Eyesight

[mddady]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello. I'm new. I've been looking at the Leica M9 for some weeks now and can't seem to sort out a concern I have regarding the viewfinder and focusing.

 

Is someone able to tell me please, if I look through a viewfinder without my specs on and manage to focus correctly, will the picture be in focus?

 

In other words, is there a optimal focusing point that exists whether I use my specs or not and will I find that using specs or not? Or does focusing depend on 100% perfect eyesight.

 

Still struggling to understand this.

 

Any help gratefully received.

[jpattison]

Hi there, and welcome to the forum.

 

When you look through the viewfinder you are focusing a double image in the centre only. The focusing patches are clearest at an effective distance of 2 metres.

Technically, the answer to your question is yes, if as you say you can manage to focus correctly !

 

Please check these FAQs, the second entry should help...

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/171589-leica-camera-faqs-frequently-asked-questions.html

 

John

[pop]

You eyesight does not influence the accuracy of the range finder. Once you're positive that you have properly adjusted the distance using the range finder, the distance is indeed properly adjusted.

 

The hard part is actually seeing the coincidence of the edges in the range finder. I, for instance, have great difficulty focusing one of my 135mm lenses.

[mddady]

Thanks John and Philip for your replies.

 

"You eyesight does not influence the accuracy of the range finder."

 

That to me is exactly what I needed to hear. However, the 135mm was one lens I was hoping to get so I guess it's a case of practice.

 

Martin

[Jeff S]

As discussed, focusing requires good vision at 2m for the focus patch...period (unless your camera is out of alignment).

 

The trick is both focus well and see the overall scene, at various distances, well (outside the camera and in the overall VF). Eyes, and the means to accommodate them, are quite personal. As such, there are numerous thread here (use search box) that discuss the many ways users address these simultaneous needs, including use of glasses and contacts (single vision, bifocal, etc), diopters, Walters Eyepiece (astigmatism), magnifiers, etc. Different strokes.

 

As regards focusing, this FAQ may also be useful.

 

 

Jeff

 

edit.. it almost goes without saying, but perfect focusing relies on more than just perfect eyesight, and that's great camera holding technique.

[pop]

That to me is exactly what I needed to hear. However, the 135mm was one lens I was hoping to get so I guess it's a case of practice.

 

Martin

 

Not sure if I got across exactly what I meant to say.

 

With the focal length of 135mm I find it fiendishly difficult to see whether the rangefinder has acquired focus or not. In that case, the picture may or may not be in focus. However, if the circumstances are so that I can see that I have acquired focus, the image will be in focus.

 

I don't know if practicing makes you see better. Your optician might be able to help with glasses adapted to that particular working distance.

[Bill Allsopp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Get a diopter correction lens for it, worked for me.

[mddady]

Thanks guys.

 

Much to read and understand before I fork out.

 

Martin

[Jeff S]

Reading is good; actual picture taking after that is even better. See if a dealer will loan you an M9, or even an M8, to be sure you like the RF experience. Rental is also a possibility. Not sure what the buy/sell market will be (if things don't work out) given the possible M10 intro.

 

Jeff

[lars_bergquist]

I understand that when you consider using a M camera, SLR thinking habits can be difficult to break out of. So let's take this systematically.

 

When you look into a M finder, you see frame lines and the edges of the rangefinder patch. These are actually rear-illuminated cutouts in a metal mask just about one inch from your eye. But because of optical arrangements, you see these items at a virtual distance of 2 meters. This means that if, with the naked eye, with the help of spectacles or whatever, you can see things sharply at two meters, then you can see the edges of the mask cutouts sharply too. I use a pair of progressive specs for everything, including focusing my Leicas, without any problems.

 

What you use for focusing however is NOT these cutouts, but two optical images of the subject, one larger viewfinder one, and one smaller rangefinder one (but with identical magnification) which are superimposed within the space of the RF patch. And as the subjects are at varying distances, the 'optical' distances of these two images, just as the image seen through a binocular, is at varying distances so that we must focus the binoc's eyepieces. The two pictures in the M finder are in fact delivered by two separate telescopes. The rangefinders of screw-thread Leicas from the III on (1933) had in fact such a focusing device, bcause these rangefinders had 1.5x magnification.

 

The M finder has 'negative magnification' of usually 0.72x or 0.86x. So the distance variation of the image seen is normally within the depth of field of the normal eye, and no focusing of the finder image is necessary. We should see both images with full sharpness so we can use them for focusing. But don't automatically assume that the finder and rangefinder images are at a fixed distance of two meters. You will have to try out your requirements and ability by empirical 'reality tests'. Try focusing at points at different taking distances.

 

This is of course totally different from a SLR. There, the finder image is a 'real image' on a matte screen which is indeed at a fixed, unchanging distance from your eye. You can adjust the eyepiece once and for all. The M finder however is not just an image of reality – it is reality, though at a smaller scale.

 

Note that the M finder is the same for all lenses. No matter if you focus an 18mm lens or a 135mm one, you focus with two images that are the same size. Again, this is different from a SLR where the finder images vary in size with the focal length of the lens used. This finder size provides for accuracy enough to correctly focus a 135mm lens, something I do regularly with my 3/4 century old eyes. The problem is that the 135mm frame is quite small, which makes composition difficult. You can screw in a magnifying eyepices (Leica do furnish these in 1.25x and 1.4x magnification) but enlarging the images means of necessity lowering their contrast. And contrast is basically what we use in focusing: A sudden increase of contrast in the RF patch means that the images overlap correctly. So many of us find that we focus a 135mm lens easier without a magnifier than with it.

 

As usual, the proof of the pudding is in the printing. But the M's finder system is the fruit of more than a half century of development, in order to make it useful for most of us. So there is hope for you. There is of course a learning curve, but with instant digital feedback, it has became shorter than before. Start climbing it – there's a pot of gold at its top!

 

The old man from the Analog Age

[mddady]

Lars.

 

Thanks for the very detailed answer and encouragement.

My eyesight is fairly good at 2 metres so should be work well. If not I'll just don my specs.

 

I have been using SLRs for the last 30 years but have become fascinated by all I have read about this camera. I primarily shoot landscapes and architecture on a casual amateur basis. For me, photography is a hobby.

 

What lens would be ideal for landscape and cityscapes? I guess this has been answered but always happy to take recommendations from people who have been using this type of camera for years.

 

Martin

[lars_bergquist]

Generally speaking, a 'standard' (i.e. 50mm) lens is best for landscapes, sometimes with an opportunity to use something longer, such as 90mm. A 135mm lens will usually give you details, not landscapes.

 

Similarly, most 'street shooting' is done with a 35mm or possibly a 28mm lens. Sometimes you can get an interesting composition with a 21mm or even something shorter.

 

But these 'rules' are shot through with exceptions. The most famous 'street shooter' of them all was probably Henri Cartier-Bresson, but he used nearly exclusively a 50mm lens. Many excellent landscapes has been shot with short lenses.

 

The problem is really something of a misunderstanding. A 'streetscape' or a 'landscape' (or for that matter, a 'portrait') is not a fixed scheme that has to be imitated in detail. Making a picture of a person's head only does not make that a portrait. Similarly, a picture of a tract of terrain does not make a landscape. You can make a landscape out of some small stones at the water's edge. You can fail to make a landscape out of a grand view (this one is rather easy).

 

So there is no one focal length that is 'best' for landscapes, or for streets, or for portraiture. Take a picture that says something interesting about a person, and it is a portrait, no matter all else. A picture is a landscape if it tells something interesting about a piece of land – etcetera. Take them with any damn lens that answers the purpose. Landscapes, street scenes, portraits are not made by lenses, but by photographers that have learned the art of seeing.

 

Best regards from the old man from the Analog Age

[Printmaker]

I understand ... . The problem is that the 135mm frame is quite small, which makes composition difficult. You can screw in a magnifying eyepices (Leica do furnish these in 1.25x and 1.4x magnification) but enlarging the images means of necessity lowering their contrast. And contrast is basically what we use in focusing: A sudden increase of contrast in the RF patch means that the images overlap correctly. So many of us find that we focus a 135mm lens easier without a magnifier than with it.

 

The old man from the Analog Age

 

I use a 135 Elmarit which has magnifying bug eyes. The eyes magnify the image and work with the 90 mm frame. This makes it far easier to see your field of view and to focus. But the image in the viewfinder is a little dimmer and not as contrasty. Adding a eyepiece magnifier darkens and decreases the image contrast further so I've stopped using my adjustable diopter magnifier with this lens. While it is big (for a Leica lens), overall, this 135 is a good lens and can be found for a few hundred dollars used. Still, the current 135 Apo Telyt, is a better lens.

 

Not quite as old as the old man.