andyedward Posted January 12, 2012 Share #1 Â Posted January 12, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) How accurate is close-range focussing on an M9? I understand the need to focus and recompose with a rangefinder, but is this accurate at close range? I always use a tripod and focus manually, so I`d hope this style would help me adapt to an M9. My local dealer previously had a one day rental offer, so I`ll give that a try if possible. Â Its the 35 and 50mm summilux lenses which lure me!!!! I cannot find dslr lenses with the same apparent image quality, which is by far my greatest priority. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Hi andyedward, Take a look here Focussing advice needed for potential M9 convert. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
DaveO Posted January 12, 2012 Share #2 Â Posted January 12, 2012 Try Zeiss lenses on your DSLR. They don't meter or AF, but in general they are close to Leica in build and optical quality at a much lower price. Also the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is supposedly superb. Â DaveO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 12, 2012 Share #3 Â Posted January 12, 2012 Close range? What distance do you mean? Focussing can only be described as pretty darn accurate, given a properly calibrated system and a proper focussing technique. However, if you are looking for macro, an M camera is not your thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share #4 Â Posted January 12, 2012 Thanks for your reply, jaapv. Â I mean close to minimum focussing distance. I have done macro and am over it. Â Image quality is my main priority, hence the need to switch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share #5 Â Posted January 12, 2012 Thanks for your reply, DaveO. Â I have read good things about zeiss lenses, and not so good things about the nikon 50/1,4. I believe Leica lenses, like my APO Macro Elmarit-R 100/2.8, are designed to have high contrast wide open, which 35 and 50mm zeiss lenses apparently do not have, hence my M interest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
likalar Posted January 12, 2012 Share #6 Â Posted January 12, 2012 I have no trouble nailing the focus at closest range, but am sometimes frustrated I can't get closer. For my 50 and 35 latest version Summicrons, it's approx. 24" give or take. Â As you probably already know, the bright frame lines automatically shift position as you focus, to make up for the fact that the lens and the viewfinder window are a couple inches away from each other. So, if you can, keep the DSLR for things like close-up shots, fast-action telephoto shots, etc. These shots can all be done with an M9 with the right pieces and skills, but IMO, it's worth it to keep a DSLR. Good luck. Â Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share #7 Â Posted January 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Larry, Thank you for the good tips and advice. The M is obviously a completely different animal, so I think my best option would be to rent one first. Â p.s. I love your LUF Albums Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveO Posted January 13, 2012 Share #8 Â Posted January 13, 2012 You might think about a Sony NEX 5N or NEX 7. They can also use the Leica lenses and can use a focusing trick that highlights what is in focus. I believe you can also enlarge the image on the lcd to better see how it is focused. Can't remember the term for this focusing something like focus tracking or something. The NEX 7 body is only about $ 1200 or so, but has an aps-c sensor instead of FF like the M 9. Oh, it's called focus peaking. Â DaveO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 13, 2012 Share #9  Posted January 13, 2012 For the NEX-5N or NEX-7 you could also take advantage of this adapter  HAWK'S FACTORY LEICA-M L-M to SONY NEX E-mount MACRO TUBE HELICOID | eBay.  According to the manufacturer, this adapter allows to focus down to these close focus distances:  28mm with minimum focus distance of 0.7m was able to focus at 0.2m -------- > ELMARIT 28/2.8 ASPH 35mm with minimum focus distance of 1m was able to focus at 0.28m -------- > SUMMILUX 35/1.4 V1 50mm with minimum focus distance of 1m was able to focus at 0.43m -------- > SUMMILUX 50/1.4 V1,NOCTILUX 50/1 V2, 50mm with minimum focus distance of 0.75m was able to focus at 0.38m ----- > SUMICRON 50/2 V5 75mm with minimum focus distance 1.2m was able to focus at 0.73m ----------- > HEKTOR 73/1.9 90mm with minimum focus distance 1m was able to focus at 0.73m -------------- > SUMMICRON 90/2 V3  The adapter is being offered so far sporadically for sale. It seems to be produced and sold in batches.  I ordered one today and should have it by the middle of February. Forum member Jono Slack, who hangs mostly out at the getdpi forum, seems to be impressed by that adapter.  K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 13, 2012 Share #10  Posted January 13, 2012 With a rangefinder camera, where you don't focus through the lens, focusing precision is not a function of the lens but of the focusing mechanism, the rangefinder. Just as precision with an autofocus camera depends on the AF sensors and the actuation software and hardware, not on the optics of the lens.  The accuracy of the rangefinder depends on its base length, just as in surveying. This base length does not vary with the focal length of the lens. An SLR camera, no matter its focus system in the finder, is less precise with wide angle lenses than with long lenses, because the in focus - out of focus difference is less apparent, both to the eye and to phase detection AF sensors. Therefore, a Leica M is simply vastly more accurate with a wide to medium length lens, than any SLR.  If you focus on a matte screen, you have to focus on small changes in subject contrast on the screen surface. This becomes more difficult the shorter the lens is (more intrinsical depth of field, less contrast difference). When we used split image or microprism fields, we actually used a simulated rangefinder inside the camera! But the base length was very small, never larger than the diameter of the open lens aperture diaphragm. This is why these devices could not use lenses slower than about 1:5.6.  As for AF mechanisms, they are in most cases somewhat less accurate than a matte screen. But they are fast and convenient, therefore popular. The problem is mainly that of determining what you or it is actually focusing on. You have marks on the screen saying 'here', but the sensors are not on the screen; you are not seeing what they do. With a Leica M you can focus on an object that is quite a bit smaller than the rangefinder patch – and still decide on what part of it you want to focus! That, Sir, is precision.  Here's the other side of the coin. With a SLR, the image that the machine, or you, focus on gets larger as the focal length increases. Effective base length is always the physical base length multiplied by the image magnification. This sum is constant in a RF camera, where the focusing image is in the rangefinder, but increases with the focal length in a SLR, where it is presented by the lens. So while the rangefinder gives much better accuracy with short lenses, this measure does not increase with increasing focal length. It is constant. Still, the requirement for accuracy increases with the focal length. Ergo, from 135mm or so, the SLR is at least potentially superior in accuracy to the RF.  The old man from the Age of Measuring Tape Focusing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2012 Share #11 Â Posted January 13, 2012 Noobody reads the M9 FAQ.... Â http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/130720-m9-faqs-frequently-asked-questions-answers.html#post1378521 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 13, 2012 Share #12  Posted January 13, 2012 Larry, Thank you for the good tips and advice. The M is obviously a completely different animal, so I think my best option would be to rent one first. p.s. I love your LUF Albums  Very good idea. On the other hand, if you manage to purchase a Leica M9 today and don't agree with it, you can sell it with little or no loss.  The same old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted January 13, 2012 Share #13 Â Posted January 13, 2012 Then go and rent a Nikon D3X or D4 that will be available at that point in time, hook it up with 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 AFS and compare AF curacy... Â Edit: The AF ability in the new 1.4 AFS lenses has been improved towards better AF accuracy, this is of course done in unison with the camera body A range finder with any 24 mm is not better/easier/faster/more accurate to focus than the new 24 1.4 AFS on a pro body, sorry! This was true in the old days... not any more. You are welcome to drop by and test this, if not in Copenhagen, please visit your local camera dealer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share #14 Â Posted January 13, 2012 I read good things about the nex 7 / m lens combination at Lloyd Chambers site. He mentioned that the nex could focus on a particular subject that wouldn`t have been possible with an M9, so it appears to be a good bet. Luminous Landscape compared the nex7 + 35 lux to an M9 + 50 lux, down-ressed the nex images to M9 size, and the results were very similar. When you consider that for the price of a M9 body alone, you could buy a nex 7 and a 35 lux! Â For me, the only downside is the crop sensor, but then such cameras (including the new Fuji x-pro) are making rapid progress, and I hope such manufacturers eventually release a full frame camera(?!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share #15 Â Posted January 13, 2012 Many thanks for the tip, K-hawinkler. Looks very promising! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share #16  Posted January 13, 2012 Noobody reads the M9 FAQ.... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/130720-m9-faqs-frequently-asked-questions-answers.html#post1378521  Thanks for reminding me, jaapv.  In regards to focussing, you wrote:  "Note that when one focusses and recomposes the camera will turn. For geometrical reasons one must bend slightly backwards to keep the focussing distance constant"  So does recomposing decrease the distance from camera to subject? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 13, 2012 Share #17 Â Posted January 13, 2012 So does recomposing decrease the distance from camera to subject? Â No, but by rotating the camera you are focussing on something that's further away than the subject, even if it's in the same plane as the subject. Â In practice I haven't found it a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share #18 Â Posted January 13, 2012 Thanks, Stunsworth. At one time Stephens Premier in Manchester rented an M9 for 24hrs, so I`ll phone them up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 13, 2012 Share #19  Posted January 13, 2012 At one time Stephens Premier in Manchester rented an M9 for 24hrs, so I`ll phone them up  I think they still do, a great dealer by the way.  Of all the cameras mentioned so far personally I'd go for the M9 if I could afford it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share #20 Â Posted January 13, 2012 I`d love an M9, but I`ve heard that focussing can be difficult, hence my reluctance. I`ve read great things about leica m lenses (from good, objective sources), but if I cannot nail focus with some consistency at close range then that excellent imaging quality will go untapped, and this is why the nex 7 interests me. Â I could afford an m9 if I sold my d3x. Apart from focussing, the only downside is that I`d miss my lovely elmarit r 100/2.8, (I no longer shoot macro with it, btw), but then most of my shooting is done with 35 and 50 focal length lenses. Â Unfortunately, nearly all 35 and 50mm dslr lenses have low contrast when wide open, unlike leica m. Apparently, dslr mirrors hit the rear element of the 35 lux r, and the 50 lux r wide open images have nervous bokeh. I want the same "leica look" I get from my 100/2.8 in 35 and 50mm lenses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.