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

[Cobram]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, mujk said:

Agree with the previous replies. I had the same experience when starting to use the 21 SEM. It is easy to assume that a lens this wide would look sharp over a wide range of distances at f11, but this is definitely not the case. The DOF scale does not really tell very much.

Indeed. I used to own Color Skopar 21/4 and decided to "upgrade" to SEM. While I certainly got better corner sharpness, flare control and colors (Leica rendering) I lost on zone focusing properties. SEM DOF scale is not accurate and especially I lost sharpness at infinity (comparing to Color Skopar). I got rid of SEM and now I will test Elmarit in next months to see if it will be better at zone focusing. I am willing to sacrifice a chunk of sharpness for a lens that can (I hope so) better fulfill my needs.

[jonco]

I like deep focus. Zone focus works for me. But, I also still mostly shoot black & white, so what do I know.

[Advertisement]

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

[charlesphoto99]

11 hours ago, jonco said:

I like deep focus. Zone focus works for me. But, I also still mostly shoot black & white, so what do I know.

Nobody said zone focusing couldn't work. It's just not the panacea to rely on vs actually learning to use the rangefinder (which takes practice, practice, practice). 

[lanetomlane]

I only use Zone Focusing for street photo's. I usually use a 35mm Summicron set to f8 with the distance scale at 6 feet. With those settings everything from around 4 to 10 feet is in focus and I shoot from the hip.

 

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!

[evikne]

I use the hyperfocal distance when I want the background to be sharp, as well as most of the foreground. Here is 35mm Summilux pre-asph v2 sat to hyperfocal distance at f/8. 

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!

For street photography and the like, I pre-focus / zone focus to a distance where I expect the main subject to appear, and use an aperture that gives the depth of field a sufficient amount of wiggle room.

For portraits and everything else, I always focus directly on the main subject (preferably the eyes, if it has any), and often use a shallow depth of field.

Edited July 30, 2023 by evikne

[bags27]

I can't post examples here, but I just developed several rolls from my HB 500 c/m of a parade. I was moving quickly with the parade and always zone focused. I got a large number of keepers. But some of them seem less than acceptably sharp by today's standards, when digitized and enlarged. It's sometimes harder for me to accept an excellent capture that I should be happy with, because, although shooting only film, I'm socialized somewhat to digital standards.

Edited July 30, 2023 by bags27

[jonco]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/30/2023 at 9:26 AM, charlesphoto99 said:

Nobody said zone focusing couldn't work. It's just not the panacea to rely on vs actually learning to use the rangefinder (which takes practice, practice, practice). 

I find focusing a rangefinder way easier than a DSLR. I got my first Leica in 1974. Before that I had a Canon 4S rangefinder. I compose my shots to fit in that zone. And sometimes I have to a little focusing. Leica and Zeiss lens markings tend to be accurate and excellent image quality.

"In a still photograph you basically have two variables, where you stand and when you press the shutter. That’s all you have." Henry Wessel

Edited August 11, 2023 by jonco

[RexGig0]

I dislike the term “Zone focusing.” I agree with the previous replies that recommend “Distance” focusing. Both Zone and Distance focusing seem to fall within what is called “Scale” focusing. While one can set one distance, and simply work with that, it requires being willing to accept that critical focus will not, necessarily, be on the desired subject. This may be acceptable when photographing my active grandsons, with a 28mm lens, as they run about, because I will enjoy the images, regardless. Even then, I will pull focus to MFD, as needed, and then reset it to about twelve feet, rather than keep it set at 12 to 15 feet.

If there is enough light to see the distance and DOF markings, well, judge the distance to the subject, or the most-critical part of the scene, set the distance, chose the applicable aperture, if it was not already pre-set, and shoot. Judging distance requires practice.

I prefer 35mm to 28mm, for a “wide normal” angle of nview, so, when walking about, am more likely to want to use the rangefinder, unless conditions make it difficult to use the viewfinder, or see the patch clearly enough. Setting the distance, to focus, is my second choice, when shooting with 35mm.

50mm normally requires that I use the rangefinder, unless I have pre-measured the distance, and then waited for an interesting subject to enter the intended area.

A good training exercise would be to use a 50mm lens, on an M camera, to shoot a highly-active subject. Even if few to none of the images will be “keepers,” the attempts are valuable training. 

I am not any kind of expert. My first mentor, about 24 years ago, made sure that I became decent at manually-focusing, from the beginning, even though I was using a DSLR, with an AF lens. 

[Knightspirit]

Interesting thread - I found this because like the original poster, I am not getting sharp results using the zone focusing method. I am using the 28mm Elmarit ASPH - so I was expecting better results. On an M11 - using the distance scale on the lens, infinity is never "there there" as far as focus. Having read this - I will do some testing and see what I get.

[hepcat]

I'm a little late to the party, sorry.  I'm an old timer and I have a different perspective about the use of a pre-focus strategy than a lot of folks.  Historically, the term "bokeh" wasn't applied to photography until 1997; a relatively new concept.  Focusing and metering every shot wasn't even considered until cameras came equipped with TTL metering in the late '60s.  Photographers knew that a single metering per session was sufficient, as long as the light didn't change radically.   And photographers knew how to use hyperfocal distance to their benefit, e.g. the F64 Group.  And wide aperture lenses were introduced in order to give photographers an edge in low light as a thin, but printable, saleable negative was better than no negative at all.  They considered slightly out of focus to be of no real concern, particularly in news photography where it would likely be printed through a 60 dpi half-tone screen anyway; the very definition of MilSpec:  "Measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, and cut with an axe."  

So all of this concern about perfect focus and perfect exposure are really new concepts, largely from the inception of autofocus and autoexposure in the early 1990s.   And I find it interesting that we discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ad nauseum, when most photographers display photos that are 1600px on the long side online.

Now, a couple of thoughts about terminology.  "Zone focus" is used on cameras without a rangefinder.  You have typically a "single person/portrait zone," a "group zone," and a "scenery zone."  The camera presents you no other way to confirm focus, most being just a viewfinder camera.  The camera then depends on hyperfocal distance to give you mostly in focus images. 

There are some details that haven't been discussed in this thread that are important.  First is hyperfocal distance, or the depth of field in front of and behind the actual plane of focus for a given aperture.  As a rule of thumb,  the total depth of field is about 1/3 in front of the actual plane of focus and 2/3 behind.  Hyperfocal distance changes with focal length of the lens.  Wider lenses have a greater hyperfocal distance at the same aperture, and longer have a more shallow depth of field for a given aperture.   It is the hyperfocal distances that are displayed on the scale on each lens.

Rangefinder cameras best use pre-focus and hyperfocal distance for shooting fast.  It works for street work IF you know the distance you're working at, you know the DOF at that working distance and aperture, and it allows you to shoot for the peak of the action by merely framing without having to stop to gain exact focus.  It also works for subjects near infinity nicely with most lenses regardless of focal length.   You are likely to have portions of your image out of focus, depending on your working distance, and the hyperfocal distance at whatever your preferred aperture is.

Last, of course, is using the rangefinder to find the plane of focus.  Once again, however, you will still rely on hyperfocal distance to get the 1/3-2/3 depth of field, but you specify the actual plane of focus more accurately.  Unfortunately, that can also take time that means missing an expression, or the peak of the action.

So...  we really have several concepts being discussed in this thread that are related, but being confused or conflated by confusion of terms.   Hopefully by defining them more accurately, we can discuss them more accurately. 

[Harpomatic]

On 7/18/2023 at 6:41 PM, jaapv said:

With a few  caveats:

- if you want a tack-sharp horizon, focus on the horizon

-if you want subject separation, focus on the subject

-if you want front-to-end sharpness, use focus stacking (on static subjects)

It really amuses me to see claims of absolutes with such strong opinions, completely ignoring the fact that some of the best photographers in the history of photography made their whole career on zone focusing or layered images with parts or subjects in the images that are not tack sharp. 
Tack sharp and technically perfect images seem to be the absolute aim of those that only shoot static subjects or those that pixel peep and shoot for that purpose.

When the image has something to say the perfect sharpness is irrelevant. When there are layers in an image something won’t be bleeding sharp. And that’s ok, that’s not the point of the image!

Photographers use the required technique for the specific shot, be it the rangefinder or zone focusing or anything in between.

On one thing I absolutely agree with jaapv, and it’s relevant to the OP’s question: you want end to end sharpness? Focus stacking is the way.

Otherwise please stop pressing your nose to the screen scrutinising the image at 200%: if you need to do so there is absolutely nothing of interest to see in the image!

That’s my just opinion of course!

[Pyrogallol]

I think people have got so used to using i-phones to take pictures that they expect pictures to be sharp from front to back, because of the huge depth of field from tiny phone lenses, that some do not understand the principles of lens focal length, aperture and planes of focus.

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, Harpomatic said:

It really amuses me to see claims of absolutes with such strong opinions, completely ignoring the fact that some of the best photographers in the history of photography made their whole career on zone focusing or layered images with parts or subjects in the images that are not tack sharp. 
Tack sharp and technically perfect images seem to be the absolute aim of those that only shoot static subjects or those that pixel peep and shoot for that purpose.

When the image has something to say the perfect sharpness is irrelevant. When there are layers in an image something won’t be bleeding sharp. And that’s ok, that’s not the point of the image!

Photographers use the required technique for the specific shot, be it the rangefinder or zone focusing or anything in between.

On one thing I absolutely agree with jaapv, and it’s relevant to the OP’s question: you want end to end sharpness? Focus stacking is the way.

Otherwise please stop pressing your nose to the screen scrutinising the image at 200%: if you need to do so there is absolutely nothing of interest to see in the image!

That’s my just opinion of course!

 "If you want" ...😵‍💫 If you like unsharp photos, that is your absolute privilege, which makes my post non-applicable to you. However, most members on this forum lack the artistic  ability of the luminaries you mention to make a technically flawed image superb. Thus, perfecting our craft is of interest. I wonder how many of these best photographers would have embraced AF, had it been available in their time, BTW.

[Rick in CO]

Cell phone users exult about their sharp photos, but they usually enjoy them on their phone, or tablet, or online.  If they make prints they are usually smaller in size, although some  can get some very nice results with larger prints - I have seen some excellent printed work, but mostly by film-educated photographers who understand things like depth-of-field, etc.  Also, the telephoto cell phone results are not even close to a small sensor point-and-shoot with a decent zoom lens - our "old" Leica C Typ 112's lens at longer focal lengths is far better than our kids iPhone 15, even though the sensor sizes are similar.  With the native focal length lens and especially close-up, cell phones can be very good and, of course, the ease of use is paramount.  

Shooting at the hyperlocal distance will get you relative sharpness across the picture area.  If your central subject lies at the sharp distance plane for the particular aperture, it will have maximum resolution.  If not, it will be less sharp depending upon how far it is situated from that distance.  For a subject, like a landscape, where everything in the picture is equally important, that is the way to go.  If a particular object or subject is most important, then focus on the subject and use an aperture that allows the desired out-of-critical focus areas - large aperture to isolate the subject, smaller aperture to get maximal depth of field.  Small sensors have an inherent greater depth-of-field, great for travel pics and snapshots where the location is important, but not so great for portraits - hence the attempted cell phone software solutions.

I wonder if cell phones will take over from "cameras" for street photography.  They are quick, give good results with the native focal distance lens (usually ~28mm), and are relatively innocuous in use.  In many countries (particularly Europe) taking a photo without permission is not only frowned upon, but sometimes illegal.  A camera easily sticks out, even from the waist, but it seems that everyone has a cell phone to their face!

[hepcat]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

 "If you want" ...😵‍💫 If you like unsharp photos, that is your absolute privilege, which makes my post non-applicable to you. However, most members on this forum lack the artistic  ability of the luminaries you mention to make a technically flawed image superb. Thus, perfecting our craft is of interest. I wonder how many of these best photographers would have embraced AF, had it been available in their time, BTW.

Quite frankly, I've seen a lot of technically perfect images that are real yawners.  Having used Phase One gear for years, and belonging to a couple of Phase One groups where ONLY images using the 150mp back, XF or XT camera, and blue-ring lenses are accepted, I've seen some amazingly boring technically superb images. Frankly, I've never seen such uninspired use of amazing technology.   Using the most corrected lens on the largest MP sensor and having THE sharpest focus all do absolutely nothing to "perfect our craft."  Way too much time is spent discussing these issues, and not nearly enough time is spent discussing what actually makes "good" photos.  I'm not sure they have any importance at all past advertising to sell more new cameras and lenses.   I think that's a problem in all discussion groups such as these.  Too much time is spent on MTF charts and pixel peeping at the trees in images where the forest is the focus.  Regardless of the technical perfection, the images just don't matter if the subject of the image isn't interesting or presented in an interesting way.  If I never see another perfectly executed flower photo or "cute" cat photo I will die a happy man. 

Edited December 24, 2023 by hepcat

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, hepcat said:

Quite frankly, I've seen a lot of technically perfect images that are real yawners

You're not disagreeing with me here. I'm quite capable of producing them myself.

 

1 hour ago, hepcat said:

Using the most corrected lens on the largest MP sensor and having THE sharpest focus all do absolutely nothing to "perfect our craft."  Way too much time is spent discussing these issues, and not nearly enough time is spent discussing what actually makes "good" photos.  I'm not sure they have any importance at all past advertising to sell more new cameras and lenses. 

That is not the issue here.  Perfecting one's craft has absolutely nothing to do with buying the supposed best. That implies the "the camera must take the photograph" mentality, which I hate.

This is about getting the (technically) best results out of the gear in your hands. - Which takes time, effort and practice. Taking a good photograph is the next step. Do you want to take  good photograph? Learn how to take a photograph in the first place.

[hepcat]

48 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Ypu're not disagreeing with me here. I'm quite capable of producing them myself.

 

That is not the issue here.  Perfecting one's craft has absolutely nothing to do with buying the supposed best. That implies the "the camera must take the photograph" mentality, which I hate.

This is about getting the (technically) best results out of the gear in your hands. - Which takes time, effort and practice. Taking a good photograph is the next step. Do you want to take  good photograph? Learn how to take a photograph in the first place.

And yet most threads in this website and others similar to it are about exactly that...  "which lens is best...," "is v.3 better than v.5,"  "is the 60mp M11 worth moving to from the 40mp M10-R?' ad nauseam.    In comparison there are relatively few threads about "how did you make that image?,"  "How do I use my M(x) to do... "  leading me to believe that many people believe that the gear is a LOT more important than it really is.

You and I are on the same page.  I think we're just taking slightly different routes to the same conclusions.  

[jaapv]

I believe so too. I have always answered the question "what is the best lens?" with a counterquestion: "For what purpose?" Maybe we should add: "what is your skill level?"

"'

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Just going back a few months/years to the origin of this thread.

The whole premise of this thread is incorrect. The OP wasn't doing zone focus. He was doing hyperfocal focus. They're slightly different. Hyperfocal focusing is working out how to get acceptable sharpness from a point to infinity. Zone focusing is getting acceptable sharpness from a point to another point. And no, it's not generally accepted that that second point could be infinity. The technique to get there are very similar though and it simply relies on trial and error.

You need to remember that the aperture numbers put on the lens markings are correct only under a very specific set of circumstances. Change the output size and you change the apparent DoF, for example. I do wish they'd just replace the f stop numbers with something arbitrary like *A* ,*B*, etc. It'd be less confusing. Then you do what you always should. Shoot the way you shoot and work out what works so you can repeat it. If I want to know how to get something in focus at two arms lengths I worked it out and on any lens I own I can set focus to that distance without the rangefinder. Not because I trust when the lens says 1.5m but because I practiced and worked where that is on each lens.

For the later part of the thread.... Gear matters. Photography needs gear. It's just over hyped. I don't like the idea that skill level should be linked to what gear someone selects. I generally support the idea to get the best you can afford and be happy with that.  Certainly, you don't need the absolute best to get great images but the appropriate gear and better equipment generally makes it easier to get the shot the way you envisioned. That gear varies. The Phase description above isn't going to be ideal for sports photography. It can be done but a Sony A1 will make it easier. The question is do you buy a set of scalpels or just get a Swiss army knife?

When someone gets the photography bug, they'll inevitably go to a forum like this or maybe YouTube looking to progress. A decade ago books did the same thing. The issue is that all these resources start with *correct* exposure and sharpness as the primary technical goals. So guess what most photographers chase. We do this because it's easy. The bits that make great images are both more difficult to learn and difficult to achieve. Light and shadows, texture, form, balance, perspective. All the good stuff is so subjective that it becomes difficult to teach. Somone asks how to make an image better and we suggest exposure and sharpness because the other stuff is what even great shooters don't quite understand.

Gear matters. It just doesn't matter as much as other things.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I don't like the idea that skill level should be linked to what gear someone selects

Yes and no - It makes no sense to recommend an Apo-Summicron to someone who is still on the learning curve for focusing, nor a Noctilux for someone who is not interested in understanding exposure.  First build the skills before investing the yearly income of somebody on the lower end of the income scale.