am not interested in abandoning the methods by which I work the best just because I am in need of different kit. This is by no means about 'wanting a leica.' I don't want a leica, but the leica seems to be the only camera that wouldn't require me to change my modus operandi. If zeiss or CV or epson or pretty much anyone would announce a new DRF, I would just throw my wallet at them. If Nikon would make full frame DSLRs that aren't hulking black monstrosities that stick out like a sore thumb, I would throw my wallet at them. If Olympus wasn't stuck on a system with a 50 percent crop factor, I would throw my wallet at them. If Fuji put a hyperfocal distance scale in their viewfinder and didn't have such a janky focusing system, I would have already thrown my wallet at them.

 

[splitimageview]

If Fuji put a hyperfocal distance scale in their viewfinder and didn't have such a janky focusing system, I would have already thrown my wallet at them.

I believe there is a distance scale in the VF. AF seems to be quick according to the reviews.

 

[Merkin]

I believe there is a distance scale in the VF. AF seems to be quick according to the reviews.

Well, I may have to do a bit more research on the x-pro 1.

 

[Godfrey]

I believe there is a distance scale in the VF. AF seems to be quick according to the reviews.

And if it's like every other EVF type distance scale and focus-by-wire compact camera I've seen, it's lacking in precision, responsiveness and accuracy.

The Ricoh GXR has an excellent in-viewfinder focusing scale and DOF indication display with their A12 28 and 50 mm camera units. The X2 has the same with its superb 24mm lens. I've used all three of them extensively. None of them come close to the accuracy, speed and consistency in operation of any of my M-bayonet lenses when using the distance and DoF indicator scales.

 

[Merkin]

I believe there is a distance scale in the VF. AF seems to be quick according to the reviews.

I have done some digging, and while a distance scale is included in the focus scale in the ovf, it is apparently far from accurate. Alas.

 

[splitimageview]

According to some. Just shoot AF.

 

[Merkin]

According to some. Just shoot AF.

Like I said, AF and my shooting style don't get along.

 

[douglasf13]

I own the X100 and M9. The X100 is cool, but it is still two different shooting experiences, and they aren't all that comparable. The worst thing about the X100's AF is that you don't know if you've nailed focus on the correct object when using the OVF, since there is no rangefinder patch and the OVF isn't TTL like an SLR. You have to use a two step process by engaging the EVF to make sure you're not focused on an object in the background or something, or you can just shoot the camera in EVF mode all the time. I still prefer manual focusing my M9.

 

[willie_901]

The focus scale is accurate as far as the focus distance goes. For some reason Fuji choose to make the DOF bar display width very conservative (narrower than it needs to be). So the estmated DOF is inaccurate compared to results fom the standard DOF calculators.

You can use the XE-1, XP-1 or X100 with the newest firmware to shot from the hip. There at least three ways to do this using the Fujinon lenses. In MF mode prefocus to set the focus instance (using AF manually), confirm that the focus distance is correct and choose the desired aperture by looking at the lens barrel. You can see the focus scale only on the LCD display or in the finder - in both EVF and OVF, or in all three... your choice. Or, use AF-S mode to preselect the focus point with the finder or LCD display and set the AFL button function to hold that focus point until the next time the AFL button is pressed. Now the camera will not initiate AF with a shutter press. Finally, you can prefocus visually in MF mode by electronically zooming (3X or 10X) in on the pre-focus point. Of course you can turn the lens barrel and just look at the focus bar. Not having an articulated LCD screen is a disadvantage. You do have to tilt the camera to see a change in the focus scale/bar, or you have to bring the camera to your eye to prefocus. By the way, if you hold a shutter half press, there is essentially no shutter delay.

I am not trying to talk you into buying a Fujifilm. In fact, I think you should but the digital M because your posts indicate that's what you at most comfortable with.

All I want to do is let you know what the options work with the XP and XE 1. Just yesterday I stood across from a store in a large indoor mall and photographed people walking by with the camera at waist level. I pre-focused at a point on the floor using MF mode, choose a useful aperture and set the shutter speed to 1/125. I found IS0 800 gave me proper exposure. I held the camera at my waist and took photos for 10 minutes. No one even glanced at me... it was as if I had a rangefinder.

 

[Archiver]

Hello all,
I have never followed digital Ms all that closely, so I need to know the possible pitfalls of each. I need to know about potential reliability or compatibility issues, as well as what I can expect from quality, printability, that kind of thing. I shoot black and white exclusively, if that matters.

Option 1: M8 or 8.2 (not sure which would be preferable), Pre-ASPH 35mm Summilux, 90mm f4 Elmar, X100 as backup/low light camera

Option 2: M9, 50mm f1.4 LTM Canon, 90mm f4 Elmar.

These two options fit roughly within the same sort of budgetary area. The M8 kit appeals because of the expanded depth of field that would be provided by the 35mm lens vs the 50 on the M9. The M9 appeals because I could have larger prints made from it, and I have heard of fewer problems with the M9 versus the M8, but I would assume that by now the problems would have gotten ironed out of M8s.

As an aside, does the M8 crop out the barrel distortion on the edges of the 35 1.4 nokton?

Thanks!

From my brief experience with the M8.2, it is a brilliant black and white camera. The M9 is also good but there is something in the M8, probably due to the lack of IR filter that caused the dreaded magenta blacks problem. Without filters the M8 produces really nice black and white images!

The M8 doesn't really crop out the distortion in the Nokton 35/1.4, as the distortion is quite visible in the inner quarters of the lens. It's very hard to notice, though, unless you are shooting a lot of pillars and poles.

My M9 had a faulty shutter after about eight months/25,000 images. Leica replaced the recock motor which had been refusing to recock after taking a shot. Quite disturbing, but since then it has worked an absolute treat.

I have the Canon 50/1.8 Serenar, bright chrome version with infinity lock, and while it is a great lens it is really quite glowy on the M9. I prefer to use it on the Ricoh GXR-M, where it becomes a 75mm and works beautifully for portraits. Not the f1.4 version, though.

The 90/4 Elmar is super on the M9, but make sure that you check its alignment. I try out every lens on the M9 before I buy it, and it has saved me from getting a number of misfocusing lenses.

I've had no issues with rangefinder alignment, and I've traveled with the M9 in a Thinktank shoulder bag very extensively. Just don't drop it and you'll be fine; that's how I knocked my Zeiss Ikon RF out of alignment.

 

[Merkin]

Is there a difference between an M8 upgraded to 8.2 and a from the factory 8.2?

 

[jaapv]

Yes. No S-mode, red dot,no black paint, different "Vulcanite".
Of course, not all upgraded M8s got the full upgrade.