Hardly scientific...but??

[andalus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I thought to check any focus issues with my new M9 and the Lux 50 Asph. Laid chart on porch, opened lens to 1.4 and shot with A priority. Camera on small tripod on overturned waste basket. And roughly 40 degree or so. Focused on thick black lines as best I could.

 

What does this show, if anything. Not sure if I shows focus okay or front focus??

 

Would appreciate anyone else taking a look.

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!

[ho_co]

... Focused ... as best I could....

IMO, a rangefinder is exact. If you're focusing 'as best you can,' you're not using it correctly.

 

In general, if it takes more than about a half-second to establish focus with a rangefinder, you're not using it correctly. (Though I admit my eyes aren't as good as they were when I established that rule. )

 

When using a coincident-image rangefinder, the rangefinder patches should line up approximately perpendicular to the line focused on.

 

In a situation like this, an experienced rangefinder user will automatically rotate the camera 90 degrees to focus on the "focus here" line.

[andalus]

Good point, thanks!

[diogenis]

It seems to me that you focused and took the shot from afar. Either use a larger lens or take the pic at the closest distance or both. For the 50mm shoot from 80-90 cm or something

[lars_bergquist]

Rangefinder paranoia can be even worse than light meter paranoia (do NEVER own more than one meter!) And that chart is notoriously difficult to focus on; I would not use it. Go out and take pictures. Don't chimp,

just remember what you focused on! Then evaluate the images on your computer screen. If they are OK, all is OK. And that will build the confidence you seem to lack.

 

Practice, practice, practice.

 

The old man from the Rangefinder Era

[ho_co]

Lars is right.

 

The only time I use that chart is when I've already decided I've got a problem with a lens and want to prove it to myself.

 

Go shoot. See what works. The only way to become proficient with any camera is to shoot it, not to study it. If you're new to the rangefinder, quit worrying. Just go shoot and shoot and shoot. "Practice, practice, practice," as Lars said.

 

And read Mike Johnston's article The Online Photographer: The Leica as Teacher.

 

 

In your opening post, you asked what we thought. If you have to ask, that is, if you don't see a problem, there isn't one.

 

If you find that one particular lens seldom gives you good results, then test that lens.

 

But it's extremely rare that a Leica body and a Leica lens don't match up. When they don't, you'll know it; you won't have to ask.

 

But then, I've been shooting Leica for 40+ years, so I've got a bit of an experiential advantage.

 

 

Oh, and BTW--I don't see anything wrong with your test chart shot, either.

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... NEVER own more than one meter! ...

 

Lars--Truer words were never spoken! Think we ought to start a new thread on that topic?

[vanhulsenbeek]

Rangefinder Paranoia is a serious, of not sometimes fatal, affliction, leading to taking superfluous and ugly test pictures as well as to over-posting on Forums.

It is best cured by going out, in any weather, and taking so many pictures with your M-camera that you need all your time for happy filing in LR and happy PP in CS4

 

BTW; your test-picture looks fine.

[Viv]

Rangefinder Paranoia is a serious, of not sometimes fatal, affliction, leading to taking superfluous and ugly test pictures as well as to over-posting on Forums.

It is best cured by going out, in any weather, and taking so many pictures with your M-camera that you need all your time for happy filing in LR and happy PP in CS4

 

 

I agree.

 

Stop worrying. Take some (real) photos.

[rosuna]

It is not paranoia.

 

The rangefinder had serious accuracy limits with film, but electronic sensors have made the problem even worse. It is true for reflex cameras as well, and filters and microlenses on front of the sensor seem to bring problems. But AF reflex cameras have microadjustment tools. MF rangefinders haven't.

 

Several measures aimed at increasing focus accuracy are needed. It is not a question of tolerances, or viewfinder magnification. The physical rangefinder base should the enlarged, new lenses should be designed in a way that eliminates spherical aberration and maybe some kind of live view and focus confirmation are unavoidable for critical precision in focusing. Super fast lenses cannot be used comfortably on the M8/M9: the rangefinder has to be adjusted, the lenses have to be adjusted, a new lens implies a new complete readjustment cycle, magnifiers are required for fast lenses, etc, etc, etc.

 

The M8/M9 have the same viewfinder/rangefinder than the M7/MP cameras have. This helps in reducing costs and in simplifying the entire production process and quality control process. This is good for the M7/MP cameras (these cameras are yet produced due to the existence of the M8/M9), but the digital counterparts are suffering. The M10 has to bring a complete redesign. Not radical changes, but many, many small changes are necessary.

[giordano]

Lars--Truer words were never spoken! Think we ought to start a new thread on that topic?

 

Au contraire: never own two meters. If you have three, you can go with the majority:)

[Peter H]

It is not paranoia.

The M10 has to bring a complete redesign. Not radical changes, but many, many small changes are necessary.

 

That will account for why so many of the fantastic photos I've come across in this forum are actually crap, even though they look great.

 

Thanks for opening my eyes!

[Viv]

It is not paranoia.

 

The rangefinder had serious accuracy limits with film, but electronic sensors have made the problem even worse. It is true for reflex cameras as well, and filters and microlenses on front of the sensor seem to bring problems. But AF reflex cameras have microadjustment tools. MF rangefinders haven't.

The M10 has to bring a complete redesign. Not radical changes, but many, many small changes are necessary.

 

Alas! Alas! What shall I do until then?

 

I know! Keep on taking great shots with my crappy M9 (when I get it), ZI, D700 and Bronica ETSRi!!!

[larryk34]

I just read Mike Johnson's recommendation about shooting B&W film for a year with a Leica RF and just one lens. I don't think many people are going to follow that advice even just one year further into the digital age since he wrote those comments. Film is just too much trouble these days and the turnaround is too slow. But his point is still valid. I think a digital RF or DSLR could still be used, but what's crucial is using one (preferred) lens and black and white only. Especially, B&W only. This can be set on most digital cameras. The reason is that color will only get in your way. If color is used, then the learner (all of us, even now) has to deal with processing it from raw format and in Photo Shop. Post-processing color is a mess, requiring a whole separate learning curve and different technology. It would distract you from what Mike emphasized: concentrating on the light and shadows and making photographs. The post-processing of pure B&W images would be much easier and a great learning experience with the concept of levels and curves and tones. A year or so of that, and then on to color and perhaps other lenses. As I type this, I've convinced myself to consider doing this myself: starting all over again with just black and white. If you cannot understand this, take a look at the recent issue of the new "Color Magazine" that just hit the Barnes&Noble and Borders shelfs. They had to introduce a new category called "extreme color" to accomodate some of the submitted photos. But if you compare their idea of extreme photos with most of the others in the magazine, you'll see little difference. What seems to be popular in color photograph these days is extreme saturation and contrasting colors that totally dominate the entire image. Painful, to say the least. And clearly a distraction from learning how to take photographs. Meanwhile, where are the lines, subtle blending to tones (B&W or color), and structure?

[bybrett]

Testing focus at close focus on a tripod confirms only one thing - focus at close focus on a tripod.

[Jamie Roberts]

Testing focus at close focus on a tripod confirms only one thing - focus at close focus on a tripod.

 

Yes, you need to check 10m and infinity as well A tripod just takes some variability out of the test.

 

But if you consistently see a problem, then check. If you don't see the problem, then go shoot pictures

 

I have a couple of problems right now that I suspect are down to older lenses losing proer coupling (tracking?) with the RF mechanism at a certain point of focus, so they're in focus close up and at infinity, but not between 10m and somewhere before infinity.

 

It's a drag, but I certainly can't rely on them as is right now.

[jaapv]

It is not paranoia.

 

The rangefinder had serious accuracy limits with film, but electronic sensors have made the problem even worse. It is true for reflex cameras as well, and filters and microlenses on front of the sensor seem to bring problems. But AF reflex cameras have microadjustment tools. MF rangefinders haven't.

 

Several measures aimed at increasing focus accuracy are needed. It is not a question of tolerances, or viewfinder magnification. The physical rangefinder base should the enlarged, new lenses should be designed in a way that eliminates spherical aberration and maybe some kind of live view and focus confirmation are unavoidable for critical precision in focusing. Super fast lenses cannot be used comfortably on the M8/M9: the rangefinder has to be adjusted, the lenses have to be adjusted, a new lens implies a new complete readjustment cycle, magnifiers are required for fast lenses, etc, etc, etc.

 

The M8/M9 have the same viewfinder/rangefinder than the M7/MP cameras have. This helps in reducing costs and in simplifying the entire production process and quality control process. This is good for the M7/MP cameras (these cameras are yet produced due to the existence of the M8/M9), but the digital counterparts are suffering. The M10 has to bring a complete redesign. Not radical changes, but many, many small changes are necessary.

I don't know what strange magical powers I have - but the accuracy problems of my M9 are nil - as are those of my M3, or both M8s... What's more, last Sunday SJP popped my Summilux 50 asph on his M8 - and guess what - spot on @ 1.4, from the first shot onwards. The thing that is inaccurate is the user - not the system.....

[wattsy]

The thing that is inaccurate is the user - not the system.....

 

So you keep saying. It's not only extremely smug and patronising but quite simply wrong. There are countless instances of Solms readjusting the rangefinder and/or lenses to achieve better focus accuracy. I've had bodies (M8 and M9) and a lens (50/F1.4 ASPH) adjusted by Solms with excellent results.

[lars_bergquist]

Larry, I liked that piece. Maybe because that was how I, and all people of my generation, started: There was no other way because we couldn't afford Kodacrome!

 

Still, this is not necessarily pure subjectivity. It is a good approach to start with the basics and learn them well, before you introduce the complications.

 

The old man from the Agfa Age

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jamie Roberts]

Yes, I have to say that Jaap is extremely lucky in his combination of cameras and lenses. I seem to have some difficulty with my longer lenses on the M9 (but not on the M8, so it's not me ).

 

As shipped, everything (including my 35) was front-focusing slightly on the M9, just enough to drive me a little batty near close focus, anyway.

 

The longer lenses are particularly off...I think the real issue is actually that my longer lenses are also my older lenses, and they have some wear and tear on them over the years. I probably should send them all to Solms (and I will at some point) but the combination of slightly off RF and slightly off lenses is a killjoy, for sure.