Purchasing a Leica II

[devermb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another basic question for the patient reader:

 

Rangefinders move two lenses together to create the focus: any tips on deliberately blurred photos? I might want to see the direct center of the blurred composition before shooting yet there might be even more blur in the center.

[Advertisement]

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

[stuny]

Experimentation.

[bill]

Getting very confused... In one thread you talk about buying an M9, now a Leica II - they are very different animals, apart from the 70-odd year time gap. Which are you considering?

 

As to the gist of your question, rangefinders work by providing effectively two images of the same subject. You focus and in so doing bring the "double" image into one. With the honourable exception of the M2 and it's double-notches you cannot "preview" depth of focus in a rangefinder.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Jeff S]

I think he means Part II of his question, Bill.

 

Jeff

[bill]

Durrr...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[elgenper]

I think he means Part II of his question, Bill.

 

Jeff

 

So, next thing will be a Leica III....

 

Now, the OP has posted a serious question, and deserves to be taken seriously. So now that we made our little jokes....

 

The very first thing you have to do is to get a chance to LOOK into a modern Leica finder and try to handle and focus it. It doesn´t matter much if it´s a ´50:es M2 or M3, or a brand new M9; just go into a shop that has a used one, or a demo for you to try. Just get a lens attached to it and try to focus on different objects in the shop. Click the shutter and observe the uninterrupted viewfinder image and the slight vibrations. Push/pull the little lever that selects the different finder frames for different focal lengths.

 

If you do get the opportunity to try a digital M (M8 or M9), take a SD card along and ask the dealer to set the camera up for jpeg´s (unless you have the software to handle the raw´s at home). Make some images on that card, take them home and look closely at them.

 

After this exercise, you´ll know a LOT more about RF cameras and the way they´re used. Either you´ll see that it´s not for you (many excellent photographers do), or you become interested. But, it´s a rather steep learning curve, so don´t expect masterpieces from Day one (they´ll come, bye and bye...).

 

Good luck! And, I sincerely wish you´ll get hooked for life, like me...

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, I was being serious... I can understand how hard it is to visualise for new users.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[elgenper]

Actually, I was being serious..

 

Yes, of course.

 

What I wrote wasn´t in any way meant as a quip about you (or anybody else).

[lars_bergquist]

Elgenper's suggestion is good. Get your hands on any Leica M, look through the finder, and land on a different planet. You may like the view.

 

It's true about the learning curve, however. There are no little electronic imps that make the decisions for you -- and get in your way. So you will likely have to learn photography again more or less from square one, like we old badgers did, shutter speeds, f-stops, exposure and all. The difference is that in our brave new digital world, you can experiment to your heart's content, with near-instant feedback, without waiting until you emerge from the stinking darkroom, or until your Kodachromes come home. I must say that since the spring of 2008, when I bought my M8, I have learned more than I learned during the previous half century; and I have some exhibition grade prints hanging on my walls.

 

The old man from the Ages of the M3, M2, M4, M5, M6 ...

[Guest joewehry]

I think you also need to research and define what you mean by blurred.

 

Is it blur from motion of the subject?

From motion of the photographer?

(If so, try different panning techniques and play with shutter speeds)

 

Another way for blur is focusing and aperture.

One technique I've played with, and gotten varying results, is to first focus on the nearest object in the picture. Then I look at the depth of field scale on the lens and take into account my aperture. I then figure out how much further I have to defocus the lens to make sure the closest object in the picture is NOT within the depth of field of the aperture.)

 

Another possibility for "blur" is older lens that were corrected as best as possible given the technology / mfg capabilities of the times. In that case, research reviews of older Leica lenses and understand their characteristics to see what might contribute to the kind(s) of images you want to create.

 

Oh, ans I suppose back to basics, some higher speed films might be viewed as "blurred" due to their graininess.

 

And then you have atmospheric conditions like diffused light, fog, time of day, etc., that can contribute to "blurring" of image details.

 

In short, play with ISO, shutter speed, aperture of varying lenses and focus ranges. An older leica II lens may provide the look you want, or a defocused M9 and Summicron might do the job. Or rather, you do the job with the tool of your choice.

[ismon]

In my experrience, Leicas have the best lenses ind the world AND the ability to focus them with supreme accuracy. Having said that, they don't do much else--and that is wonderful. Leicas put almost nothing between the photographer and his subject. With practice you will "take" the picture before raising the camera to your eye. My best advice is to first purchase an old copy of "The Leica Way" by Andrew Matheson. It is the Bible for Leica users. Famillarize yourself with every page--most especially the extensive depth of field charts. You can then previsualize the effect that lens aperture will have on your composition, and know just what will be rendered razor sharp.

[lars_bergquist]

The depth of field charts and scales are based on assumptions about acceptable unsharpness in the final (printed) picture, that may have been valid in the 1920's, when it was thought that no sane person would want to enlarge a Leica 'miniature' negative to a greater size than 6x9cm. They have been obsolete for eighty years now, but nobody has dared change them. They are in fact inadequate even for a 10x15cm (4x6') print.

 

I won't go into the science here, but savvy photographers have known for generations that you have to stop down for 2 f-stops MORE than the scale says, in order to get the zone of adequate definition that the d.o.f. scale indicates. A 35mm lens e.g. is supposed to have acceptable definition (depth of field) from 5m to infinity at f:4. But you have to stop down to f:8 in order to have that zone reasonably sharp in a 18x24cm or 8x10' print, viewed at normal reading distance (= diagonal of format).

 

The old man from the Age of the M3

[Guest joewehry]

Thanks Lars, for that interesting tip. Are you referring to printed depth of field tables in publications or the ones on the lenses? And on a side note I wonder, if needed, if Leica is adjusting DOF markings on newer lenses given the digital sensor plane?

 

You have now got my curiosity up and although I trust your knowledge on the matter, I want to explore this at various print sizes to see what is acceptable to me for sharpness and unsharpness. It's funny that images are enlarged to such extremes now. I find anything beyond 12x18 to be too big.

 

I have seen a few 4x6 framed perfectly that looked excellent. (I haven't figured out the aesthetics, yet, but some 4x6 prints look excellent surrounded by a huge mat approx 12x18.)

 

Anyway, I've been looking for a spring photo project and I think I now have it exploring depth of field, enlargements, and framing.

 

: - )

 

Happy shooting,

[earleygallery]

I don't understand the question.

[lars_bergquist]

Thanks Lars, for that interesting tip. Are you referring to printed depth of field tables in publications or the ones on the lenses? And on a side note I wonder, if needed, if Leica is adjusting DOF markings on newer lenses given the digital sensor plane?

 

All Leica d.o.f. scales and tables are based on the same math and assumptions, so they are completely equivalent. You will see this if you compare table values and scale values for the same focal length.

 

The math works the same irrespective of the taking medium -- film or sensor, just as it is the same for fine grain film and coarse grained film. It is simply counting backwards: If a maximum fuzz (you out there who know all about Airy discs, forgive me this simplification) of 0.1mm is acceptable in the print, then this measure divided by the enlargement ratio is the measure of the maximum allowed fuzz in the neg/on the sensor. The 1920's assumption was that nobody would enlarge more than 3x, so the maximum 'circle of confusion' (this is the technical term) on the film would be 0.1 / 3 = 0,033mm, and this is the value that has inexplicably remained the industry standard since then.

 

You have now got my curiosity up and although I trust your knowledge on the matter, I want to explore this at various print sizes to see what is acceptable to me for sharpness and unsharpness. It's funny that images are enlarged to such extremes now. I find anything beyond 12x18 to be too big.

 

We do normally try to view a rectangular or square picture from a distance roughly equal to the diagonal of the format. The smallest comfortable viewing distance our eyes do permit is c. 30cm/12in, which approximates the diagonal of a 18x24cm or 8x10'' or A4 print. Confronted by a larger picture, we step back (empirical fact from observations in museums). With a smaller print, we cannot get closer unless we use a magnifier. So at sizes from 10x15cm via 13x18cm, the criteria gets stricter with increasing size: Sharpness enough for a 10x15 may not be enough for 18x24. But from that size up, they do not change: What's good for a 18x24 is good for a two by three meters print!

 

You can of course attack a large print with a magnifier, or why not a microscope, and at some point you will of course find the coveted fuzz to whinge about. (Some people do feel that having something to complain about does somehow improve their standing.) But here we are speaking not of a print as a technical specimen, but as a picture to be viewed by sane observers under sane conditions. We do normally not stick our noses into the pictures we enjoy -- and if it is Mona Lisa or The Last Supper, we will not be permitted to do so in any case.

 

Have fun with your project. The old man from the Age of the M3

[giordano]

All Leica d.o.f. scales and tables are based on the same math and assumptions, so they are completely equivalent. You will see this if you compare table values and scale values for the same focal length.

 

Lars, I firmly believed this until a few weeks ago. Then in this thread http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/117814-lens-numbering.html we found that there's at least one 21mm f/4 Super-Angulon in M-mount whose depth of field scale uses different assumptions.

 

But the Super-Angulon was designed by Schneider and sold by Leitz, so maybe it doesn't strictly count as a "Leica" d.o.f. scale.

[lars_bergquist]

Giordano,

This is a strange anomaly indeed. The Leica standard did not become the universal standard all at once, of course. I have worked with cameras that have had d.o.f. scales based on very diverse circles of confusion, including 1/10mm. Early Retina cameras seem to have used something like 0.050mm, and the old Zeiss standard was 1/1000th of the focal length -- this if course assumed that the lens would be a 'standard' lens on a plate camera, and that the glass plate negatives would be printed contact. That was probably a fair assumption for 'pre-35mm' photography!

 

So I tend to support Luigi's idea: The first, chrome finished Super-Angulons used a Schneider standard, which was then emended to conform with the Leica standard. Odd, but it does not affect my original argument of course.

 

Lars Bergquist

The old man from the Age of the M3