Some consideration on a switch, with sample

[wem]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys,

 

I'm still thinking about getting a m9 and 50 summilux. I find the 50mm FL to be very pleasing.

 

I now shoot on a 5D mark II and a 50L. What I like are shots like ones below: with a fairly wide aperture (1.4-2.0), often on moving targets. Thanks to AF, I can get this quickly, so most times it is unnoticed by the subjects.

 

I think I would like a rangefinder. The simplicity appeals to me (I shoot everything in manual, accept focus). But do you think it is possible to get shots like the first below? Or would I miss AF too much? Because many pictures I see of the m9 are quite good, but miss-focused quite often as well. I know it shouldn't matter when capturing the decisive moment, but to me it does.

 

Is there a proper technique to deal with this in a rangefinder that I don't perceive yet, being spoilt with AF?

 

Thanks for you kind replies!

 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[andybarton]

Why would you think you couldn't take a photograph of people on the street without autofocus? People have been doing it quite successfully for about 55 years, with M cameras, and an additional 20 with screw thread Leicas

[wem]

Why would you think you couldn't take a photograph of people on the street without autofocus? People have been doing it quite successfully for about 55 years, with M cameras, and an additional 20 with screw thread Leicas

 

I know they could do it. And I know it doesn't matter for the decisive moment. And I also know that even some slightly out of focus pictures can be brilliant. But I would like to know if there is a technique or something that would allow me to get a high hit-rate on people walking when shooting with large apertures. That is the question.

 

We always talk about brilliant pictures that are taken. We never talk about the ones that weren't. You see my point?

 

So how do you guys tackle this? Prefocus and wait? Use follow-focus? Not use large apertures?

[luigi bertolotti]

I think it's a matter of experience in mastering RF focusing.. as Andy says, people has done it for decades; I have not at all experience with AF... probably can be hard to renounce and affording the learning curve of RF... but my idea is that apart some specific fields like sport, one can do shots like your first one with RF (and obviously like the second, which I think is a less dynamic situation in terms of focusing)

[sanyasi]

I have made the exact same decision that Wem has made--try a Leica rangefinder. Except for using one in the shop, I have no rangefinder experience. So making the switch takes a leap of faith measured by a chunk of change out of the wallet. I take some comfort in knowing that if I don't like it, Leica (particularly the lenses) seem to have a high resale value. Watching the M8 and M8.2 plummet in price in the secondary market raises questions whether the digital Leicas will hold their value as newer ones come out.

 

One option was to go with a cheaper film version of a rangefinder (and I have shot film), but that adds processing and film costs. Unless I want to set up a darkroom or work closely with a processor, I have little control over my prints. In short, I am not going back to film at this point.

 

Another was to pick up an M8 or M8.2, but full frame and the cost of lenses relative to the camera body make the M9 the practical solution.

 

So while longtime rangefinder users may be comfortable with a rangefinder after much use, Wem expresses a legitimate concern. Unfortunately, he and I will probably have to spend a couple of months with the rangefinder before we know.

[wem]

I think it's a matter of experience in mastering RF focusing.. as Andy says, people has done it for decades; I have not at all experience with AF... probably can be hard to renounce and affording the learning curve of RF... but my idea is that apart some specific fields like sport, one can do shots like your first one with RF (and obviously like the second, which I think is a less dynamic situation in terms of focusing)

 

Ok, thanks!

 

If you don't mind, could you tell me what you do with moving subjects? Focus on the spot, anticipate, follow focus?

[40mm f/2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I estimate the distance and prefocus before I put the camera in front of my face. Thus focusing is much faster. Often to make the decision on what to focus takes more time than to focus (and this may be even easier with a RF than autofocus).

[wem]

I have made the exact same decision that Wem has made--try a Leica rangefinder. Except for using one in the shop, I have no rangefinder experience. So making the switch takes a leap of faith measured by a chunk of change out of the wallet. I take some comfort in knowing that if I don't like it, Leica (particularly the lenses) seem to have a high resale value. Watching the M8 and M8.2 plummet in price in the secondary market raises questions whether the digital Leicas will hold their value as newer ones come out.

 

One option was to go with a cheaper film version of a rangefinder (and I have shot film), but that adds processing and film costs. Unless I want to set up a darkroom or work closely with a processor, I have little control over my prints. In short, I am not going back to film at this point.

 

Another was to pick up an M8 or M8.2, but full frame and the cost of lenses relative to the camera body make the M9 the practical solution.

 

So while longtime rangefinder users may be comfortable with a rangefinder after much use, Wem expresses a legitimate concern. Unfortunately, he and I will probably have to spend a couple of months with the rangefinder before we know.

 

Yes, that is exactly the pinch I'm in at the moment. I have a certain style and method. I make quick judgements, like in my first picture. I also anticipate, but still...

 

I have a good system already. To make the switch, more confidence is needed.

[wem]

I estimate the distance and prefocus before I put the camera in front of my face. Thus focusing is much faster. Often to make the decision on what to focus takes more time than to focus (and this may be even easier with a RF than autofocus).

 

I think I would have missed this shot then. I saw one face down and one looking up and knew that was it for me.

[Jager]

There is no question that AF can be a benefit in many situations. It is faster than manual focus. But not as much as you might think. As others have mentioned, the key is just getting used to rangefinder focusing.

 

In your first image, the two older ladies are walking, but not that fast. That's an example where you can easily focus normally with a rangefinder. With a slightly moving subject like that I'll often stop down a stop to give me a smidge more depth of field. But then I do the same thing with my D3 and its AF - for the very same reason.

 

The second shot is a classic static shot and quite simple to get.

 

Either shot could easily have been focused and taken in less than a second with a rangefinder camera. You'll find with time that you'll have a very nuanced feel for where the lens needs to be for a given distance, and by the time the camera is at your eye all you have left is the last tiny adjustment.

 

With faster moving subjects - a motorcycle or running dog, for instance - you'll often want to pre-focus on a given spot and then anticipate your shutter release. That's a genre where today's sophisticated predictive AF systems are without equal. If I'm going to a motorcycle race I'll take my D3 and AFS Nikkors. But if I'm going on a motorcycle trip, I very much prefer my Leicas.

 

Your two shots are squarely within the Leica ethos. I expect you'll take to an M quite easily.

 

Both your shots are really nice. But the first one is fantastic. An exceptional image...

[holgerf]

…I would like to know if there is a technique or something that would allow me to get a high hit-rate on people walking when shooting with large apertures. That is the question.

 

Yes there are some general techniques like pre-focus, zone focus and hyper-focal techniques and also some "micro" techniques especially for using the M bodies. There has just been published a great article about this topic by Sean Reid who is running a subscription site (http://www.reidreviews.com, 32.95 $ per year). Many including me think it’s worth every cent. There are a lot of other articles concerning rangefinder photography as well as many excellent tests of Leica gear (and other).

 

Best

Holger

[yanidel]

Whatever the technique, there will be a certain failure rate shooting wide open with a rangefinder. You can't always pre-focus a given scene and the depth of field can be so thin that focusing constantly spot on is a challenge. I am talking about 50mm F1 to F1.4 obviously. Now a slight focusing error does not always mean a bad picture. Also I am sure that the AF cameras also have their issues as focusing might be of less precision with very thin DOF's and sometimes lock the wrong subject.

[microview]

I can see that depth of field is crucial to the success of your b/w picture. You could have prefocused on the bicycle and fired the shutter when the couple drew level with it – or stepped back at a slow pace to match theirs until the facial expressions on the couple suited your shot. M8/M9 at least allow a run of exposures at the second switch-on position.

[Guest malland]

Wem, most, if not all, of the traditional street photography that Andy Barton is referring to as having been shot for 70 years with manual focus was not shot at wide apertures of f/1.4 and f/2 — f/5.6 and f/8 have been the common apertures for that type of photography.

 

I have shot with a Leica M6 for many years and think that you will miss-focus a lot with an M9 in trying to make pictures like the ones above: there is no way that the M9 is going to be as fast to focus like the 5D, and it obviously cannot do focus tracking. On the other hand, pre-focus, zone focus and hyper-focal techniques are useful for smaller apertures but don't work well with the large apertures that you like. Indeed, I think you would regret changing cameras.

 

By the way, I like your pictures above, particularly the first one.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Barrier series

[delander †]

Wem, I also think you will miss the AF you are used to with your 5D2 and 50mm wide open.

 

Although I love my Leicas and feel that the RF way of working and seeing is more important for me than DSLR/AF I feel from what you have written that this may not be the case for you.

 

Jeff

[pack_tor]

I went through this agony a month or so ago, so this situation feels right at home for me.

 

I own a 5D II with a bunch of canon prime L lenses (including the 50L). Love using all of them wide open, even the 50L wide open quite a bit. The pictures you have shown remind me of some of my pictures as well.

 

About a month ago, feeling the need to challenge myself (and also the consideration that some of the most iconic images ever have been taken through a Leica M viewfinder) I put my money down on the M9 and 35 Lux-Asph,used. Absolutely no experience with the rangefinders at all, but did enough research on the positives and negatives.

 

The first week or so was a terrible experience, especially since a lot of my photography involves kids. However, over the next couple of weeks, i decided to step back and just practice. Some of the things I did were to get a feel of the lens, getting to know the exact position of the tab for various distances, getting the feel for the dof even before i bring the camera up, anticipation etc etc. I can tell you, even though it's still early days, I can get the first shot with some anticipation (maybe at F2 or so to be a bit safe) and the second shot quite easily @ 1.4. I'm still not totally confident with 3 year old kids who are running around, but I'm always practicing on them, so it will get better. I never shoot sports, so if I can perfect taking kid pictures @ 1.4, I'd be perfectly happy.

 

Anyway, since you are a fellow 5D II user, maybe the following might influence your decision:

 

• My 5D II collects dust now. I only use it for movies. I plan to sell most of my lenses except for a couple of primes for the movies.
  
• The M9 is with me everywhere, all the time. An absolute pleasure to always have it on the shoulder or in a small bag everywhere.
  
• The M9 has made me think beyond bokeh - Bokeh is fun, but telling a story within the framelines is even more challenging and satisfying.
  
• The L lenses, while great, are no match to the Leica lenses.
  
• The M9 has made me think beyond perfect sharpness. I find perfectly focused people kinda boring now. Some of the out-of-focus pictures on the forums are pointless, but when executed well, with a vision (paolo pellegrin for example) they are more interesting than any perfectly focused pictures could ever be.
  
• The M9 got me back to the basics. It feels like I have complete control of the creative process now. With the 5D II, even though I never shoot in a machine-gun mode, it always felt that I was carrying a huge machine in my hand.
  
• I use the M9+35 Lux @ 1/10 of second at some situations and get perfectly acceptable pictures. Goodbye IS.
  
• The M9 has made me less self-conscious. I can point to other people with ease. I would never dare point the 50L at a stranger.
  

My advice/comments for your situation would be:

 

• You will miss the AF, at least initially.
  
• If you have the persistence, the sample pictures you have included will become easy and natural to get on the M9 over the course of time.
  
• If you can afford to keep the both the SLR & M9, please do. If possible, do not make a complete switch right away. Get to use the M9 for atleast a month or two with an open mind.
  
• The Leica lenses will always go up in price (a new price change expected Jan 1). So, get a used lens (I recommend popflash) now and if you don't like it, sell it off next year. You might even make money. The M9s will atleast hold reasonable value till M10s are released, so not too much of a hit financially.
  

In my case, the choice is clear - I use the M9 way more at 1.4 than with my Canon and it's an absolute treat to use. Most of my Canon gear will be on sale soon once I'm totally comfortable - I'll keep just the bare minimum for the cases when an SLR is a necessity.

 

Ultimately, the choice is yours based on your unique needs - but, hope my experience helps!

[sanyasi]

Wem:

 

I do not see DSLR and range finder as mutually exclusive. Just because you use one does not preclude using the other. The size factor is what has me interested in the rangefinder. While in Morocco, I recall a number of shots I didn't get. I go out when I travel at 5:30AM when the streets are quiet. I recall seeing a butcher setting up his shop for the day. I took my Canon out, with the 70-200 lenses. He raised his cleaver and looked at me with an expression that clearly said, "How bad do you want this shot because I am going to kill you if you take it?" I also recall the old-style barbershops. Some nice pictures through window, but with a big Canon and lens? It didn't happen and I am pretty fearless.

 

A couple of weeks ago, I got some incredible pictures in Times Square using a tripod, the Canon Mark II, 5d and a 24-70 lens. Processed them using HDR. Everybody loves them. Maybe you could do that with a range finder, but knowing that I was going to use a tripod, I probably would still take the Canon.

 

In short, there are advantages and disadvantages to any camera. They are just tools, so I wouldn't look whether the camera can replicate shots taken with another camera. I'd look at the new possibilities a new tool opens up. The other thing I would look at is all the web galleries associated with the people who post to this forum. Looks to me like if you can master the focus issue, the Leica range finder can produce a lot more types of photos than just classic black and white street photography. The galleries are inspirational.

 

Good luck.

 

Jack Siegel

[j_lir]

you'll be fine switching as long as your eyesight is good.

 

i'd say go with a digital m so you can fire off more shots and try and get the feel for the m-system.

 

i shoot live music with my m's, works fine.

 

I prefer it to when I have to shoot long lens and use my D3.

 

I take my m's around always and only the nikon when it is necessary.

 

now i'm thinking of selling my 14-24 nikon lens because the zeiss distagon 15 is amazing on the m9.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[smoody]

As one poster pointed out, they're not mutually exclusive. If I'm in a low light situation and want/need to shoot wide open, I'll take a DSLR. I can't say I have a lot of experience with rangefinders, but shallow depth of field with objects that move (and that sometimes includes me moving as well as the subject) are intimidating. Plus, I think when doing street shooting with a long lens wide open or know you'll want to have zoom capabilities, they can make even more sense. If money is your concern, then you can get a cheap, compact DSLR and kit lens to replace any high-end gear you have. You might not need it often, but when you do you'll be really glad you still have it. I know I am. That's my two cents anyway.

[wem]

Wow, thanks for all the answers guys! For now, I think I learned the following:

 

 

1. People have shot rangefinders for many years with great success, but
   
2. this was rarely done with very large apertures
   
3. Focusing speed is better on my DSLR, and it allows *me* to take technically better pictures.
   
4. A RF and a DSLR are not mutually exclusive (but due to budget constraints they are for me).
   
5. There are techniques, but they require more anticipation. This means I would have missed the first shot.
   
6. Technical perfection isn't the Holy Grail (but to dismiss it from the start is something I don't want either).However, to capture moments, one needs to be quick sometimes.
   

I take my 5DII with 50L with me - always. It isn't that light, but nothing terrible. And nowadays, people are used to seeing DSLRs and it bothers less than it used to. I might get a M9 and a 50 summilux one day. But not this one. I cannot afford to carry two systems yet. I think the rangefinder style fits me, except the speed. If my style changes somewhat, I will reconsider.

 

Thanks again guys. I can also appreciate that it isn't easy to say an m9 is not the right tool for me on this forum but that this didn't came through in the responses.

 

If you would like to see more of the pictures I like to take, you can visit my blog on My Daily Pictures. I take nature shots too, but these daily pictures are what I enjoy the most.

 

Kind regards,

 

Wim