Jump to content

Composing with a rangefinder


frogfish

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello dear photographers,

 

I would like to put something to discussion. I am really interested in your opinion.

 

Mostly I photograph people, with 35 or 50 mm, unposed, often in motion, often wide often.

My main tools are the M9 or my D700 (only with primes).

 

The main problem I have with my M9 is not the focus, of course not the fully manual operation which I love.

The problem I have is that i find it hard to compose the picture. It is hard to see the 35mm framelines all at once and they are not very accurate. Furthermore there are the problem with the parallax effect, which can be quite annoying when trying to compose exact for example through a door or with people close on the foreground.

 

 

When I shoot my Leica I often see the picture, just raise the camera, focus (because I shoot wide open), and take the picture. The results are more than OK for me.

 

But, when I use my Nikon it starts of course with the same "seeing the picture", than raising the camera, focus is snapp on and than I find myself composing more carefully, like:

"Ok, the hand is in, the head a bit cut off - that´s all right. OK, a tiny step back (very easy with autofocus), oh, and a little movement to the right - better - your are fine - take it."

The outcome is often much better when compared with the Leica.

In one sentence: composing the picture in the camera...

 

 

I believe I am not the only with this problem because I once read that Ascough who was famous for his Leica wedding photography switched to Canon and one of the reasons for this was that he found the composing with a rangefinder was not precise enough.

 

 

Please let me know what you think about this, if you have similar problems and if you found a way to work with this.

 

have a nice day,

heiko

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Heiko

 

It is useful always to think of each image taken as requiring a crop, say a few percent on every side. That way you'll be certain what you want to capture is caught by the sensor/film. With the M9 there are plenty of pixels for a crop so there's not much lost using this process.

 

The Wiki describes the M9's frameline accuracy like this:

 

Correspondence between the viewfinder and the actual image - At a focusing distance of 1 meter, the bright-line frame size corresponds precisely to that of a sensor of 23.9 × 35.8 mm. Focused at infinity, and depending on the focal length, approx. 7.3% (28 mm) to 18 % (135 mm) more of the sensor is covered than the bright-line frame actually shows, the opposite is the case for focusing distances less than 1 meter, i.e. somewhat less.

 

Experienced rangefinder photographers (and there are loads at this forum who, I'm sure, will chime in regarding their technique) will have learnt the distance settings of the focus ring of their lenses. Many set it at 3m, estimate the distance to the subject and compensate while raising the camera to their eye and take the picture. With a slightly smaller aperture, say around f8 - to allow for sufficient DOF the rate of well-focused photos will be high.

 

Using a rangefinder really does require more from the photographer in terms of pure photographic skill. But it is infinitely more rewarding than SLRs (imho).

 

Btw - Judging from how you describe your use of the camera ("raise the camera, focus (because I shoot wide open), and take the picture") I guess you mean you shoot with small apertures, ie high numbers, not wide open.

 

cheers

philip

Edited by philipus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have been using M8/M9 for about 3 years now.

Feel otherwise quite comfortable with it. All the mechanics have become second nature.

 

Would love to shoot with it, the problem is, my Nikon shots are better, hand down.

 

 

I learned to some degree how to compensate for example parallax, but that I have to do with my mind, means concentrating on it.

"OK, the small opening in the door, the kid behind it, looks good like it is - OK go a little bit to the left to compensate for parallax, take it."

 

If doing so I cannot rely on my feelings what feels right in terms of composing.

When I see a picture in my "through the lens" system, I just know it´s right, without thinking about recomposing and how it may look like.

 

thank you for your input,

heiko

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, you've had it for a while, so there's something more involved than just lack of experience.

 

It sounds like you're more deliberate with the DSLR, willing to step back, recompose, etc. Perhaps you could try being more deliberate with your M as well. You won't be shot by the Leica police by not 'shooting from the hip' all the time. Maybe after taking your time you'll develop some better habits and instincts for when you want to be more spontaneous.

 

Either that, or the M viewing experience isn't your cup of tea as much. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I choose a camera first and foremost for the viewing experience. If I don't get along with the way I see (and focus) with any given camera, the rest is irrelevant. Just as an aside, I do like the 2m frame lines with the M8.2 better than the 1m lines on the M9 for my typical shooting distances. But one should learn to adapt to any specs over time; you've got another issue.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you want to do precise in-camera framing, then a DSLR is the better tool. But I'm confused as to how you feel the D700 is doing this for you since it's only a 95% viewfinder. To do true in-camera framing you need the D3s/D4 which are 100%.

 

For doing copy work or macro work, etc., it's important. But while you may not get precise framing with a rangefinder and its corresponding frame lines (clearly not very good for copywork or in-camera framing), the advantage is that you can see outside the framing which gives you a way to watch your frame and quickly adjust composition by seeing what's not being included. It's a great tool for 'keeping an eye on the entire scene' enveloping in front of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have 18 megapixels to play with.....

 

Crop the photos.

 

That's what generations of photographers have done.

 

Theres no rule that says what comes out of the camera has to be perfectly composed and aligned every time.

 

If you haven't got enough spare around the subject then you need to go wider lens wise....

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a common mistake to think the Leica M (or other rangefinders) are supposed to be just cute little lightweight SLRs.

 

They aren't - they are a whole different way of seeing the world. As Magnum photographer David Alan Harvey (David Alan Harvey) once put it, "Rangefinders are as different from SLRs as they are from view cameras."

 

Personally, I find the "sloppiness" of RF composition to be a benefit, even liberating. It forces me to concentrate on things that are more (IMHO) important, like composition in time (gestures, expressions, moments), or the relationships of things within the frame (near/far, big/small), rather than around the edges. And I enjoy the occasional "happy accident" when something unplanned or unseen turns up in the frame.

 

Take a look at an essay by quintessential "Leica" photographer Susan Meiselas, and you'll see the edges of the pictures are often "accidental." USA. NEW YORK. 1976-1979. Prince Street Girls

 

If that esthetic works for you, the Leica is a great little camera. If it doesn't - well, that's why SLRs were invented....

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way around the parallax unless the subject is very static. If that really is an issue with an appreciable number of pictures, then rangefinder cameras are not the best tools for you.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifically photographers with a style that provokes questions like this -there must be many, diehard RF adepts are a small minority,after all- feel the preview lever of the M is a great help in composing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In an SLR's viewfinder, you're seeing the picture. In a rangefinder's viewfinder, you're seeing the scene. Some photographers prefer the one, others prefer the other.

 

Another way to say this is that the RF is akin to looking through a window, while the SLR allows one to see more as the camera sees, i.e., with DOF changes.

 

I think of it as seeing (or attempting to see) the picture in both cases, with the RF also allowing one to see outside that picture (dependent on frame lines). But not everyone is adept at seeing that RF picture in advance, visualizing both framing and DOF, including the inherent frameline inaccuracy. Additionally, not all SLRs show the entire picture.

 

And, yes, it's all about personal preferences.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello heiko,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

There is another thing which might be @ issue which no 1, yourself included, has mentioned so far:

 

W/ M cameras as you focus the frame lines do not change in size reflective of the increasinging coverage of the lens as you move to Infinity from the closest setting. But: The fixed sized frames do move out to the top left corner within the viewfinder itself. This is how an M camera compensates for parallax.

 

The rangefinder patches always move in unison w/ the finder frames because what you are looking at/thru is really a combined range/viewfinder.

 

Parallax is only corrected for what you are focussing on if you compose & frame your picture after the rangefinder images are aligned on your point of focus.

 

When you zone focus: If you compose in the viewfinder when the lens is set @ a different distance than the distance from the camera to the subject: Then parallax will not necessarily be appropriately compensated for in the viewfinder.

 

These are silly cameras.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way to say this is that the RF is akin to looking through a window, while the SLR allows one to see more as the camera sees, i.e., with DOF changes.

 

I think of it as seeing (or attempting to see) the picture in both cases, with the RF also allowing one to see outside that picture (dependent on frame lines). But not everyone is adept at seeing that RF picture in advance, visualizing both framing and DOF, including the inherent frameline inaccuracy. Additionally, not all SLRs show the entire picture.

 

And, yes, it's all about personal preferences.

 

Jeff

 

The view in an SLR / TLR / view camera is the image projected by the lens onto a screen, in other words it is already 2-dimensional.

 

When you look through viewfinder, you are looking through a window. Even with one eye, the scene is still full of depth clues which your brain uses.

 

The 'window' is arguably quicker than the 'screen' and suits some styles of photography more than others. Nevertheless, no matter which method is used, it needs practice and experience for the photographer to 'see' how the 3-dimensional scene will be translated into a 2-dimensional image. In fact, this problem has exercised artists through the ages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What many people do not seem to realize: the parallax makes it difficult to precisely align things. If you want the edges of things to coincide which are at different distances, the few centimeters between the finder and the lens can make a great difference.

 

Just look at a room or even a cityscape with each eye in turn. Things do jump about, don't they?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...