Is it easier to focus with the new rangefinder in M10 when using 135mm lenses?

[mirekti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the past there was recommendation to close 135mm lens to f/5.6 for precise focusing. 

I have noticed I can perfectly focus within first 10m when using 135mm APO-Tely, but when I want to hit the focus between 15-30m away from me it is kind of hit and miss.
Has there been any improvement in the rangefinder which would make it easier to focus when 135mm lens is used?

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Mirekti,

 

You might try a solution from the 1930's where rangefinder users rotated the camera/lens  combination about 45 degrees, 1 way or the other, when focusing.

 

Then rotated back to where things were before when composing & taking the photo.

 

This allows the superimposed image to come together with the fixed image from 2 different directions simultaneously.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited November 2, 2017 by Michael Geschlecht

[Advertisement]

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

[Ronazle]

Oh Michael, be kind!  I am old and have been focusing that way since my first Leica purchase.  However did not buy it  (a used IIIC w/uncoated Summitar) in the 30's. Regards, Ron

[albertknappmd]

Consider adding the 1.25 X magnifier if rotation fails..

 

Albert     

[tobey bilek]

RF have been improved for accuracy and staying adjusted.  

 

Magnifying eyepiece is not yet available for M10,  but there is an adapter for previous diopters and eyepiece magnifying lenses which are smaller.  This should help,  but check with a dealer.

 

Before fooling around,  I would tripod the camera and use live view at questionable distance.  LV is ALWAYS correct.   Use a magnifying glass (50mm lens reversed) or loupe from large format or set up the color indicators that show focus, forget what they are called. I dislike them,  but they do work.  I use the loupe.

 

Stand in the shade with subject in sun and throw the dark cloth from your view camera over camera or a dark coat so you can see clearly .

 

If they match,  RF and LV,  all is good.   If not RF is off or it is user error.

[adan]

In the past there was recommendation to close 135mm lens to f/5.6 for precise focusing. 

I have noticed I can perfectly focus within first 10m when using 135mm APO-Tely, but when I want to hit the focus between 15-30m away from me it is kind of hit and miss.

Has there been any improvement in the rangefinder which would make it easier to focus when 135mm lens is used?

 

On the whole, yes, my M10 produces more success focusing a 135 than my M9. The higher viewfinder magnification works as advertised.

 

Of course, my M9 has been "out in the world" for 8 years now, so it may have suffered some loss of precision.

 

When (if ) I get my M9 back from having the sensor replaced, (and thus also certainly factory adjustment of everything, including the RF) - I will try a "new against new" test to see if the M10 is still the focusing king.

______________________

 

On the question of focusing accuracy "decay" at longer distances - this is a standard effect of triangulation (rangefinder) focusing.

 

Rangefinders measure the angles of a triangle (subject > main window > secondary RF window > subject) to calculate distance. When that triangle gets really long and skinny (a fixed base of .0685m and a subject distance of perhaps 30m - ratio of 1:438) the narrow angle between the two long legs of the triangle (the two views you line up in the viewfinder) makes it very hard to 1) track mechanically, and 2) see via the human eye. The lines of sight become virtually parallel - far more so than in this "schematic" illustration:

 

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2016/05/Rangefinder.jpg

 

(Naval rangefinders that had to be accurate to 10000 meters/yards had base lengths of 6m/18 feet).

 

https://mathscinotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/800px-graf_spee_telc3a9metro_01.jpg

 

That is counteracted somewhat by increased absolute DoF at long distances - e.g. a centimeter of misfocus is 1/3000th the total distance at 30m but only 1/150th the distance at 1.5 meters. Closeup, the RF measuring precision is higher, but the DoF smaller.

 

However - when the lens is set to infinity using the scale (bypassing the rangefinder), and the subject is at a long distance, then, assuming the camera/lens are correctly calibrated, suddenly we get perfect focus again.

 

This results in a "black hole" at longer-but-not-infinite distances, where focus accuracy is compromised with RFs. How much depends on the absolute base length (distance between the viewing points or windows), and the viewfinder magnification (effective base length).

 

I first experienced and recognized this with the Contax G1/G2 electronic RFs. Which still used triangulation (comparing angles with sensors, not by eye) for focusing. With their 90mm lens at f/2.8, the camera began reporting the subject distance as "∞" at about 15 meters, and motor-drove the lens to the infinity stop. Which the DoF of f/2.8 did not cover.

 

Most Leicas' RFs are more precise than that (longer base length) - but with a longer lens (135) and nearly the same f/stop, that black hole still appears - at some distance. For me, with a 135, that varies depending on lighting, f/stop and on how tired my eyes are. But usually I get good 135mm focusing out to at least 30 meters/100 feet @ f/4 with the M10. It has a bit of trouble distinguishing between, say 200 meters and 500 meters (the RF looks aligned at either distance). And using the scale to set for infinity, f/4 DoF only covers down to about 1500 meters.

 

So my M10 "black hole" with a 135 is in between about 100 meters and 1500 meters. But - I still get lucky, or f/5.6-8 in bright light adds enough DoF to cover the error - most of the time.

 

I still tend to use f/5.6 if the lighting allows, anyway, simply because my Tele-Elmar-M reaches peak resolution at that aperture.

Edited November 2, 2017 by adan

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Easy answer. Yes the M10 makes focusing a longer/faster lens easier than any other digital M.

 

Gordon

[mirekti]

Oh those black holes, I knew they were no good!!!   
Thank you all for tips and tricks, and thorough explanation, I certainly have few things to try out on my M240 first.
This is the only feature which might make me switch to M10.

Edited November 2, 2017 by mirekti

[Michael Geschlecht]

Oh those black holes, I knew they were no good!!!   

Thank you all for tips and tricks, and thorough explanation, I certainly have few things to try out on my M240 first.

This is the only feature which might make me switch to M10.

 

Hello Mirekti,

 

Or, perhaps to an M3.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

I see you asked about RF focusing, however, don’t overlook the much improved EVF solution

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UliWer]

In the past there was recommendation to close 135mm lens to f/5.6 for precise focusing. 

I have noticed I can perfectly focus within first 10m when using 135mm APO-Tely, but when I want to hit the focus between 15-30m away from me it is kind of hit and miss.

...

Perhaps the miss rate at the critical distance described by you is a little bit smaller with the M10 (perhaps 7.5 misses out of ten instead of 8...  ) 

 

Though it is the EVF which really makes a substantial difference.

Edited November 3, 2017 by UliWer

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Perhaps the miss rate at the critical distance described by you is a little bit smaller with the M10 (perhaps 7.5 misses out of ten instead of 8...  ) 

 

Though it is the EVF which really makes a substantial difference.

 

 For me it's more like 2 out of 10 instead of 8.

 

Gordon

[graphlex]

The 135mm Tele-Elmarit’s goggles work quite well on the M240, if the setup is well-calibrated.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mirekti]

Though it is the EVF which really makes a substantial difference.

I don’t care about the EVF, and I’ve read it is lagging and there are black holes too, but these happen in time despite Maestro II.

EVF is something I’ll never pay Leica for. There’s nothing special there, Leica lags behind the competition yet charges premium prices. It actually makes me feel both, angry and offended, but all EVF thing is for another topic anyways.

Edited November 4, 2017 by mirekti

[jaapv]

Lags behind what competition? Any other rangefinders with auxiliary EVFs around? If you want to compare to EVIL cameras you are in the wrong forum; try the SL one.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I don’t care about the EVF, and I’ve read it is lagging and there are black holes too, but these happen in time despite Maestro II.

EVF is something I’ll never pay Leica for. There’s nothing special there, Leica lags behind the competition yet charges premium prices. It actually makes me feel both, angry and offended, but all EVF thing is for another topic anyways.

 

The 020 reacts pretty much the same as my XPro2 with a bit more IQ. You want better buy an SL.

 

I'd suggest you try it rather than reading reports. The 020 only lags on the TL. That's the camera not the EVF. On the TL2 and M10 it's quite respectable.

 

Gordon

[mdemeyer]

Agree with Gordon. Nothing is perfect, and the M10 is an RF-first camera. But the 020 is, in my view, a great option to extend the functional scope of the camera.

[fotocrazee]

In such circumstances I have gotten in the bad habit of using live view...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Paul J]

The EVF or Live View is very useful on the M240 but 1 frame every 2 seconds is a bit crappy.

 

How much better is it on the M10?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The EVF or Live View is very useful on the M240 but 1 frame every 2 seconds is a bit crappy.

 

How much better is it on the M10?

 

Significantly. Noticeably.

 

Gordon