m10p Zone focusing not sharp (enough) vs focusing to infinity

[Harpomatic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, hepcat said:

I'm not entirely certain I would agree with you.  Most of what the "latest technology" consists of just automates processes that photographers learn, know and practice and merely allow less skilled people to make technically "perfect" photos.  If you already have the knowledge, training, experience, and skills to do the things technology automates for you, do you really need it?  I often shoot my Lumix S1 and S5 on manual, especially in challenging circumstances because I can evaluate the scene faster and more accurately than the camera can.  And in challenging circumstances, they seldom expose the way I want them to on any "auto" mode.   In the old days, you could use a motor-drive to miss the peak of the action 36 times in six seconds at six frames per second.

Many VII and Magnum photographers and most photojournalists use modern mirrorless cameras. Certainly not for lack of skills, but for efficiency and maximum output of keepers.

I do work with another professional, much more experienced than me, that uses mirrorless. He certainly never lacked skills in judging a scene, exposure, composition instantly, since he worked with film, MF, RF and everything else throughout his career. The choice of equipment is dictated by best tool for the job, and RF isn’t it anymore in any field. RF is something we use notwithstanding the fact that it’s been surpassed in everything by technology.

5 hours ago, hepcat said:

I believe in the right tool for the job, and there ARE jobs where a rangefinder camera IS the best tool for the job.   They are essentially silent, inobtrusive, have a bright viewfinder in dim light, and are fast in handling, if you know what you're doing. 

I disagree: there is no job anymore where the RF is the best tool.

Mirrorless technology surpassed it on every level for efficiency:

Silent? Stacked sensor electronic shutter is better - even more silent.

Inobtrusive? How is a Sony A9 with a 50mm 2.5 G obtrusive? It’s small and as invisible as a RF.

Bright viewfinder in dim light? EVFs nowadays see in the dark. And cameras focus in the dark. It’s uncanny.

Fast in handling? C’mon, any camera is fast in handling - if you know what you’re doing. Just different ways to do the same thing.

5 hours ago, hepcat said:

Some people rely on technology to do that.  Others, like us, rely on knowledge, training, and skill.  Pros were bringing home the saleable images LONG before technology and AF automated processes for them.

This is the old argument that in some way using technology to improve efficiency demeans the purity of someone’s skills.

Would F1 drivers still drive 1960s F1 cars just because that’s real skill? The driver’s skills nowadays are just different and as refined if not more. Get a 1960s driver in one of the modern cars and they would never get close to today’s drivers. Different sets of skills, as valuable as each other. But the new cars are faster and more efficient, going around the track many, many more times in the same time as the 1960s cars. 

In photographic terms, a more efficient camera will deliver more keepers in the same time-frame in the hands of an equally skilled user as a skilled RF user.

Nowadays RF is a choice dictated by the heart, not the brain. And that’s absolutely valid.

But let’s stop beating the old horse that it is better. It isn’t. It’s a lot more fun and more challenging - that’s the beauty of it!

[newtoleica]

The RF is an artistic tool simple as that. Sharpness is just one feature of an image. It may or may not be important. There are a whole range of things that make up an image, perspective, rendering, exposure, colour/B&W etc. They are all just choices a photographer makes to communicate using a visual medium and a given subject. A more skilled photographer can pre-visualise the image better, see images that work, find images and subjects and knows how manipulate the image making chain to achieve that intent. So photography is a quite technical art form (but so is silk screen printing etc...) A lot of people think that technical expertise can replace the art. It can't. Looking at 1000s of really good images, locking them into your subconscious and years or practice are what makes a photographer. Maybe AI can do that with its generative plagiarism, but AI isn't a photographer.

Back to the RF... the process of shooting with a RF can, by imposing certain constraints on the process, help to challenge the creative component of image making. I use my 10-P for street photography for that reason. Zen 'in the zone' etc. If I want quick shots of the family on a trip I will use the Q2. iPhone? No, never gelled with it, it puts me right out of my zone. A big part of Leica is the rendering of the lenses. Its like painting with a certain kind of brush. You know how it can produce an image you want if used a certain way. 

Edited December 29, 2023 by newtoleica

[KFo]

The idea that a past master would use one thing or another TODAY seems to be missing one element.

They are/were people of a time and place, not orbiting metaphysical beings.  Using available materials...

[M11 for me]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb newtoleica:

Sharpness is just one feature of an image. It may or may not be important

When I look at images from 100 years ago then its clear that we do not expect any sharpness in the first instance. We are fascinated to look at people, to look how they were dressed, in which environment they stand and how the perspective was choosen. Today I cannot imagine that an image that was taken with the wrong settings out of these thousands of images around us every day can be considered a great image when it is clearly not sharp at the right spot.

One might argue HOW sharp an image has to be. This is another question. I think that an image is well usable to be published on the web (to be looked at on a tablet or often only on the cell phone) when it "seems" sharp without using the famous 2 fingers to enlage it to an unnatural size.

But I think its not the intention of this thread to initiate a discussion about the importance of sharpness of images but rather the technique of how to use zone focussing  compared to setting to infinity.

[pgk]

17 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

When I look at images from 100 years ago then its clear that we do not expect any sharpness in the first instance.

I use 160+ year old lenses and sell photos from them. 'Sharpness' is a very misunderstood concept. It is defined by the viewer and the viewer has to be guided by the image and specifically its size. This was appreciated in the past far more than it is today. In the earliest days of photography prnts were contact prints and limited by the camera format. They were 'sharp' because they were not enlarged and were limited by the detail that the lens and processes of the time allowed. I certainly can produce 'sharp' enough images from such lenses; simple cemented crown and flint glass.

Today images are enlarged dramatically from relatively small formats. All focus methods - zone, hyperfocal, precise, even fixed focus - can give 'sharp' results providing their relative benefits and, most importantly, drawbacks (enlargement limits) are understood. One problem I read repeatedly is the lack of understanding that images can have a finite and specific magnification factore for which they are suited; print sizes should be limited based on many factor. Unfortunately many want their cake and to eat it - take snaps by zone focus and expect every image to enlarge dramatically - photography doesn't work like that.

[pgk]

I will go further and say that my personal take on 'sharpness' is that an image is 'sharp' when all the detail necessary to the enjoyment, or appreciation, of an image is appropriately present in the final output image (print, internet, whatever). This is a 'catch all' in that it takes into account the viewing condtions/medium and as such an image may be 'sharp' in one context but not another. Horses for courses - there are no absolutes.

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

IMO this constant contemporary striving for 'perfection' has stripped a lot of emotion from photography. I see this esp. in the field I'm known for, live concert photography, as the iso's have gotten higher and the led lighting brighter. Yes, the photographer was there, they took perfectly sharp photos of the performers, but did they capture the emotion and intensity of the music/musician in a way that speaks to the heart vs the head? More often than not, it's now about mere representation of the subject (and the idea that it has to be sharp, boys and girls, or it's no 'good'), and for me that's just never been enough to make a photo that speaks universally and stands the test of time. Sharpness is just another tool in the kit, but unfortunately it seems to have replaced the entire Swiss Army knife for many. 

Pearl Jam, Leica M10 (forgot which lens) 2018. 

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!

[hepcat]

7 hours ago, Harpomatic said:

 

Fast in handling? C’mon, any camera is fast in handling - if you know what you’re doing. Just different ways to do the same thing.

This is the old argument that in some way using technology to improve efficiency demeans the purity of someone’s skills.

Would F1 drivers still drive 1960s F1 cars just because that’s real skill? The driver’s skills nowadays are just different and as refined if not more.

Nowadays RF is a choice dictated by the heart, not the brain. And that’s absolutely valid.

But let’s stop beating the old horse that it is better. It isn’t. It’s a lot more fun and more challenging - that’s the beauty of it!

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying...   mirrorless and even DSLRs in program modes are fine, much of the time, but when the crunch is on, and they don't get it right, it's time to switch to manual and do what photographers do.  One of the times I have fallen into using the automation is with TTL flash.  I am at the point where the camera and flash are so good that I don't ever concern myself about using the automation.  It can calculate the exposure faster and more accuraely than I can, particularly when using diffused bounce flash. 

A quick story...  some 14 years or so ago I went to Cedar Rapids IA to photograph the first building implosion there at Mercy Hospital.  I was chatting with the Cedar Rapids Gazette photographer about their setup.  They'd placed four Nikon D4 bodies at all of the really good points that had to be evacuated before the implosion.  They'd planned to use radio triggers and it all worked well in the tests.  And then the implosion happened, and I was snapping away from a block away with the rest of the crowd.   The Gazette photographer sought me out later in the day to ask if I'd gotten anything useable with my Olympus E-5, which of course I had...  he got NOTHING.  They'd failed to recognize that the radio triggers would be overridden by the EMPs of the explosions that brought the buildings down.   So my photos got run in the paper because they depended on the technology.   The photo editor, photographer (both "raised" on digital technology,) and I all had an interesting conversation about when to NOT rely on the technology to get the images they need to get.  It was an abject lesson in the failure of technology for them. 

I have and use my mirrorless cameras just as often, if not more often than my rangefinders.  And I'd not even consider shooting a paying gig with one of my Canon Barnacks.  That'd be just foolish for almost any job you could imagine.   What I'm saying is that a photographer who IS skilled enough to use a rangefinder commercially will likely use that mirrorless camera on manual much of the time because they don't want to fight trying to override the programming of the camera in it's auto settings to get the image they want the way they want it.    Most of the time I find myself even shooting my M10-P in manual because the meter doesn't place zone V where I want it.   The automation is fine for those who can't shoot faster or make their images the way they want them to look by shooting manual, but it's good to have the knowledge, technique, and skills to get the images you want when the technology fails you. 

Edited December 29, 2023 by hepcat

[Harpomatic]

5 hours ago, hepcat said:

but it's good to have the knowledge, technique, and skills to get the images you want when the technology fails you. 

No argument there from me, I’m in full agreement.

I believe in developing the ground skillset to be able to do any kind of skilled work, and not to just wing it.

And I do believe in fully understanding your tools, their strengths and limitations to use them to their full capability.

[mujk]

On 12/29/2023 at 12:47 PM, pgk said:

I use 160+ year old lenses and sell photos from them. 'Sharpness' is a very misunderstood concept. It is defined by the viewer and the viewer has to be guided by the image and specifically its size. This was appreciated in the past far more than it is today. In the earliest days of photography prnts were contact prints and limited by the camera format. They were 'sharp' because they were not enlarged and were limited by the detail that the lens and processes of the time allowed. I certainly can produce 'sharp' enough images from such lenses; simple cemented crown and flint glass.

Today images are enlarged dramatically from relatively small formats. All focus methods - zone, hyperfocal, precise, even fixed focus - can give 'sharp' results providing their relative benefits and, most importantly, drawbacks (enlargement limits) are understood. One problem I read repeatedly is the lack of understanding that images can have a finite and specific magnification factore for which they are suited; print sizes should be limited based on many factor. Unfortunately many want their cake and to eat it - take snaps by zone focus and expect every image to enlarge dramatically - photography doesn't work like that.

Fully agree. When sharpness was required it could be produced even more than 100 years ago, as long as the print size was kept reasonable. I keep going back to look at the images taken by Signe Brander, an early finnish female professional photographer, taken in the early 20th century. She was tasked with documenting the then rapidly changing city of Helsinki. There is a large collection available online, e.g. this image of the market square. The sharpness and overall quality is remarkable.

https://www.helsinkikuvia.fi/collection/22/?rid=212

 

Edited January 2, 2024 by mujk

[cinejay]

 

Yeah, I initially had similar expectations about focus when I began with Leica. However, I had to remind myself that many iconic prints I studied weren't razor-sharp. Film concealed imperfections, and now I'm embracing the beauty in those imperfections. While there's a limit to acceptable focus, within the sweet spot, I'm exploring a more painterly or dreamlike approach instead of the clinical modern focus.

I made a video documenting my expectations, practice and results trying zone focus on my M11M on a 35mm: Zone focus failure 

[hepcat]

On 2/1/2024 at 8:08 AM, cinejay said:

 

Yeah, I initially had similar expectations about focus when I began with Leica. However, I had to remind myself that many iconic prints I studied weren't razor-sharp. Film concealed imperfections, and now I'm embracing the beauty in those imperfections. While there's a limit to acceptable focus, within the sweet spot, I'm exploring a more painterly or dreamlike approach instead of the clinical modern focus.

I made a video documenting my expectations, practice and results trying zone focus on my M11M on a 35mm: Zone focus failure 

That technique is commonly recognized as 'Pictorialism.'

[evikne]

On 1/2/2024 at 11:53 AM, mujk said:

Fully agree. When sharpness was required it could be produced even more than 100 years ago, as long as the print size was kept reasonable. I keep going back to look at the images taken by Signe Brander, an early finnish female professional photographer, taken in the early 20th century. She was tasked with documenting the then rapidly changing city of Helsinki. There is a large collection available online, e.g. this image of the market square. The sharpness and overall quality is remarkable.

https://www.helsinkikuvia.fi/collection/22/?rid=212

Thanks for the link! I was completely engrossed and had to look through all the pictures.

[charlesphoto99]

On 2/1/2024 at 6:08 AM, cinejay said:

 

Yeah, I initially had similar expectations about focus when I began with Leica. However, I had to remind myself that many iconic prints I studied weren't razor-sharp. Film concealed imperfections, and now I'm embracing the beauty in those imperfections. While there's a limit to acceptable focus, within the sweet spot, I'm exploring a more painterly or dreamlike approach instead of the clinical modern focus.

I made a video documenting my expectations, practice and results trying zone focus on my M11M on a 35mm: Zone focus failure 

The big mistake users make about zone focusing is that it is somehow about NOT focusing. I saw that problem in the first ten seconds of you shooting on the street (sorry, I didn't watch the whole video). All that time you spent walking towards your subject should have been spent focusing. Learning to track focus with the rangefinder is the most important skill you can develop. Shoot WHILE you are focusing and moving, with the knowledge that the extra depth of field will keep you in the zone if your focus isn't perfect. Focus into the zone, rather than the zone determining a set focus. Watch film of  Cartier-Bresson and he's always focusing. It's a bit like using an X-box controller - lots of small micro movements all the time, coordinating fingers to the eye. 

[jaapv]

Twice thanks!! The idea of zone focus has taken such a cult status that Leica probably could make a ton of money by bringing out an M without rangefinder and a fix-focus  lens. Or maybe a lens with a few cartoon characters instead of a focus scale.  They already had a similar idea with the M1. 

[hepcat]

On 2/1/2024 at 8:08 AM, cinejay said:

 

Yeah, I initially had similar expectations about focus when I began with Leica. However, I had to remind myself that many iconic prints I studied weren't razor-sharp. Film concealed imperfections, and now I'm embracing the beauty in those imperfections. While there's a limit to acceptable focus, within the sweet spot, I'm exploring a more painterly or dreamlike approach instead of the clinical modern focus.

I made a video documenting my expectations, practice and results trying zone focus on my M11M on a 35mm: Zone focus failure 

Well...  I had a failure in my last post about "pictorialism."  Obviously I didn't look at your video until this morning, and what you're doing is most definitely NOT 'pictorialism.'.  Disregard everything past "hello."  Lol...    And nice work.  You've illustrated the function of zone focus perfectly. 

[cinejay]

On 2/20/2024 at 9:01 AM, hepcat said:

Well...  I had a failure in my last post about "pictorialism."  Obviously I didn't look at your video until this morning, and what you're doing is most definitely NOT 'pictorialism.'.  Disregard everything past "hello."  Lol...    And nice work.  You've illustrated the function of zone focus perfectly. 

That's kind of you. Thank you. 

[cinejay]

On 2/20/2024 at 8:30 AM, charlesphoto99 said:

The big mistake users make about zone focusing is that it is somehow about NOT focusing. I saw that problem in the first ten seconds of you shooting on the street (sorry, I didn't watch the whole video). All that time you spent walking towards your subject should have been spent focusing. Learning to track focus with the rangefinder is the most important skill you can develop. Shoot WHILE you are focusing and moving, with the knowledge that the extra depth of field will keep you in the zone if your focus isn't perfect. Focus into the zone, rather than the zone determining a set focus. Watch film of  Cartier-Bresson and he's always focusing. It's a bit like using an X-box controller - lots of small micro movements all the time, coordinating fingers to the eye. 

You make a great point. I will most certainly try that, because I've put a lot of undue pressure on myself to get it right and I should keep firing the shutter and keep focusing.  

[Markey]

2 hours ago, cinejay said:

You make a great point. I will most certainly try that, because I've put a lot of undue pressure on myself to get it right and I should keep firing the shutter and keep focusing.  

That`s a good piece of advice .

Zone focussing doesn't obviate the need to try and maintain focus.

I regard it more as an insurance.   

Edited May 23, 2024 by Markey

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[brickftl]

I'm late to this discussion having just noticed it. I don't see the point of the OP being dissatisfied using that technique on static landscape shots which of course isn't going to yield tack sharp images taken when actually focusing the camera. Zone (or range?) focusing works best for street work where you just want to turn your manual focus cam into a point and shoot, and everyone understands it's a tradeoff  which yields an "acceptable" range of sharpness as compared to manual focus.

Here are shots I took last weekend with my 21/3.4 super elmar shot f 8/11, 500-1000 shutter, ISO 400, then snap without focusing. Are they tack sharp? No, but for my purposes more than acceptable for street work.

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!