lct Posted April 12, 2011 Share #41 Posted April 12, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) So if the rangefinder is consistently correct, how does focus shift fit?... Focus shift is a lens problem, not a rangefinder problem. It is compensated automatically with an SLR or an EVIL because you "see" behind the lens. But with a rangefinder you see outside the lens so your choice is to buy another lens or to compensate focus shift manually at critical apertures. Very few Leica lenses suffer from focus shift to a disturbing extent fortunately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Hi lct, Take a look here The limits of the Optical Rangefinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted April 12, 2011 Share #42 Posted April 12, 2011 Yes, I understood that Jeff* - so inherent in the rangefinder system is an inability to manage focus shift, where it is sufficient to manifest itself outside increased depth of field as you step down. I thought this was why there was an ongoing reference to some form of focus confirmation ... For myself, I actually really like the rangefinder as it is. I have looked for focus shift on my lenses, and either they don't have it or I'm insufficiently skilled to pick it up. I'm well aware that the out of focus shots I've done are user error. It also needs to be recognised that you will only pick up focus shift with an SLR if you stop the lens down and check your focus - how many SLR users actually do this? Few, I'd surmise. The overwhelming consensus among the posters above seems to be that the rangefinder system is a perfect gem which should not be touched for something inferior, and focus shift is a fact of life. But if some focussing aid could be added for those with lenses with focus shift, surely that would be a plus? I'm minded of Thorsten Overgaard's comment in his 35 Lux review that focus shift is not an issue in the older 35 Luxes if you only shoot wide open. Then some here also say that always shooting open with a narrow depth of field is so passé. My perception is that anything which can assist Leica lens owners to use their lenses at all stops has to be a good thing ... Cheers John * and lct. You posted as I was writing this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 13, 2011 Share #43 Posted April 13, 2011 I used to use focus confirmation with my 5D but it is far from being as accurate as a good rangefinder. Even a mediocre RF like that of my R-D1 does better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted April 13, 2011 Share #44 Posted April 13, 2011 However laser guidance (as distinct from rangefinding) requires effectively continuous illumination. I'll leave that there. This kind of laser illumination is not visible to the naked human eye but can be highly injurious of course. You REALLY do not want to be looking in the direction of the designator even before the very high speed arrival of a large lump of hardware with explosives inside. But this is getting well out of a discussion on Leica rangefinders The military laser range-finder uses an exceedingly short exposure, lest one become a target. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted April 13, 2011 Share #45 Posted April 13, 2011 Focus shift is a lens problem, not a rangefinder problem. Correct. It is compensated automatically with an SLR or an EVIL because you "see" behind the lens. That statement would be true – if we would focus our SLR lenses stopped down. But we don't. Since the late 1950's, SLR lenses have automatic diaphragms, and we focus wide open, then stop down automatically before the shutter fires. And the focus shift does not appear until we stop the lens down, remember? And an EVIL camera with automatic diaphragm has the same problem. A primitive EVIL camera without it is another matter, but there are limits to how far the finder can compensate for the darker image, and also to how well an autofocus mechanism can function in half-darkness inside the camera ... The old man from the Age of the Kine-Exakta Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted April 13, 2011 Share #46 Posted April 13, 2011 That statement would be true – if we would focus our SLR lenses stopped down. But we don't. I do Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 13, 2011 Share #47 Posted April 13, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) ..That statement would be true – if we would focus our SLR lenses stopped down... It is true for those who focus stopped down like R owners using nikanopus bodies including yours truly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scsambrook Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share #48 Posted April 13, 2011 I'm wondering - it's a long shot - but did we work together at Upper Heyford in the Sixties? None of the technology we had then is still classified. Thanks for the comments and the questions. No, I'm afraid we didn't work together in the past, I'm neither engineer nor scientist. If I were either I would probaby be able to make a more robust contribution towards answering my own questions, as well as having a proper grasp of the technologies available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted April 13, 2011 Share #49 Posted April 13, 2011 Hi I'd not feel bad, the best ideas I ever worked on were some one elses. I allus gave them credit for the origon. The ideas people were always upset when there was a practical snag, more so when they were aware of timescales - for change. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scsambrook Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share #50 Posted April 13, 2011 Top marks to Leica Camera UK for replying quickly to my enquiry of yesterday about the accuracy of the M9 rangefinder. The reply states that: The intended accuracy of a Leica rangefinder is +/- 0%, and there is no published +/- variance in the technical specifications of the M9 [presumably compared to other M cameras]. and when taking pictures of subjects closer than ten metres, the rangefinder needs to be calibrated perfectly. That sounds about as strict a standard as anyone could want - as the saying goes, "You can't beat that with a stick". But, it does perhaps lead back to my original question as to whether a correctly calibrated rangefinder can give imperfect results under some temporaryconditions - for example, particularly high and sustained temperatures. It's a question, not an assertion ! If we get a hot summer, I can do some tests . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 13, 2011 Share #51 Posted April 13, 2011 Bring a bailiff with you to be sure or listen to photogs here or elsewhere using Leica Ms for decades all over the world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted April 13, 2011 Share #52 Posted April 13, 2011 It is true for those who focus stopped down like R owners using nikanopus bodies including yours truly. When I was using R lenses on Canon bodies I always focussed wide open and then stopped down. Maybe it's me, but it was the only way I could actually see what I was photographing well enough to be sure it was in focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted April 13, 2011 Share #53 Posted April 13, 2011 I suggest that we should start to accept that the optical rangefinder in the Leica is approaching the end of its days and that a third, major, re-invention of the camera is inevitable. Someone who had used the first Leica M camera would be easily able to pick up and use an M9. All the key elements remain the same including the rangefinder focus system as they did in the M8 (which I do not see as a reinvention of the M camera at all). Remove the rangefinder and you no longer have an M camera so I don't believe that you could class a camera without a rangefinder as an M camera. No doubt we will see all sorts of technical innovations and changes over the next few years, but some of us simply don't see the need to alter a system that works, and will of course continue to work, within its design limitations. We've been over innumerable suggested modifications and alterations to the Leica M on the forum. What is it about the M's simplistic approach to image creation which is so difficult to accept I wonder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 13, 2011 Share #54 Posted April 13, 2011 When I was using R lenses on Canon bodies I always focussed wide open and then stopped down... Too slow for me. I'm using a split image focus screen which doesn't darken too much at faster apertures than f/5.6-f/6.3. Thanks to low isos and fast shutter speeds, full ap. to f/4 work fine in most situations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted April 13, 2011 Share #55 Posted April 13, 2011 Well, I am just one of those peasants, too lowly for consideration here, who used my SLR lenses on the bodies they were built for. The old man from the Age of the Kine-Exakta (remember the Springblende?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 13, 2011 Share #56 Posted April 13, 2011 Well, I am just one of those peasants, too lowly for consideration here, who used my SLR lenses on the bodies they were built for... As some of us did before the stillborn R10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted April 13, 2011 Share #57 Posted April 13, 2011 When I was using R lenses on Canon bodies I always focussed wide open and then stopped down. Maybe it's me, but it was the only way I could actually see what I was photographing well enough to be sure it was in focus. With my Canon, I tend not to stop down further than 5.6/8 and can still focus in daylight, plus my adaptor works with the focus confirmation (although I do sometimes get an OOF shot!). I'll open up - focus - stop down in poorer light conditions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scsambrook Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share #58 Posted April 13, 2011 . . . Remove the rangefinder and you no longer have an M camera so I don't believe that you could class a camera without a rangefinder as an M camera. . . . . What is it about the M's simplistic approach to image creation which is so difficult to accept I wonder? Now, Paul, I didn't suggest removing the rangefinding device, did I? I suggested that it might possibly be replaced with another form of distance meter using an alternative technology. A manually controlled range measuring device doesn't necessarily have to be an optical one, nor should it have any impact on the simpicity of operating the camera. The 're-invention' of the camera to which I referred has nothing to do with its operating concept but with the possible substition of one technology for another in its construction - as with the shift from film to digital image recording in the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted April 13, 2011 Share #59 Posted April 13, 2011 ...then the M would be dead, it's soul sold in the name of "progress". What on earth is the practical difference between "removal" and "replacement" anyway? An "alternative technology" doesn't wash. The challenge of using an optical rangefinder is a large part of what I enjoy about my M cameras. I wouldn't buy an M without one. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted April 13, 2011 Share #60 Posted April 13, 2011 ...The challenge of using an optical rangefinder is a large part of what I enjoy about my M cameras. I wouldn't buy an M without one... Neither would i but the feasibility of a clip-on EVF remains to be studied together with CMOS and live view IMHO. YMMvastlyV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.