SLRs harder to manually focus than rangefinders?

[amin_sabet]

So far with digital cameras, my manual focus experience hasn't been that great. I have an Ee-S screen in my Canon 5D and can manually focus my Zuiko OM primes okay, but not with true precision. Canon AF is not only faster, but more accurate and precise than my manual focus. Same goes for my Olympus kit. I shoot an E-410. Manual focusing is very much hit or miss with the little Olympus. Recently I bought my first film camera in years, a Canonet G-III QL17. Focusing with the rangefinder was a revelation. With time to compose and focus the shot, I was always on target. Unfortunately the Canonet had other problems, and so did it's replacement. I was therefore looking for a different manual focus camera, but the better rangefinders are pretty expensive. Since I already have some nice Zuiko OM glass (24/2, 50/1.2, 50/1.8, and an OM mount Vivitar S1 135/2.3), I went ahead and purchased an OM-2n, which is on its way to me. Can I expect the OM-2n focusing experience to be as precise as the Canonet rangefinder? Are rangefinders, by nature, more accurate and precise for manual focusing than SLRs? If so, I'll bite the bullet and pick up something like the Bessa R3a and a couple CV lenses.

[sfb_dot_com]

Yes and no. In some circumstances, but not in others

Both have their merits

Regards

Andy

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Autofocus SLRs like the Canon 5D are hard to manually focus because the screens in them are made for brightness, not focusing accuracy. Your OM-2 will a lot easier to manually focus. I have a Nikon F4 that I got in high school and I replaced its screen with one that has the traditional focusing aids in the middle and its a lot easier to manually focus than the plan screen that came with it.

[rxmd]

Can I expect the OM-2n focusing experience to be as precise as the Canonet rangefinder?
With lenses longer than 50mm you probably can, with shorter lenses you probably can't, but there it doesn't matter quite as much.

Are rangefinders, by nature, more accurate and precise for manual focusing than SLRs?
Depends. Rangefinders have an edge with wideangles, SLRs have an edge with longer lenses. Your 135/2.3 would be pretty impossible to focus accurately wide open on most rangefinder cameras while on a SLR it is pretty easy. For a 24, on the other hand, the rangefinder should be easier. Then again, for wideangles focusing accuracy often isn't as critical due to the larger depth of field.

Part of why you had problems focusing your gear accurately on an SLR is probably that your SLRs aren't really optimised for manual focusing. The 5D is OK to some extent with a good screen, but its autofocus will always be more precise unless you want the focus to be somewhere where the camera doesn't know it. (Corollary: If you have decent AF lenses, know how to use the autofocus, and are comfortable with it, you won't need manual focus all that often.) The E-410 with its small finder is a pain to focus manually. The OM-2 should be a revelation in comparison.

Philipp

[cmedin]

It's no surprise that the E-410 is hard to manually focus; the 4/3 sensor makes for a pretty minute viewfinder.

Have you tried somethin glike a Katz Eye screen for the 5D?

[wolves3012]

To some extent it depends on the models compared. An RF is easier to focus with wideangle lenses and closer distances. An SLR is better for telephotos. In theory...if the SLR has a nice bright screen and good focussing aids it'll be better than an RF with a dim finder and short-base RF....horses for courses...

[ruben]

As previously said, it depends on your experience with each breed. But all other factors being equal, focusing a RF is much faster than forcusng an SLR. And focusing a RF with a contrasty yellow patch is even more fast to do than with a dim yellow patch.

Nevertheless, experience is perhaps the most crucial factor. By accumulating experience with focusing SLRs you may be as fast as a RF user. And vice versa.

On the other hand, if speed is not a factor, I suspect that the split image screen of the SLR is of more accuracy than the yellow patch justaposition.

Cheers,
Ruben

[wgerrard]

I've got a Bessa R4M, a Hexar RF, and some CV lenses, as well as a Canon DSLR. I don't even attempt manual focus with the Canon since the image in the viewfinder is so small.

That said, I do not find manual focus on the R4M and the RF to be an unblemished joy. Frankly, it's annoying. Although the results don't show it, I'm never really sure I've got the bloody things focused correctly. As a result, I spend a lot more time than I want to futzing about before taking the shot.

So, if autofocus works for you, and you're otherwise happy with SLR's, why sweat it?

[Steve Bellayr]

Manual focus cameras: Yes and for this reason. I have found that autofocus cameras focus on the center of the image (Some cameras focus faster than others.) When shooting on the "street" you can pre-focus and, in addition, you may want the area that will be in focus to be off the center of the image. Auto focus cameras are excellent with sports or action where the information to be focused is in the center of the frame.

[Morca007]

Despite trying my darndest for the past few months, I can still pick up my Nikon FG and snap an image into focus much faster than I can on my Bessa R.
Especially when it comes to doing portraits, it seems.

[Prosaic]

Are rangefinders, by nature, more accurate and precise for manual focusing than SLRs? If so, I'll bite the bullet and pick up something like the Bessa R3a and a couple CV lenses.

Well... superfast lenses are tricky on either side.

[Rapscallion]

I still find SLRs easier to focus. I need more practice.

[amin_sabet]

Wow, I wasn't expecting this many replies so fast! cmedin asked if I had tried a Katz Eye for the 5D. Katz Eye doesn't offer one, so my choices are Haoda Fu, SLRDaren, and Brightscreen for split prism focusing aides, but most folks seem to recommend just the Ee-S. Honestly, it's not so bad. At f/2.8 and slower, I can manually focus okay. Still, the rangefinder method seems much more effective. I mainly like to shoot with wides and normals, rarely telephotos. I'm really hoping to be able to manually focus the OM-2n. Did the OM-2n come with a good focusing screen, or is that something I should look for to purchase separately?

[Cale Arthur]

I'm really hoping to be able to manually focus the OM-2n.I think you're in for a very pleasant surprise! OM finders are fantastic.:)

--c--

[cmedin]

Did the OM-2n come with a good focusing screen, or is that something I should look for to purchase separately?


I kind of assumed that KatzEye would have one, strange that they don't.

The OM-2n probably has a 1-13 focusing screen in it (split image and microprism). You will love it. I have an OM2 and it's the best finder and screen I've ever used.

[Johnmcd]

Wow, I wasn't expecting this many replies so fast! cmedin asked if I had tried a Katz Eye for the 5D. Katz Eye doesn't offer one, so my choices are Haoda Fu, SLRDaren, and Brightscreen for split prism focusing aides, but most folks seem to recommend just the Ee-S. Honestly, it's not so bad. At f/2.8 and slower, I can manually focus okay. Still, the rangefinder method seems much more effective. I mainly like to shoot with wides and normals, rarely telephotos. I'm really hoping to be able to manually focus the OM-2n. Did the OM-2n come with a good focusing screen, or is that something I should look for to purchase separately?

I have an OM2 and a 20D DSLR. The viewfinder of the OM2 is HUGE! Though you are a better off with the 5D viewfinder than my 20D :) As others have said, the screen on the 5D is not designed for manual focus so don't expect too much.

The split image screen on an OM2 is designed solely for fast manual focussing and is a pleasure to use fast.

Maybe it is beacuse I was raised on split image manual SLR's, but I can focus much quicker than with my RD1. I'm like wgerrard, I sometimes fudge back and forth making absolutely sure I'm in focus, especially when wide open as I am paranoid of not being spot on. Never felt like that with the OM.

Maybe I just need more practice.

Note : the only problem with the split image is that sometimes with telephotos one half of the split circle will 'black' out. Pain when that happens but I think that is due to the design and can't be helped.

Don't sweat it - you'll love the OM2 :)

Ohh and BTW the OM2 has many different focussing screens that can be changed in a second or two. Just find one on the bay that suits you.

Couldn't help myself - here's my OM2. You can just about see that big viewfinder through the 1.4 :)

http://johnmcd.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p635922247.jpg

Cheers,

John

[FallisPhoto]

So far with digital cameras, my manual focus experience hasn't been that great. I have an Ee-S screen in my Canon 5D and can manually focus my Zuiko OM primes okay, but not with true precision. Canon AF is not only faster, but more accurate and precise than my manual focus. Same goes for my Olympus kit. I shoot an E-410. Manual focusing is very much hit or miss with the little Olympus. Recently I bought my first film camera in years, a Canonet G-III QL17. Focusing with the rangefinder was a revelation. With time to compose and focus the shot, I was always on target. Unfortunately the Canonet had other problems, and so did it's replacement. I was therefore looking for a different manual focus camera, but the better rangefinders are pretty expensive. Since I already have some nice Zuiko OM glass (24/2, 50/1.2, 50/1.8, and an OM mount Vivitar S1 135/2.3), I went ahead and purchased an OM-2n, which is on its way to me. Can I expect the OM-2n focusing experience to be as precise as the Canonet rangefinder? Are rangefinders, by nature, more accurate and precise for manual focusing than SLRs? If so, I'll bite the bullet and pick up something like the Bessa R3a and a couple CV lenses.

Depends. As a general rule, rangefinders are more precise, especially in low light or mixed light. This is because most SLRs are not really built for precision; this has been the case ever since they went from the highly precise ground glass focusing screens to much brighter but less contrasty plastic fresnel lens focusing screens. SLRs have a range of focus adjustment where the image seems to be in focus, but within this range of adjustment, only one setting can be right; the rest are off, sometimes by quite a bit.

[amin_sabet]

I think you're in for a very pleasant surprise! OM finders are fantastic.:)

--c--
I kind of assumed that KatzEye would have one, strange that they don't.

The OM-2n probably has a 1-13 focusing screen in it (split image and microprism). You will love it. I have an OM2 and it's the best finder and screen I've ever used.

Don't sweat it - you'll love the OM2 :)

Thanks all. Now that's the stuff I want to hear :).

Ohh and BTW the OM2 has many different focussing screens that can be changed in a second or two. Just find one on the bay that suits you.

Couldn't help myself - here's my OM2.

Very nice looking OM2 you have John. With regards to the different screens, is there one you'd recommend?

[Cale Arthur]

Here's a link to the run-down of all the OM screens (link (http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/om-screens.shtml)) - be forwarned, though: they can get a bit pricey, depending on rarity. I have a 1-13 in my OM-1, and had an 1-3 in my OM-2 (before it was gifted).. i preferred the 1-3 for it's simplicity.

--c--

[JoeV]

Concerning ease of focus, I don't think it wise at all to generalize that 'all rangefinders are more accurate to focus than all SLRs'. There is more variability between models and brands of SLRs, and between models and brands of rangefinders, than across species. Some FSU rangefinders just plain suck for focus, while many manual focus SLRs from the 1970s and 1980s are pretty darn good. In my opinion the downfall in manual focus for SLRs began with the first autofocus film systems.

Like most anything else in life, the devil is in the details. Like the urban myth about slow shutter speeds hand-held and rangefinders being better than SLRs; I find a much wider difference between curtain shutter and leaf shutter designs, in this regard, than between SLR and rangefinder. My Retina IIIc, with a leaf shutter up front, is just plain sweet for slow speed shooting, primarily because of the shutter design, not because it's a rangefinder.

And, of course, the camera that's 'best' for any occasion is the one you happen to be carrying, regardless of type, brand or model. F/8 and be there.

~Joe

[mfunnell]

RFs and SLRs focus differently. The (theoretical) accuracy of a rangefinder is fixed by its base-length (the separation between RF windows) and viewfinder magnification and doesn't change (except with a viewfinder magnifier). With an SLR, the equivalent of RF base-length is set by the optical diameter of the lens (focal length divided by maximum apereture). So the longer/faster the lens, the more theoretically accurate the SLR becomes (whereas wide/slow lenses make 'em less accurate).

But then there's the technique/expertise or lack thereof of the photographer, plus issues of perception and psychology. In theory, I should be able to focus my OM-4T with 55mm/f1.2 lens (EBL 45.8mm) more accurately than my Hexar RF (EBL 41.1mm). In practice, however, I just can't (at least in low light) as I find it much easier to align the RF patches than to use the focus aids in the OM-4s viewfinder.


...Mike

[KoNickon]

For low light, a rangefinder camera with a clearly delineated, bright and contrasty focusing patch (and these would be models like the Leica Ms, CL, Minolta CLE, the Bessas, Hexar RF and the Zeiss Ikon) are great -- easier to use than an SLR. And they don't depend on having a fast lens (f2 or faster) mounted, which is key for easily focusing an SLR. But many SLRs have focusing screens with microprisms or split screens, which help considerably. And it's true, an OM has a wonderfully bright viewfinder.

Also, you can't focus a rangefinder to closer than slightly under 1 meter -- the mechanism doesn't work closer than that. Many SLR lenses, normals and wideangles, not to mention macros, focus to 1/2 meter or even closer. And, as others have pointed out, you simply can't focus a rangefinder accurately with lenses longer than 135mm, while with SLRs there's no such limitation.

[Leighgion]

My Olympus XA is great, but I really don't see why people say a rangefinder is easier to focus. Fast, for better or worse yes, due to the short throw of the focus lever, but easier? Not for me.

With my SLRs, regardless of the quality of the viewfinder or focus screen, the entire viewable image changes as I focus. Thusly, even with a small and dim viewfinder, I can in theory use any part of the view to focus on.

With an RF, I have to make sure that little yellow patch is on something where I can actually see the image split with reasonable clarity. I've found this often a rather difficult proposition with my XA. Also, at least n my XA, I find the tiny lever hard to control with much precision. A big damped focus ring is much easier for me.

No doubt practice will improve things as always, but being a recent SLR user as well as a recent RF user, I can say it was much easier to take to SLR focusing.

[mfunnell]

My Olympus XA is greatSo's mine, but it isn't easy to focus by the standards of, say, a Leica M. The difference is enormous, so I wouldn't judge all RF focusing by what you've seen with the XA.

...Mike

[wgerrard]

For low light, a rangefinder camera with a clearly delineated, bright and contrasty focusing patch (and these would be models like the Leica Ms, CL, Minolta CLE, the Bessas, Hexar RF and the Zeiss Ikon) are great -- easier to use than an SLR.


I took my Bessa to London soon after acquiring it. The focus patch was more than bright enough shooting with a 50/1.5 and a 28/1.9 at night in the West End.

[dmr]

I find the RF to be easier to focus in most cases. As long as you have some kind of contrasty vertical thing to focus upon, it's quick and accurate!

The hardest to focus is with the new Sigma 18mm lens on the SLR. I have to scale focus on that one most of the time. It's just very difficult to tell for sure.

[Leighgion]

So's mine, but it isn't easy to focus by the standards of, say, a Leica M. The difference is enormous, so I wouldn't judge all RF focusing by what you've seen with the XA.

...Mike

Granted there's going to be different levels of quality in regard to the execution of any system, but to me the truest test of a system's inherit ease of use is comparing average executions of it, not the most elite.

[adietrich]

...my wife tells me that the M6 is easier to focus than th R-E.
-a

[Tuolumne]

One of the reasons I switched to rangefinders from SLRs was that I found it much easier to focus rangefinders. My eyesight has gotten that bad. The overlapping images of a rangeinder are easier for me to see than the groundglass focusing screen of an slr. The split image focusing aid of an slr doesn't seem to help that much anymore, either.

/T

[GeneW]

Some of my RFs (e.g. M2, Bessa R) are a joy to focus, others (XA, Fed) are a bit dim and squinty. I can normally focus easily with an SLR, but sometimes with slower lenses it's not as easy as using a RF.

Gene

[wintoid]

I find the split image on an SLR hard to use unless things are moving slowly, but it's a joy for static subjects with lots of time. I find the microprism ring on an SLR a little easier to use on moving subjects, but I'm never really sure I nailed it.

With a RF, it's relaxed and easy to use even on fast moving subjects, and I'm usually fairly sure when I've nailed it. My biggest problem is repeating patterns. For example, someone holds up 5 fingers, and I try to align the 2 images in the VF, I might line up the index finger with the middle finger. That wouldn't be a problem with an SLR.

[Dave Wilkinson]

I still find that with my Nikkormat FT2, with a fast lens like the 50mm f1.4 - giving a really bright v/f image, and the split image center, I can focus as fast or faster than any of my rangefinders, - of course, it does get a little harder with a slow or wide angle lens, but still not a problem. BTW - the finder is a little dim, but the r/f patch on my cheapo but much loved Fed 2b is one of the best and most accurate I've used in forty+ years!!!

Cheers, Dave. :)

[Spider67]

"My Retina IIIc, with a leaf shutter up front, is just plain sweet for slow speed shooting, primarily because of the shutter design, not because it's a rangefinder."
And a Retina IIIS has the same tzpe of shutter and adds a parallax corrected RF/VF and the right lines for 35/50 and 85 mm! A great camera...but it's not verz sturdy.
A great advantage is that in an RF the whole picture you see in the VF is always sharp and zou just hav to focus a small portion of what you see.
That's mz neuroyic glitch: Once I focus something with an SLR and the object moves and gets even slightlz out of focus I satrt focussing again. With an RF I only focus a small portion of the pic I see in the Vf and I am can focus on composition.

[rxmd]

Once I focus something with an SLR and the object moves and gets even slightlz out of focus I satrt focussing again. With an RF I only focus a small portion of the pic I see in the Vf and I am can focus on composition.
Er, if your object moves after you focus, then it doesn't help you at all if the VF image is always sharp. If it moves after focussing, it will be unsharp on the final image, no matter what viewfinder technology you use. You will have to refocus either way. The RF can actually be even worse here than an SLR finder, because you get the illusion that focus is where you want it to be even though the object has moved away.

Philipp

[ChrisPlatt]

It might be easier to *view and compose* with a rangefinder, but I find SLRs much easier to *focus*.
This has become even more pronounced as my vision diminishes with age.

For lenses over 50mm the SLR wins hands down. Those tiny RF framelines for teles are just plain ridiculous.

I have never liked the split image focusing aid on my SLRs, so I have converted all of mine to microprism screens.

Chris

[wgerrard]

With a RF... My biggest problem is repeating patterns.


Same here. If I can't find a distinct line to lock on to, it's tough, and even tougher with too many.

[wgerrard]

Now that I've finished my morning coffee, I wonder if anyone has ever linked specific eyesight problems with specific preferences for /problems with different focusing systems. Few of us, even as children, have perfect eyes.

For example, cataracts would obviously make focusing difficult, but what's the impact of nearsightedness versus farsightedness, etc.

Newly noted focusing problems might be a hint we need to visit our ophthalmologist, too.

[ChrisPlatt]

But with an SLR any part of the entire focusing screen will get you in the ballpark.
You don't have to rely on an at times barely visible - even on an M2 or M3 - RF patch.

Chris

[dap]

Hi - first time poster here (be gentle ;-P) In my experience, any good SLR from the golden age of the 70's/80's will be vastly superior as far as manual focusing when compared to modern autofocus SLRs - for the simple reason that they were designed to be manual focused - hence they have bigger,better, more contrasty screens and more often than not focus aids are built in. I don't have any experience with the OM system, but if their screens are anything like Pentax screens you will have no problems achieving sharp focus. IMHO where SLR screens really shine when compared to rangefinder systems is if you can manage to rustle up a high quality contrasty plain matte screen (Beattie used to make some really good ones - don't know if they are in business any more) - a bright and contrasty matte screen (w/o focusing aids) will make an image really pop into focus. As a bonus I find the matte screens a LOT faster in use when tracking action as well.

Regardless of SLR or rangfinder - technique has just as much to do with in focus shots as the screen. I have found that the more I fine-tune focus and second guess myself the worse off I am (I start to lose concentration if I start focusing back and forth). Set your lens to infinity, aim the camera and start to bear down/focus on the subject - as soon as the image pops into focus (or the patch aligns, etc.) shoot - don't overthink it.

Have fun with your new camera,
Dana

[niblue]

I use Pentax SLR's and DSLR's and they tend to have good viewfinders so my experience is that in most conditions the SLR's are easier to focus than rangefinders. It does depend on the lens though as with slower lenses it can be trickier on an SLR.

[Sonnar2]

With 50mm and shorter I prefer RFs for focussing. About 2/3's of my shots are with these focal lengths. I always used SLRs in the 80's, 90's for my shooting until my first RF (2000) which was a Canon P, followed by a Bessa R. I found shooting with this two cameras the way I use to work far more convenient than with classic SLRs.

With fast 85's, I'm indifferent. I haven't a problem focussing a 75/1.5 Biotar with my Exakta VX (bright prism finder, large split-image). It's my oldest SLR camera. With the bright screens of my early Pentax SLR I focus all of the M42 fast telephotos excellently. The Pentax MX finder is quite dark whereas my LX is bright and clear, excellent for the 85/1.8. The Olympus OM4 isn't as good as the LX with the 85/2 (moreover the speed display is a pure pain). The Zeiss 85/1.4 is a joy to use with my Contax 139 as well as the Yashica(Cosina) FX3 -2000 but needs constant refocussing in use with either bodies.

With the RF's I can focus my Nikkor 85/2 with my Bessa-R as good as with any Canon's with longer baselength. The split-image of the Bessa is simply clearer. The Canon 85/1.8 works on any of my LTM cameras but its even slower to focus as the Nikon because of it single helicoil. Even heavier, the 85/1.5. It shows slight front-focussing too. Cam calibration is an issue with any RF. If it's off your pictures aren't in focus at a certain distance. Pure pain with Russian lenses on German or Japanase cameras except you find a person to recalibrate the lense. This isn't a issue with any SLRs. When you see the screen is bright and sharp, the picture will be sharp as well. When the light gets dark with SLRs, you need both a highspeed lens (f/1.4) plus a bright screen for focussing. You wouldn't see nothing with a f/2.8 lens. With a RF, a slower lens is even more secure because of the baselength issue. But only if your film is fast enough. With very low light, it can happen that you didn't see the RF patch either. Happened to me a couple of times with the 50/0.95. Then, there is no advantage to a SLR with 50/1.2 in real terms. Taking pictures at a varieté, a Canon A-1 w. AL 50/1.2 is far easier to handle than a Canon 7 w. 50/0.95. This makes you see instantly where the progress was between 1962 and 1982!

I had some problems focussing the Nikkor 105/2.5 correctly. It was LTM. Slower lenses (like 100-105/3.5) aren't a problem, but here IMHO the advantage of SLR began. Even more with 135. Even the 135/3.5 is a pain on RFs (focussing accuracy, composition and handling). But I don't use this focal langth very often anyway, except with my 135/2.8 Zeiss lens on Rolleiflex SL35. These cameras have also bright finders (similar to the Spotmatics). With 180mm or faster, there is just one choice: SLR.

The second choice for SLR is close focus and macro work. My LTM cameras focus down to 1m, which isn't very close, even for portraits (i.e. kids) with 50mm. My Olympus PEN-FT focusses down to 0,35m with a 40mm halfframe (equivalent to 58mm full format).

cheers Frank

[wolves3012]

Now that I've finished my morning coffee, I wonder if anyone has ever linked specific eyesight problems with specific preferences for /problems with different focusing systems. Few of us, even as children, have perfect eyes.

For example, cataracts would obviously make focusing difficult, but what's the impact of nearsightedness versus farsightedness, etc.

Newly noted focusing problems might be a hint we need to visit our ophthalmologist, too.
Interesting slant on it, probably more significant than most people realise. Here's an example: I am now of an age where I need and use glasses for reading, my near-point is now somewhere around 18-24 inches. I have two Zenit/Zenith SLRs that I cannot focus without glasses because their screens are too close, optically. On the other hand I have a Minolta X-700 and that is fine without glasses, presumably they set the screen further away optically. With an RF, however, I have no issues with any of the dozen-plus that I own; most have diopter-correction but even those without give me no problems.

[wolves3012]

On the other hand, if speed is not a factor, I suspect that the split image screen of the SLR is of more accuracy than the yellow patch justaposition.

Cheers,
Ruben
Ruben,

You're only partly right because, unlike an RF, the split-screen varies with lens focal length. Put a telephoto on and it becomes a very critical device (sometimes too critical, which is why they can black out). With a wide-angle it is less critical, but so is the need for accurate focus. On an RF, the accuracy does not depend on the lens, hence the advantage at shorter focal-lengths.

[wolves3012]

By the way guys...the split-screen/microprism aid in an SLR screen IS a rangefinder, on very similar principles to that in an RF.

On use I do prefer the RF for is hyperfocal focussing. Do that on an SLR and it's a constant annoyance that most of the screen is out of focus when you come to compose, you're constantly being tempted to re-focus.

[cbphoto]

i used to shoot a hasselblad for my fashion work, until it got to the point that the focus throw was an obstruction. my style became faster and more fluid, and the equipment had to follow suit - hello leica!

[amin_sabet]

Thanks again for the discussion everyone. I think I'm going to go ahead and try one of each. OM-2n system now, and a Bessa R3a when budget permits.

[varjag]

Granted there's going to be different levels of quality in regard to the execution of any system, but to me the truest test of a system's inherit ease of use is comparing average executions of it, not the most elite.
XA rangefinder is not the average though, with its tiny effective base. Most of the rangefinders (including pre-war Leicas and old FSU stuff) can focus more precisely than that.

[Olsen]

Funny that this question comes up now....

Through the Christmas/New Year holiday I have been trying to perform a comparative test of Leica M8/Noctilux v. Canon 1Ds II/50 mm 1,0L. To compare smaller apartures than ap. 1,0 is performable, but to make both cameras focus on the same detail, at ap 1,0 where DOF is only millimetres wide is close to impossible.

The M8 has the advantage of the rangefinder system which is easier to focus than AF or manual focusing with a D-SLR with a good viewfinder, - actually one of the best in the business. But my M8/Noctilux combo backfocuses with 'about' 10 cm
at 2 meters! So, in between parties and family gatherings, I have struggled with trying to get these two cameras focus on the same object. Without succeeding.

[shadowfox]

IMHO, Olympus dropped the ball when they design the viewfinders for the E-series, it sounds like they don't learn from their own success with the OM-series.

Don't tell me that bigger viewfinders cannot be done with the 4/3rd system, the latest E-3 proved this argument wrong.

Now I want to see one to compare it with my OM-1.

[rxmd]

IMHO, Olympus dropped the ball when they design the viewfinders for the E-series, it sounds like they don't learn from their own success with the OM-series.
The OM series was successful largely because the cameras were compact and had very innovative metering systems. The E-1 is a small camera, too, if you compare it to the Canon 1D series, for example.

Philipp