Basic Questions

[JimGoshorn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My first post here so I have some basic questions about the camera and lenses as I am investigating the system.

 

1. Since I would be dealing with a rangefinder, how do you judge framing using the field of view lines in the viewfinder? As I understand it, they are only accurate at the minimum focus distance.

 

2. I know that Summilux, Summicron and Summarit lenses have different f stops for their widest opening. When it comes to how the lenses draw an image (sharpness, contrast, blur, micro-contrast, "Leica look"), are there any differences? Are those differences a factor of the lens having a wider f stop? I am curious if you shot the same subject framed the same at f4 with each of the 50's for example, would you be able to tell the difference?

 

3. Since the M9 has such resolution, is it difficult to hand hold and still maintain the resolution? One of the attractions for me is the idea of having a smaller and lighter camera than my 1Ds3 for taking with me.

 

4. How difficult is it to judge depth of field without being able to look through the lens? From what I have read so far, the depth of field markings on the lenses are off by 1 to 2 stops since they are based on calculations for film.

 

Thanks for your patience and assistance with my questions ( I'm sure there will be more )

 

Jim

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

1. Technically, there has been some variation, especially in the M8/8.2/9 sequence, of the distance for which the framelines were optimized (Min. focus, 1 meter, 2 meters). But yes, the lines are optimized for framing at only one distance.

 

There have also been some focal-length-specific variations - e.g. in the M8, the 75mm lines were hopelessly wrong (one got a LOT more in the final picture than the lines predicted), but are much better in the M9.

 

Basically, you just have to learn how a given lens changes framing with focus distance - the longer the lens, the greater the change. Chimp and reshoot. And/or resort to cropping if needed. There were, once upon a time, recommendations in the instruction manuals (not sure if they still exist in the M9 manual) to the effect that: focused at min. distance, frame one frameline thickness INSIDE the lines, and at infinity, frame 2-3 line thicknesses OUTSIDE the lines.

 

I was able to frame fairly effectively with a 135mm lens and the M8 (which had no lines for 135 lenses) once I "learned" where the frame edges would fall relative to the focusing rectangle.

 

2. There are not - IMHO - specific "looks" associated with the names Summicron, Summilux, etc. I.E. a 35 Summilux does not necessarily "draw" like a 75 Summilux (even allowing for the difference in focal length). Those names are strictly descriptive of max. aperture.

 

There are similarities between lenses designed in the same era - sometimes - that cross over the name/aperture groups. I.E. lenses designed around 1980 by the Canadian Leitz design group tend to have similarities, regardless of whether they are 'luxes or 'crons or Elmarits - and the ASPHs designed by Solms since 1990 tend to have a (different) "family" look.

 

"Look" is related more to the design philosophies and priorities of the designers (for example, maximized resolution in the middle of the image (Mandler/Canada) vs. evenness of sharpness across the whole image (Solms)). And to the glasses and other tools (relatively easy and cheap ASPH surfaces, or floating elements) available at different points in time.

 

According to the August 2011 issue of LFI magazine, there are differences visible among the various 50s as relates to contrast, blur, etc.) I found the printed examples to be a bit muddy, but even so, some differences showed through.

 

3. IMHO - the M9 (but also film Ms) is easier to hand-hold with wide-angles, but shows a surprising tendency for camera/lens shake with a 135mm (I get shake-marks even at 1/250th sometimes). The Ms are easy to hand-hold if the whole camera/lens package is compact - but with a physically longer telephoto waving around in the breeze, the lack of mass and balance can make the Ms less hand-holdable than an SLR.

 

4. As Leica photographer Charlie Harbutt put it, "Rangefinder users see the whole world sharp; SLR users see the world at f/1.4." If one has time, SLRs have a DoF preview button - but when working fast, Harbutt's dictum still holds true.

 

Personally, I'm of the "make the main subject sharp, and let the other stuff fall where it will" school when it comes to DoF. But again, I have learned roughly what will happen if I shoot, for example, a 75 @ f/1.4 and .75 meters (see attached) - so I usually end up with about what I expected. And occasionally some happy surprises.

 

There's another old dictum attributed to both Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlander, that "I photograph things to see how they look photographed." Whoever the source, obviously he was a rangefinder photographer. SLR photographers can know precisely what the photograph will look like before they push the button.

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!

[JimGoshorn]

Andy,

 

I asked about the looks in hopes of helping me make a decision on lens selection other than f stop and price. Looks like I'm not going to get off that easy. For my Canon, I have many large aperture lenses but then Canon glass is just a tad less expensive.

 

As far as hand holding the camera, would you say that holding the 90 would be OK or is that even too long?

 

When I first worked with large aperture lenses, I always looked to separate the subject with all the bokeh the lens could provide. After a while, the bokeh got to look too unrealistic in it's separation of the subject and it's surroundings so I am much more selective in how I use it hence my question on controlling depth of field as accurately as possible.

 

When you started with rangefinders, how long did it take you to get the hang of using them well?

 

Thanks!

 

Jim

[adan]

The post-1980 90 Summicrons tend to be massive, and relatively stubby (long but also fat). So I've not had much shake noticeable with those. The 90 Tele-Elmarits are designed to be as compact as possible, so little trouble with those, either. Not enough experience with the Summarit or the longer 90 Elmarits (or the really long pre-1980 Summicrons) to speak to those.

 

As to choosing lenses, you'll just have to find resources. There is a site called ReidReviews.com that puts a high priority on discussing "drawing" as well as raw performance specs, for a variety of Leica mount lenses including the Voigtlanders and Zeiss ZMs - does require a subscription fee, though. Welcome to ReidReviews

 

Erwin Puts has a site with a more technical slant. Some people think he talks pure piffle, and in generally he damns with faint praise the lenses I like most - but he has been a long-time internet reviewer of Leica lenses, as well as publishing a couple of books. Home Check the Leica>Lens menu item for his lens reviews going back a decade or so.

 

My own take on some of the 1980's-era lenses is here:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses.html

 

Other parts of this forum as well.

 

Take 'em all with a grain of salt, naturally.

__________

 

As to starting with rangefinders - as the old saying goes, I'm an expert at that; I've done it so many times.

 

Tried a Leica IIIc, a Nikon SP, and a Canon P in college in the 1970's - M2s and M4-2s in the 1980's - kept going back to SLRs because I didn't "get" RFs yet - and/or because of paying more for a less "capable" camera. But I always tended to shoot SLRs in a "rangefinder" way: loved wideangles and split-image focus prisms, and most of the work I emulated was done by RF photographers (Magnum etc.)

 

Come 1999, and, to borrow from old RR, "I didn't leave SLRs; they left ME." They just got TOO blimpy and heavy (actually, the writing was on the wall once the Nikon F4 appeared in 1990), and quit providing those split-image screens in favor of illuminated AF "points". So I got a Contax G system. I did most of my learning on the Contaxes - getting used to no DoF preview (or even any visual indication of actual focus), accesory viewfinders, limitations on close-focus and long lenses, etc.

 

I guess that process took about 6 months - but as I said, I was already shooting somewhat in RF mode even with SLRs, so I was halfway there to begin with.

 

Without getting into gory details, I decided the even-more-manual Leicas were more responsive, so made that switch in 2001.

 

Ultimately, my shooting style changed to meet the strengths of the RF. Less attention to composing in space, and more to composing in time. Going for "the moment" rather than "the graphics."

[lars_bergquist]

I do generally agree with what Andy says, but I would like to chime in on a couple of points:

 

As far as hand holding the camera, would you say that holding the 90 would be OK or is that even too long?

 

Given the correct holding technique (control your breathing, hold in that waving left elbow, learn trigger control from target shooters) I have no problems with holding even the 135 at reasonable speeds. It is reallly a question of mindfulness: Keep your mind on what you are doing.

 

When I first worked with large aperture lenses, I always looked to separate the subject with all the bokeh the lens could provide. After a while, the bokeh got to look too unrealistic in it's separation of the subject and it's surroundings so I am much more selective in how I use it hence my question on controlling depth of field as accurately as possible.

 

The industry standard on d.o.f. (c.o.c. 1/30 mm) was obsolete already before WWII, as people started to enlarge their negs to sizes above postcard size. A rule of thumb is to apply the scale at half the nominal f-stop numbers, e.g. when using f:8 read the scale at f:4. – The obvious conclusion is that only real wide angle lenses have useful d.o.f. In practice, I point-focus even landscapes – and the M9 is a really good landscape camera!

 

In quick-action work, there is no time for d.o.f. calculations whatever the camera. You set an aperture that is appropriate to the situation, and fire away. Insight comes with experience, and experience comes with fast digital feedback. See the picture, taken with a 25mm lens. That is zone focusing pure and simple.

 

When you started with rangefinders, how long did it take you to get the hang of using them well?

 

Thanks!

 

Jim

 

I can't remember because I have used and preferred RF cameras for half a century now, using cameras as different as small folding Retinas to a massive Mamiya press camera that you could beat a horse to death with. In retrospect, it seems that even in film days, the learning curve was short. Today, it is even shorter.

 

The old man from the Age of the Retina IIIC

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!

[spydrxx]

I'll jump in with a few thoughts. For many people the RF learning curve is longer than they anticipate, because they either haven't used cameras previously, or they developed sloppy habits which they thought a different type of camera would compensate for. By way of example, squeezing the trigger rather than punching it; overly analyzing a picture thru the viewfinder (for things like purported DOF - which isn't necessarily accurate in SLR viewfinders) and not thinking about overall composition. I suspect from your questions, your curve will be much shorter. I've been using RF cameras for over 1/2 century and from what I remember of the learning curve, it wasn't so much the fine details (which come with any camera), or even how to visualize, but rather the mechanics of photography...aperture & shutter speed, practicing hand holding a camera to develop the muscles, breathing techniques to reduce shake when releasing the shutter, taking off the lenscap before shooting, remembering to wind after each shot so as to be ready for the next one, and finally remembering to set hyperfocal distances where appropriate....pretty basic stuff. I've used RF and SLR cameras pretty much interchangeably for over 40 years...and IMHO it just isn't a big deal switching from one to another and back again.

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes! Especially the lens cap!

 

I'm not joking. You don't look through the lens, so you can try to take pictures with the lens cap on.

 

Doing that is of course the mark of the true Leica pro. The manager of a lab once told me that it was mostly pros who took 36 pictures on their naked pressure plate, because they got negligent with their loading procedure. Rank amateurs took the loading procedure seriously, and did it right ... Same with lens caps.

 

The old man from the Age of Gelatine and Silver

[Jeff S]

SLR photographers can know precisely what the photograph will look like before they push the button.

 

Andy, I agree with all you wrote, except this. (I trust, though, that you didn't mean this in the totally literal sense.) The wonder, of course, partly comes from taking a 3 dimensional view and placing it on a 2 dimensional print, plus a whole lot of other stuff that the brain doesn't detect in real time. The wonder of this is only equalled by the magic of watching a print come up in the developer, although those darkroom days are gone for me now.

 

For the OP, I would stress that differences in lenses (and other gear) only matter in the final print, not on a computer screen.

 

Jeff

[danedit28]

As for transition time, it took me a few months... I had shot with an SLR for roughly 20 years until buying an M9 last winter. It wasn't until I ultimately decided to sell the SLR gear and shoot exclusively with the M9 that I really got the hang of it and now it's pretty natural and not once over the past several thousand frames have I thought "man, I wish I had an SLR right now."

 

I'll echo what others said about measuring DoF in that it really just comes from experience. If I'm shooting a single subject, I'll open up as wide as I want. But I know that if I'm shooting two subjects in a similar plane that I'll want f/4 or f/5.6. And if I'm trying to capture a large area I'll flick the ring to f/8 and so on... you also learn how distance to your subject affects the DoF and I hardly ever find myself surprised at the image.

 

This has also been said a thousand times but as long as my shutter speed is quick enough, I know I'm shooting tack sharp with the M9 every time. I *never* had that confidence with the AF of an SLR. Even shooting MF on an SLR never gave me the same consistent results I get with the rangefinder. Time spent shooting on the rangefinder also teaches you sloppy you can be when trying to focus quickly if your iris is stopped down. In other words, if you're shooting around f/4, you don't have to have perfect convergence on your subject and your image will still come out perfectly in focus.

[stunsworth]

Practice and experience covers most of the questions you've asked. It will probably feel strange at first, but the chances are that you will get used to the rangefinder system the more that you use it. If you don't manage to make the transaction don't worry about it, some people are more comfortable with an SLR.

 

Regarding the issue about not knowing the DOF in a rangefinder camera, since most people use SLRs without habitual use of the stop down lever/button it's just as much of an issue for them as it is for someone who uses a rangefinder. Again it's down to practice.

[JimGoshorn]

Thanks Guys for all your advice!

 

Andy

 

Lens references are very interesting. I have been googling and reading any reviews I have found so far. As much as I read them and look at sample images, the only way to get a true idea is to look at prints. Did download the examples at Leica's site but many of them are JPEG's. Not exactly the best to judge by.

 

Lars

 

The differences between film and digital when it comes to the DOF markings on the lenses is really something. Almost makes me yearn for film again.

 

Spyrdxx

 

Even though the DOF preview button only results in an approximation, at least it gives one an idea of what they will get. It's not a big deal to do some testing and practice.

 

As far as the mechanics of manual shooting, in the past I have shot with Nikon, Mamiya, Hasselblad and Linhof so that part is like an old friend - just need to get reacquainted. The idea of manual controls and the optics is what got me curious about the M in the first place. In the beginning I thought the electronics, customizability, buttons, wheels would make things faster and easier (don't even want to talk about micro adjusting all my lenses for focus). After years of having to fiddle around with all that stuff and lugging the weight of the EOS-1 cameras, the thought of a light manual camera seems like a breathe of fresh air. My ideal camera would be one with manual controls and an imaging sensor with minimal electronics which is basically the M so I am willing to compromise on the rangefinder part I am surprised that Leica eliminated aperture rings in the lenses though otherwise that would have been perfect (other than price - ouch).

 

Jeff

 

Yes, I agree with you about needing to see prints to really know what results the lenses give. Unfortunately, I am about a 3 hour drive each way from the nearest Leica dealer

 

Stunsworth

 

Yes, it's going to take a lot of practice and some specific testing for DOF to get comfortable with this kind of change.

 

Jim

[pico]

My first post here so I have some basic questions about the camera and lenses as I am investigating the system. [...]

 

You have received many good responses but IMO, you have to borrow one and use it to answer your questions. Nothing can replace experience.

[Jeff S]

Jeff

 

Yes, I agree with you about needing to see prints to really know what results the lenses give. Unfortunately, I am about a 3 hour drive each way from the nearest Leica dealer

 

Jim, as an option you could rent an M9 and a Leica lens or two from here. Then make your own prints.

 

Jeff

[JimGoshorn]

Thanks for the rental link. Definitely something to think about.

 

Another question I just thought of: I like wide angle lenses and I noticed that if you go wider than 28 you have to look at auxiliary finders. So if I were at some point to add a 24 and 21, I would have to buy 2 finders and keep switching back and forth?

 

Jim

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks for the rental link. Definitely something to think about.

 

Another question I just thought of: I like wide angle lenses and I noticed that if you go wider than 28 you have to look at auxiliary finders. So if I were at some point to add a 24 and 21, I would have to buy 2 finders and keep switching back and forth?

 

Jim

 

Hi Jim,

 

There are a number of viewfinder options available.

 

The Frankenfinder (a huge ugly thing that owners seem to really enjoy using) covers all wide focal lengths.

 

Then there are specific viewfinders for each lens - Leica, Zeiss and CV make them, each of varying quality (more on the Leica Site).

 

I have a metal Leica viewfinder for my 21 mm lens. It was made in the pre-digital era. I understand that the current viewfinders have frame lines for both the M8 and the M9, which means (I believe) that on the newer viewfinder, the M8 frame approximates to the 24 mm lens and the M9 frame lines for the 21.

 

Someone more clever than me should be able to confirm whether or not the 21 mm image on an M8 approximates to the 24 mm image on an M9.

 

Cheers

John

[adan]

There was a 21-24-28 zoom finder made in the 1990's. Bigger than the individual finders, but it saves having to swap finders. 28 was included because not all M film cameras have built-in 28 lines, and for some, the built-in 28 frame is so wide it is hard to see.

 

Conversely, some claim they successfully use a 24mm and NO extra finder, using the "whole viewfinder" area for framing. My Leica rep's husband uses a 21 with no finder. Doesn't work for me - but we Leica users are individualists...

[jaapv]

confirm whether or not the 21 mm image on an M8 approximates to the 24 mm image on an M9.

 

Cheers

John

 

It is more like a 28

[adli]

 

As far as hand holding the camera, would you say that holding the 90 would be OK or is that even too long?

 

Jim

 

Here is an example with the 90 cron hand held at 1/60. Hard to find any visible camera shake here:

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Stateowned]

there is always the DOF scale on the lens its self..

 

once you get more used shooting with it it gets easier to determine what your DOF likely will be at the used aperture..

[lars_bergquist]

Someone more clever than me should be able to confirm whether or not the 21 mm image on an M8 approximates to the 24 mm image on an M9.

 

I take you to mean whether a 21mm lens used on a M8 equals the field of view of a 24mm lens on the M9 (or any other full format camera) which is rather different from what you are saying. Jaap is right, it is more like a 28.

 

The crop factor is 1.33x. So here are the conversions full frame to M8:

 

18mm — 24mm

21mm — 28mm

24mm — 32mm

28mm — 37mm

35mm — 47mm

50mm — c. 69mm

75mm — 100mm

90mm — 120mm

135mm – 180mm

 

The '50mm' value is no mistake, as all Leica 50mm lenses (except the current Summarit, it seems) have a true focal length of close to 52mm. My own 50mm Summilux ASPH e.g. is marked to have a true focal length of 51.4mm.

 

The old man from the Age of the 5cm Elmar