Go to Aperture setting.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with Jim, also on an M. I have shot running dogs, birds in flight, jumping dolphins, etc. with M cameras.  People in the street are easy game IMO. As I say, I have always seen zone focus as a last-resort option, best avoided if at all possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

I agree with Jim, also on an M. I have shot running dogs, birds in flight, jumping dolphins, etc. with M cameras.  People in the street are easy game IMO. As I say, I have always seen zone focus as a last-resort option, best avoided if at all possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do your pics stand up well v bert hardy and cartier-bresson.

Just wondering because your modesty falls well short of theirs.

[jaapv]

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. I never spoke for the gentleman. But then, I am not playing at being a come-again fifties photographer. And I certainly never pretend to be some kind of genius by imitation.
I have never heard Cartier Bresson extol zone focusing. As far as I am aware he was rather quality conscious and he certainly embraced new technical developments.

[Mute-on]

I tend to shoot my film Ms at f4.0 - 5.6, only straying above or below if shutter speeds are too slow (or too fast for the 1/1000 top shutter speed) for adequate exposure at film speeds of 100 to 400. I also prioritise shutter speeds of 1/250 or higher in outdoor daylight settings to limit camera or subject movement.

I have never craved shooting wide open for subject isolation (or any other purpose), principally because my style of photography utilises depth of field instead of a very narrow plane of focus. Rather, I have tended to use f4.0 - 5.6 as it is the range at which most of my lenses achieve their optimum performance, in addition to the shutter speed considerations described above.

However, with the higher shutter speeds and ISO possible with digital M, the shutter speed limitation is negligible compared with film. Most lenses perform at their optimum 1 or 2 stops down from wide open, but this may not be your priority.

Keep practicing and good luck!

J

 

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Mute-on

[Guest]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. I never spoke for the gentleman. But then, I am not playing at being a come-again fifties photographer. And I certainly never pretend to be some kind of genius by imitation.
I have never heard Cartier Bresson extol zone focusing. As far as I am aware he was rather quality conscious and he certainly embraced new technical developments.

He was rubbish with jumping dolphins so that makes you the main man.

[jaapv]

Well, thank you very much. I'm rubbish with puddles.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You see this is the luxury of having a truly amateur argument, a boast here or a boast there doesn't get you the sack. If the dolphin isn't sharp it is self edited into the trash with no other responsibility than your own. Nobody knows about all the dolphin shots you missed, there isn't an editor to ask you where's the dolphin shot he wanted? And if the dolphin is sharp you have a picture of a dolphin, success, and you don't have the editor asking 'where's the girl in the wet bathing suit holding the fish'? As an amateur you can make up your own rules, you can boast about nailing that dolphin shot and simply say 'what girl in the bathing suit?', it's your photo, you can make the decisions. 

Bert Hardy and Bresson on the other hand went out the office with a brief, they were pragmatic, they knew the story the editor wanted, they knew f/8 was more reliable for the sake of the story, they knew 1/125th was more reliable than showing they could hand hold at 1/8th (another favourite LUF boast). In every discussion of this type the main point gets refined and refined until all that is left are boasts about what an individual once did or some circus trick they can perform with their Leica, and people think the 'me' generation is somehow new? I think the original question was inherently one of pragmatism and fortunately the pragmatic answers arrived quickly enough.

[jaapv]

My friend, are you really arguing that training technique is not needed? I didn't claim artistic merit -why should I?- but mentioning subjects that can be handled with a rangefinder camera if one bothers to learn to use it. Some counterweight is needed to the oft-repeated mantra that rangefinder focusing is slow and all-but impossible in dynamic situations with the Leica M and that zone-focus is the golden standard of street photography. 

Attacking examples -  is a straw man.

 

[sblutter]

On 6/26/2020 at 9:10 AM, erniethemilk said:

Having picked up an M10-P last autumn it hasn’t been without trial or tribulation learning to manually focus with a rangefinder.  I still struggle with certain subjects, such as people and attaining focus fast enough, much easier when there’s a straight line I can use,

Part of this I believe is having come from DSLR’s & Fujifilm cameras which are simple to operate and shoot totally wide open with the assistance of AF. Indeed, the Fujifilm kit I still have and even my old X-Pro1 feels ‘blistering’ in speed focus wise!

I absolutely love my M10 and keep trying to get better with it and use it as much as I can rather than fall back on the auto focussing options I have, but the keeper rate is far lower than on other gear I have. 

What I am learning is that wide open isn’t always the best option with manual focus RF, which is a bit alien to me having spent so much time shooting most of my previous camera gear at 1.4 or 1.8 wide open.
 

So I’m wondering if you have a ‘go to’ aperture setting you fall back on most of the time. 

 

I suggest you slow down a bit.  There is a Zen to M cameras.  Think intent - and large prints