Quote:
Originally Posted by diogenis
I want a system that is trustworthy enough, that I will take a shot the way I want it. If I can't have this, then I need to know the limits. So, for a 90mm @ f2 and low distances it must be very accurate. It even stops somewhere after 7 meters and goes to infinite after that. Given the fact that up to 10m, I get ±1cm accuracy, it feels like very accurate to me.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by diogenis
As for accuracy, it is quite easy to raise it and cover all those issues Marc already mentioned by implementing a magnifier. But is there really needed?
|
To address the 90mm/f2 question directly? I can hit the 90mm with spot-on focus every time (haven't lost a 90mm photo yet because of unsharp focus) provided I'm using the 1.25x magnifier and concentrating a bit. The 90mm required more concentration and active thought when compared to the 50mm, which is no sweat at all to get spot on with the 1.25x magnifier. 35mm (no magnifier)? Focus is always right where I want it to be.
Quick comparison? Focusing on SLR and Rangefinder. . . . It's not a scientific test, but here's what I experienced recently.
I jumped repeatedly back and forth between the M8's rangefinder (at f/2) and a Nikon setup (at f/1.8) for about two straight weeks. Both systems were manually focused. I can say that with the M8 I could hit the focus I wanted with little effort. With the Nikon I was "walking" the focus a lot (like Jaapv mentioned) and there were times I was unsure if my focus was "spot on" or not. (Especially in lower light conditions.)
I did get good focus from the Nikon setup most of the time, but I always got excellent focus results from the M8.
I guess what I confirmed for myself during the split Nikon/M8 use is that the rangefinder patch is *absolutely invaluable* to get certainty in focus. I did miss the certainty the rangefinder patch provides when using the Nikon system.
The key issue for me when I was learning the M8's rangefinder focusing system (for the first thousand shots or so) was the time it required me to get focus. It used to take me a long time (4 to 8 seconds, depending) with the RF patch to get focus spot on. At 20k photos now, I can twiddle the focus ring, almost unconsciously and instantly, and nail it under almost all conditions. That was a practice thing.
Exception to this and a test of my patience? Shooting my kid on anything moving (carousels, swings, etc.) at night (with only environmental lighting) and at f/2 (to get better speed) is about as hard as it gets in terms of moving targets and focus. (Daytime motion? OK. Can usually get just what I want if I'm really concentrating.) Yes, I know an SLR with autofocus would be better for "action shots" like this. But I haven't "lost" photos I wanted otherwise because I didn't have one.
So, there you go. When measure scientifically, there are limits. I'm sure! But, in practice, the M8's rangefinder is very accurate and (in my experience) removes focusing uncertainty in a way the SLR doesn't.
Thanks,
Will