Re: [Leica] R state-of-the art?

["Robert G. Stevens" <robsteve@istar.ca>]

John:

I too had an autofocus SLR and changed over to Leica SLRs last fall for
some of your reasons.  The most annoying part of using an Autofocus camera
is the delay between pushing the shutter and the Camera firing.  Just too
much computing has to go on.  I have tried an Eos 1n though and it fires
with very little delay, but not a quick as my R7 or R4.  This combined with
the focus spots makes it very hard to capture the decisive moment.
Although, unlike a Nikon, the Canon Lenses allow you to touch up the focus
and fire away without disengaging the auto focus.  This feature is part of
a lot of the Ultrasonic Motor lenses.

I went through a rethinking of my Leica choice a few weeks ago.  I am
interested in doing nature photography and wanted a long fast lens.  I then
wondered if I might be better off with a Canon Eos1n and their 400 2.8.  To
test out my theory, I took my  Tamron 300 2.8 and R7 with shoulder stock to
some field trial dog training and took some pictures of the fast moving
dogs in action.  A good percentage of them were in focus, so I figured
manual focus would do for me.  Had this been an autofocus camera, it would
not have been able to focus on the dogs quick enough to get the shots as
they entered the narrow filed of the lens very quickly and were only there
for a fraction of the time it takes an autofus to focus.  I have also heard
that other than the Canon lenses, the fopcus motors on other manufactures
large lenses are very slow.  In the end, I bought the Leica 400 2.8 with
1.4 converter.  I am glad I didn't get the Canon, I have too many nice
Leica lenses now to change systems.

Regards,

Robert Stevens

At 12:13 PM 5/8/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Ben,
>
>Here's an example.  My son is walking around in my backyard.  With an F5 or
>EOS1n (with Custom Function 4 On), I must point a sensor right at the
>portion of my son that I want in focus.  I must then recompose -- this is
>the key.  Nikon would
>argue that I could first select the appropriate sensor, say the left one,
>then just fire away.  An equally good argument is that it is easier, better,
>more intuitive to constantly alter the composition as my son moves, focusing
>simultaneously.  With a manual camera, this is very natural.  It is simply
>not possible with an AF camera (in AF mode) to do this -- the focus points
>will dictate and influence the composition to some degree.  If I want to be
>in complete control of composition at all times, I must be manually
>focusing.  An F5 will manually focus, but you have to first flip a switch on
>the lens to do so -- this takes time, and more importantly, attention away
>from the composition and the subject.  And once you have made the switch,
>the manual focus is not as good as with an R8.  Why?  Well, the R8
>viewfinder is brighter and the lens has better tactile feel.  More
>important, though, is that this is the only way the R8 works, so,
>practically speaking, the R8 user is going to get real good at it, better
>than the user of an autofocus camera who uses the camera in AF mode most of
>the time.
>
>I don't mean to argue, by the way, the R8 is necessarily "much" better at
>this.  All I'm saying is that since AF cameras are designed to do so many
>things, they don't necessarily do all things better than all cameras.  I
>admit that it is difficult to argue that the array of options on an F5 or
>EOS1n is somehow limiting, but most photographers will pick one or two
>options that they use most of the time and, in rare occasions, pick one for
>a special situation.  This is great, but there is a reason that over many
>years SLR manufacturers standardized on a shutter dial on top of the camera
>and an aperture ring right behind the focus ring.  My Nikkormat wasn't this
>way, and it was a great camera, but most manufacturers moved in the
>"standard" direction over time, with a few exceptions.  The reason is that,
>over many years, this is what proved to be best.
>
>Nikon and Canon are at the cutting edge of major change.  Technology is
>driving change at such a rapid rate that ergonomics will suffer to some
>degree in the transition.  The old way IS an old way, but it is time tested
>and damn good for many photographic applications.  Sports, power boats, and
>birds in flight are another story maybe, but for many applications, the
>manual approach can really work.  A skilled, experienced photographer can
>get VERY good at manipulating the camera intuitively.  With the options on
>an F5, you've got to be thinking about how the camera is set.  You have to
>aware of this at all times.  You don't want to get caught with your pants
>down with the wrong option set when the news breaks.
>
>One more things, I like the Matrix meter on the F5, but it makes mistakes,
>constantly.  It can't know what's out there or what our intentions are. 
>When you don't have time it's better than screwing up manually, but when you
>have just a little time, it is generally better to let our brains take over.
>