Your zone focus settings for the m10

[Bentham]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On the street, a 35mm Summicron at f/8 and pre-focused to 12ft works for me when the subject is between ~2.5m-8m away. My lens is left there 80% of the time. If I want to shoot closer than 2m I pre-focus to 4ft instead. Anything further than ~8m I manually focus. I personally don't use auto ISO and prefer to manually set my shutter speed and ISO.

[250swb]

Thanks for all the responses! Sounds like it’s best I don’t rely on zone focusing too much. Was also thinking that for when the light becomes more limited, shooting at f8 would be sort of a crutch.

 

I think it's a question of knowing when to use zone focusing. If you see a thing that you want to photograph, a person, an object, photograph it by focusing on it. Pre-focusing in anticipation is often the fastest way to nail focus quickly because each street or situation often has it's own innate distance that separates the photographer from the things he wants to photograph and the compositions he wants to make. Zone focusing in those situations can mean you are too often at the limit of near or far, or when you have so much DOF a f/8 that most of it extends well beyond the scene and could perhaps be better handled by focusing on the subject at f/5.6 and increase the shutter speed to stop motion blur. 

 

But zone focusing can be very good when there is a lot of activity, people running across the frame close by, or when you are far enough away so focusing on any one thing becomes academic, or big crowds where you need to record something but don't yet know what it is like when you hold the camera above your head to take a picture.

[Advertisement]

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

[PokCam]

Apropos Zone Focusing and Hyperfocal Distance. Please allow me a fundamental question:

 

Regarding the engravings on the lenses, what is the definition of "being in focus" or "being sharp enough"?

 

Only a properly focused lens would make a specific subject perfectly sharp. Changing the aperture will of course change the Depth of Field (DoF) - but what is the theory behind the lens engravings?

 

Example:

If the figures on a specific lens indicate that all subjects in the field from 3 mtr to 6 mtr will be IN "focus" - and subjects outside this field will be OUT of "focus", then this reading must be based on some form of definition as only subjects in the exact focal plane will be perfectly focused.

 

Question:

What kind of calculations / theory is used to define the engravings on the lenses?

 

BR Poul

[a.noctilux]

Apropos Zone Focusing and Hyperfocal Distance. Please allow me a fundamental question:

 

Regarding the engravings on the lenses, what is the definition of "being in focus" or "being sharp enough"?

 

Only a properly focused lens would make a specific subject perfectly sharp. Changing the aperture will of course change the Depth of Field (DoF) - but what is the theory behind the lens engravings?

 

Example:

If the figures on a specific lens indicate that all subjects in the field from 3 mtr to 6 mtr will be IN "focus" - and subjects outside this field will be OUT of "focus", then this reading must be based on some form of definition as only subjects in the exact focal plane will be perfectly focused.

 

Question:

What kind of calculations / theory is used to define the engravings on the lenses?

 

BR Poul

 

See post #14 :

 

jaapv wrote

 

That is true and one starts using the rangefinder at this point, allowing for slight misfocus. The art of anticipation is far more important than cracking numbers for the focus zone.

In response to your other post, instead of the traditional CoC on film of 0.033, it is better to assume 0.02 for a sensor.

 

Practice calculation...

 

Engravings on modern Leica M lenses are mostly for CoC 0.033mm (from film days to be compatible as usual with film M ! ).

In digital use, that would be 0.02mm so just use the next engraving (one less f number for example f/8 in place of f/11)

[evikne]

In digital use, that would be 0.02mm so just use the next engraving (one less f number for example f/8 in place of f/11)

Shouldn’t it be the opposite? That because digital sensors have higher resolution they need to stop down one extra f- stop? For example from f/8 to f/11?

[pico]

Shouldn’t it be the opposite? That because digital sensors have higher resolution they need to stop down one extra f- stop? For example from f/8 to f/11?

 

Yes, ƒ11 when it indicates ƒ8.

 

Circle of confusion (CoC).

Edited September 15, 2018 by pico

[PokCam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks to a.noctilux!

 

Indeed I have read post #14 even before sending my question - and I also got the feeling that jaapv was trying to explain the background in his post.

 

I'm sorry, I may be stupid. But as an explanation to the lens engravings, I simply don't understand the meaning of "instead of the traditional CoC on film of 0.033, it is better to assume 0.02 for a sensor".

 

BR Poul

[PokCam]

Ahh, CoC means Circle of Confusion.

I will study the link indicated in post #26 from pico.

 

Poul

[earleygallery]

I wonder why you bought the M in the first place? If you prefer auto focus then stick to an auto focus camera, there's no shame in it. But it's a waste of everything (your money, time, the superb rangefinder mechanism, fine optics) to try and use the M as though it were a point and shoot camera.

 

Yes most of us use techniques to grab quick snapshots when necessary, and you will get acceptable results most of the time, but if you keep the camera you really should learn to use it properly.

[mmradman]

I wonder why you bought the M in the first place? If you prefer auto focus then stick to an auto focus camera, there's no shame in it. But it's a waste of everything (your money, time, the superb rangefinder mechanism, fine optics) to try and use the M as though it were a point and shoot camera.

 

Yes most of us use techniques to grab quick snapshots when necessary, and you will get acceptable results most of the time, but if you keep the camera you really should learn to use it properly.

Nothing wrong with people buying Leica cameras in error, keeps business in black and S/H market stocked up.

[M11 for me]

I wonder why you bought the M in the first place? If you prefer auto focus then stick to an auto focus camera, there's no shame in it. But it's a waste of everything (your money, time, the superb rangefinder mechanism, fine optics) to try and use the M as though it were a point and shoot camera.

 

Yes most of us use techniques to grab quick snapshots when necessary, and you will get acceptable results most of the time, but if you keep the camera you really should learn to use it properly.

I imagine that there is a misunderstanding now: Its about zone focusing. I think there are many useful hints for street etc.

[adan]

Historically, depth of field markings on lenses are based on what will still look sharp in an 8"x10" print (letter-sized or A4 prints are "close enough").

 

And viewed from a "normal" viewing distance - the diagonal of the print, or in that case, about 13"/0.3 meters. With "average" human visual accuity.

 

Once upon a time, those were very reasonable assumptions, as captured in Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant - "....twenty-seven 8x10 color glossy photographs, with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back explaining what each one was."

 

Probably 80%+ of "enlarged" photographic prints in the 20th century were 8x10s, since: they could be handled and filed along with other standard documents, were easy to handle in the darkroom and elsewhere, were "big enough" to show a subject, and the standard-sized paper was cheap, plentiful and easy to buy.

 

https://goo.gl/images/aZH9xk (from Antonioni's movie Blow-Up)

 

Equally, a shutter speed of "1/focal length" to avoid visible camera-shake blur uses those same assumptions. Although even then, it is linear only over a limited range of lenses ~35mm-200mm - a 21mm is easy to hand-hold sharply at 1/8th sec. while 1/500th is marginal for a hand-held 300/400/500mm (absent image stabilization). And of course depends on whether one has a mirror mass flopping around inside the camera (traditional SLRs) vs. a rangefinder or other "mirrorless" camera. And to some extent lens ergonomics (weight and balance).

 

Anyway, as soon as one changes those assumptions (100% views on a computer screen, presbyoptic vision, magnifying glasses), the lens markings and other "rules of thumb" go out the window.

[pico]

Adan: from Antonioni's movie Blow-Up

I gotta let this out. When Blow-Up was released in London I stood in the theatre line for the longest time.  A bird shit on my head. Perhaps I should have taken that as a bad omen.

Edited September 15, 2018 by pico

[Guest]

Adan: from Antonioni's movie Blow-Up

I gotta let this out. When Blow-Up was released in London I stood in the theatre line for the longest time.  A bird shit on my head. Perhaps I should have taken that as a bad omen.

 

 

 

Sorry about the bird shit pico, but it was probably trying to tell you not to waste your shillings and pence on trying to see the film, better to have side-stepped into a pub and spent your money there.

I was a working fashion / magazine photographer in London during those times, perhaps one of the best jobs to have had in the best place to be in the sixties, Blow Up did none of us any favours, it was, still is, an embarrassing little film that made a mockery out of our business and the photographers and models worked there during those admittedly heady times, ( pun intended, I guess ).

But then again, as a sage has said "if you remember the sixties you weren't there". Antonioni's film wasn't "there" either..........

[adan]

Good Lord, Peter! Blow-Up is a parable or metaphor about the nature of reality and perception, not a documentary. Although David Bailey really did pay 8£ for an antique airplane propeller.

 

You might just as well complain that Moby-Dick made a mockery of the 1840s whaling industry. Psychotic captains chasing whales halfway around the world? Or that Casablanca and The Big Sleep seriously misrepresent the nightclub business.

Edited September 19, 2018 by adan

[pico]

I am shattered! I thought Blowup was a documentary.

[Guest]

I am shattered! I thought Blowup was a documentary.

 

 

me too.....hmmm

[PokCam]

Well Guys.

It's all about "Circle of Confusion".

 

(I've learned my lesson)

[a.noctilux]

Well Guys.

It's all about "Circle of Confusion".

 

(I've learned my lesson)

 

Happy for you PokCam.

 

The next "problem" would be "field curvature" or something else .

 

What is nice with photography is learning new things everyday.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M