Leica M focusing and "street photography"

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, jdlaing said:

There’s an easier way.

While I'm curious as to what you suggest as an "easier" way, if I was looking for "easy" I think I'd be using my Fuji.

I think the whole point was to find "faster", not "easier".  

[jdlaing]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

While I'm curious as to what you suggest as an "easier" way, if I was looking for "easy" I think I'd be using my Fuji.

I think the whole point was to find "faster", not "easier".  

Set the dial to A.

Set the aperture to f/9.0 - f/11.0

Set the lens to infinity.

Fire away.

[jdlaing]

And a Leica M is not about speed.

[MikeMyers]

I don't think you read the article I linked to at the beginning of this post.  

To me, the Leica M very much can be about speed, as is needed for what people refer to as "street photography".  That can be a big advantage of using an RF camera instead of a SLR or DSLR, combined with being small, quiet, and unobtrusive.

[250swb]

14 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

I don't think you read the article I linked to at the beginning of this post.  

To me, the Leica M very much can be about speed, as is needed for what people refer to as "street photography".  That can be a big advantage of using an RF camera instead of a SLR or DSLR, combined with being small, quiet, and unobtrusive.

There has been a lot of mystical mythologising written about  knowing where your lens tab is and being able to grab focus almost instantly. But that sort of thing just comes from using the camera with well known lenses and doing it time after time. The mystical element comes from the mythologising of Leica folklore which tries to impart rules for success, like looking into the entrails of a pigeon and asking the God's for guidance.

Edited August 4, 2021 by 250swb

[MikeMyers]

Well, once I became aware of the concept, the next steps as you mention is lots of practice, refining my ability to do so without needing to think about it, doing it "time after time".  I don't even need to take the photo - just imagine something is happening, and where, and eventually I'll get better at moving the tab to just the right place.

I'll stay away from the mystical mythologizing, and mythologizing of Leica folklore, and follow the advice of people who are already doing these things well.  

Thanks for your advice.  

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/3/2021 at 3:36 AM, MikeMyers said:

While I enjoy doing my best at what you all describe, I get the most satisfaction from seeing something that would make a lovely photograph, and spending enough time to get the most out of it, composition, framing, and all the rest.  I guess when it's times like that, I'm using my M10 as if it was a view camera, composing, adjusting, and shooting.  I get a lot of enjoyment out of that.

As I'm walking around, I'm usually making adjustments to the settings, especially the focus, so I'm either ready or almost ready to quickly capture a scene, but I always force my self to use the camera smoothly, so I don't "jar" it.  It's nice that the M10 has so much resolution that I can capture "my scene" somewhere within the frame lines, so I can crop it later.  To me, the 50mm lens "feels" too long - I know it's supposed to be "normal", and when I first started with photography, it was my only lens.  Because of the capability of the M10, my 35mm lens has been slowly becoming "my" normal lens.

Next time I'll try some of the above ideas, especially learning the "tab".  For the past two weeks I'd look at the focus scale, and pick a distance that was most likely to be close, and set the camera there.  

Because of what I've been learning, the "tab" has changed from being an annoyance, to potentially being a great way to set the focus.  I guess I'll take several days to learn where to move the tab, to get the focus distance I'm after. 

I wish I knew all this stuff a life-time ago.  For so many years, since the 1960's, I lived by matching up the rangefinder windows.  Sometimes that worked for me, and other times I missed the photo I wanted.

 

OK, back to the discussion.  What is the reason for using the "hyperlocal distance"?  As long as I get the area I am interested in into proper focus, why would or should I care about all the rest of my image beyond the point I'm trying to capture?  Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't it be better to get things from 6 feet to 15 feet in focus, rather than 6 feet to infinity?

Hyperfocal distance is the setting that creates DOF, which is the zone of "acceptable" misfocus. On older box cameras indicated by little cartoons: face, stick man, family group, mountain.
Of course the word acceptable makes this a variable that varies with the photographer, and even more with the print size related to crop. AKA magnification throughout the process.
I don't believe in DOF or misfocus, so to me the only in-focus image is umm... in focus. Hence I use the viewfinder-rangefinder to focus my images.

In fact, on AF/face detection cameras the technique is obsolete - with the exception of prefocus/replacement focus.

 

On 8/4/2021 at 4:02 AM, jdlaing said:

Set the lens to infinity.

Wrong - you throw away half the DOF. Set the lens to 3 m -If you want to use zone focusing, that is.

 

On 8/4/2021 at 4:04 AM, jdlaing said:

And a Leica M is not about speed.

Mine is - I often beat AF, especially with fast moving subjects, using the prefocus  and replacement focus techniques. (see above)

[Danner]

For street shooting, I shoot ISO 400, set my 35 Cron to about 1.5 to 2 meters, 1/250 sec., f/8-f/16 (depending on light), and take quick shots without even thinking about focus.  If the subject is stationary and not reactive to being photographed, I take a moment and focus with the rangefinder.  If I'm shooting my 50 Cron, I tend to 'try' to focus each shot, as best I can.

[MikeMyers]

I mostly do what you just described.  ISO 400, 35mm Summilux, f/5.6, shutter set to "A", and I get very good results.  With my 50 Summicron, I feel much less confident about focusing, and often less confident about just aiming.  I mostly use the 35, as I've got the best odds of getting good results.

[Cl35mm]

I was a fuji shooter for a long time.I still have them. I don't like the picture of the lenses. None of them. I don't like the color. I don't like that the picture in the optical viewfinder flies down. And in fact, you don't know where the focus point is. I really don't like the color. The picture of fuji is gray and flat.
I love the leica m. But the small  viewfinder annoys me. It's like you're looking through a small hole. The picture from the leica lenses is unique.  Both in character and in color.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Cl35mm

[Cl35mm]

https://j.mp/2LQZlT9

 

Look at the rear view. On the viewfinder size

Edited August 8, 2021 by Cl35mm

[MikeMyers]

55 minutes ago, Cl35mm said:

I was a fuji shooter for a long time.I still have them. I don't like the picture of the lenses. None of them. I don't like the color. I don't like that the picture in the optical viewfinder flies down. And in fact, you don't know where the focus point is. I really don't like the color. The picture of fuji is gray and flat.
I love the leica m. But the small  viewfinder annoys me. It's like you're looking through a small hole. The picture from the leica lenses is unique.  Both in character and in color.

I like my Leica cameras, and I like my Fuji X100f.  I prefer shooting in 'raw', so I get to work on the colors as I wish to.  I love both the viewfinders - the Fuji viewfinder feels like it's designed better to show me as much information as I wish to see, but the Leica viewfinder shows me all I really need to see.  For me, both are just a starting point - the images go through Photo Mechanic, and then into PhotoLab4, and then I adjust as needed.  

For a simple walkabout camera, I prefer the Fuji.  For taking specific photographs, I prefer the Leica.  The Fuji seems to guarantee I will get good photos.  The Leica allows me to get good photos, if I do my part.  The Fuji will improve on the lighting, as needed.  The Leica will accept whatever the lighting happens to be, and it's up to me to find a way to improve it if possible.  The built-in flash, connected to the computer, is an awesome tool.  I doubt if a future Leica M will have something as nice.  My Fuji images never really need much more than cropping.  My Leica images can be that way too, if I do my part.  Everything else being equal, I most often prefer the results from my Leica, even if it does take more care in capturing an image.

Edited August 8, 2021 by MikeMyers

[MikeMyers]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

Hyperfocal distance is the setting that creates DOF, which is the zone of "acceptable" misfocus. On older box cameras indicated by little cartoons: face, stick man, family group, mountain.
Of course the word acceptable makes this a variable that varies with the photographer, and even more with the print size related to crop. AKA magnification throughout the process.
I don't believe in DOF or misfocus, so to me the only in-focus image is umm... in focus. Hence I use the viewfinder-rangefinder to focus my images.

 

Hmm, that sounds great, but chances are I have no need for distant objects to be sharp - usually the opposite.  I like a blurred background behind whatever it is/was I was taking a photo of.  If I'm trying to photograph something at around eight or ten feet away from me, I would usually prefer that anything 20 or so feet away or more would obviously not be sharp.  I guess it all depends on what I'm taking a photo of.  

I might be wrong, but if I expect something I'll be photographing might be around ten feet away, I'll pre-set the focus to 10 feet, and use f/5.6 (usually) or f/8 and cross my fingers for luck.  Like you said earlier, better yet if I have time to focus properly, but I try to leave my camera set to something likely to be reasonable.  Doesn't always work out.  And based on what I've learned now, I am trying to simply put the lens tab where I estimate it should be, which is usually something close to straight down.  Thank you to whoever suggested that!

[Cl35mm]

44 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I like my Leica cameras, and I like my Fuji X100f.  I prefer shooting in 'raw', so I get to work on the colors as I wish to.  I love both the viewfinders - the Fuji viewfinder feels like it's designed better to show me as much information as I wish to see, but the Leica viewfinder shows me all I really need to see.  For me, both are just a starting point - the images go through Photo Mechanic, and then into PhotoLab4, and then I adjust as needed.  

For a simple walkabout camera, I prefer the Fuji.  For taking specific photographs, I prefer the Leica.  The Fuji seems to guarantee I will get good photos.  The Leica allows me to get good photos, if I do my part.  The Fuji will improve on the lighting, as needed.  The Leica will accept whatever the lighting happens to be, and it's up to me to find a way to improve it if possible.  The built-in flash, connected to the computer, is an awesome tool.  I doubt if a future Leica M will have something as nice.  My Fuji images never really need much more than cropping.  My Leica images can be that way too, if I do my part.  Everything else being equal, I most often prefer the results from my Leica, even if it does take more care in capturing an image.

Fuji is proud of his films. But fuji films were developed for the local market. In Japan, the rich had a white skin color. People working in the field had a darker skin color. Therefore, the white balance on fuji was made using magenta. In the West, skin with a tan was considered a sign of health. Kodak made a white balance using warm tones. I did a comparison of different films with digital fuji. Hundreds of presets.  The color of digital fuji is bullshit. I created 100,000 frames of fuji on a 50mm 2.0 lens. Then I attached an old 50mm zuiko lens. The lens is 50 years old. Zuiko won. The creator of Olympus was inspired by a leica. Even the lens schemes are similar. The image of Fuji looks like porridge. A lot of XA. Even in small textures. The picture is flat.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Cl35mm

[spydrxx]

Hyperfocus or prefocus is a good solution.  I prefer a focus tab on some lenses. My Ricoh 500 (a 1950s rangefinder) interestingly has a short focus throw and diametrically opposed focusing tabs making focusing extremely fast. I tried the TAAB solution on several lenses, but really didn't like the feeling. A little internet searching found a solution I found much more versatile - a Chinese made adhesive stick on tab. which I cut in half and mounted each half diametrically opposed on a 35mm lens, allowing me to use 2 fingers, like on the old Ricoh, for quick accurate back and forth focusing. I also mounted a single one on a 50mm lens which I'm still not quite sure about. These things are dirt cheap (approx $3 USD each) and worth a try IMHO

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[trickness]

On 8/1/2021 at 10:20 PM, MikeMyers said:

I love the way you took a lot of thoughts buzzing around my head, and put them into words that anyone can understand.  Thank you!!

The tab - I think that's why I preferred using the 35 instead of the 50, and once I get used to the "position" of the tab, and a distance, I'll be all set.  As it was, I looked at the distance scale, and picked something that seemed appropriate.  It should have been (but wasn't) obvious that once I learn this, I can set the focus just by moving the tab to an appropriate place.

Fuji and Leica, for me, so similar, but I use them very differently.  The Leica is always a challenge for me.  The Fuji already knows what it wants to do, so most of what I deal with is composition.  I'm proud of what I get from my Leica because I had to "do" everything, but the Fuji leaves me free to concentrate on what's most important.

 

That article I linked to about the Fuji is something I found very interesting, and it gave me some insights on how to better use my Leica.  It's all a learning experience.  The Leica and Fuji are similar, and completely different from my DSLR gear.  And sticking with just the Leica and Fuji, the Fuji "cheats" in ways that work out beautifully.  I'll post just one image below from today's session with the Fuji.  Not only did the Fuji automatically focus on a "right eye", it automatically fired the flash just enough to make the girl's skin tones better.  Had I shot this with my Leica, knowing what I know now, and with no extra equipment, I doubt this photo would have come out so nice.  All I had to worry about was timing and composition.  I still prefer to use my Leica, but everything Ken Rockwell wrote about the Fuji was true - it does a gazillion things automatically that improve my photos.  I'm much more "proud" of my good Leica photos, because the Leica allowed me to do what was needed.  On the other hand, the Fuji just "does them".

 

Thanks for what you posted.  It brought a lot of things into much sharper focus in my mind.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

There is absolutely nothing about this (nice) image that you could not do with an M, if you learn how to use the tool. Zone focusing or pre focusing, plus choosing the correct aperture and shutter speed are photographic techniques that the M will help you hone - plus you’ll get a level of color, 3D separation, contrast and detail from Leica glass that the Fuji could never provide.

Having the camera do it all for you is a contrary philosophy to using an M. An “easier” camera is great for 99.9% of people, but if you push yourself to learn how to use your M properly, without doodads, you will have immense satisfaction as you see your creative vision come to life - YOUR creative vision, not one created by whatever algorithm the camera provides.

[MikeMyers]

56 minutes ago, trickness said:

you’ll get a level of color, 3D separation, contrast and detail from Leica glass that the Fuji could never provide.

 

I think you're trying to say that a perfectly configured (manually) Leica is likely to capture a better photo than an (automatically) configured Fuji.  Most of the time I would likely agree with you, but I can't really agree that my images from my M10 (with 50-year-old glass) and available lighting are superior to my images from my Fuji X100f.  Quite often the opposite is true.   I think all this depends on the photographer, not the camera he is using.  The Leica has an advantage from being full frame.  The Fuji has an advantage of showing me more information in the viewfinder before I take the photo, and this built-in flash that makes a word of difference when photographing people.  The Leica will focus as well as I can focus it, but the Fuji can be told to look for "right eyes" (or whatever) and focus there.  When I get very good photos from the Leica, I'm pleased because I did my part right.  With the Fuji I'm left to concentrate on composition, and the electronics does its best to make a perfect image.  

I've always enjoyed reading this article:  https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm  Maybe what you write is often true, as the photographer holding the camera is better?

[trickness]

1 hour ago, MikeMyers said:

I think you're trying to say that a perfectly configured (manually) Leica is likely to capture a better photo than an (automatically) configured Fuji.  Most of the time I would likely agree with you, but I can't really agree that my images from my M10 (with 50-year-old glass) and available lighting are superior to my images from my Fuji X100f.  Quite often the opposite is true.   I think all this depends on the photographer, not the camera he is using.  The Leica has an advantage from being full frame.  The Fuji has an advantage of showing me more information in the viewfinder before I take the photo, and this built-in flash that makes a word of difference when photographing people.  The Leica will focus as well as I can focus it, but the Fuji can be told to look for "right eyes" (or whatever) and focus there.  When I get very good photos from the Leica, I'm pleased because I did my part right.  With the Fuji I'm left to concentrate on composition, and the electronics does its best to make a perfect image.  

I've always enjoyed reading this article:  https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm  Maybe what you write is often true, as the photographer holding the camera is better?

That’s what I’m saying exactly. I think you do yourself a disservice as a photographer by not focusing on one camera, getting to know all of its features and really bonding with it. This is especially important with an M because it is such a unique shooting experience, not only the camera but the lenses and how the two interact. Of course you are going to get casually “better” results with a camera that is doing a lot of thinking for you - but you will find if you focus on the M that the process of slowing down and thinking about what you’re doing, getting the muscle memory of how to use that camera will allow “you” the photographer to come out. I’m not saying that only a rangefinder can deliver the ultimate creative vision of a photographer, but in the example you posted where you have two cameras with two very different usage philosophies, You are never really going to understand or exploit strengths of the M if you divide your time with another camera and use its “crutches”.
 

Conversely, if you truly bond with your M and get a feeling for how the rudimentary aspects of photography like aperture, shadow speed, focal length, and depth of field work, all these things that the Fuji is deciding for you, then when you move to any other camera besides a rangefinder you will likely be a stronger photographer. At least I have found that to be the case with my own shooting over the past 20 years or so.

I don’t really pay any attention to Ken Rockwell or any of the other online photography pundits, their opinions like anybody else’s are only as good as their own photographs (I’m not looking to take pictures like Ken Rockwell’s - are you?) Magnum offers several interesting online classes on creative vision that are pretty affordable, i’ve taken a few and they’re good value for the money, and I’ve also spent way more money than I care to admit on photo books by photographers I admire to try to understand their techniques of composition.
 

I think this forum is wonderful but 99.9% of the conversation here is about ultimately meaningless babble like MTF charts and microcontrast, while there is very little usable discussion about the practical use of the wonderful tools Leica has provided us with. But I guess that’s OK - at the end of the day, the only way anyone is really going to become a good photographer is by getting out of the house and shooting, shooting, shooting. Less time spent here, more time spent clicking the shutter……

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by trickness

[MikeMyers]

4 minutes ago, trickness said:

I think you do yourself a disservice as a photographer by not focusing on one camera, getting to know all of its features and really bonding with it.

 

5 minutes ago, trickness said:

Magnum offers several interesting online classes on creative vision that are pretty affordable,

Things are "worse" than you think.  In addition to the M10 and X100f, I've got all my Nikon gear including a D750 and Df, along with my Leica M3, and a lot of technical add-ons for all of them.  I graduated from the University of Mighigan Art School with a major in Photography, and they beat it into my head that a camera was just a tool, and I should use whichever tool best fit what I was trying to do.  When I mentioned that I used a Leica, that got them upset at me.  They wanted to train *me* in what I needed to do, and the camera was relatively unimportant.  I even bought a 4x5 large format camera, and the tools for developing and printing.

To me, using one camera always is like using one lens always.  I feel more "attached" to my Leica than I do to my other cameras, and I have always felt it was something "special", but a DSLR does some things for me that I was unable to do with an RF.  There are a lot of things that I simply can't do with my X100f Fuji, mostly related to a fixed lens.  I used to take photos of motorcycle racing, and using a DSLR was better (for me) than a RF.

I still think of a camera as a "tool", and I use whichever one is best for what I want to photograph.  I think you're right - I will never learn my M10 as well as if I put away all my other cameras, but I'd like to think I'll still learn it well enough to get it to do what I'm after.  And for that matter, my Nikon DSLR can't do what I enjoy doing with my M10 - too big, too noisy, people react to it differently, and too many settings for me to ever learn them as well as I understand my Leica.

There's something about the M3 that takes me back 50 years, and it is so different to use, and the images are so much based on MY ability, not the camera.  I enjoy that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[trickness]

4 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

 

Things are "worse" than you think.  In addition to the M10 and X100f, I've got all my Nikon gear including a D750 and Df, along with my Leica M3, and a lot of technical add-ons for all of them.  I graduated from the University of Mighigan Art School with a major in Photography, and they beat it into my head that a camera was just a tool, and I should use whichever tool best fit what I was trying to do.  When I mentioned that I used a Leica, that got them upset at me.  They wanted to train *me* in what I needed to do, and the camera was relatively unimportant.  I even bought a 4x5 large format camera, and the tools for developing and printing.

To me, using one camera always is like using one lens always.  I feel more "attached" to my Leica than I do to my other cameras, and I have always felt it was something "special", but a DSLR does some things for me that I was unable to do with an RF.  There are a lot of things that I simply can't do with my X100f Fuji, mostly related to a fixed lens.  I used to take photos of motorcycle racing, and using a DSLR was better (for me) than a RF.

I still think of a camera as a "tool", and I use whichever one is best for what I want to photograph.  I think you're right - I will never learn my M10 as well as if I put away all my other cameras, but I'd like to think I'll still learn it well enough to get it to do what I'm after.  And for that matter, my Nikon DSLR can't do what I enjoy doing with my M10 - too big, too noisy, people react to it differently, and too many settings for me to ever learn them as well as I understand my Leica.

There's something about the M3 that takes me back 50 years, and it is so different to use, and the images are so much based on MY ability, not the camera.  I enjoy that.

Well if you have a major in photography, you certainly don’t need me to tell you about aperture and shutter speed! Apologies

(I used to take photographs of motorcycle racing also, definitely not a job for an M camera - absolutely DLSR! What series did you shoot?)

Edited August 10, 2021 by trickness