Accuracy of M8's rangefinder system

[lxlim]

Originally Posted by jaapv

Just get one of the Megaperls magnifiers; they have an inbuilt diopter correction which solves the problem. I marked the 1.35 one with a scratch in the right place but I prefer the 1.15x one.

I have two of those but the diopter portion wobbles because the fit is not good. Whenever I press my face against the magnifier it shifts resulting in OOF images. I got better results without the magnifier. Thats why I am considering the 1.25X magnifier.

The problem now is that I can't see the viewfinder clearly with the 1.25X but the viewfinder is really clear without the magnifier. So what am I doing wrong?

[delander]

I have the same problem. With the Leica magnifier I find that the rangefinder patch and viewfinder are less clear than without. I can only think that a diopter needs to be used with the Leica magnifier. I will test that next time I am near to a dealer with a set of diopters.

Jeff

[diogenis]

Is it possible this is an eye relief issue?
Have you tried several distances from the magnified viewfinder?
Did you tried looking with your eye almost "touching" the viewfinder?
Is it mounted correctly according to instructions?

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by delander

I have the same problem. With the Leica magnifier I find that the rangefinder patch and viewfinder are less clear than without. I can only think that a diopter needs to be used with the Leica magnifier. I will test that next time I am near to a dealer with a set of diopters.

Jeff

With a magnifier, a certain loss of clearness/luminosity in the VF/RF has to be taken in account: it's an optical device added to another... can't help. But they ARE anyway helpful and I'm rather satisfied with my Megaperls when using 90/135mm ... the RF patch is really better spotted. The diopter adjusting is really a so-so for it's a lot loose... and, as has been discussed in deep in a thread some days ago, if you are a glass-bearer it not always gives you a right alternative, depending on your specific view defect...

[lxlim]

Originally Posted by delander

I have the same problem. With the Leica magnifier I find that the rangefinder patch and viewfinder are less clear than without. I can only think that a diopter needs to be used with the Leica magnifier. I will test that next time I am near to a dealer with a set of diopters.

Jeff

I would appreciate your testing as my dealers do not have a set of diopters to check this out.

Thanks, hopefully that is the answer.

Alex

[Shootist]

Originally Posted by lxlim

I would appreciate your testing as my dealers do not have a set of diopters to check this out.

Thanks, hopefully that is the answer.

Alex

The Leica M R/V finder is set to show everything in it at a fixed distance of 2 meters (about 7 feet). Also the veiwfinder has a -.5 diopter correction built into it. When you add a magnifier you are bringing the 2 meters closer to your eye. When I'm not using a magnifier I use a +1 diopter. If I attach the maginfier I see the range finder patch better using a +1.5 diopter. Which is just about what I use for my normal reading glasses

[lxlim]

Originally Posted by diogenis

Is it possible this is an eye relief issue?
Have you tried several distances from the magnified viewfinder?
Did you tried looking with your eye almost "touching" the viewfinder?
Is it mounted correctly according to instructions?

Eye relief, as in tired eyes? No, as I tested it on three separate occassions with different sales people but with the same conclusions. We figured that the magnifier is so simple a device it can't be Leica making a mistake but us not being able to figure it out.

Several distances: Thats a thought. 1 - 2 meters seems to be more OOF than 3 - 5 meters but I did not try further than that. I will try that next time round.

Did you tried looking with your eye almost "touching" the viewfinder? Touching and further out, and even looking out the side of my eyes. I got a pair of monovision that I will try next time round.

I think it was mounted correctly as far as I understood it. I just screwed in the magnifier in to the viewfinder window without removing anything. Fit was tight and flush with no gaps. Do I need to remove the viewfinder cup?

Thanks, appreciate the elimination of variables on my behalf.

Alex

[Shootist]

The magnifier just screws into the original eye piece. A diopter can then be screwed it the maginfiers eye piece.

[lxlim]

Originally Posted by Shootist

The Leica M R/V finder is set to show everything in it at a fixed distance of 2 meters (about 7 feet). Also the veiwfinder has a -.5 diopter correction built into it. When you add a magnifier you are bringing the 2 meters closer to your eye. When I'm not using a magnifier I use a +1 diopter. If I attach the maginfier I see the range finder patch better using a +1.5 diopter. Which is just about what I use for my normal reading glasses

Wow! Thanks, friend! I think this is the probable reason why my fully corrected glasses and the sales people with perfect eyesight had problems. One sales fellow had lasik which left him 50 degrees off (cannot remember exactly off by plus or minus) who did not have any problems focusing.

Now, does this mean I will need a + 0.5 diopter if I want to focus with fully corrected glasses?

BTW is 0.5 diopters the equivalent to 50 degrees for glasses?

Alex

[diogenis]

Originally Posted by lxlim

Eye relief, as in tired eyes? No, as I tested it on three separate occassions with different sales people but with the same conclusions. We figured that the magnifier is so simple a device it can't be Leica making a mistake but us not being able to figure it out.

Several distances: Thats a thought. 1 - 2 meters seems to be more OOF than 3 - 5 meters but I did not try further than that. I will try that next time round.

No no Alex, it's not that.
Eye relief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe it's rather a matter of eye relief and not a simple adjustment of diopters which, you can test any time...
I will try giving you an example of my personal experience when trying to watch the surroundings right after I bought my brand new Canon 18IS binoculars: a 18x mag. bino and also very cool. Well when I first bought them and tried them out I said: wtf is that? It took me a lot of time to figure out how to use them. It is not an easy think to some people, and you need some training to do before getting fully aquatinted. It has to do with how close or how far you look them through that viewfinder. Well, for my case and my binos it turned out that whenever I was using those rubber eyecups in front of the viewfinders, the experience was 3x worst than with the eyecups folded in. Binos are more difficult since you do need to adjust 2 viewfinders, but once you get the hung of it its really easy.

For your case now, if you have things like glasses, eyecups and more, that in general acts as a spacer for your eye is basically what creates half of the problem.
The rest of it is some exercise to learn to view thru that eyepiece. Start by first trying to relax, then look through as if you almost stick your eye in the glass. It should work.
I guess that because you had 3 others that couldn't see as well, you must have something not done right

[noah_addis]

Just got an M8 today after a lot of research. I decided to pull out all of my lenses, including a 35 'lux asph, 50 'lux pre-asph, 70 'cron and 90 AA, and I did an informal thoroughly unscientific focusing test.

I shot a ruler placed diagonally with each lens wide open at a distance of about 1,5 meter, focusing on a specific point on the ruler which was marked to avoid confusion. I shot each frame three times refocusing in between to minimize operator error. It was handheld and with available light because, well, that's the way I shoot in the real world.

I have to say I was very happy with the results. Pretty much all of the frames were sharp where I focused, with the expected depth of field results (about 1/3rd in front and 2/3rd in back of the focus point).

If anything my results with the aforementioned lenses, which I figured would be more difficult to focus correctly, were better than with my wider lenses like my 28'cron, but I'm aware the increased percieved sharpness could be due to increased magnification of the longer lenses, and the fact that the smaller dof makes the images 'pop' more.

I'm a photojournalist not a camera and lens tester, but after hearing about focusing issues I needed to know what my results would be. I'm pretty confident now that if I get an out of focus picture, it's my fault.

I'm loving the camera so far...

[Ken R]

After straying away from range finder liecas for many years I have found the return to them very helpful in my photography. It is too easy to get lazy and trust auto focus. The rangefinder makes ou think carefully about exactly where you put the lane of focus. It is fast and very accurate and my percentage of shots with the fouc right where I wanted it is much higher then with the the slr systems. I have also rediscovered shooting with shallow depth of field. The m8 is ideal in these respects and far outshines the slr if you use shallow focus in your work regularly.

[lxlim]

Originally Posted by diogenis

....
I guess that because you had 3 others that couldn't see as well, you must have something not done right

Thats my thought. I will check it out again with relaxation in mind


On the other hand there were the two sales guys who had the same problem as myself, which left me a little puzzled. Shootist in an earlier post did mentioned that the rangefinder having a -0.5 diopter correction built in. Maybe the 1.25 Magnifier magnified the problem.

The problem I have is the local dealers have no correction diopters available. So I can't check that out.

Thanks.

alex

[lxlim]

Originally Posted by Ken R

After straying away from range finder liecas for many years I have found the return to them very helpful in my photography. It is too easy to get lazy and trust auto focus. The rangefinder makes ou think carefully about exactly where you put the lane of focus. It is fast and very accurate and my percentage of shots with the fouc right where I wanted it is much higher then with the the slr systems. I have also rediscovered shooting with shallow depth of field. The m8 is ideal in these respects and far outshines the slr if you use shallow focus in your work regularly.

Definitely agree with you there, the m lenses (leica and others) and the lack of AA filter also make a big difference.

[diogenis]

Originally Posted by Ken R

After straying away from range finder liecas for many years I have found the return to them very helpful in my photography. It is too easy to get lazy and trust auto focus. The rangefinder makes ou think carefully about exactly where you put the lane of focus. It is fast and very accurate and my percentage of shots with the fouc right where I wanted it is much higher then with the the slr systems. I have also rediscovered shooting with shallow depth of field. The m8 is ideal in these respects and far outshines the slr if you use shallow focus in your work regularly.

Mind over machine.
It is exactly the distrust with random and uncertain focus I had with all the numerous digitals I owned and that terrible lag they presented. dSLRs lose the lag, but they incorporate a focus mechanism, which like all systems can fail. Last digital I own was a clux 1, and I won't even use it as a backup camera to my m8. I want a backup one? I'll just go and buy the elmarit 28mm and there you go.. compact... and I do own the 28mm 'cron

[diogenis]

Originally Posted by lxlim

On the other hand there were the two sales guys who had the same problem as myself, which left me a little puzzled. Shootist in an earlier post did mentioned that the rangefinder having a -0.5 diopter correction built in. Maybe the 1.25 Magnifier magnified the problem.

It's exactly this one that makes me believe you are doing something wrong: If the 2 guys were able to see easily, then it should have been something wrong with you. Since all 3 of you can't see, then it is either something wrong with Leica or you mount the magnifier wrong or use it wrong. From the two I would pick the last one...

Btw, have you ever tried looking through the camera's viewfinder from a distance of say, 10cms?

[markgay]

A key part of the focusing mechanism is the human eye. And that is what accuracy is about: Can your eyesight and your tolerance for staring down a tube without getting a headache result in quick, easy and accurate focus.

The split image can be painfully small in SLRs. With ground glass, what you see is what you get, but at distance they can be even harder to focus. That’s all that matters. Lines on a chart are irrelevant. Period.

So that is rangefinders versus SLRs dealth with ☺

Electronic focus can make up for bad eyesight but it has limits. Autofocus needs to know what you, the photographer, want in focus. It doesn’t. That’s why Face Detection was invented.

Autofocus is never as fast as pre-focus, it struggles in low light, and you often have to select the active focus point (unless you leave it on dynamic autofocus and let the camera decide where to focus).

So that is autofocus vs manual dealt with ☺

Yes, I know the original post was about accuracy. But in what context?

I walked through Moscow’s Botanical Gardens at the weekend, just shooting cyclists and rollerbladers, kids with their grandparents...

I was using my 90mm Summicron at f/4 with magnifier. Even with cranking the focus ring back and forth and the moving subjects I got a lot of shots. I missed no more than I would have done with my autofocus zooming in on random trees.

My tuppence. I started with rangefinders in 1972 with a Voightlaender Vito CLR.. God bless the fading gold spot that passed for a split image.

After my Nikkormat EL, I was blaming my poor eyesight for bad shots (I am top 1% of the population for myopia. Go ahead, laugh. Now where are my glasses… )
I bought an F90, which was Nikon’s big step forward with autofocus and then the F5, with selectable focus points.

My verdict? I went back to rangefinders.

A large, bright split image snaps into focus. You don’t have to STARE at it. You know when it’s in focus. Something like instinct. Judging when blur comes into focus and goes out again gives you headaches.

When I visited London last month a nice chap near the British Museum tried to sell me an R4. I mounted a 60mm and peered through the split image at my friend: small and a little dim.

Not her, the image. The R4 was gorgeous, by the way!

Regards,
Mark

[lxlim]

Originally Posted by diogenis

....
Btw, have you ever tried looking through the camera's viewfinder from a distance of say, 10cms?

yes. about 2-3000 times in the last 6 weeks. It was a tripod job. By moving my eyes further away from the viewfinder the focusing patch fills the viewfinder making it easier to nail my focus exactly. Same as using the magnifier at waist level on a Twin lens reflex or a reversed loupe from the back of a 4x5 with groundglass removed. Basically a spot magnification of the point of critical focus. Not with a magnifier so far as I have not purchased it yet. I will give it a try with the magnifier.

With the viewfinder, I have 90% keepers at f2.8 1/30 at ISO640. with the MegaPerls 1.35X, I have 40% keepers. With the 1.25X (tested in the shop) I got 0%

I might be fitting it wrongly but so far I was unable to find out where it could go wrong. None of the sales guys could tell me where I am going wrong in fitting it, they could not focus on it either.

Actually it is three guys and three magnifiers who are unable to focus with it and one guy who could focus accurately did not have fully corrected vision which makes me inclined towards shootist's explanation that the M8's rangefinder having a -0.5 diopter correction built-in. That guy could not focus with the viewfinder alone accurately. That would account for me seeing a slightly out of focus viewfinder.

Thanks.

[wstotler]

Originally Posted by dalippe

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.

David--I was using a simple matte screen. In the past I *have* used the SLR split ring + "diamond ring" focusing system.

I haven't done a lengthy side-by-side M8/SLR comparison in this case. However, pulling a "confirmed" focus with the split-ring/diamond ring system (which is better than the plain matte screen for 50mm, for example) was slower than pulling positive focus with the M8's rangefinder patch.

To give you a little bit of user context? (Your Minolta comment triggered this, BTW.) I really started in 1993 with the Pentax K1000 SE (split-ring + diamond ring) and, after I accidentally dropped and killed it (!!), moved in 1996 to the Apple QuickTake 200. From there I went through a variety of snappies (Elph film and Elph digital) until I got sick of "snappy" quality and wanted to go back to something "all manual." (Largely because auto-focus, even with some manual overrides, just wouldn't give me what I wanted about half the time.) I Moved to the Digilux 2 in 2005 and landed with the M8 in early 2007.

In passing (with the exception of the deeper Nikon experience mentioned in my post above) I've tinkered with a variety of cameras from Nikon and Canon and I've not been as satisfied with the positive focus confirmation those systems give you. The M8's rangefinder patch focus system (with the 1.25 magnifier for the 50mm and 90mm) lets me hit focus quickly and knowingly in a way the systems I've owned (and many more that I've encountered/used over the years) haven't provided.

Focus--Fast and positive.
Framing--Pretty accurate once you understand what to expect from a lens/frameline combo.
Exposure--Flick of thumb on speed dial.

Being able to do all three things simultaneously? Still working on that.

Thanks,
Will