Jump to content

FAST focussing with Leica M9/M?


frogfish

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everybody,

 

been a while, but here comes a question I have been thinking about for quite a while (years in fact).

 

As some of you know I shoot weddings professionally and have been using my M9 for some years now. But there are still situations where my focus abilities aren´t up for the fast pacing situations I encounter.

 

 

There are some myths about how great and furious-fast some Leica shooters can focus. But I have yet to see the results. The examples I have seen where either still/posted subjects, hyper-focal at f somewhere 8-tish, or just "not" in focus. There are the lucky incidents as well. Oh, and the subject 10 meters away does not count either.

 

 

My thought: Can someone with enough practice set the focus on say a 35 Summilux just by feel at 1.4? I had the idea I would learn it for 2 distances, 0,7 and 2 meters. I would just see a situation, adjust my distance to the subject, raise the camera and snap away without looking at the rangefinder patch. That would be incredible fast (in fact faster than any AF system) and no need for recomposing. It would work for really fast action. It would work in any light. So far - limited success.

 

As anyone achieved this level of perfect control??? Do you think it is possible? Do you know someone who is known for his great skill?

 

The DOF with a 35 at 1.4 is at 0,7 meters 3 cm and at 2 meters 30 cm, or something like that.

 

 

Please, don´t say nobody needs such fast focus (I do), don´t say "use zone focussing" (I want 1.4 for aesthetic reasons), don´t say use 21 (I want the look of a 35).

 

 

So my friends, where are the masters of the M?

Have a nice day,

 

heiko

 

 

near miss, but totally acceptable for me, but, miss far too often...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by frogfish
misstyping
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody,....

 

 

There are some myths about how great and furious-fast some Leica shooters can focus. But I have yet to see the results. The examples I have seen where either still/posted subjects, hyper-focal at f somewhere 8-tish, or just "not" in focus. There are the lucky incidents as well. Oh, and the subject 10 meters away does not count either.

 

 

My thought: Can someone with enough practice set the focus on say a 35 Summilux just by feel at 1.4? ...

 

This is a not trivial question, which imho must be splitted in two distinct considerations :

 

1) Guessing the distance, without using RF, is imho an almost impossible ability to achieve when you speak of 35 mm at 1,4 AND at distances under, say, 2 meters around... one can exercise for years, but I think it's not an ability one can have "by nature" (like, for example the "absolute ear"...) : the error margin I think that stands anyway OVER the DOF in the above conditions.

 

2) At the "golden age" of Leica, many great photographers, typically with ONE or max TWO focals they used tipically, did have the abilty to achieve correct focus with fast and "smart" usage of the RF... even with the old LTM's one and with moving subjects... but there were FILM times and, moreover, not "times of 1,4"... nowadays, with digital and fast lenses, we are much more critical on what is a correct focus.

 

Fact is that is not strange that most of pros, when have tasks in which focus is critical for questions of time, assignement, subject.... do prefer the modern AF systems :o

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Luigi,

 

ad1:

when I reach out with my arm the distance to my index-fingerpoint is 0,7 meters. It is quite easy ti know when you are in the right distance to something that you can just touch with your hand, we have been learning and practicing this our whole life.

 

What a nice coincidence for me. So when I am in the distance where I could just touch a subject with my hand I raise my camera with the focus set to 0.7 and take the picture. Sometimes, and more often with practice I get it.

 

ad 2:

yeah, "golden age", aperture 8 and be there...

 

 

heiko

Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes from relentless practice. Trial and error and also some basic references. I find the tab helps a great deal. For example the shot you've posted looks around 1.5 meters. On the 35mm summilux the focus tab is centred at 1.3m.

 

My references for the tab on the 35mm Summilux are:

 

full left .7m

one quarter (left) 1m

centered 1.3m

three quarter (right) 3m

full right infinity

 

When ever I am in a situation of taking photos I will always try and place my self at 1.3m or 3m. These are both useful distances with the 35mm focal length. Once you get a feel for that distance you can move within and around.

 

Use your own body height as a reference also. If you were to fall over where would your head land. Use that as a reference for focus and make a note of where the focus tab would be.

 

At home, mark out 1.3m and 3m on the floor. Stand at 0m and really burn it into your head. Do that every day and you become accustomed to recognising it. Much like being able to detect a Middle C in music. Practice, practice practice.

Edited by Paul J
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, don't change lenses too much. Use one lens and absolutely learn to master it by feel. Also, after every shot, I set my lens to infinity. This way I always know where I am and I just turn it until the image aligns and "click."

 

I don't think at 1.4 you should focus by feel especially not with a digital camera. It is unforgiving. I am very fast focusing. When I mess up, it is usually when I don't have my camera at eye level and I just pull it up quickly to get a shot. In those occasion I mostly overshoot and focus too close.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You can get very good at tracking and jumping between subjects, but using multiple camera systems will make it hard. When I shot my M9 and 50 lux exclusively I could get dead on focus at 1.4 about 99% of the time tracking moving subjects like my daughter. I could even nail focus about 85% of the time at .95 with a borrowed noctilux.

 

Then I added an X-Pro 1 to my bag and started leaving the M9 at home. My hit rate dropped significantly to around 70% at 1.4 because autofocus and shutter lag made me alter my style too much. I really did not have much of a choice because I was shooting at night a lot and the M9 just wasnt cutting it with a 50mm 1.4.

 

Now I am shooting with the new M and have sold off all of my Fuji equipment. I loved the Fuji, but no longer need it for shooting indoors or a night. My hit rate has been rising steadily since I picked up the new camera and I am more than happy with the low light performance. I anticipate it will take me a few months of shooting daily to approach a 99% hit rate again, but I am looking forward to the challenge.

 

I kind of prefocus by estimating which way I have to move the focus tab while the camera is coming up to my eye. I then slide it intuitively in the correct direction at an increasing rate until my eye meets the finder, which tends to help if I am trying to grab a spontaneous shot. I will then track the person a bit and take follow up shots as necessary. I despise machine gun photography.

Edited by LinkerX
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

full left .7m

one quarter (left) 1m

centered 1.3m

three quarter (right) 3m

full right infinity

 

When using the rangefinder I learned that I do not need to translate the distance from reality into numbers of meters in my head and than translate it back in some lever-position.

 

I look at the subject and just set the lever by feel, but I have to concentrate on that. More often than not I am quite to real close. Hope it will become more unconscious with time.

 

 

heiko

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

full left .7m

one quarter (left) 1m

centered 1.3m

three quarter (right) 3m

full right infinity

 

When using the rangefinder I learned that I do not need to translate the distance from reality into numbers of meters in my head and than translate it back in some lever-position.

 

I look at the subject and just set the lever by feel, but I have to concentrate on that. More often than not I am quite to real close. Hope it will become more unconscious with time.

 

 

heiko

 

The tab is a great way to start off. If you stick with the rangefinder you will get it by feel, as you say, in good time, if you make a conscious effort to learn it. As I said earlier; I equate it to learning to pick notes in music. Again, it's just repetition and intent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Practice, practice, practice.

 

These have all been shot with a 50mm lens @f/0.95 or f/1.4, except the first (90mm @f/2)...

 

Peter.

P r o s o p h o s | Photographing Life's Little Moments

-

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

See also:

The Leica M9… for sports? | P r o s o p h o s

“The M3… for kids’ sports?” featured on Steve Huff’s site. | P r o s o p h o s

 

Some sound advice has been given above, namely: stick with one focal length. I also employ pre-focusing, anticipation, and dumb luck.

 

Peter.

P r o s o p h o s | Photographing Life's Little Moments

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

You make life a lot harder for yourself shooting wide open. Why would you do this ? Maybe because you have spent a huge amount of money on a lens that is designed to be sharp at a maximum aperture of f1 or less. This way you can have the nominal subject in focus, and the background then becomes part of an aesthetic discussion of "bokeh," a concept concocted in the 90"s by Michael Johnston from a Japanese notion about blurry backgrounds. Good bokeh is usually described as "creamy," just as good tannins in wine-speek are usually described as "silky." Bokeh justifies the purchases of the most expensive lenses that are occasionally used by photojournalists who work in low light, but mostly by hobbyists who photograph their cats or their children on swings. Shallow depth of field is enormously useful if you are a film-maker, because it can be used as an underlining device in the narrative, showing what is really important. In still photography I would question how many major artists use shallow depth of field in other than extreme low light conditions. Other than the eminent Thorsten Overgaard, of course. Focusing, as many of the posters have pointed out, is very much a function of practice, but at F8. zone focusing on a wide-angle lens eliminates many errors. I think one of the pleasures of looking at two-dimensional images is the illusion of deep-space, as in the Albertian convention of single-perspective rendering. There are very few great photographs made with shallow depth of field, other than portraits, but I am open to being persuaded otherwise.

Edited by gjames9142
typo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the above, an argument could be made that achieving great composition with deep depth of field (lens stopped down) is far more difficult than getting a single subject in focus (even if moving) when shooting wide open. In the former case, the whole photo needs to work from edge to edge, and front to back; it's not just about one subject with the rest blurry.

 

With wide open shots, typically with extremely fast lenses like the Noctilux, my pet peeve is when only parts of the subject are in focus, especially if it feels like the wrong part, or when it's unclear what the subject even is. Seems some folks are more enamored with the bokeh as long as some part of the presumed subject is in focus. Of course others use this technique effectively, but I see a lot that is otherwise annoying...to me.

 

Sorry for taking the OP's inquiry somewhat OT.

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You make life a lot harder for yourself shooting wide open. Why would you do this ? . . .

 

I agree with part of your comment. However, the film-maker has many more components under their control than a street shooter. DOF is one of the creative components that we photographers can use for focusing the viewers attention. Sometime shallow is good and other times a deep DOF is best. I think any photographer who never uses a shallow DOF setting will miss some great opportunities to "focus" the viewer's eye on a limited area of the total image. Just the same, a photographer who always shoots wide open will deprive the viewer to absorb the setting of an image. Using the best aperture setting for the image is my goal.

 

Fast focusing isn't a skill that I have mastered, not even close. But I sure have many more keepers now that I am using a rangefinder vs an AF DSLR. This is a good thread because I am going to program my fingers to sense the position of the tab which will help me speed up the focusing process. Thanks for the tips.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting. So far only the bird shot I would consider a fast focus grab. The others look like repetitive actions that can be pre-focused. This is not a criticism of the images, or the photographer, just an observation on the relevance to the OP's question.

 

I read him to mean a fleeting, one time action, that you raise and GRAB in a split second, wide open, and tack sharp. I've got plenty of sharp M9 shots of my daughter on the swing. She's at the top once every two seconds, you can dial that in quite easily through trial and error.

 

I personally don't think it's really possible at f/1.4. And I'd love to see the work of someone, like a journalist who can consistently do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting. So far only the bird shot I would consider a fast focus grab. The others look like repetitive actions that can be pre-focused. This is not a criticism of the images, or the photographer, just an observation on the relevance to the OP's question.

 

I read him to mean a fleeting, one time action, that you raise and GRAB in a split second, wide open, and tack sharp. I've got plenty of sharp M9 shots of my daughter on the swing. She's at the top once every two seconds, you can dial that in quite easily through trial and error.

 

I personally don't think it's really possible at f/1.4. And I'd love to see the work of someone, like a journalist who can consistently do it.

 

 

agree

Though the images of Peter still are good examples of knowing how to focus with a rangefinder.

 

heiko

Link to post
Share on other sites

agree

Though the images of Peter still are good examples of knowing how to focus with a rangefinder.

 

heiko

 

Yes... and no. ;) Running parallel to the focus plane (pool shot) is much easier to do with any focusing system. The time spent in or close to the plane of focus is proportionally larger. As I said, top of the swing is a constant point you can dial in, so is a pitching plate (if that's the word for it?).

 

They're beautiful images, no doubt. And again, I'm in no way criticising the images, or the photographer.

 

I'm probably getting too technical, but here's what I've done after three years of rangefinder use, every day.

 

Stand in your back garden with a modern AF DSLR and a 35mm fast lens AND an M9 with a 35. Both FF and both at equivalent (as narrow as possible) aperture. I used f/2.

 

Pick 6 targets at varying distance, non sequential (ie not closest to farthest). Raise - focus - shoot each target in order, with both cameras.

 

For me - the answer is pretty clear.

 

Now get your wife to call out random targets. Even clearer.

 

Now this will be taken as a slight on the M series. It's not. It's just an observation on the limitations of each kind of tool. Sometimes just raising the DSLR to my eye is enough to ruin the shot and make people clam up. Regardless of focussing speed or anything.

 

Kai of digital rev, for example, did almost exactly my test and found that for him the M9 was quicker. Can't remember which DSLR it was.

 

The enjoyment of using the optical patch and manual coupled lenses far exceeds that of the AF monster. But then one has to pick between enjoyment and missing the shot perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also employ pre-focusing, anticipation, and dumb luck.

 

I think that's a good summary. In the main I find focussing with an RF quicker than with an SLR but I think trying to focus a 35 Summilux at F1.4 only by feel and guessed distance is a very big ask. I think you'll find it more productive to practise finding focus quicker using the RF patch than trying to do it via what seems to me to be a rather extreme form of zone-focus.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

mostly by hobbyists who photograph their cats or their children on swings.

 

Have you never had the urge to photograph any of your children on a swing? I don't think it is something only buyers of unnecessarily fast lenses do.

 

In still photography I would question how many major artists use shallow depth of field in other than extreme low light conditions.

...There are very few great photographs made with shallow depth of field, other than portraits,

 

Yes, agreed. Off the top of my head, Ralph Gibson and Sally Mann might provide exceptions to this 'rule' about major artists (most of whom seem to work in the rather mannered, somewhat stilted, genre exemplified by Stephen Shore and Robert Adams).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...