[dalippe]

Originally Posted by wstotler

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

Was your Nikon with a simple matte screen or did it have the focusing aids typical of older manual focus SLRs? Perhaps it is because I learned it when I was younger, but I still find it faster to focus with my old high school Minolta SLR whose screen has two aids: a horizontal bar which causes a "break" in vertical lines when focus is off, and a centered ring whose interior goes from "bumpy" to transparent when focus is achieved.

Note that I haven't done any comparisons regarding *accuracy* of focus and I never scrutinized my negatives and slides the way I scrutinize my digital files. I just know that it takes me less time until I *believe* I've achieved focus with the old SLR focusing screens.

After returning to manual focus with the M8, I'm interested in trying some manual focus lenses on my DSLR. But I haven't yet tried because I think judging focus on a matte screen is very difficult. If I try this, I'll definitely replace my focusing screen with one that has some sort of aid.

David