M to L Adapter, What are you using?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, ramarren said:

As I said, you are missing the point entirely. You're entitled to your opinion, but it does not agree with mine, or what I said, at all. 

G

Oh yes: and there is nothing intended as "insulting" in anything I've written. You can always choose to take it that way, of course, but that interpretation is something that has nothing to do with my intent in writing it. I am simply interested in the discussion of this topic because focusing a camera to achieve the ends desired is one of the most important topics of all photography ... far more so than whether a SKOOPUM has a DINKUM or a DUNKUM.

 

You make technique leading over content, with me it is the other way around. 

[ramarren]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

You make technique leading over content, with me it is the other way around. 

Jaap,

It's as if you are intentionally taking the subject and looking at it from a direction orthogonal to the one I have posed, rather than reading what I've written and responding to it on a basis of understanding or clarification. I see no point to arguing on the vectors of technique vs content priority in the context of this discussion: the one does not exist without the other.

But if you want my thoughts on the matter, technique implies a framework of skills: once the skills have been acquired and practiced, you no longer think about technique so you can concentrate on content. Whatever that technique might be is irrelevant at the point of concentrating on content ... you just use it. Without technique, there is no point to concentrating on content because the likelihood you're going to achieve anything satisfactory is low. So there is a time to think about technique and a time to think about content, these times should not require your concentration and focus always at the same time, or one ahead of the other, every time you pick up a camera.

To repeat, you practice technique so that you don't have to think about it when you are focusing on content, and both are essential to good photography irrespective of whatever priority you want to assign to them. 

G

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Quite, and proper focusing is an acquired technique that I don't have to think about, be it by rangefinder, EVF or AF.

[ramarren]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Quite, and proper focusing is an acquired technique that I don't have to think about, be it by rangefinder, EVF or AF.

... Or by zone focusing, if you choose that technique. Of course, you can't choose it easily if you don't have an accurate focusing scale and DoF markings to work with. If that's the case, you're just guessing and exercising no technique at all.

Which is why an accurate lens mount registration if you're using adapted lenses on the CL, or any other camera, is important.

G

Edited May 30, 2020 by ramarren

[jaapv]

DOF markings are never accurate. DOF depends on subject matter, contrast, lens characteristic and above all magnification. And vision quality of the viewer.. I like cameras with four symbols: face, stick man, family group and mountain.

[ramarren]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

DOF markings are never accurate.

Incorrect. DoF markings are accurate when you understand the target focus qualities and calculations (... Circle of Confusion, Magnification, etc) that they use as a reference standard in order to judge perceptual sharpness. They're not 'accurate' when you don't understand and accept what is being judged by that reference standard.

For example, the focusing Minox subminiature cameras have a DoF marking on the focus scale but most people mis-understand the reference standard and call them inaccurate. They're not, they're just providing accuracy to a standard that many using the cameras have not understood and accepted. Used according to their reference standard, they are very accurate. 

G

Edited May 30, 2020 by ramarren

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes - for 6x9 cm prints, which was the standard when they were introduced. As soon as you go to 18x24 you can throw them out of the window. They differ between film and digital, they are different for a foggy low frequency subject as opposed to a high-contrast, high-frequency subject. That is the problem that stems from capturing a biological-receptor effect (eye and brain of the observer) into a mathematical formula. I prefer being aware of the principle, choosing my aperture accordingly and placing my plane of focus, real-time.

I think my point is proven by the number of misfocused (present company excepted) "street photographs" proudly presented as "zone-focused" on Flickr. 

[jaapv]

From the zone-focusing age: "Sonne lacht? Blende acht "  

[ramarren]

The issue that you are dancing around with that series of examples is that the DoF markings provide a reference standard, like a light meter reading, that requires interpretation. The fact that situations vary greatly and the literal markings cannot be accurate for all of them is exactly the same as looking at a light meter reading and understanding that you need to judge whether the reading is not necessarily calibrated correctly for the situation of the photograph you're trying to make. However, the fact that you know the meter is calibrated to a particular baseline lets you interpret its reading correctly .. Same for DoF markings on on accurate focus distance scale. 

G

[ramarren]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

From the zone-focusing age: "Sonne lacht? Blende acht "  

That was more a matter of exposure estimation than zone focusing. Walker Evans, instructing a friend how to use his new camera: "When you shoot on this side of the street, open up two stops because you're in the shade now ..."

G

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, ramarren said:

The issue that you are dancing around with that series of examples is that the DoF markings provide a reference standard, like a light meter reading, that requires interpretation. The fact that situations vary greatly and the literal markings cannot be accurate for all of them is exactly the same as looking at a light meter reading and understanding that you need to judge whether the reading is not necessarily calibrated correctly for the situation of the photograph you're trying to make. However, the fact that you know the meter is calibrated to a particular baseline lets you interpret its reading correctly .. Same for DoF markings on on accurate focus distance scale. 

G

Not a good comparison. A light meter measures a variable. DOF markings suggest fixed detents.

[cp995]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb ramarren:

Zone focusing means seeing the subject you're after with a different eye, not one tuned to maximum detail but tuned to the relationships of objects in three-dimensional space and how a lens renders them at different points in the acceptably sharp zone that you've chosen to work in. It has just as much significance to photography today as it did at any time in the past

O.k., if you are not interested in sharp pictures at the point where it should be and postcard size is o.k. for you, than this is o.k. for me too!
But again, and dont forget, this is a CL/TL thead, where cameras do have EVFs, which makes zone focussing 100% obsolete.
So we should talk about the actual technology and not about the "stone age" of photography, where photographers didn't have any other possibilities.

NB: How do you "zone focus" with the CL and the Summicron 2/23, for example?
 

[cp995]

To come back to topic ...

Let's discuss a bit more about the different M to L adapters:

My understanding ist, that the original Leica Adapter allows 6-Bit code reading and zoom-in if the focus tab is turned.
My questions are:

- Can I disable this automatic zoom-in, as I don't need it in every case?
- If yes, can I then use a "function" button to manually zoom-in if I need it?

I checked the manual, but didn't find any answer to this

 

[edstock]

I just received my Leica M to L adapter. I got it from NYC dealer. One major dealer was out of stock, I opted for the second choice, the only caveat is that it is silver. My CL and lens are black but that is not a problem. $435.00 I think. 

[lct]

•

Edited May 30, 2020 by lct

[lct]

29 minutes ago, cp995 said:

To come back to topic ...

Let's discuss a bit more about the different M to L adapters:

My understanding ist, that the original Leica Adapter allows 6-Bit code reading and zoom-in if the focus tab is turned.
My questions are:

- Can I disable this automatic zoom-in, as I don't need it in every case?
- If yes, can I then use a "function" button to manually zoom-in if I need it?

I checked the manual, but didn't find any answer to this

There is no automatic zooming with manual lenses. It is manual zooming only. If you have a Leica adapter, you can do it with a top dial and if you don't you must use the arrows for that. Now you can always do zone focus instead. Works way better than focus peaking with wides and you can use cheap adapters if you wish .

[ramarren]

51 minutes ago, cp995 said:

O.k., if you are not interested in sharp pictures at the point where it should be and postcard size is o.k. for you, than this is o.k. for me too!
But again, and dont forget, this is a CL/TL thead, where cameras do have EVFs, which makes zone focussing 100% obsolete.
So we should talk about the actual technology and not about the "stone age" of photography, where photographers didn't have any other possibilities.

NB: How do you "zone focus" with the CL and the Summicron 2/23, for example?
 

The discussion, in case you hadn't noticed, is about using adapters for manual focus M-mount lenses. At which point, zone focusing is far from "100% obsolete". 

Your first sentence is just your lack of imagination speaking, coupled with the fact you neither know me nor understand what I have been saying at all. I won't take it as an insult. 

G

Edited May 30, 2020 by ramarren

[ramarren]

43 minutes ago, cp995 said:

To come back to topic ...

Let's discuss a bit more about the different M to L adapters:

My understanding ist, that the original Leica Adapter allows 6-Bit code reading and zoom-in if the focus tab is turned.
My questions are:

- Can I disable this automatic zoom-in, as I don't need it in every case?
- If yes, can I then use a "function" button to manually zoom-in if I need it?

I checked the manual, but didn't find any answer to this

Only dedicated L-mount lenses can auto zoom on focusing operations; adapted lenses cannot auto-zoom because, to the camera, there is no indication that the focusing ring has been turned. For adapted lenses, you always use the control wheel to initiate focusing magnification. You can customize which wheel (left or right) is used for this purpose, and the other wheel becomes EV Compensation. 

The focus magnification assist allows two levels of magnification beyond the normal, full frame view, and is automatically cancelled when you half-press the shutter release. Focus peaking assist is enabled/disabled using the usual controls in the Menu, which can be assigned to the Fn or right control wheel button. 

G

[jaapv]

25 minutes ago, ramarren said:

your lack of imagination speaking,

Thank you for your kind and non-insulting remark To me it is a vintage technique, touted semi-religiously and unless used expertly, tends to lead to  inferior results.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[thatkatmat]

When you say "Only dedicated L-mount lenses can auto zoom on focusing operations"  are you talking about on an "SL"? Because I have 2, "SL" lenses and neither "auto zooms" like I wish they would, on my SL.