Z6 rangefinder substitute. Nope

[fti]

I love the Z6. I've been shooting with the Z6 for several weeks and I am amazed at the quality and more importantly the usability of this camera with different lenses. My M lenses are even better with the Z6. I can close focus - I will do a short write up about the close up adapter later - and the higher ISO allows for more flexibility generally.

However, where the Z6 allows for faster focusing (critically), it is paradoxically slower to focus than a rangefinder for general use. By the time I have the pupil in focus with the Z6, my subject's smile has already waned from a natural to an awkwardly held smile. With the M9 I can't get that level of precision so generally I tend to forego on such exercise in precision. This is where the main difference comes for me. The Z6 simply cannot substitute the rangefinder experience. I would definitely miss my rangefinder if I only had the Z6. Also where the M9 was small enough for me and my Ona Bowery (love that bag), the Z6 is just too big. It still has too much of that DSLR-like legacy in size and paraphernalia.

BUT.... I love the Z6, so much so it has me thinking about moving over to a film M and keeping the Z6 for my regular shoots. Since I can't afford to keep the M9-p and a decent film M, I may end up selling it..... still undecided.

 

[gavinlg]

I've yet to find a digital camera that isn't a Leica M that offers a satisfactory manual focussing experience. By good, I mean the ability to focus quickly and accurately in every day situations with moderately fast 35/50/85ish lenses. I even tried putting a split focussing screen in my 5d back in the day.

Nothing really beats a rangefinder for manual focussing.

 

[jsrockit]

I've yet to find a digital camera that isn't a Leica M that offers a satisfactory manual focussing experience. By good, I mean the ability to focus quickly and accurately in every day situations with moderately fast 35/50/85ish lenses. I even tried putting a split focussing screen in my 5d back in the day.

Nothing really beats a rangefinder for manual focussing.

Agreed 100%!

 

[Archiver]

Sometimes, I use this method for manual focusing on a mirrorless camera, like the Panasonic GH4 or G9 with Voigtlander lenses:

Use high speed rapid burst, and hold your finger down as you slowly pull focus through the critical range. You'll get a series of images and at least one or two will be in focus. I figured out how to do this from manual focus pulling when shooting video. Think of it as rapid focus bracketing. Assuming your mirrorless camera has a decent EVF and focus peaking, seeing if you're in focus will be a lot easier this way, too.

As much as I like rangefinder focusing for accurate focus, it is almost impossible in rapidly moving situations like combat sports, especially if the subject is out of the centre. A mirrorless camera with focus peaking and a smooth manual lens is better for this.

 

[ruby.monkey]

I've yet to find a digital camera that isn't a Leica M that offers a satisfactory manual focussing experience. By good, I mean the ability to focus quickly and accurately in every day situations with moderately fast 35/50/85ish lenses. I even tried putting a split focussing screen in my 5d back in the day.

Nothing really beats a rangefinder for manual focussing.

I guess it's all down to expectations. I've found that many digital cameras (and especially mirrorless with EVF) are as good as or better than manual-focus SLRs; but for a rangefinder substitute they're all lacking.

My poor man's M9 is still a better mount for rangefinder lenses than any of my (far more modern) digicams.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I'd agree that using manual focus lenses on the Z6/Z7 may be a bit slower than on an M camera (I'm assuming you have focus peaking on in your Z6?), but I've found that the Z-series Nikon prime lenses (35, 50 and 85 f/1.8) are phenomenal and are my personal substitute for using M lenses. Wide open, I can nail focus with these lenses every time, and to me rival any modern Leica lens I've had, particularly for their cost vs performance. The other thing I like about using the Nikon prime lenses with the Z7 is that with all those focus points offered in the Z7, I can place the point of focus pretty much anywhere in the frame. One of the issues I've had over the years with shooting wide open/wider apertures with M lenses on my M cameras is that if I focus on a subject but then want to place the focus point off to one side or even a corner, the focus will change slightly, thereby resulting in my intended focus point being not in focus. With the Z7 and its Z-series prime lenses, that doesn't happen -- f/1.8 way off in a corner, tack sharp.

Now you've got me thinking of doing a comparative test between my Z7 and my M-D using my M lenses. Hmmm....

 

[Michael Markey]

Beg to differ .

I find peak focusing on my EVF cameras far quicker and more reliable than using my RF`s.

For rapidly moving subjects the RF is hopeless whereas I can confidently nail manual focus using peak focusing .

Wides can be a problem through an EVF but I don`t shoot them .

 

[Rayt]

My friend just bought a Fujifilm GFX 100 medium format mirror less camera this evening and in the shop he tried it out with a Leica 75mm Summilux-M (it barely covers the sensor with dark corners). I took a few shots and was amazed at the EVF. I was able to focus accurately the 75mm at max aperture without magnification or peaking. And I shot very fast no hunting back and forth. Further I didn’t even set the diopter to my eyesight. My digital experience has been based on an M8, M9M and a Sony A7RII for scanning negs. I don’t see an incentive to use M bodies for M lenses anymore for digital.

 

[Archiver]

My friend just bought a Fujifilm GFX 100 medium format mirror less camera this evening and in the shop he tried it out with a Leica 75mm Summilux-M (it barely covers the sensor with dark corners). I took a few shots and was amazed at the EVF. I was able to focus accurately the 75mm at max aperture without magnification or peaking. And I shot very fast no hunting back and forth. Further I didn’t even set the diopter to my eyesight. My digital experience has been based on an M8, M9M and a Sony A7RII for scanning negs. I don’t see an incentive to use M bodies for M lenses anymore for digital.

The issue will be with M lenses wider than 35mm, generally speaking. Unless the medium format sensor and stack thickness is different with the GFX, most mirrorless cameras have issues with M lenses. Some get the sensor stack changed on their Sony A7 cameras with a Kolari mod. The only mirrorless cameras I know of that perform well with M lenses over a range of focal lengths are the Leica SL and SL2, the Ricoh GXR M module, and the Leica CL. So if I were to get a mirrorless camera with M lenses in mind, it would have to be a SL or SL2.

 

[Archiver]

I'd agree that using manual focus lenses on the Z6/Z7 may be a bit slower than on an M camera (I'm assuming you have focus peaking on in your Z6?), but I've found that the Z-series Nikon prime lenses (35, 50 and 85 f/1.8) are phenomenal and are my personal substitute for using M lenses. Wide open, I can nail focus with these lenses every time, and to me rival any modern Leica lens I've had, particularly for their cost vs performance. The other thing I like about using the Nikon prime lenses with the Z7 is that with all those focus points offered in the Z7, I can place the point of focus pretty much anywhere in the frame. One of the issues I've had over the years with shooting wide open/wider apertures with M lenses on my M cameras is that if I focus on a subject but then want to place the focus point off to one side or even a corner, the focus will change slightly, thereby resulting in my intended focus point being not in focus. With the Z7 and its Z-series prime lenses, that doesn't happen -- f/1.8 way off in a corner, tack sharp.
.

I follow a YouTube channel called Monochrome Memoirs. He's a Nikon wedding and street shooter who has migrated to the Z6, and he affirms that the Z6's face detection is fast and accurate enough for capturing dark dance floor scenes. He's confident enough in the Z6 autofocus that he owns multiple bodies and has used them for weddings for well over a year. If the Z6 is good enough to do that, it's good enough for most purposes.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I follow a YouTube channel called Monochrome Memoirs. He's a Nikon wedding and street shooter who has migrated to the Z6, and he affirms that the Z6's face detection is fast and accurate enough for capturing dark dance floor scenes. He's confident enough in the Z6 autofocus that he owns multiple bodies and has used them for weddings for well over a year. If the Z6 is good enough to do that, it's good enough for most purposes.

Yeah it is actually quite amazing - I did a little test in my kitchen this morning with the 50/1.8 Nikon-S and had the focus point set to the upper left corner. Hit the focus point instantaneously every time - I know I'd have a hard time to do that reliably with my M's. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Z8 and Z9 are going to be 🙂

BTW what lenses does that fellow use?

 

[markjwyatt]

The issue will be with M lenses wider than 35mm, generally speaking. Unless the medium format sensor and stack thickness is different with the GFX, most mirrorless cameras have issues with M lenses. Some get the sensor stack changed on their Sony A7 cameras with a Kolari mod. The only mirrorless cameras I know of that perform well with M lenses over a range of focal lengths are the Leica SL and SL2, the Ricoh GXR M module, and the Leica CL. So if I were to get a mirrorless camera with M lenses in mind, it would have to be a SL or SL2.

You do not think the Fujifilm XT-n would work well?

 

[Michael Markey]

The only mirrorless cameras I know of that perform well with M lenses over a range of focal lengths are the Leica SL and SL2, the Ricoh GXR M module, and the Leica CL. So if I were to get a mirrorless camera with M lenses in mind, it would have to be a SL or SL2.

I went with the CL and have no regrets until that is when I bought a couple of the native lenses .
Since using those I don`t use the M lenses as much .
Hopefully I`ll pick up an SL sometime .

 

[agentlossing]

Film grain does wonders to hide small focus errors. I've found that whenever trying to manually focus my digital cameras, I end up with a small level of focus error that isn't pleasing to the eye. It should make me shoot consistently smaller apertures to get better DoF, but I'm stubborn and I often don't. There are multiple reasons why the film aesthetic is so charming. It's too bad that creating the same small imperfections and texture in a digital file "feels" like cheating.

 

[fti]

I'd agree that using manual focus lenses on the Z6/Z7 may be a bit slower than on an M camera (I'm assuming you have focus peaking on in your Z6?), but I've found that the Z-series Nikon prime lenses (35, 50 and 85 f/1.8) are phenomenal and are my personal substitute for using M lenses. Wide open, I can nail focus with these lenses every time, and to me rival any modern Leica lens I've had, particularly for their cost vs performance. The other thing I like about using the Nikon prime lenses with the Z7 is that with all those focus points offered in the Z7, I can place the point of focus pretty much anywhere in the frame. One of the issues I've had over the years with shooting wide open/wider apertures with M lenses on my M cameras is that if I focus on a subject but then want to place the focus point off to one side or even a corner, the focus will change slightly, thereby resulting in my intended focus point being not in focus. With the Z7 and its Z-series prime lenses, that doesn't happen -- f/1.8 way off in a corner, tack sharp.

Now you've got me thinking of doing a comparative test between my Z7 and my M-D using my M lenses. Hmmm....

Although it takes longer to focus, it's not that bad. It's as if because I am able to focus better with the Z6, I make full use of it. Focus peaking doesn't really work for me in that I just can't get used to it. It just looks too unnatural. I will however invest in the s-primes. I've hard some really good things about them.

The focus selector - although a pain when I knock it by accident, works really great. Too often I magnify while thinking I had center focus. It's really strange to be able to have selective focus with my 35mm summicron without recomposing 🙂

 

[peterm1]

The following is a bit of an aside I know, but I am bound to say that in my experience the nicest digital camera to use as a rangefinder substitute is the Leica Q (or Q2). Provided of course the fixed lens is not a problem for you. The AF lens converts from AF to MF by the simple expedient of moving what in an old school Leica lens would be the lens infinity lock slightly out of the infinity position. Any further movement of it instantly enlarges the image in the finder and turns on focus peaking. Then, when you stop turning the ring, a few seconds later the camera automatically switches back to normal sized view for composing. This all makes highly accurate manual focus extraordinarily quick in this camera and for me works as good or better than a old school Leica RF. (Image enlargement is not absolutely necessary in all situations but as my eyes deteriorate with age I find it a big help in enough situations that I cannot help but value it - especially when it is just "there" without fuss whenever you manually focus. And I trend to shoot wide open with longer lenses so good focusing is a must and focus peaking alone is not always reliable.). Perhaps some other cameras have comparable arrangements but it is the responsiveness of having this linked directly to the "focus lock" / focus ring that makes it so useful as there are no separate buttons to push to actuate this mechanism.
One of my other cameras - a Panasonic is sort of halfway there - by my choice in the menu system, the focus peaking is always on when in MF mode so that is good but the image enlargement has to be activated manually by pushing a button though it does turn off again automatically when the shutter button is half pressed. Much the same on my Olympus OMD EM5 too though there for some reason I have to push a button twice to activate image enlargement?????? Still not as good as the Leica Q as the need to manually enlarge the image for critical focus in the other cameras slows things down in practice though I admit, it seems a small thing. But then again those cameras have interchangeable lenses which in principle precludes them from using the Leica Q method exactly with any but dedicated system lenses that are appropriately "chipped" and thus are able to "talk" to the body. I imagine smart designers may be able to design a system that allows this kind of convenience with legacy lenses by perhaps reading changes on the sensor to achieve the same kind of implementation with non system lenses but I am not sure that anyone is there yet. If they are I have not heard of it. As I am a dedicated user of vintage glass this system would be heaven for me on pretty much any camera body.

 

[Archiver]

Yeah it is actually quite amazing - I did a little test in my kitchen this morning with the 50/1.8 Nikon-S and had the focus point set to the upper left corner. Hit the focus point instantaneously every time - I know I'd have a hard time to do that reliably with my M's. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Z8 and Z9 are going to be 🙂

BTW what lenses does that fellow use?

At first he used the 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 with adapted Nikon F mount zooms, but he's found the autofocus performance of the native S mount lenses better. As they are released, he's switching over to all S mount lenses.

I'm trying to avoid buying into a new lens mount system for stills when I can stick with Canon, or adapt Canon lenses to a Sony A7S III or A7 III. But the Z6 still looks like a great camera.

 

[Rayt]

The issue will be with M lenses wider than 35mm, generally speaking. Unless the medium format sensor and stack thickness is different with the GFX, most mirrorless cameras have issues with M lenses. Some get the sensor stack changed on their Sony A7 cameras with a Kolari mod. The only mirrorless cameras I know of that perform well with M lenses over a range of focal lengths are the Leica SL and SL2, the Ricoh GXR M module, and the Leica CL. So if I were to get a mirrorless camera with M lenses in mind, it would have to be a SL or SL2.

Thanks for the advice. The SL2 is known for the ease of focus with manual lenses and after some research I learned that the GFX 100 and the SL2 both have EVF resolutions of 5.7 million dots. I have really poor eyesight and had major eye operations. I shoot RF because of this as I can’t find focus point with SLR. I am just amazed I could focus the 75mm Summilux wide open without magnification or peak on the GFX. I would like to try this on the SL2. Autofocus would be the logical conclusion but I already have the M and R lenses.

 

[fti]

The following is a bit of an aside I know, but I am bound to say that in my experience the nicest digital camera to use as a rangefinder substitute is the Leica Q (or Q2). Provided of course the fixed lens is not a problem for you. The AF lens converts from AF to MF by the simple expedient of moving what in an old school Leica lens would be the lens infinity lock slightly out of the infinity position. Any further movement of it instantly enlarges the image in the finder and turns on focus peaking. Then, when you stop turning the ring, a few seconds later the camera automatically switches back to normal sized view for composing. This all makes highly accurate manual focus extraordinarily quick in this camera and for me works as good or better than a old school Leica RF. (Image enlargement is not absolutely necessary in all situations but as my eyes deteriorate with age I find it a big help in enough situations that I cannot help but value it - especially when it is just "there" without fuss whenever you manually focus. And I trend to shoot wide open with longer lenses so good focusing is a must and focus peaking alone is not always reliable.). Perhaps some other cameras have comparable arrangements but it is the responsiveness of having this linked directly to the "focus lock" / focus ring that makes it so useful as there are no separate buttons to push to actuate this mechanism.
One of my other cameras - a Panasonic is sort of halfway there - by my choice in the menu system, the focus peaking is always on when in MF mode so that is good but the image enlargement has to be activated manually by pushing a button though it does turn off again automatically when the shutter button is half pressed. Much the same on my Olympus OMD EM5 too though there for some reason I have to push a button twice to activate image enlargement?????? Still not as good as the Leica Q as the need to manually enlarge the image for critical focus in the other cameras slows things down in practice though I admit, it seems a small thing. But then again those cameras have interchangeable lenses which in principle precludes them from using the Leica Q method exactly with any but dedicated system lenses that are appropriately "chipped" and thus are able to "talk" to the body. I imagine smart designers may be able to design a system that allows this kind of convenience with legacy lenses by perhaps reading changes on the sensor to achieve the same kind of implementation with non system lenses but I am not sure that anyone is there yet. If they are I have not heard of it. As I am a dedicated user of vintage glass this system would be heaven for me on pretty much any camera body.

Thanks! I was quite curious about focusing with the Q. Definitely something to think about. I could imagine that I would take the Q everywhere with me.

 

[Ricoh]

The discussion here has been very helpful in my circumstances. I had contemplated purchasing a Z6 as a surrogate for my M, and other lenses. I have come to understand the Digital Leica is difficult to improve upon, and as for the other SLR lenses I’ll continue to shoot film.