Thoughts on the rangefinder and the M

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think of autofocus as automation, given that it's a complex abstraction. More complicated than manual focus is. It gives the photographer more work, not less. And if it screws up it's usually because the photographer isn't using it correctly. I work in IT and I am very comfortable with technically complicated systems. I've never had a problem with autofocus, though I prefer a rangefinder for the greater sense of involvement with the subject.

Autofocus it can do certain things than a rangefinder can not. Such as tracking a persons movement at a wide aperture like f1.4. Or staying focus on an athlete or motor vehicle though a 400mm 2.8 tele lens. For still subjects it also has some advantages, in terms of being able to focus towards the edge of the frame while countering for field curvature. However, much of the time it takes longer to work with than the rangefinder focus-recompose method. When you have to switch AF modes and toggle with a mini-joystick between 61 AF points to pick the single point you want in focus, this ends up often taking longer than manually focusing.

It's been my experience with the AF cameras I've had that it can accurately track a slow-moving object about half the time...  depending on it's direction and size (and the system and lens.)  Granted they're improving the technology with every iteration, but half the time still isn't trustworthy.  Frankly 80% of the time isn't trustworthy.  And I find that most of the time, if you know what you're shooting, fixing the focus and letting DOF carry you will work every time.  At least it has for me for forty years.

 

I hate to admit this, because it sounds like I'm getting old; and I guess I am, but I just don't care to learn how to use auto-focus in the new gear.  The "push this, twiddle that until you see the "x" move to where you want it and lock on...  It's just as fast to switch it off and focus the damn lens through the finder.  Faster if you use zone focus and let DOF carry you.  Of course, that requires that you know how to do those things...    

 

I've posted this before I think, but it's a good illustration.  This was shot on Tri-X with a Canon EOS 1 and an 80-200 zoom, all on manual.  I'd been frustrated by the autofocus and auto-exposure all day, so I set the fixed focus and aperture and waited for the action at the goal-line (ah...  the good ol' days' routine) and was rewarded with this.  I don't think the AF in the EOS 1 would have locked on at all, and frankly I'm not sure how my X-T1 would have done.  I'm sure that a top of the line Canon or Nikon body of today with a pro-level lens probably would have been able to do this...  but there aren't many of us who have those.

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!

[hepcat]

Hi Roger! 

 

That's very poetic but it's not my perception at all. To me, they are all viewfinders ... just a means to see what the film or sensor will see. I don't feel any more disconnected from the scene with an EVF than I do with a rangefinder tunnel optical view.  A good SLR viewfinder, like for instance the one in a Nikon F or Leicaflex SL or Leica R8, has the same crisp "presence" as a well-tuned movie theater's screen. Sadly, even the best of the Olympus FourThirds SLR viewfinders was only just up to a "good" level ... the ultimate price of a small format focusing screen ... but believe me that when I mount a 90mm lens on my R8 and twist the focusing ring, the subject POPs out of the screen with vivid reality at the moment of proper focus, just like it does with the Olympus E-M1 EVF and the M-P optical view-/rangefinder. 

 

The 'seeing more of the scene than the lens covers' I answer by just keeping both eyes open and looking at the scene with my left eye while my right eye manages the viewfinder. It's a technique I learned shooting football, hockey, and basketball when in high school, and it works. 

 

Different perceptions, that's all. I use all of them and enjoy good examples of all. With luck, the SL's EVF will be even better than the Olympus E-M1, which is currently the best for my eyes. Had the Sony A7 and found its EVF a bit crude. Tried an Fuji X-T1 and though it was pretty good, but it didn't have quite the adaptive range of the E-M1. With the E-M1, I often forget that it's an EVF ... It's just a great viewfinder. 

 

Now that's where I want the SL to be. :-)

There's a work around to make every piece of gear do the task at hand... some are just tougher than others.  

 

As good as the EVF is in my X-T1, I never forget it's an EVF.  EVFs just can't handle the refresh rates; they get noisy in really low light; and and don't allow you to assess the actual exposure values in the scene through the viewfinder by eye for manual settings.   They're ok as a framing tool, but I agree that they just aren't the same as that R8 or M9-P viewfinder.  

[Paulus]

You obviously never picked up a Nikon FM3a.

I thought the FM3a was just a bad camera in comparisson with the FM 2 and the F3, but maybe I'm in the wrong forum. I really loved my F3 Nikon, but the moment I picked up an M5 I was hooked to Leica M. 

[semi-ambivalent]

I thought the FM3a was just a bad camera in comparisson with the FM 2 and the F3, but maybe I'm in the wrong forum. I really loved my F3 Nikon, but the moment I picked up an M5 I was hooked to Leica M. 

I used a couple F3s before my foray into Leica. I really liked them, for all manner of reasons. Then a few years ago I bought a cheap M3 and a 50 V4 just to see what the Big Deal was with Leica. That was it, and I haven't used the Nikons but once since then. Within a year I had an ALC MP and eventually a modest set of modest lenses.

 

I have no idea why I changed except that it was sudden, very comfortable and apparently permanent. I don't know if it was Leica's history or its prices or its handling or industrial design. But there's definitely something going on with the ORF way of doing things and it's much more subtle than the just VF, no matter how good the F3's VF is.

 

s-a

[Herr Barnack]

1) Shooting with a Leica RF makes you think about your photography first; shoot second.

2) The Leica RF is the path of least resistance to what one sees through the RF compared to the final print in your hands.

 

~Marc

You, sir, have hit the bull's eye - particularly with your second arrow of insight.