Anyone read the M10 DPReview article (March 14)?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is a valid technique, as has been said various times in this thread, Yes, it has been used when needed by photographers of all levels. But, it is undeniably a second-best to actually focusing properly. The advent of digital with its more precise DOF (and pixel peeping!) has impact on the use as well.

Nowadays it has been replaced by sophisticated AF systems. It only has validity left on non-AF cameras, AKA the Leica M series.

 

Reason that Leica has brought out the Q. (And other brands things like the XPro, RX etc)  as a streetshooter's tool.

[pgk]

I found it truly bizarre. Anyone else?

 

 

No. I found it simply to be pure garbage. Nobody should review gear they can't use properly - it reflects badly on them, not the camera.

[6bit]

Opening paragraph:

 

Rangefinders are weird. The idea that superimposing a small ghostly image in the middle of a tunnel-type optical viewfinder is in any way superior to focusing with an SLR, (let alone using autofocus) is frankly bizarre, in this day and age.

 

 

Odd intro.

 

 

I also collect vinyl. Not because I believe it sounds better than CD or MP3 (it doesn't), but because I've always been a pops and crackles kind of guy, and when it comes down to it, I don't trust music that doesn't weigh something. If that makes me a hipster, I'll save you the bother of leaving a snarky comment and just admit it now.2

 

 

Reads as a jab against RFs.

[stephen.w]

It is a valid technique, as has been said various times in this thread, Yes, it has been used when needed by photographers of all levels. But, it is undeniably a second-best to actually focusing properly. The advent of digital with its more precise DOF (and pixel peeping!) has impact on the use as well.

Nowadays it has been replaced by sophisticated AF systems. It only has validity left on non-AF cameras, AKA the Leica M series.

 

Reason that Leica has brought out the Q. (And other brands things like the XPro, RX etc)  as a streetshooter's tool.

 

I don't think that is quite right: Achieving focus may be more critical with digital, but there will always be depth of field available with wider lenses at smaller apertures for those who want to work with it. The 24 Summilux (which you mention) even has some of this latitude at f/1.4. It is what makes an M, in certain circumstances, faster than any AF camera.

[jmahto]

It is like criticizing a manual gearshift car when you don't even know how to shift gears.

[AlanJW]

I would indeed warmly welcome a horizon level guide which is suggested in the article

I don't have my M10 yet but are the grid lines of use instead of the horizon line?  Seems to me that they could allow one roughly to see if the horizon is straight.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think that is quite right: Achieving focus may be more critical with digital, but there will always be depth of field available with wider lenses at smaller apertures for those who want to work with it. The 24 Summilux (which you mention) even has some of this latitude at f/1.4. It is what makes an M, in certain circumstances, faster than any AF camera.

Yes, but the DOF and specifically the DOF falloff is more defined on digital, the newer lenses enhance this effect.

That, and pixel peeping will limit the DOF considerably more thatn the focus scale suggests.

To which may be added that zone focusing disregards the fact that DOF varies per subject, more specifically by subject contrast and frequency.

Plane of focus type photography avoids these issues.

[ramarren]

It is a valid technique, as has been said various times in this thread, Yes, it has been used when needed by photographers of all levels. But, it is undeniably a second-best to actually focusing properly. The advent of digital with its more precise DOF (and pixel peeping!) has impact on the use as well.

Nowadays it has been replaced by sophisticated AF systems. It only has validity left on non-AF cameras, AKA the Leica M series.

 

Reason that Leica has brought out the Q. (And other brands things like the XPro, RX etc)  as a streetshooter's tool.

 

 

Sorry but I disagree completely: AF can never replace zone focusing. Zone focusing is much more often a better approximation of correct focus than AF is, and is unaffected by the most typical situation where AF fails completely, and this is, yes, with digital cameras. I've had to use zone focusing many times with AF cameras to get around their inability to focus accurately and swiftly. 

[jaapv]

I find that the latest generation AF cameras, like for instance the Q and SL, and other brands as well, fail very rarely.

 

Full disclosure - I really prefer manual focus, and will always revert to it whenever I can, but in "chaotic" photographic situations I do find that it has been overtaken by modern AF.

One of the best implementations I have found is the Summilux 25. The camera will do a lightning fast AF, and I can use the focus ring to finetune, creating a manual override. Much faster than manual focus alone. I'm sure the SL will offer similar options.

[scott kirkpatrick]

We're certainly in curmudgeon mode today!  I thought the kid writing the review had a good time with his M10 for a week, and I am glad that he did.  He was trying to channel the Robert Frank flip it up, shoot and smile technique to his best ability, and some of his shots had cute girls front and center.  What's not to like about that?  I agree that a rangefinder is an excellent tool for putting the area of acceptable focus where you want it, and often better than AF for that purpose, but if something interesting happens there is nothing wrong with being prepared, shooting and then seeing if the shot can be improved.  I have looked at the contact sheets from Robert Frank's elevator girl image, and he got off 6 or 8 frames with her.  (And she didn't seem to notice!)

 

scott

[charlesphoto99]

Best part of this thread is the Winogrand clip. Looking forward to watching the others. I like his disdain for the term 'street photography.'

 

Like him and many other M shooters, I often don't look through the rangefinder when taking the picture. But that doesn't mean not focusing. If you notice, he often quickly sets focus with the rf and then uses the vf n top to frame and shoot. I do the same but often take it more extremes in order to get interesting angles. I also like how then it's your intimate knowledge of the camera and how to angle it that takes over, and the nice surprises one can end up with. Yes, it can be hit or miss, and used for shots/scenes where that works. Whether that's called zone focusing or not I don't know. Just remember that any and all cameras will still take a picture when it's not at your eye. I think too often photographers, esp in the age of digital, get hung up on perfect focus, etc and lose all sense of capturing a moment or feeling. 

[Paul J]

I always have my camera prefocused with hyperfocal but I also, always, expect to focus it. I will only snap a shot off if I don't have time to lift it to my eye.

 

I would never rely on zone focussing because it's inaccurate and unnecessary. Focussing is so quick once you've practiced it.

 

But having it prefocussed with hyperlocal certainly makes the final focus much quicker and gives you a usable image for the times you don't have time to focus.

[jmahto]

I only take pictures of subjects 10m away. My focus lever is glued. Perfect focus every time. If I want a different focus distance then I mount a different lens with another pre-focus distance. 

 

Is anyone else using this technique or I am alone....

[pgk]

I always have my camera prefocused with hyperfocal but I also, always, expect to focus it. I will only snap a shot off if I don't have time to lift it to my eye.

 

I would never rely on zone focussing because it's inaccurate and unnecessary. Focussing is so quick once you've practiced it.

 

But having it prefocussed with hyperlocal certainly makes the final focus much quicker and gives you a usable image for the times you don't have time to focus.

 

But would you review a camera on this basis? Didn't think so.

[Paul J]

But would you review a camera on this basis? Didn't think so.

Sorry, yeah that was my indirect point. Seems weird and I thought it implied that it was the only or best way to use the camera, as a "point and shoot" that you don't focus, which is stupid.

[SonomaBear]

Indeed a waste of time. Zone focus was good when I used Rollei TLRs: set aperture, set zone focus, push down viewing hood door and compose through the hood opening... never missed actions that looking down into TLR would lose.

Just not needed today!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wlaidlaw]

I got the impression that the article was more written from the POV of making the writer seem to be hip, clever and feel good about himself, than a serious review of the M10. Zone focusing has its place, especially on an RF camera with very wide lenses. On a bright sunny day with the 18SEM set at f8, there really is no need to focus. For years before I retired, I used to carry either a Rollei 35S or later the even more compact Minox 35GT in my shirt pocket when travelling. Neither of those had RF's and I rarely got a mis-focused photo.

 

For the last two weeks I have been using a Leica O series (never sure if it is the letter O or number 0). To begin with I carried around a Leica Disto laser rangefinder but it does not work very well outside and you have to be exceeding careful pointing it at people, so I then carried around a period Leitz FODIS. After a week, I went back to zone focusing. 

 

Wilson

[IkarusJohn]

I had at Minox 35 GT too. Loved that camera.

[luigi bertolotti]

I got the impression that the article was more written from the POV of making the writer seem to be hip, clever and feel good about himself, than a serious review of the M10... 

Wilson

Spot on... a questionable article on focusing... no badly written... not a review...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Chuck]

I love the descriptions many of you provide of your shooting method. It just goes to show how flexible and how much fun shooting with M cameras can be.  Maybe they're not for everyone because some people rather focus on other things (I wasn't trying to make this pun up, but will go with it).