How would you focus this? (50mm at f/1.4)

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You make a good case for offering your services to Leica as a consultant...

 

Queue in

 

Most likely they can do without

[Advertisement]

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

[Peter H]

I know this isn't answering the question, but I do wonder why you'd prefer to put yourself to all the trouble you're experiencing to get accurate focus wide open in broad daylight when you could just stop-down a little and remove most of the the problem.

 

But if you really want to focus wide open on off-centre subjects with a Leica I think you'll just have to learn how much to sway your body.

[indergaard]

You make a good case for offering your services to Leica as a consultant...

 

Well, they shouldn't need to... Any half-decent software engineer would know how to deal with this. I bet that the next "M" version will have this functionality, which exists on every other live view capable camera on the market, and has been available for years. I guess it's going to be a sales-argument for the next M. And that's why it's not being implemented in the M240. Just my guess...

 

Heck, even my old Canon EOS 40D was able to move the focus point in Live View mode... That's a mid-range DSLR from 2007 (7 years ago), and Canon's first mid-range DSLR that supported Live View. It's not exactly new technology.

[thighslapper]

Bonkers.

 

This would look much the same (or better) at 2.8 and give you much more leeway.

 

It would still isolate the subject adequately.

 

Even Overgaard who habitually uses Leica lenses wide open invariably has his subject central ..... as you often have field curvature plus movement when recomposing to contend with. DOF is very narrow and focussing difficult wide open.

 

Retreat, focus centrally and crop if you want an image like this at 1.4 ...... or just fire off a dozen shots an hope one is ok......

 

Spend a few days with a Noctilux 0.95 and you will soon wake up to reality ...... manual lens RF use has it's limitations.....

[jdlaing]

Let me think about this a minute.

Moveable focus point on a manual focus rangefinder camera.

 

Okay. I thought about it.

 

All the cameras indergard mentioned were autofocus cameras.

 

Point me to a rangefinder camera with a moveable focus point.

 

I THINK even with a moveable focus point on a DSLr it would do you no good on manual focus of that camera?

[Nordvik]

I rotated and, I think, shifted the plane of focus. As a result, she's out of focus. How would you go about shooting at f/1.4 when you want to frame your subject towards the edge of the photo at medium distances? I know you can lean back, etc. But is there a more accurate way to do this?

 

It looks like you have front focus to me. At that distance and at that small rotation from center you should still have focus on the face from my experience (I don't have your lens).

[jankap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Piblondin used an M9 according to the exif data, so focus peaking is no option. Moving the rangefinder field in the finder isn´t possible too.

I have read, that the Lux does has a curved focus field at 1.4.

 

The rotation of the camera is minimal. But, if I estimate the distance at 3 meters, the DOF is 3-5 centimeters only. So the distance measurement is very critical.

 

If a picture requires the use of wide open f-stop - as in this case - this should be possible. The work of Overgaard is the proof. In other threads the use of ND filters for such cases is even recommended.

 

The best solution in this case would be to keep the subject in the center (checking the focus) and to crop the picture afterwards.

Jan

 

See post 24 of Thighslapper!

[indergaard]

Let me think about this a minute.

Moveable focus point on a manual focus rangefinder camera.

 

Okay. I thought about it.

 

All the cameras indergard mentioned were autofocus cameras.

 

Point me to a rangefinder camera with a moveable focus point.

 

I THINK even with a moveable focus point on a DSLr it would do you no good on manual focus of that camera?

 

Please try to understand that Live View is Live View no matter if it's on a DSLR, rangefinder, in a web camera, a surveillance camera, or anything else. It's basically a real-time datastream directly from the sensor.

 

I'm not talking about moving the optical focusing patch. That's not possible. I'm talking about the digital zoom overlay that is used in Live View (EVF) mode, where the programmer basically enables users to move the area with magnification across the live data feed from the sensor, instead of having this magnified area in a fixed place. The sensor sees ALL of the scene anyway, and the area you choose to magnify is completely up to the programmer to set the parameters and conditions for.

[pop]

Please try to understand that Live View is Live View no matter if it's on a DSLR, rangefinder, in a web camera, a surveillance camera, or anything else. It's basically a real-time datastream directly from the sensor.

 

The M9, which the TO is talking about, does not produce any kind of real-time datastream from the sensor. Hence, some of the suggestions made here are moot.

[colonel]

Bonkers.

 

This would look much the same (or better) at 2.8 and give you much more leeway.

 

It would still isolate the subject adequately.

 

 

thank you

 

I can't see the usage of 1.4 in this case, it will guarantee the object (I assume the lady) was only partially in focus anyway, not even both eyes potentially. If this is the case the whole question of sharp for the object goes out the window

remember also that tiny movements of 1 or 2 mm (within human shake) would change the view

 

very thin DOF is much overused

 

I only use it for two reasons. (i) artistic effect, but very sparingly and (ii) really when light is very low. In this circumstance I accept that my object does not need pin sharp focus as it could never be all contained in this thin DOF and anyway the implication of using high ISO means that detail is reduced

 

I think alot of people bought the noctilux based on the boxer picture in the M9 catalog. I bet the photographer took more then 40 pictures to get this right as the precise focus with the M9 (particularly as it hasn't got live view) is out of the range of human controlled tolerance

[MarkP]

In this situation I would have shot at f2.0 (or maybe even f2.8). This probably would have maintained subject focus and tight-enough DOF to maintain the desired effect.

[mirekti]

But is there a more accurate way to do this?

 

I never rotate the camera, but as already stated above lean left or right by keeping the sensor parallel to the subject's imaginary field. This works great for me with the lenses I currently own.

I get the hit rate over 90%. For example this was shot today with 75mm Cron @f/2.

I'd strongly suggest you to try this technique out.

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!

[piblondin]

I never rotate the camera, but as already stated above lean left or right by keeping the sensor parallel to the subject's imaginary field. This works great for me with the lenses I currently own.

I get the hit rate over 90%. For example this was shot today with 75mm Cron @f/2.

I'd strongly suggest you to try this technique out.

 

Awesome! I will have to try this out. Someone should make a video demonstration. ;-)

 

Presumably, I would be focusing on people's faces and try to get them in the upper 1/3 of the frame, so it would be both a duck and lean move, no?

[piblondin]

One thing I've also learned while trying to figure out how to best focus this lens is that DOF with it is really thin, considerably more difficult to nail than the 35/1.4. I still have no idea how people shoot living, breathing, unposed human beings at f/1.4. ;D

 

I had always used DOF calculators to give me an idea of the acceptable error, but reading this forum has made me realize that the acceptable DOF is much thinner than what one calculates when shooting with digital--assuming that I want to print 16"x20". Therefore, being precise is of even more importance--

[piblondin]

I've been practicing this lean technique. See examples below. It's certainly better, but I still feel like I'm not getting the super crisp sharpness that the 50 Lux ASPH is, supposedly, known for at certain mid-range distances. Am I missing something other than more practice 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!

[DigitalHeMan]

Check with some static targets and/or use center placed objects to see how well you can focus. If necessary use focus bracketing to see if that improves things.

[DigitalHeMan]

It's difficult to see from theses images whether the lens is suffering from front or back focusing.

[philipus]

I know this isn't answering the question, but I do wonder why you'd prefer to put yourself to all the trouble you're experiencing to get accurate focus wide open in broad daylight when you could just stop-down a little and remove most of the the problem.

 

This is what I also thought when I saw the photo.

 

It looks to me - though I may very well be wrong - as if the lady is stationary as the photo is taken. It's therefore just a matter of picking the appropriate aperture for the job. So in that sense it is the same as one does when shooting portraits in order to prevent the eyes-(or in this case, toe)-peering-out-of-a-bokeh-fog kind of look

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sblutter]

From above: "Focus and recompose" (with least other body movement)

 

Do some tests, its no big, going on for decades. Otherwise all M shots would be limited to subject dead center

 

Experiment

[piblondin]

This is what I also thought when I saw the photo.

 

It looks to me - though I may very well be wrong - as if the lady is stationary as the photo is taken. It's therefore just a matter of picking the appropriate aperture for the job. So in that sense it is the same as one does when shooting portraits in order to prevent the eyes-(or in this case, toe)-peering-out-of-a-bokeh-fog kind of look

 

I wanted to maintain a certain shutter speed and ISO as the subjects were moving or likely to move. Ie they were not posing. So, that, in addition to my liking the look of this lens at f/1.4 is why I shot wide open.