Noob Focusing Question

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Err.  Rangefinder focusing is parallax focusing...

[IkarusJohn]

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Not sure I follow this.  The M view of the world doesn’t shift for parallax; only the frame lines shift (and in the M10, those frame lines happen to be optimized for framing purposes at 2m). The double image in the VF patch is set at a virtual distance of 2m for viewing purposes; the rest of the VF is of course a clear view.  A subject needn’t be at 2m to nail focus.  I guess I missed your point.

Jeff

You did.

[adan]

On 5/1/2019 at 8:18 PM, IkarusJohn said:

At 2 metres (the virtual viewfinder range), you should be able to distinguish the parallax image well enough to nail focus ... 

Can you clarify ( ) what you mean here? Are you saying everything in the world, from the Moon to my hand 20 inches away, will or should appear to be virtually imaged at 2m through the Leica VF?

Because I don't think that is accurate.

My experience is thus: I'm nearsighted, and presbyoptic - my eyes won't adjust/accomodate their focus very much, and basically I can see things sharp only in the range of about 16-22 inches, unaided.

With my unaided eye, I can look through the Leica VF/RF, and focus very easily at about 0.7-1.0 meters - the RF images are sharp. The viewfinder is producing a virtual image range within my own natural eye-focus range (16-22 inches).

If I shift my camera to focus on the bookcase across the room - about 3 meters - the view is completely fuzzy and I can't see the RF images clearly enough to focus.

Conversely, with my glasses for 20/20 vision (not progressive), I can see the RF image easily to focus at 3 meters (actually, from around 1.7 meters to infinity), but if I shift to a closer subject, the RF images become too fuzzy for precise split-image alignment. I have to add a +diopter to focus precisely in that range.

Kind of a pain - I have to add or remove a diopter eyepiece when I shift from very close to very far, at least with 50/75/90 lenses (135s stay in the "just use glasses" range, wides have enough DoF not to matter.)

I believe the 2-meters reference is only to the fixed-distance parts of the viewfinder - the framelines and meter readout. Not to the scene or the RF images of it, which may be shown at some virtual distance, but not one nailed to 2 meters.

Edited May 3, 2019 by adan

[jaapv]

As usual, clear and correct, Andy, and I suppose that this was what the poster meant.

However, the 0.5x diopter correction is meant to bring the virtual distance of the subject matter closer to the 2 m of the RF patch, framelines, etc, to ease the accommodation of the eye.

[M11 for me]

As a matter of interest: Do you leave your progressive glasses on as you take photographs with your M10?

I have a correction of +2.0 on Essilor Varilux and I never take off my glasses. I do not have a corrective lens mounted on my Leica either.

 

[IkarusJohn]

7 hours ago, adan said:

Can you clarify ( ) what you mean here? Are you saying everything in the world, from the Moon to my hand 20 inches away, will or should appear to be virtually imaged at 2m through the Leica VF?

Because I don't think that is accurate.

My experience is thus: I'm nearsighted, and presbyoptic - my eyes won't adjust/accomodate their focus very much, and basically I can see things sharp only in the range of about 16-22 inches, unaided.

With my unaided eye, I can look through the Leica VF/RF, and focus very easily at about 0.7-1.0 meters - the RF images are sharp. The viewfinder is producing a virtual image range within my own natural eye-focus range (16-22 inches).

If I shift my camera to focus on the bookcase across the room - about 3 meters - the view is completely fuzzy and I can't see the RF images clearly enough to focus.

Conversely, with my glasses for 20/20 vision (not progressive), I can see the RF image easily to focus at 3 meters (actually, from around 1.7 meters to infinity), but if I shift to a closer subject, the RF images become too fuzzy for precise split-image alignment. I have to add a +diopter to focus precisely in that range.

Kind of a pain - I have to add or remove a diopter eyepiece when I shift from very close to very far, at least with 50/75/90 lenses (135s stay in the "just use glasses" range, wides have enough DoF not to matter.)

I believe the 2-meters reference is only to the fixed-distance parts of the viewfinder - the framelines and meter readout. Not to the scene or the RF images of it, which may be shown at some virtual distance, but not one nailed to 2 meters.

I understand the OP has presbyopia - long sight, the hardening of the lenses, making focusing clearly at normal reading distance (250mm) difficult.  If, like me, he can see reasonably clearly at 2m, then matching the split image in the focusing box shouldn’t be too much of a problem - even if he has lenses that will focus down to 700mm, his developing lng sight shouldn’t be too much of an obstacle.

One of the things I noticed with the switch from my F6 is that matching a double image in an M viewfinder was easier than establishing sharp focus through an SLR, as aligning the double image through the rangefinder was less an issue.

Of course, your experience may be different, but for me looking through the plain glass of the rangefinder, and matching two images is no problem - I have long sight. Everything in the viewfinder is in focus.

[Luke_Miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

One of the things I noticed with the switch from my F6 is that matching a double image in an M viewfinder was easier than establishing sharp focus through an SLR, as aligning the double image through the rangefinder was less an issue.

That is my experience as well.  I shoot all manual focus lenses on my Nikon Df.  With my M bodies I nail focus 90+% of the time.  With the Df it is a much lower, but still acceptable percentage.  The difference widens as light levels drop.

[LBJ2]

Congratulations  effstop on your new M10 adventure. I'm now into M myself for just over a year and still thrilled with my M system.  I had a rough first few weeks with my M10. Here's what helped me:

1. I wear my specs while shooting the M. If not I use a diopter. I discussed which diopter to buy with my Eye Doctor. However I found my eyelashes can smudge the diopter which interferes with RF focus so I almost stopped using the diopter at this point. The tiny diopter glass is a PITA to clean too.

2. Keep everything clean regularly. Any little smudge can block critical RF focus. I carry a micro fiber cloth and clean the Viewfinder and RF windows frequently. For me makes a big difference.

3. When in RF-doubt swap over to LiveView and check your focus point with focus peaking. Once you get the hang of LiveView it doesn't take much time to go back and forth with one click of the LiveView button. 

4. Some advise sticking a small patch of yellow gel over the Viewfinder window can help too. I tried ( easy enough to do with a few drops of water) and this did not work for me. But others swear by this approach.

5. Practice. Practice, Practice and more practice. Don't forget to learn how to up your Zone focus skills too. IMO the M System is almost perfect for Zone focusing. I practiced zone focusing with a Bosch GLM 20 Laser Distance Measure to help fine tune my distance estimate abilities. Ha ha. but it worked for me. Also I quickly found that using a 35 mm lens at F8 set to about 14/15ft  is an easy pass to get just about everything in focus from about 7 to 8' to infinity. Point and shoot ! 

I'm having so much fun at this here I am shooting F0.95 with RangeFinder focus out on the street! 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62539886

Edited May 3, 2019 by LBJ2

[Jeff S]

22 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

 

1. I wear my specs while shooting the M. If not I use a diopter. I discussed which diopter to buy with my Eye Doctor. However I found my eyelashes can smudge the diopter which interferes with RF focus so I almost stopped using the diopter at this point. The tiny diopter glass is a PITA to clean too.

 

Despite your eye doc recommendation, you might test a small diopter correction while still wearing your glasses.  I did this at my local optician, using trial diopters (no nearby Leica dealer), and found that a small +.5 correction, in addition to my specs, provided the ideal focusing experience. Wearing glasses prevents any eyelash smearing of the diopter, and allows me to see distant subjects without having to constantly put on and remove glasses for viewing and focusing.  

I fully endorse your practice of keeping all M glass clean for best viewing and focusing.  I never go shooting without a small microfiber cloth.

Jeff

[adan]

5 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

One of the things I noticed with the switch from my F6 is that matching a double image in an M viewfinder was easier than establishing sharp focus through an SLR, as aligning the double image through the rangefinder was less an issue.

 

3 hours ago, Luke_Miller said:

That is my experience as well.  I shoot all manual focus lenses on my Nikon Df.  With my M bodies I nail focus 90+% of the time.  With the Df it is a much lower, but still acceptable percentage.  The difference widens as light levels drop.

Yep. I dumped SLRs when they abandoned the once-standard, M-like, "split-prism" focusing aid with the advent of AF.

Gave Nikon a couple of years to get their head straight on that issue (they didn't), and then switched to Contax SLRs (the last hold-out, along with Leica R), and then to Leica M, once Contax went AF.

[LBJ2]

6 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Despite your eye doc recommendation, you might test a small diopter correction while still wearing your glasses.  I did this at my local optician, using trial diopters (no nearby Leica dealer), and found that a small +.5 correction, in addition to my specs, provided the ideal focusing experience. Wearing glasses prevents any eyelash smearing of the diopter, and allows me to see distant subjects without having to constantly put on and remove glasses for viewing and focusing.  

I fully endorse your practice of keeping all M glass clean for best viewing and focusing.  I never go shooting without a small microfiber cloth.

Jeff

Interesting. Hadn't considered specs + diopter. Either way, I am pretty okay with just the specs for now as I wear specs for both long and close distance all day every day so no need to take on and off as I go through the wrokflow. Maybe in some years I might need more visual aid ha ha and diopter is a hell of a lot less cost than specs!  But to your point the specs will block the eye lash from smudging the diopter. Certainly something to consider.  Thanks for the tip.

[Jeff S]

33 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

Interesting. Hadn't considered specs + diopter. Either way, I am pretty okay with just the specs for now as I wear specs for both long and close distance all day every day so no need to take on and off as I go through the wrokflow. Maybe in some years I might need more visual aid ha ha and diopter is a hell of a lot less cost than specs!  But to your point the specs will block the eye lash from smudging the diopter. Certainly something to consider.  Thanks for the tip.

I used Ms with just my specs from the 80’s though 2013 with my M8.2s. I traded for the M240 and used it the same way, glasses only (I wear these glasses all day). I thought I was focusing without issues.  Then one day, after reading comments here about diopters and aging eyes, I decided to give it a try.  I was surprised that although I had no trouble focusing with glasses alone, the .5 correction made everything just pop more.  I bought another after switching to the M10 (testing first).

Jeff

Edited May 3, 2019 by Jeff S

[effstop]

Hi All - 

OP, here.  Finally had the opportunity to visit the Leica Store Miami where I was assisted by a wonderful gal named Ashlyn.  She patiently took the time to try every diopter across the range and we concluded that no diopter was the clearest.  Shooting with my contacts proved to be very helpful.  I can see the focusing patch sharply.  Additionally, she checked focus, back focus and all was perfect.  It is a relief to know that the camera and lens are fine.

I have been practicing with zone focus and the other techniques presented in this thread.  Your encouragement and guidance have really helped me kick the can down the road towards more accurate and faster focusing and I am most appreciative.

--Chris

Edited May 3, 2019 by effstop

[effstop]

9 hours ago, M10 for me said:

As a matter of interest: Do you leave your progressive glasses on as you take photographs with your M10?

I have a correction of +2.0 on Essilor Varilux and I never take off my glasses. I do not have a corrective lens mounted on my Leica either.

 

If your question was directed towards me, I started with my glasses and that exacerbated the problem.  Popped in my contacts and all is well. 

[effstop]

1 hour ago, LBJ2 said:

Congratulations  effstop on your new M10 adventure. I'm now into M myself for just over a year and still thrilled with my M system.  I had a rough first few weeks with my M10. Here's what helped me

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62539886

Thanks and enjoyed your series on DPRreview.

[Michael Geschlecht]

On 5/2/2019 at 1:12 AM, Jeff S said:

Not sure I follow this.  The M view of the world doesn’t shift for parallax; only the frame lines shift (and in the M10, those frame lines happen to be optimized for framing purposes at 2m). The double image in the VF patch is set at a virtual distance of 2m for viewing purposes; the rest of the VF is of course a clear view.  A subject needn’t be at 2m to nail focus.  I guess I missed your point.

Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Utilization of the static image in the viewfinder as opposed to the moving image within the frame lines might be a somewhat subjective determination in some situations.

Some people might focus their attention using the viewfinder boundaries. Sometimes.

While others might concentrate their attention within the moving frame lines. Sometimes.

It is an individual thing.

Best Regards,

Michael

[pico]

1 hour ago, effstop said:

OP, here.  Finally had the opportunity to visit the Leica Store Miami where I was assisted by a wonderful gal named Ashlyn.  She patiently took the time to try every diopter across the range and we concluded that no diopter was the clearest.  Shooting with my contacts proved to be very helpful.

Eventually you might develop cataracts and have them removed. Adding intraocular lenses at the same time could change your life. As expensive as they are a they are far less than a Leica lens.

Considering customer demographics, maybe Leica could get into the intraocular lens business. Uh, but where would they put the red dot?

Edited May 3, 2019 by pico

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, pico said:

Eventually you might develop cataracts and have them removed. Adding intraocular lenses at the same time could change your life. As expensive as they are a they are far less than a Leica lens.

Considering customer demographics, maybe Leica could get into the intraocular lens business. Uh, but where would they put the red dot?

They’re not far down the track for me.  Over the last couple of months, my eyesight has been going down the toilet; particularly my left eye.  It started with weaping crusty eyes in the morning, and what felt like irritation of the cornea (a bit like snow blindness).  At first, I thought it was retinitis or iritis as a result of Graft v Host disease (an unpleasant prospect).  My transplant clinician got me to the acute eye clinic, and to my relief, the ophthalmologist could find no trace of inflammation in a retinal scan.  Slight cataracts developing, but nothing that would impact on my eyesight. 

So, my distance vision is rubbish, my left eye is permanently blurred, and perfect clarity between about 500mm and 10 metres, after which it is rubbish.  In some ways, it feels like I need an eyewash - the issue seems to be on the surface of the eye, rather than the inside of the eye.  It’s all very inconvenient, not least driving.  Needless to say, it’s been a tough time - for most of the second half of last year the anti-rejection drugs gave me the shakes so bad, I couldn’t hold a camera steady. This latest issue has been going on for only a few months - I think I need a second opinion ...

Back to focusing, as I use my right eye, matching the split parallax image in the M viewfinder hasn’t been too much of a problem.  With the Monochrom (Henri), I use a 1.4 magnifier (keep all glass to air surfaces clean), the M10-D has a lovely big, bright viewfinder, and with the EVFs (TL2, M10-D and SL) I dial in 2/3 adjustment.  That all works well.

Duck shooting started this weekend - I hope I can aim properly with my shotgun ...

Edited May 3, 2019 by IkarusJohn

[effstop]

8 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

5. Practice. Practice, Practice and more practice. Don't forget to learn how to up your Zone focus skills too. IMO the M System is almost perfect for Zone focusing. I practiced zone focusing with a Bosch GLM 20 Laser Distance Measure to help fine tune my distance estimate abilities. Ha ha. but it worked for me. Also I quickly found that using a 35 mm lens at F8 set to about 14/15ft  is an easy pass to get just about everything in focus from about 7 to 8' to infinity. Point and shoot ! 

The laser measure is brilliant. Whatever works! 😀

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[semi-ambivalent]

On 5/3/2019 at 1:03 AM, jaapv said:

As usual, clear and correct, Andy, and I suppose that this was what the poster meant.

However, the 0.5x diopter correction is meant to bring the virtual distance of the subject matter closer to the 2 m of the RF patch, framelines, etc, to ease the accommodation of the eye.

jaapv,

Let me edge in here something about this. I have just looked at some negatives with frames that suggest my coinciding the rangefinder patches (at the virtual two meters) is getting a little rough. Frameline edges are not edge sharp but still clearly defined. Does your statement above mean I would want to push the virtual distance of the patches "farther out" to beyond two meters, to a distance I can resolve clearly? That is, I would need to look at negative diopter correction? I don't wear glasses except some cheaters to read. The camera in my hands is a bit fuzzy but shutter speeds are no issue yet, in part because I know their sequence. I have spoken to a Leica dealer who has all the corrections and would agree to my buying any number to test and returning the ones that are not the one that works, or all of them. It's something to do just once. I'll be picking up a copy of my prescription later today.

Thanks for the clarification,

s-a