Just discovered a feature I didn't know existed

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think a few people, myself included, have suggested it would be good to have the spot metering circle tied to magnification area for manual focusing. Well turns out that in FW3.0, this is almost how it works. Magnification, when activated, does still default to the centre of the frame, but if you're in spot metering mode, the spot meter circle will then move with the magnified area.

 

Who knew (well I guess most of you did).

[Advertisement]

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

[lx1713]

I think a few people, myself included, have suggested it would be good to have the spot metering circle tied to magnification area for manual focusing. Well turns out that in FW3.0, this is almost how it works. Magnification, when activated, does still default to the centre of the frame, but if you're in spot metering mode, the spot meter circle will then move with the magnified area.

 

Who knew (well I guess most of you did).

 

Thanks! I didn't know that. I rarely use the spot metering because of laziness   so I'm not likely to remember. It's useful so I should practise this.

[antigallican]

Thanks! I didn't know that. I rarely use the spot metering because of laziness   so I'm not likely to remember. It's useful so I should practise this.

We're all different. I think of myself as only using spot metering because of laziness. All that stuff about which focus will track what and metering which is centre weighted or what. I started using Leica because it was so like my old cameras.  If only I could get the metering and focussing spot to stay in the centre of the frame I'd be happy. Compose, meter, focus, recompose, click.

[ramarren]

We're all different. I think of myself as only using spot metering because of laziness. All that stuff about which focus will track what and metering which is centre weighted or what. I started using Leica because it was so like my old cameras.  If only I could get the metering and focussing spot to stay in the centre of the frame I'd be happy. Compose, meter, focus, recompose, click.

Hmm. My Leica M-D process is "focus, meter, compose, click"... Why compose twice?

 

I use the same with the SL: when using AF, I use pattern metering, when using MF I use centerweighted. Effectively the same shooting workflow. I never take the focus point off center unless I'm doing tabletop where it's inconvenient to be constantly moving the camera on the tripod or stand.

[antigallican]

Hmm. My Leica M-D process is "focus, meter, compose, click"... Why compose twice?

 

I use the same with the SL: when using AF, I use pattern metering, when using MF I use centerweighted. Effectively the same shooting workflow. I never take the focus point off center unless I'm doing tabletop where it's inconvenient to be constantly moving the camera on the tripod or stand.

well, compose=see the shot. Presumably you've seen something to shoot before you focus? I think we're talking about the same thing.

[ramarren]

Ah! "Seeing the shot" happens before I pick up the camera, so it's not part of my camera workflow. I only rarely have the camera to my eye ... I know what the lens I have on it sees so just keep my eyes open when looking for scenes to frame.

 

I'm always looking for scenes to frame.

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hmm. My Leica M-D process is "focus, meter, compose, click"... Why compose twice?

I use the same with the SL: when using AF, I use pattern metering, when using MF I use centerweighted. Effectively the same shooting workflow. I never take the focus point off center unless I'm doing tabletop where it's inconvenient to be constantly moving the camera on the tripod or stand.

Interesting. Could you please explain why you use different metering methods for AF and MF?

 

Rob

[Donzo98]

Hmm. My Leica M-D process is "focus, meter, compose, click"... Why compose twice?

 

I use the same with the SL: when using AF, I use pattern metering, when using MF I use centerweighted. Effectively the same shooting workflow. I never take the focus point off center unless I'm doing tabletop where it's inconvenient to be constantly moving the camera on the tripod or stand.

With MF and the SL I almost always have to move the focus point. It’s hardly ever dead center. As soon as I mag up the image, I can’t see where my point of focus is until I scroll up/down or left/right. With the Noct wide open, as you know, it requires critical focus.

 

Are you saying that you always have the exact focal point center every time??

[ramarren]

Interesting. Could you please explain why you use different metering methods for AF and MF?

 

 

I can't give an extensive technical reason. I just find I get better results this way.

 

 

With MF and the SL I almost always have to move the focus point. It’s hardly ever dead center. As soon as I mag up the image, I can’t see where my point of focus is until I scroll up/down or left/right. With the Noct wide open, as you know, it requires critical focus.

Are you saying that you always have the exact focal point center every time??

I almost never shoot wide open, with any lens. Hyper thin DoF doesn't appeal to me. I don't have a Nocti, I have a ' Lux-R 50 ... I find the rendering qualities appeal to me most around two-three stops down from wide open. I also only rarely magnify the image for focusing ... I can see the focus transition very clearly at normal magnification if I'm using f/2.8 to f/4.

[antigallican]

 

 

I can't give an extensive technical reason. I just find I get better results this way.

 

 

I almost never shoot wide open, with any lens. Hyper thin DoF doesn't appeal to me. I don't have a Nocti, I have a ' Lux-R 50 ... I find the rendering qualities appeal to me most around two-three stops down from wide open. I also only rarely magnify the image for focusing ... I can see the focus transition very clearly at normal magnification if I'm using f/2.8 to f/4.

 

I couldn't agree more about the shallow DOF.  It seems very mannered. I had a road to Damascus moment about it when I realised that none of the great photographers I like use shallow DOF. Cartier Bresson, Weegee, Capa... they are 'f11 and be there' guys. Even if I look at contemporary wedding photogs I like, the shallow depth of field thing is used sparingly. So, my 24-90 starts (mostly) at f4? I don't care.

[robgo2]

I couldn't agree more about the shallow DOF.  It seems very mannered. I had a road to Damascus moment about it when I realised that none of the great photographers I like use shallow DOF. Cartier Bresson, Weegee, Capa... they are 'f11 and be there' guys. Even if I look at contemporary wedding photogs I like, the shallow depth of field thing is used sparingly. So, my 24-90 starts (mostly) at f4? I don't care.

There is a time and a place for everything. The legendary photographers that you named wanted a large DOF and were often zone focusing. But I do agree that ultra-thin DOF is being overused to the point of becoming a cliche. Just because it is possible to achieve readily does not mean that it is a good artistic choice.

[lx1713]

I like low dof when the background is distressing or irritating to the composition. Most times I want the background to inform/complement the foreground moment. Think of it as, my editor will only use one picture, this picture has to count. Even if the editor is yourself.

[antigallican]

<<I like low dof when the background is distressing or irritating to the composition>>

 

exactly

[ramarren]

A shallow DoF is useful to suppress a distracting background, highlight a subject in a three-dimensional composition, etc. But DoF always has to be deep enough to properly cover that part of the scene that you want to have in focus ... Wide-open with a 50mm f/0.95 lens nets too little DoF to be all that useful for most subject matter at normal shooting distances. For instance, at 8' focus distance, f/0.95 nets about two inches of DoF ... that's not quite enough to cover a face from nose to ear sharply (you need about 4" minimum).

 

Don't get me wrong: I use very shallow DoF when it's appropriate. It's just not all that appropriate in the general case.

 

But I think I got side tracked in answering the question: Do you always use the center point focus?

The answer to that is pretty much "yes" unless I'm doing tabletop work with the camera on a tripod or stand ... then it's convenient to be able to shift the field of view and focus point without having to shift the setup.

[LD_50]

DOF is appropriate for whatever final image the photographer wants to produce.

 

There are no rules to follow if you’re not shooting for someone else. Produce the image you want.

 

If you want the entire scene to be a blur, so be it. If you want the nose and ears out of focus, so be it. If you want a scene in sharp focus from near to far by using focus stacking, that’s great too.

[lx1713]

..

But I think I got side tracked in answering the question: Do you always use the center point focus?

..

 

If I might add. When I used a DSLR, the center point focus is pretty much the where I want my AF point to be. Most times.

 

With the mirrorless SL, I find myself developing a taste for leaving the focusing point wherever I've initially pointed it to, using it like a center point focus. That is, I will use whichever AF point to focus then recompose. I'm not particularly purist in sharp sharp in the plane of focus so I pretty happy with getting my shots in this way.

 

When I have time, I will reposition the AF point center where I still find it most comfortable and convenient. I did find Touch AF to be brilliant for repositioning shots but my nose keeps brilliant shots away.

[ramarren]

DOF is appropriate for whatever final image the photographer wants to produce.

There are no rules to follow if you’re not shooting for someone else. Produce the image you want.

If you want the entire scene to be a blur, so be it. If you want the nose and ears out of focus, so be it. If you want a scene in sharp focus from near to far by using focus stacking, that’s great too.

Sure. But that's such a general statement it's like no statement at all. "Rules? There are no rules in a knife fight.."

 

I was speaking in the specific context of what I like for MY photography. I don't presume that anyone else can make my photographs... or even wants to!

Edited January 9, 2018 by ramarren

[robgo2]

DOF is appropriate for whatever final image the photographer wants to produce.

 

There are no rules to follow if you’re not shooting for someone else. Produce the image you want.

 

If you want the entire scene to be a blur, so be it. If you want the nose and ears out of focus, so be it. If you want a scene in sharp focus from near to far by using focus stacking, that’s great too.

 

Well, as the old saying goes, there's no accounting for taste. But as a viewer of many wide open shots that are posted on the web, it is my opinion that a large percentage would benefit from wider DOF. Paper thin DOF has become the default mode for more than a few photographers. Sometimes, it works beautifully, but most of the time, it does not, IMO. I wonder how often other aesthetic choices receive any consideration whatsoever.

Edited January 9, 2018 by robgo2

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LD_50]

Well, as the old saying goes, there's no accounting for taste. But as a viewer of many wide open shots that are posted on the web, it is my opinion that a large percentage would benefit from wider DOF. Paper thin DOF has become the default mode for more than a few photographers. Sometimes, it works beautifully, but most of the time, it does not, IMO. I wonder how often other aesthetic choices receive any consideration whatsoever.

Most of the photos I see posted online are large DOF shots and typically shot with a mobile phone. Most are not to my taste. My taste is irrelevant, which was the point of my post.

 

Shoot whatever you like and maybe you’ll find no fans of your work or maybe you’ll be popular and start a new trend. It’s all subjective so I always recommend avoiding the the aesthetic “rules” and just do what you like. This goes for any artistic pursuit for me.

[ramarren]

Most of the photos I see posted online are large DOF shots and typically shot with a mobile phone. Most are not to my taste. My taste is irrelevant, which was the point of my post.

Shoot whatever you like and maybe you’ll find no fans of your work or maybe you’ll be popular and start a new trend. It’s all subjective so I always recommend avoiding the the aesthetic “rules” and just do what you like. This goes for any artistic pursuit for me.

Sorry, but ...

If anything goes and "your taste is irrelevant", why should anyone be listening to you with respect to aesthetic advice?

 

Art and aesthetics are never "anything goes, just do what you like." Never have been, never will be. If there was that little structure to art and aesthetics, it would have no value whatever. Of course, I don't mean that everyone should be slaves to conventions such as the rule of thirds, the golden mean, etc. Be educated by "the rules" and know when to apply them and when to 'break the rules' or 'think outside the box' ...