Questions about Focusing...

[DRabbit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been walking around with the camera not even turned on practicing a bit -- I still have that "oh, I'm afraid to break it" phenomenon going on since this is my first Leica and first rangefinder... I carry it around like an egg.

 

That aside...

 

I'm trying to learn how to focus. This is a whole new experience for me as I only got into photography in the digital age (never owned a fully manual 35mm film camera in any form).

 

Zone focusing I think I understand...

 

Hyperfocal distance focusing, not as much... and reading the DOF scale on the lens is baffling to me. I need someone to YouTube an explanation or come over and show me

 

And the rangefinder focusing is self-explanatory, but not always easy! I've read some good tips here just a while ago and am going to try them...

 

but of course, I have questions

 

Taking all the focusing methods into account... let's say I have my 35mm or 50mm lens set at f/8, and my subject is anywhere from 10 to 20 feet away. If I were to focus on that subject using the rangefinder, but it wasn't absolutely perfect, given the DOF I should still get my subject in focus, correct?

 

In other words, other than at the widest apertures, how spot-on does the rangefinder need to be focused?

 

When using the hyperfocal or zone method, or a combination of the two, when you raise the camera to your eye to take the picture do you just ignore it that the rangefinder shows as being out of focus? Can someone explain to me how that works?

 

Do people find the magnifier helpful? I think I'm going to end up shooting with 35mm and longer lenses most often. How is the HK one from Japan... peace of crud or worth getting? The Leica one seems a little hard to come by right now.

 

Anyone from New York want to meet for coffee and teach a rangefinder noob?

[george_b]

The HK magnifier works OK, for the price it must me a 'must have'. The Leica one is a tad expensive for something I would use only occassionally, and if I lost the HK one -- just get another and get on with life.

[Guest sirvine]

You're definitely on the right track with all your observations. In my own experience, zone or hyperfocal is not the way to go at wide apertures anyway.

[wparsonsgisnet]

... let's say I have my 35mm or 50mm lens set at f/8, and my subject is anywhere from 10 to 20 feet away. If I were to focus on that subject using the rangefinder, but it wasn't absolutely perfect, given the DOF I should still get my subject in focus, correct?

 

When using the hyperfocal or zone method, or a combination of the two, when you raise the camera to your eye to take the picture do you just ignore it that the rangefinder shows as being out of focus? Can someone explain to me how that works?

 

Do people find the magnifier helpful? I think I'm going to end up shooting with 35mm and longer lenses most often. How is the HK one from Japan... peace of crud or worth getting? The Leica one seems a little hard to come by right now...

 

Amy, welcome. Some answers for you.

 

Using the 50mm lens (the greater DOF of the 35 is more forgiving of focusing error), at f8, (1) focused at 10' the dof is about 8' to 20' (hard to head the dial), (2) focused at 20', the dof is about 10' to 50' approx.

 

I use vertical edges to focus, like the side of a person's face. I like being at f5.6 or f8 because of the focus assist from the dof. However, going beyond f8 on the M8 will reduce the detail in your image because of diffraction effects. That is, you are better off staying at f8 or below most of the time.

 

When using a hyperfocus focus scheme, yes, the rangefinder may not show your subject as focused. The focus should be ok if your subject is in the dof range for that aperture and distance -- plus you can chimp the results, looking at the viewing screen, and blow it up to see how it looks.

 

An example: if you have your lens set at f8, and focused at 10', then if your subject is at 15 feet, the focus patch will show the verticals not to overlay in the patch, but the dof will make the subject appear to be in focus.

 

I use the (Leica) magnifier and have recommended to others that they get the HK version. Several here use it and do not complain. It makes a big difference in focusing and I leave it on all the time, even when using a 24mm lens.

 

One caveat that I always have to remember: when using zone focus and raising the camera and shooting, I blur the jpic a lot of the time. I have to keep reminding myself to hold the camera steadily and press the shutter slowly. Just sloppy behavior on my part.

[carstenw]

It is not quite clear to me if you bought an M8 or a film M. It sounds like a film M, but this is the M8 forum If this is an M8, why do you focus with the camera off? Just shoot everything you focus on, and then you can check how you are doing. Even with depth of field, the plane of focus is sharpest and with many lenses has a special look to it. I would recommend just to keep practicing focusing until you've got a good feel for it.

[DRabbit]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I've been reading more about the zone system and I think that will be helpful to know, but of course getting the best focus possible when time allows is the best way to go.

 

I went out shooting with my brother tonight (he has just started his journey into photography with a Rebel) and I really got a much better feel for it... of course I won't know until I look at the actual photos, but it "felt good" - LOL

 

It also seems much easier to focus with the rangefinder out in the bright daylight (and not in my dim living room in the middle of the night)

 

On another note, I successfully coded my first lens -- hurray me!

 

Amy

[haribo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just received my M8. Guess, I'm in for a similar ride as you Amy... ;-)

[lars_bergquist]

Amy, welcome to this sometimes contentious but often interesting forum – and the often unnecessarily esoteric world of the Leica M! I have been working with rangefinder focusing cameras (and damn well all other kinds of focusing cameras) since the 1950's. You have some interesting days and weeks ahead of you.

 

Let's take the rangefinder first. There are two kinds of rangefinders. One is where you make two images coincide; in practice, your brain cries "in focus!" when contrast in the RF patch is at maximum. The other is the split-image type. Find a vertical line or edge you want to be in focus. Aim the camera so that the line shows partly inside, partly outside the patch, and align the two segments. The M rangefinder, due to the sharp edges of the RF patch, can be used BOTH ways. The split-image method is the most accurate, but cannot always be used. It is common however to focus with the camera in the most convenient position (portrait or landscape) and then quickly turn the camera for the actual shot. M pros do this.

 

Depth of field: A lens produces the maximum definition in just one plane (depending on the focusing) which is without any depth – I will call it 'the plane of best focus'. On both sides of this plane, definition ('sharpness' = resolution + contrast) falls of gradually. The final image may however be visually, acceptably sharp also some distance in front and behind this plane. Stopping the lens down increases this 'depth of field' (d.o.f.). The funny little f-numbers on the focusing scale of the lens are supposed to show how far on both sides of the set distance you have acceptable sharpness, for various set apertures.

 

The definition of 'acceptable' was frozen during the 1920's however. Since then, increasing print and screen sizes have made these criteria totally obsolete. There is a remedy which pros use, no matter what brand camera they use (as long as they can focus it manually): Halve the numbers. So, if you want to use f:8, read d.o.f. at the f:4 markings instead. This does indeed 'sharpen' the sharpness criterion.

 

Hyperfocal: Put the far f-number at infinity. The lens is now set at its hyperfocal distance for the f-stop you are using. The d.o.f. will be found to extend from a distance which is just half the hyperfocal one, to infinity. Example: 28mm lens at f:8. Align the infinity symbol with the far number 4. The lens is now set at somewhere between 5 and 10 meters, around 7m, say. The near number 4 will tell you that your d.o.f. starts at around 3.5m and goes to infinity. – The technique is of course applicable only to wide angle lenses. Otherwise, you point focus, stop down a bit if you can, and hope for the best! There will at least be d.o.f. enough to cover your focusing errors (which AF cameras also have, BTW). – Even wide lenses should of course be stopped down a bit when used at or near their closest focus. There is not only a risk of pilot error, various optical facts of life can have the result that the plane of best focus will not move towards you in a perfectly linear fashion as you focus the lens. Ignorance of these facts has led to some unnecessary panic hereabouts lately. These quirks can put SLR lenses too slightly off, if you stop them down after focusing.

 

For the rest: train, train, train, and chimp! Power cost and battery wear are negligible (assuming that it is an M8 you have). Above all, have fun.

 

The old man from the Age of Manual Focusing

[Guest devonboy]

Seems to me, and I'm no expert, that practicing taking photos at various F stops with a multitude of lenses is easy on an M8. There is no great cost; there's no great lead time before seeing the the results; there's just great fun practicing.

 

and...what's this 'chimp' business. Monkeying around with the camera?

[DRabbit]

Great info Lars... and thanks.

 

I really got to take this baby out tonight and test her... I haven't processed all my photos yet, but here's two for your enjoyment...

 

 

 

If you want to see more, they're in my gallery

[cre8ing]

Thanks, Lars

Great explaination, i've been trying to look up hyperfocus for a while and had not known what to call it, being a newbie and all.

[lars_bergquist]

Nice work, Amy. Nice cat, too ... had a Russian Blue many years ago. He was crazier than Crazy Cat.

 

I can only add one practical tip. When putting the camera down, or pausing, or immediately after mounting a lens: Set the focus to infinity. This way you will never wonder "which way do I go", make a mistake and be forced to change direction. This saves much more time than trying to pre-focus (unless very widely, by d.o.f.) – This is much less important with manual-focus SLR cameras, as the screen shows you whether focus lies in front of or behind the subject.

 

And finally, pardon me if I happened to lecture you about something you already know! But to judge from the responses, I did not lecture in vain – thank you all.

 

The old man from the Age of the Soapbox

[lars_bergquist]

- - - - -

and...what's this 'chimp' business. Monkeying around with the camera?

 

I guess so. Means taking a peek at the picture(s) just taken, on the monitor. Chimps are pretty intelligent people. And I wouldn't like to miss the 'INFO' button. I use it for manual bounce flash.

 

The old man from the Age of Flashpowder

[Philinflash]

... of course I won't know until I look at the actual photos, but it "felt good" - LOL

 

...Amy

 

One distinct advantage of a digital camera over a filmic ("analogue"?) camera like the M8 is that you can perform a sort of inspection of your handiwork immediately after you on that little screen on the back of the camera. While the thing as many limitations, you can do a kind of gross examination of the shot's composition and exposure. The latter is somewhat less sensitive if you shoot DNG rather than JPEG.

 

But you seem to be most concerned about focus which can also be checked on the LCD. Sure, it is a bit difficult in bright light and within the little screen. However, you can use the wheelie-thing on the back to zoom in on your frame or small portions thereof to give you an idea of how you did in the focus department and then, possibly, re-shoot. This might be better than waiting until you have printed a 16x20.

 

I don't know if you are into spot-metering but, if you are, you can also use this zoom feature together with the info feature to view the histogram for very small areas of the frame as if spot-metering and make whatever adjustments you deem appropriate.

 

It seems you should just shoot a lot without worrying about results. With that practice, so will come confidence in your equipment which is what you seem to need most.

[DRabbit]

Thanks Phillip...

 

I do know about "chimping"... rather inspecting on the LCD right out in the field, but with any camera I've had, even with being able to zoom in, I've never been able to really tell until I got home and got the pics up onto a good monitor.

 

Did you see the photos I posted? How do you think I did for my first M8 outting?

[Philinflash]

Thanks Phillip...

 

I do know about "chimping"... rather inspecting on the LCD right out in the field, but with any camera I've had, even with being able to zoom in, I've never been able to really tell until I got home and got the pics up onto a good monitor.

 

See: SportsShooter.com - Chimping EXPOSED! (Part 1)

 

I did not want to use the "chimping" term because of its pejorative baggage which could legitimately put off anyone! Certainly, it ain't "a good monitor." I was just suggesting a field compromise. Of course, if you were really nuts, you could take a laptop with a good screen into the field with your M-8 tethered to it and do some heavy-duty chimping.

 

Pardon me if I offend by inferring that you have "grown up" photographically in the digital era when silly things like focus were handled by the hardware. If that is the case, I can understand how manual focusing is quite intimidating -- it might be the "newest" aspect of the M8 to some users.

 

Manual focus is something many of the rest of us internalized years ago and I just must repeat my advice to practice-practice-practice.

 

Yes, I looked at your website and I like your work. Furthermore, I look forward to the time when your focus comes automatically and you are thinking about your content, not your camera.

[bab]

If you go to this web site it may be more enlightening Online Depth of Field Calculator

 

use the CoC .030 but it also depends on the viewing distance of the final print.

 

Also if you cant get your camera to focus on a chart properly like some of us had the experience its not your ability but the camera needs to be adjusted.

 

The magnifier which I use all the time dims the light through the finder and I find it hard in low light situations to be exact...so the other method I use is focus bracketing and then composite in CS3 (remember not to change the f/stop when bracketing only the shutter speed)

 

I used my 35 lux indoors with no flash at a charity event shot 6 pic of a model on stage with very hard lighting 60th sec at f8 and had a couple tack focus had to actually reduce the sharpness and cropped half the pic of then I made a 30" x 40" dura trans and used it for an ad campaign. It has received nothing but complements

And to confuse you even more i suggest going the the ultimate guru web site on dof:

A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator you will find everything you ever wanted to know here.

 

good luck

 

I would suggest practice with edges, and texture in different lighting situations.

[Zoran Milich]

Amy, I shoot a lot of sports with my M8 wide open. What ever the subject matter, it takes practice, practice, practice. The great part of it is that its digital. Just keep shooting.

[lars_bergquist]

Barry, a circle of confusion of .030mm is totally inadequate. The old industrial standard of 1/30 (.033mm) was based on the assumption that a 3x enlargement (to the old European post-card size of about 8x12cm) was all it took to compete with roll film cameras. Remember, this was in an age when owners of 6x9cm (120) folders mostly were happy with same-size contact prints. I remember that! Now 1/60 (.015mm) is what we use.

 

The rationale is the following. A print when viewed at normal reading distance, c. 25–30cm/1', needs a circle of confusion *on the paper* of .1mm or less to appear sharp. If a 3x enlargement was enough, then a c.o.c. of .1 ÷ 3 = .033mm in the negative would suffice. A c.o.c. of .015mm however will permit an enlargement to about 16x24cm, or an A4 print.

 

And that size is the largest print that we can comfortably view at one foot as a complete picture (as distinct from scrutinising a detail, maybe with a magnifier). Any larger print we try to view from a larger distance: we extend our arms, hang the picture on a wall – or on a billboard.

 

Some people (like Erwin Puts) cannot understand this. This gives rise to what I call the Billboard Bugaboo. They ask, will the print look sharp if I enlarge it to 2X · 3X size (put in any horrendous numbers you want). But please, we do not view a billboard from a distance of one foot. If you are dead set to find unsharpness (or grain, or noise, or pixels or dead flies) you will always find them if you try hard. Even an A4 print can be viewed with a magnifier. A 5x loupe gives you a virtual viewing distance of 5 or 6cm! Or why not a microscope? But if we are interested in a picture – as distinct from a scientific or technical specimen – this is totally unrealistic. If you can make a visually sharp A4, then you can print to any size. I had no problem with enlarging a 35mm Kodak T-Max 100 neg to 50cm/40 in. – the result hangs on the wall of my study. Admittedly, at 30cm some grain becomes visible ... but I have to crawl over my printer to get that close.

 

The old man from the Age of Zeiss Roll-Film Folders

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[DRabbit]

I totally appreciate all the help from everyone...

 

I will say though, I am not one to do math or carry a chart... so being able to use the depth of field scale on the lens itself combined with the known-how is much more useful to me in practice... I'm just not sure how to compensate for the 1.3 magnifier of the M8...

 

Amy