Composing with a rangefinder

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, catacore said:

It's not about if the system is or is not for me, I was trying to make a point about M-system not being simple and straightforward in my own experience.

 

But ultimately it is about that, assuming you desire (prioritize) a simple and straightforward system, which it is for many others, including me. Newcomers will have to make their own determination, by trying.

Jeff

Edited March 27, 2023 by Jeff S

[catacore]

I think it is not fair to continue my complaints on a Leica forum.

I will only say this: I wanted very much to get back to the basics with the photographying process, and I thought the M-system is the answer. I enjoy very much taking photographs, meaning I like using a real camera and lens, adjusting myself all the parameters while aiming at a specific result. That's why I don't ever use my phone to take photos - because it does not offer me the experience of taking photos. But Leica did it for me in spades. Until I see the result. Which is (sometimes/many times) not what I was after. And all that magic just evaporates. So, for me, sometimes/many times it just simply not fit for the purpose. Everything is fine until I chimp. And I learned that I HAVE to chimp, because I learned I can't trust the output is what I meant it to be. And this simply destroys my full experience/enjoyment. And I have to say I have never made a penny from selling my photos, so I am under no pressure to get any specific results. I'm in this only for enjoynment.

So yes, the photographic process is simple and straighforward. But the result can, sometimes, be ... "surprising" 🤣

[gotium]

2 hours ago, catacore said:

I think it is not fair to continue my complaints on a Leica forum.

I will only say this: I wanted very much to get back to the basics with the photographying process, and I thought the M-system is the answer. I enjoy very much taking photographs, meaning I like using a real camera and lens, adjusting myself all the parameters while aiming at a specific result. That's why I don't ever use my phone to take photos - because it does not offer me the experience of taking photos. But Leica did it for me in spades. Until I see the result. Which is (sometimes/many times) not what I was after. And all that magic just evaporates. So, for me, sometimes/many times it just simply not fit for the purpose. Everything is fine until I chimp. And I learned that I HAVE to chimp, because I learned I can't trust the output is what I meant it to be. And this simply destroys my full experience/enjoyment. And I have to say I have never made a penny from selling my photos, so I am under no pressure to get any specific results. I'm in this only for enjoynment.

So yes, the photographic process is simple and straighforward. But the result can, sometimes, be ... "surprising" 🤣

Thought of trying the M-D?

[pop]

2 hours ago, catacore said:

I think it is not fair to continue my complaints on a Leica forum.

I don't think fairness is relevant or even applicable here. Your needs just happen to be different from those who have adapted to photographing with an M type camera. There must be lots and lots of people for whom the M does not really work, try as they might. Rangefinder cameras have their strengths, of course, but their usefulness comes to an abrupt end as soon as you leave a narrow set of circumstances.

Framing is not the strong suit of rangefinder cameras. People who need accurate framing better leave the M ecosystem alone.

[Michael Geschlecht]

4 hours ago, catacore said:

I think it is not fair to continue my complaints on a Leica forum.

I will only say this: I wanted very much to get back to the basics with the photographying process, and I thought the M-system is the answer. I enjoy very much taking photographs, meaning I like using a real camera and lens, adjusting myself all the parameters while aiming at a specific result. That's why I don't ever use my phone to take photos - because it does not offer me the experience of taking photos. But Leica did it for me in spades. Until I see the result. Which is (sometimes/many times) not what I was after. And all that magic just evaporates. So, for me, sometimes/many times it just simply not fit for the purpose. Everything is fine until I chimp. And I learned that I HAVE to chimp, because I learned I can't trust the output is what I meant it to be. And this simply destroys my full experience/enjoyment. And I have to say I have never made a penny from selling my photos, so I am under no pressure to get any specific results. I'm in this only for enjoynment.

So yes, the photographic process is simple and straighforward. But the result can, sometimes, be ... "surprising" 🤣

Hello catacore,

Welcome to the Forum.

You should continue with your observations & questions here. I don't read what you wrote as complaints. Questions & observations, along with responses to them, are part of what a Forum like this is for. 

I take a lot of photos of rocks, trees & flowers, etc. And I photograph artworks, etc. as part of my work. I don't think that I have quite as many problems as you are seeming to have. So I would like to explain what I do.

Keep in mind that "M" camera range/viewfinder frames show an angle of coverage INSIDE the frame lines that is always LESS than what is captured at a focusing distance that is designated in that camera's instruction book when the camera was manufactured. That means that the actual image captured on the sensor/film will be MORE than the scene you see INSIDE the frame lines. Please don't consider, or try, to figure what happens "in" the frame lines or "outside" the frame lines at the current time. These are later questions if you choose to consider them. 

At longer distances & at Infinity the CAPTURED IMAGE on the sensor/film will show EVEN MORE of the scene than is visible INSIDE the appropriate range/viewfinder frame lines when the lens is focused on a closer subject.

Because of the way the rangefinder/frame lines/viewfinder works (As a combination.): To take a photo you have to 1. Frame the scene . 2. Focus on the part of the scene that you want to be MOST in focus. 3. Reframe. 

And, if the important portion focused on is NOT near the center of the image being photographed: Compensation has to be made because the subject of interest is no longer in the center of the plane being focused on. You can ask more about that here. It is NOT hard to do. But, it is important to do.

Then you can take a photo.

This is a start. Ask questions please.

Happy photos.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited March 28, 2023 by Michael Geschlecht

[catacore]

7 hours ago, gotium said:

Thought of trying the M-D?

I guess I have to take this as a joke..?..

[catacore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, pop said:

 

Framing is not the strong suit of rangefinder cameras. People who need accurate framing better leave the M ecosystem alone.

Exactly, but one needs to use the camera first to realize this. Because info like "the framelines will compensate for parallax error at different focusing distances" does not tell the full story.

[catacore]

5 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello catacore,

Welcome to the Forum.

You should continue with your observations & questions here. I don't read what you wrote as complaints. Questions & observations, along with responses to them, are part of what a Forum like this is for. 

I take a lot of photos of rocks, trees & flowers, etc. And I photograph artworks, etc. as part of my work. I don't think that I have quite as many problems as you are seeming to have. So I would like to explain what I do.

Keep in mind that "M" camera range/viewfinder frames show an angle of coverage INSIDE the frame lines that is always LESS than what is captured at a focusing distance that is designated in that camera's instruction book when the camera was manufactured. That means that the actual image captured on the sensor/film will be MORE than the scene you see INSIDE the frame lines. Please don't consider, or try, to figure what happens "in" the frame lines or "outside" the frame lines at the current time. These are later questions if you choose to consider them. 

At longer distances & at Infinity the CAPTURED IMAGE on the sensor/film will show EVEN MORE of the scene than is visible INSIDE the appropriate range/viewfinder frame lines when the lens is focused on a closer subject.

Because of the way the rangefinder/frame lines/viewfinder works (As a combination.): To take a photo you have to 1. Frame the scene . 2. Focus on the part of the scene that you want to be MOST in focus. 3. Reframe. 

And, if the important portion focused on is NOT near the center of the image being photographed: Compensation has to be made because the subject of interest is no longer in the center of the plane being focused on. You can ask more about that here. It is NOT hard to do. But, it is important to do.

Then you can take a photo.

This is a start. Ask questions please.

Happy photos.

Best Regards,

Michael

Thanks Michael!

I have read a lot about the M-system and, also, have practiced a bit using it. So I know what I see through the viewfinder and also I know what I get on the sensor.

Here I was just expressing my frustration regarding the difference between the two. And I think one can't comprehend this just by reading about it, but one needs to see it in practice. Only then will he/she know if the M-system works for him/her or not.

As for me, I'm still debating (while awaiting my Cooke Speed Panchro II replica lens to be delivered from China).

[Jeff S]

13 hours ago, catacore said:

Exactly, but one needs to use the camera first to realize this. Because info like "the framelines will compensate for parallax error at different focusing distances" does not tell the full story.

Yes, experience is critical, as with every aspect of photography.  I, too, am an amateur enthusiast, and careful image framing is important for my photo style, particularly since I do all my own editing and printing, cut my own custom mats, and do my own framing.  Having worked extensively with other systems and formats, including 4x5, I recognize the value of paying attention to picture edges as part of overall composition.  
 

That said, after 35 years with an M, including decades with no possible ‘chimping’, I still find the M system fully compatible with my needs and preferences, including framing, ease of use and simplicity. While I can visualize my composition when shooting, I ensure that I leave enough room near any critical picture edges to provide for eventual overlapping of my custom mat. (I no longer float prints for dry mounting as in film days.). The unedited picture is never perfectly framed to the ultimate picture edge; otherwise there would be no leeway for the overlapping mat. This was true even when I used many non-RF based systems. For online presentation, I’ll crop to the desired edges, as foreseen when shooting. This is second nature for me, and doesn’t require chimping  or angst.  
 

For me, it’s the final print that matters, and my workflow gets me there quickly and reliably.  Others will have different needs and preferences, including camera choice.

Jeff

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello catacore,

The problems that you are having with framing are unclear to me. 

When you 1. Frame a scene. 2. Focus on the important subject, 3. Re-frame the scene. 4. Adjust focus for the important subject when it is not near the center of the scene.

And, then take a photo.

What is it about the captured image that is NOT in keeping with the scene that you were viewing INSIDE the frame lines in use when you took the photo?

Other than: You have captured a WIDER view, left to right & top to bottom, than you saw INSIDE the frame lines in use?

Which will always be the case.

Best Regards,

Michael

[catacore]

10 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello catacore,

The problems that you are having with framing are unclear to me. 

When you 1. Frame a scene. 2. Focus on the important subject, 3. Re-frame the scene. 4. Adjust focus for the important subject when it is not near the center of the scene.

And, then take a photo.

What is it about the captured image that is NOT in keeping with the scene that you were viewing INSIDE the frame lines in use when you took the photo?

Other than: You have captured a WIDER view, left to right & top to bottom, than you saw INSIDE the frame lines in use?

Which will always be the case.

Best Regards,

Michael

Well, Michael, the most annoying thing is related to the geometric relations between the objects in the frame the way I see them through the OVF and what's captured on the sensor. This is due to the different optical axis between the OVF and lens. Then, secondly, comes the framing.

[pgk]

41 minutes ago, catacore said:

Well, Michael, the most annoying thing is related to the geometric relations between the objects in the frame the way I see them through the OVF and what's captured on the sensor. This is due to the different optical axis between the OVF and lens. Then, secondly, comes the framing.

Any mechanical OVF system will have its drawbacks. The question you need to ask isn't about whether it has drawbacks, because they are well documented and inherent in such a system, but whether an OVF system is suitable for what you do. If you need very precise framing, absolute parallax compensation and adjustment for the shift in magnification as you focus closer, then an SLR or EVF system would be better. If on the other hand you are prepared to accept working within the limitations imposed by an RF OVF system, then it will reward you. I have access to all three systems and IMO all have strengths and weaknesses. There are no perfect systems which embrace all photographic requirements.

[Luke_Miller]

53 minutes ago, pgk said:

If on the other hand you are prepared to accept working within the limitations imposed by an RF OVF system, then it will reward you. I have access to all three systems and IMO all have strengths and weaknesses. There are no perfect systems which embrace all photographic requirements.

Well said.  I think I have used every focus system known to man and none are optimum for every situation.

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, catacore said:

Well, Michael, the most annoying thing is related to the geometric relations between the objects in the frame the way I see them through the OVF and what's captured on the sensor. This is due to the different optical axis between the OVF and lens. Then, secondly, comes the framing.

Deciding where to stand, including for desired perspective, has always been fundamental to picture making. The M presents some challenges in certain situations. For some people, a simple matter of practice and experience; for others, not the right tool.

Jeff

[MattiasAndersson]

On 3/28/2023 at 7:57 AM, catacore said:

I guess I have to take this as a joke..?..

For me this was exact what happened, So no joke.

I used M2 and M6 a lot with film, the capture, wait for processing, then see the result and learn was normal. My most frequent error was and still is, focusing and get expected depth of field. Framing has not been a concern. I also used the little Rollei and Minoxes… so Leica was better.

Then i got a M8, almost same experience, but the screen is a distraction, but not as fun as M with film.

Now I have manged to afford a M-D, and is happy again.

Think of M as a mechanical device with some easy understood functions. The frameline size is fixed, it is as easy as that.

 

[evikne]

Here is how I take a photo with an M:

1. I discover something of interest that I want to photograph and visualize what I want to include in the image and how it should be composed.
2. I move to get the perspective I want.
3. I focus on the main subject, recompose and take the picture.

Fine-tuning of cropping and straightening is done in post.

[gotium]

On 3/27/2023 at 10:57 PM, catacore said:

I guess I have to take this as a joke..?..

Well it would solve the chimping issue. 

Of all the digital M cameras this was the one I bonded with the most. I think it reflects what M photography is about, no-fiddles, no fuss, won't even shoot jpg. 

[Michael Geschlecht]

13 hours ago, catacore said:

Well, Michael, the most annoying thing is related to the geometric relations between the objects in the frame the way I see them through the OVF and what's captured on the sensor. This is due to the different optical axis between the OVF and lens. Then, secondly, comes the framing.

Hello catacore,

I think that there are some things to consider when switching back & forth between an optical range/viewfinder & a screen. It might be helpful to know which lenses & which apertures are being used.

When you use a range/viewfinder system you are looking at the World thru a window. NOT thru the lens in use. Inside the largest window frame is a series of frame lines. And 2 rangefinder patches. The actual image recorded on the sensor will be somewhat more than is seen inside the frame lines being used. Sometimes the frame lines being used show an image that is smaller than the entire window.

When you look at the image on the back of the camera you see the image captured inside the appropriate frame lines without any frame lines or rangefinder patches. This is an image viewed thru the lens which fills the screen. It shows the image created INCLUDING the depth of field of that image.

The view thru the range/viewfinder window does NOT show a person the depth of field of the image captured.

Having the ability to both look at what is being photographed thru a window & then thru the lens creating the image: With the same camera & the same lens: At the same time: Is very useful. Because you can switch back & forth, as the situation, or need, presents itself. There is no need to choose 1 or the other.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Michael Geschlecht

[catacore]

Thanks, everybody, for your replies.

I guess I know where the M-system "composing using the rangefinder" limitation lies, now it is just to see if I can live with that or not.

I hope that rising this issue in a more specific way (which I tried here) would, eventually, help others to understand this limitation even before commining to the M-system. I really was not aware that this would become such an issue when I bought my M240, my main concern at that time was doing with focusing a rangefinder (although I had same rangefinder focusing practice with an Kodak Retina IIIC camera that I have owned for more than e year - but given the time between capturing the picture and seeing the result, I have never noticed the (parallax) "issue" in this case). 

Still, I am glad I held back from GAS (a.k.a. upgrading to M10(-P))

Edited March 30, 2023 by catacore

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[IkarusJohn]

@catacore, I’m not sure I understand your “parallax issue”, beyond the relative inaccuracy of the frame lines.  They are a guide only, and you will have noticed that as you focus, they adjust for parallax changes.  Inside 700mm, there’s not much the rangefinder can do for parallax.

Has your experience improved over the last few weeks?.