mjh Posted July 19, 2011 Share #41 Posted July 19, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The only cameras designed for focus-and-recompose are those with multiple AF points; in fact Canon explicitly mentioned supporting focus-and-recompose as the main reason for the proliferation of AF points. And as someone already mentioned, Hasselblad has recently introduced support for focus-and-recompose with their True Focus system (using gyro sensors to detect movement after focusing so the AF can compensate for the error). With a rangefinder camera you are on your own, and if you intend to take advantage of the fast lenses that make Leica’s system so attractive you cannot just ignore the issue. So the claim that “Reframing & fast shooting wide open is one of the sets of circumstances M's were designed for” sounds a little odd (and to be frank, it’s wrong). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Hi mjh, Take a look here Focus recompose at f/0.95. (MERGED). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
250swb Posted July 19, 2011 Share #42 Posted July 19, 2011 Crikey this forum drives me nuts at times! Get a grip, there's only two of them, they can be defeated Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted July 19, 2011 Share #43 Posted July 19, 2011 Chaaaaaaaaaarge!!! :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 19, 2011 Share #44 Posted July 19, 2011 .... but, give me a film M-System anytime. .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted July 19, 2011 Share #45 Posted July 19, 2011 Hi Magic how these threads dissappear into adversial... If you have a low light sceane say a face at 2m exp 1/15 @ f/1.4 and an eyelash or hot spot on eye bayonet on you asph 28 or 35 and focus on lash or spot and shoot. Photoshop or enlarge out any offset or tilt, I know Leica have not done a 28 lux and you be better with the CV f/1.2... but the asphs will hold up well off axis, even near wide open... If you can get a DSLR (or face rec camera) to reliable focus on the eyelash or hot spot buy one. How often do you have e.g. a face at the edge of a frame? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted July 20, 2011 Share #46 Posted July 20, 2011 Hello Everybody, I would like to thank everybody who did for rereading my various Posts. It appears there are still some misconceptions about their content which I would like to try to clear up. The inacurate restatement of a person's Posts a number of times does not change the content of those original Posts into something else. The misquoted Posts are still misquoted. Practice, be it dry firing or anything else, increases familiarity & w/ increased familiarity often comes increased ability as previously less understood scenarios become better understood & relationships & movements become more reflexive & intuitive. The less you have to think about the structure of what you are doing the more you can focus on the goal of what you are doing. As to photography's relationship to hunting: One of the few differences between photography & hunting is 1 produces an image of a subject while the other makes a hole in it. Otherwise hunting & photography are pretty much the same thing. What you do to follow a moving target w/ a rifle is exactly what you do w/ a camera w/ a moving subject. Including the situations discussed in this Thread. Additionally to repeat: No one thinks a subject focussed on & framed @ 1 distance can be satisfactorially captured @ a different distance simply by reframing w/o regard to refocussing. "Focus - recompose" is a form of reframing w/o subsequent refocussing. BTW: Since it was not me could someone please tell me who it was who originally wrote "M's were designed to frame @ 1 distance, focus, then re-frame @ a second point & take a picture w/o re-focussing @ the new distance"? I seem to not be able to find that part. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 20, 2011 Share #47 Posted July 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) With a leica M, if your subject is off centre, and fairly still, then focus upon it then re-frame. Do not touch the focus and all will be just fine. It ain't rocket science. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted July 20, 2011 Share #48 Posted July 20, 2011 Hello pico, Only sometimes. That's the problem. When a person focusses on an object measuring from a point they are actually measuring a line the length of which when rotated in every direction possible from that focussing point describes the inside of a sphere. If a person frames a rectangular 2 dimensional image perpindicular to that line centered @ a point where it is tangential to the exterior surface of that sphere (assuming that sphere is infinitly thin) then the sides of the captured image are a measured greater distance from the original point than the center of the plane of focus & the portions inbetween are inbetween in distance. It is the surface of the sphere that is focussed @ a center point while the rest of the image captured & in focus is really futher from the film/sensor than the center. This is what the lenses we use are corrected to do. That's what all the foo & faw is about. Best Regards, Michael . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted July 20, 2011 Share #49 Posted July 20, 2011 The only cameras designed for focus-and-recompose are those with multiple AF points; in fact Canon explicitly mentioned supporting focus-and-recompose as the main reason for the proliferation of AF points.... Canon recommends against focus-recompose with shallow DOF. They recommend instead either adjust composition to suit the camera's AF points or focus manually. For my work adjusting composition to suit the camera's limitations is a serious no-no so IMHO the only real solution is to enable accurate focus at any location in the picture area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 20, 2011 Share #50 Posted July 20, 2011 The whole story about focus recompose giving a focus error because the object is closer by than the plane of focus after recompose, is only true if the camera remains at the same point while rotating. But in real life the camera moves away from the object because of the rotation you make with your head and shoulders. In the range of 1 to 2 meter with a 50 mm lens, this compensates the focus error largely. Just try it. This is how theory and practice can differ favourably! PS it all depends on focal length and object distance combination: the compensation does not work as well in all combinations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted July 20, 2011 Share #51 Posted July 20, 2011 BTW: Since it was not me could someone please tell me who it was who originally wrote "M's were designed to frame @ 1 distance, focus, then re-frame @ a second point & take a picture w/o re-focussing @ the new distance"? I seem to not be able to find that part. You have just described the question from the OP - to which your response was - Reframing & fast shooting wide open is one of the sets of circumstances M's were designed for. Perhaps it's not what you meant - it IS what you typed. Please don't accuse people of misquoting you when that was never the intent, nor the reality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 20, 2011 Share #52 Posted July 20, 2011 Canon recommends against focus-recompose with shallow DOF. They recommend instead either adjust composition to suit the camera's AF points or focus manually. For my work adjusting composition to suit the camera's limitations is a serious no-no so IMHO the only real solution is to enable accurate focus at any location in the picture area. But then, Doug, your work is done on a full matte screen SLR viewfinder... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted July 20, 2011 Share #53 Posted July 20, 2011 With a leica M, if your subject is off centre, and fairly still, then focus upon it then re-frame. Do not touch the focus and all will be just fine. It ain't rocket science. No, but it's still physics. Check the link I posted, or the line drawing from earlier in the thread and you'll realise you're a bit off here (as will be your focus). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted July 20, 2011 Share #54 Posted July 20, 2011 Hi Still adversial. If you focus and shoot with a wider angle lens and do not reframe you will get what you want, maybe but. Even sitting subjects can move such that you will be off focus, I need to focus and rock. So you guys must be doing still life e.g. Ming vases? Or merely bragging? If you are using a 9cm the focus rectangle is so large it normally includes the focus spot, I get a low success rate with a f/2 as subjects move, the best subjects are musicians who sway in time with the music lines. The auto focus cameras dont seem to hack eye high lights during gigs for me. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted July 20, 2011 Share #55 Posted July 20, 2011 But in real life the camera moves away from the object because of the rotation you make with your head and shoulders. If you are rotating around your axis rather than the camera’s, then the camera actually moves towards the subject when re-framing, thus increasing the error. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 20, 2011 Share #56 Posted July 20, 2011 If you are rotating around your axis rather than the camera’s, then the camera actually moves towards the subject when re-framing, thus increasing the error. Doesn't the effect of this vary with the camera to subject(s) distance? The movement towards the subject that you describe may well be smaller than the increased distance of the new focus-point from the original central focus point, if the camera/subject distance is great enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 20, 2011 Share #57 Posted July 20, 2011 If you are rotating around your axis rather than the camera’s, then the camera actually moves towards the subject when re-framing, thus increasing the error. No, the distance increases between object and camera. To show this I will make a drawing when I'm back. When you rotate around a vertical axis through your spine and your camera is in front of your head and you have the object focussed in the middle of the frame, your camera is on the line between your spine and the object. If you now reframe so that the object is on the left border of your frame, by rotating the camera around the vertical axis through your spine, the camera will move away from the line between object and spine and so the distance between camera and object increases after reframing. The same is true when you reframe the object to the right border of the frame. Drawing of this later... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 20, 2011 Share #58 Posted July 20, 2011 OK, here is the promised drawing. Focussing on the eye of the frog with the middle of the frame (where the rangefinder patch is) and turning the camera around the front focal point ( green dot, left hand image) creates a larger focus error than when rotating the camera around the spine (green dot, right hand image) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted July 21, 2011 Share #59 Posted July 21, 2011 Hello Lord Fluff, Thank you for your Post #51. One of the advantages to having been married to a number of lawyers is there are times when what is happening is clear. One of my wives, I think it might have been one who was a lawyer, maybe not, once said to me that the reason you never go to talk to the other person's lawyer when you are trying to settle a disagreement is you are going to educate, clarify and reasonably resolve the situation & the other person's lawyer has been hired to win. As I said previously repeating something which is inaccurate does not make it more accurate. In your Post #51 you refer to a statement I made earlier which I clarified specifically in my Post # 23 which you specifically responded to in your Post # 24. You can't have it 2 ways. Once you acknowledge my clarification, which you did in your # 24 it is not appropriate to bring it up in # 51 as if it had never been discussed. You are a very smart person. It is clear there is a lot you can add to this Forum & your input is impotant. What is the purpose of creating a battlefield in an environment which was designed for learning? Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 21, 2011 Share #60 Posted July 21, 2011 Hmmm, well the frogs are the high point of the discussion so far, they make far more sense than almost all the other posts put together. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.