best way to focus a Leica M wide open - fast

[frogfish]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys,

 

 

I wonder what you think is the best way to focus a Leica M wide open:

 

To my knowledge there are two technics:

 

 

- always come from the far end and lock focus by view, so you always know witch way to turn

 

- prefocus and then do tiny adjustments when you see you are off.

 

 

 

 

(for your information, I am a professional documentary wedding photog who concentrates on being close and capture real emotions - latest blogpost if you care: http://hamburg-hochzeitsfotografen.de/heiraten-in-der-bucht-in-hamburg/

I have been shooting with Leicas for many year snow.

 

 

I can´t make it work for me though - yet. When I use my Leica for wedding work I get frustrated by the missed moments and get back to my AF set-up. But after some time I get soo bored that I come back and try again. There are many fellow wedding photogs who use the M at weddings, but honestly, and with all respect) I have yet one to see that really shoots dynamically, get close and get the moments).

 

Non wedding stuff, like personal work, is a different thing, when you miss a moment, no problem, there will be many more another time. But at weddings, you must get your stuff right - like: " Oh, you mean the moment your father kissed you on the forehead at the ceremony, right before he gave you away? Sorry, missed it..."  (0:

 

Please remember, we are talking wide open here, like 35 mm at 2.0. DOF at 1.2 meters is 12 cm. So zone-focusing does not work.

 

 

 

What is your take on this? How do you focus wide open - fast? Any tips?

Do you believe that one can get so good that you can set focus by feel reliably at, say, 3 given distances?

 

 

Thank you for your input and your expertise.

 

heiko



Edited December 30, 2015 by frogfish

[@McLeica]

I've always pre focussed and then small adjustments with my eye glued to the finder. IMHO, very hard to focus by feel.

 

The challenge is to get the focus in to enable you to shoot say 3 or 4 good shots around the moment before the camera buffers out. My old M9-P also used to hang so I also had to work around that.

 

Having said that, I also got some nice shots even when slightly off focus, particularly with a 50mm 'Cron wide open.

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve Ricoh]

Have a read of this: http://joerivanderkloet.com/category/work-your-leica-m/ . This guy is a wedding photographer himself and uses Leica M equipment wide open. His e-book describes a sequence of training exercises to help with focus, even with non static targets, such as people walking to or from the camera. It's not a magic pill by any means, it takes a lot of practise, something you'll have to do on a regular basis to keep proficient.

[frogfish]

Yes, I have read it. Nothing really new there.

 

As I have said, have been using the M for some years now. Trained the last couple of weeks intensively, gets better, but still far from perfect.

 

I know his work, nice, but as I said above...

 

 

thank you for sharing.

 

 

heiko

[pedaes]

Stating the obvious about the basics, is your rangefinder/lenses in complete sync  - i.e. no front or back focus issues. I think what you are attempting is very difficult technically and it will be very challenging to get near a 100% success rate. We see great photos of this nature from those using even Noctilux wide open, but we don't know how many other shots are near misses. Even the well used technique of three shots, one as focused, one pulling back a few inches and one forward the same may not be possible in your fleeting moment situation. Good luck and results will be exceptional if you can crack it.

[Steve Ricoh]

I take my hat off to any wedding photographer who can capture the decisive moment with a lens wide open, repeatedly. There's no second chance, and if I was the client (or more likely my son or daughter were) I'd be mightily upset if the photographer came back and said, 'I'm sorry I screwed up, do you mind if we do it again.'

I'm not good enough to take pictures and would not dream of taking something so important, so precious to the couple. It must take nerves of steel, and as I said, I take my hat off and bow to them!

[mike_j]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A question of right tool for the job and the M ain't it I suggest. 

[MarkP]

You could try shooting at 2.8 instead of 2.0. Unlikely to make much real difference to OOF but may significantly increase your hit rate.

Have you tried focus bracketing either with small movements of the focus ring or moving the camera a fraction back & forth.

[frogfish]

You could try shooting at 2.8 instead of 2.0. Unlikely to make much real difference to OOF but may significantly increase your hit rate.

Have you tried focus bracketing either with small movements of the focus ring or moving the camera a fraction back & forth.

 

I really like the look of 2.0, this even is a focus compromise.

Many things at weddings happen in very poorly lit environments, (like 1.4, 1/30 sec at ISO 1600) 2.8 might be difficult.

 

Moments often happen very fast, when you have up your camera you are lucky to get one or two shots until it is over. Otherwise probably not a bad tip.

 

 

heiko

[carta]

As Mike has suggested above I just think the M isn't the tool for such situations.

 

You mentioned in your opening post that you get bored of the AF setup. However, what does you being bored have to do with your work? Sorry if I sound harsh, but I think your clients are not paying for you to get excited, they just want good photos.

 

Unless a focus-nailed shot from a Leica is so massively better than the AF camera (which is something I seriously doubt but I won't get into that) , the I'd just stick with the AF.

 

I know the opening post is asking for techniques and tips and I am not giving any, but seriously I think you're trying to use non-appropriate (I know that's not the right vocab, but can't think of anything more suitable) equipment.

 

I know about 4 professional wedding photographers who use Leica for fun/personal/studio but Canon/Nikon for weddings.

[pgk]

I can´t make it work for me though - yet. When I use my Leica for wedding work I get frustrated by the missed moments and get back to my AF set-up. But after some time I get soo bored that I come back and try again. There are many fellow wedding photogs who use the M at weddings, but honestly, and with all respect) I have yet one to see that really shoots dynamically, get close and get the moments).

 

I used to shoot a fair number of weddings professionally but only do so now under pressure and generally only for friends/acquaintances.

 

I now use both dSLRs and my Leicas but have the same experience as yourself and would suggest that your statements are pretty accurate. AF is very good at wide apertures and and does have a higher hit rate when moments present themselves. Personally I'd stick with AF and use the Leicas when there is time to shoot in a more considered way - it has worked well for me.

[frogfish]

"You mentioned in your opening post that you get bored of the AF setup. However, what does you being bored have to do with your work? Sorry if I sound harsh, but I think your clients are not paying for you to get excited, they just want good photos."

 

Oh, it has to do a lot with my work. When you are bored you make crappy, boring photos. Good, artistic wedding photography is all about inspiration and being creative. When I have a tool which inspires me, I produce better work. Simple as that.

 

Oh, and our clients do not pay for good photos, they pay for awesomeness!  (0:

 

 

heiko

 

 

Sorry, wrote wrongly in your text but cannot copy and paste here...

Edited December 30, 2015 by frogfish

[Tailwagger]

I don't have enough experience to comment directly, but I have spent quite a bit of time with early implementations of contrast detect AF systems which can be nearly as problematic in terms of accurate and speedy focus. As it wasn't discussed above, it seemed reasonable to mention that much as with those systems, training your eye to quickly find and lock onto the vertical edges is key. Mentally, I never try to line up images, just ensure that most appropriate edge is in sync. When absent or if the edges are horizontal, I find rotating the camera slightly off axis helps as well.  Direction of focus rotation was easy once I realized that you rotate in the direction that moves the ghost to the image. Having been forced to develop a similar mindset for my earlier AF work, in good light, I find I can already generally match the speed of those early CF systems in low light, which isnt to say great, but not all that bad from a man vs. machine perspective.  Anyhoo, I'm very new to all this, apologies if this is all rangefinder 101, but figured it might be worth mentioning if not for old hands than for those new to the system that might read the thread.

 

  

[Jeff S]

You might want to PM, email or post a comment for 'Phillip Thomas', who posts here, based on this article...  http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/09/15/over-100-leica-weddings-by-philip-thomas/

 

In the comments section, he states that he most often shoots wide open.

 

Here's a thread he started here on the topic....http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/249581-leica-m-a-100-weddings-later/

 

I searched the forum for other related threads and found yours from 2012.....so yes, you have been struggling off and on for quite a while with this same issue.  

 

[The key might be the 'off and on' part.....I think one must dedicate time, without distraction, to have the M become second nature, especially for purposes such as yours.]

 

Jeff

Edited December 30, 2015 by Jeff S

[hepcat]

I used to shoot a fair number of weddings professionally but only do so now under pressure and generally only for friends/acquaintances.

 

I now use both dSLRs and my Leicas but have the same experience as yourself and would suggest that your statements are pretty accurate. AF is very good at wide apertures and and does have a higher hit rate when moments present themselves. Personally I'd stick with AF and use the Leicas when there is time to shoot in a more considered way - it has worked well for me.

 

My experience parallels pgk's.    I shoot my M9P for those shots I know I can nail...  especially the formals, and use my X-T1 body for those up-close, fast shots you can't afford to pass up.  Having shot Leicas since 1974 for all kinds of jobs including weddings,  I recognize that while I CAN (and have) shot/shoot those things (and luck has a great deal to do with nailing those kinds of shots with an M body) I have a lot more keepers with the X-T1 for that kind of candids.  In the film days, it wasn't such a big deal as clients really didn't expect much from their candids... but now that dopey wedding photographers think they need to shoot 3,000 exposures for a 200 exposure wedding, clients expect a lot more.  

[pico]

There is nothing better than practice, practice, practice to acquire kinesthetic memory. I worked with a National Geographic photographer who used used Leica Ms exclusively. He would start focusing while the camera was by his side or on the strap and in the next moment it would be to his eye, very often already properly focused or close enough to nudge it right-on. I never got that good.

.

Edited December 30, 2015 by pico

[pgk]

There is nothing better than practice, practice, practice to acquire kinesthetic memory. I worked with a National Geographic photographer who used used Leica Ms exclusively. He would start focusing while the camera was by his side or on the strap and in the next moment it would be to his eye, very often already properly focused or close enough to nudge it right-on. I never got that good.

.

 

I remember talking to a pro press sports photographer who admitted to me that it took him 20 years to 'perfect' follow focus manually, then along came equally as accurate AF tracking. Frustrating and annoying but reality nevertheless. 

[-Lss-]

I wonder what you think is the best way to focus a Leica M wide open:

 

To my knowledge there are two technics:

 

- always come from the far end and lock focus by view, so you always know witch way to turn

 

- prefocus and then do tiny adjustments when you see you are off.

 

 

I do both. The first technique works better for consistently accurate focus when you have time. The second technique works better for quick focus that results in more usable photos even when you are slightly off (wide open). The comment about the first technique may just be in my head, it's more about reasoning and a feeling than any testing or analysis of results.

 

If you insist on wide-open shots only, I think you need to accept less than perfect score. AF will make similar mistakes, but your effort level should be significantly lower. Weddings are largely very predictable and take time. If you don't feel confident, you can easily lose a lot of shots.

[Ai_Print]

I dont do weddings but I do corporate PJ work and very rarely do I just take my M240 into a situation that might be faster paced, it's just not the right tool for every job. 

 

I guess I don't get "bored" with AF on my Nikons because getting the banger shot is what drives me to shoot and after nearly 30 years of working with them...man, nothing nails the shots without fail like my Nikons.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bybrett]

There is nothing better than practice, practice, practice to acquire kinesthetic memory. I worked with a National Geographic photographer who used used Leica Ms exclusively. He would start focusing while the camera was by his side or on the strap and in the next moment it would be to his eye, very often already properly focused or close enough to nudge it right-on. I never got that good.

.

I would agree with the above, there are techniques which can be adopted but then these also have to be practiced. This is the same for any other sport requiring hand-eye coordination. I shoot weddings 'wide open' with some degree of focus success and carry my lenses at infinity. For every wedding 'moment' captured there is a composition and a point of focus to be identified, which can be done without using the camera. I anticipate approximately how much rotation is required for any given distance and take up the slack as I raise the camera. I use the viewfinder to focus on the 'point' and re-compose to the scene I have already agreed in my mind's eye. Then I lower the camera, return to infinity and look for the next shot. There tends to be more observing, looking around, than shooting...