Quickest easiest way to focus a rangefinder?

[Sandokan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have always loved the rangefinder since the Zorki 4k as a teenager (OK maybe that camera I hated), but I struggle with focusing. My poorly corrected eyesight (continuously getting worse) made this worse. I have missed many an award winning shot because I was too slow and the scene was gone  

What tips do you have that I could use to focus faster and more accurately? Apart from stick to AF

 

[FrozenInTime]

f/8 and be there 

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

@Sandokanif  you can not see clearly the focussing patch, try using your eyeglass.

Or go to Leica Dealer and try their diopter correction lenses.

Or like @FrozenInTime  wrote, use closed down more, set the distance approximately this is the quickest way, if no time to RF focus.

[FrozenInTime]

I could also add : One workshop I attended suggested that cranking focus back and forth was always going to be too slow for match the speed of a moving subject; the advice was to initially focus the rangefinder from far to near, then keep the subject in coincidence through either their or your own movements. 

[TomB_tx]

1 hour ago, FrozenInTime said:

I could also add : One workshop I attended suggested that cranking focus back and forth was always going to be too slow for match the speed of a moving subject; the advice was to initially focus the rangefinder from far to near, then keep the subject in coincidence through either their or your own movements. 

Agree - I aways keep the lens at infinity while carrying, then bring to coincidence at my eye as I focus. Don't "hunt" - that's a carryover from SLR where you had to judge sharpest image.

[hepcat]

These past thirty years of autofocus cameras have really caused "photographers" to lose the techniques that have worked for them since before rangefinders were introduced on cameras.  There is no need to micro-focus every shot, particularly when you're in predicable circumstances... walking down the street, for instance.  As a matter of fact, there's really no reason to focus at all.   Think about your shooting conditions.  Pre-focus and pre-set your aperture for enough DOF to cover the area you'll most likely be shooting in.   With a 35mm or 50mm lens at f/11, you can have from 4' (depending on the lens, of course) to infinity in focus.   Just know what your hyperfocal distance is for the aperture you're shooting at, and stay within that range to your subject. 

With a pre-set aperture and pre-set focus point, there's no need to focus at all; you bring your camera to your eye and release the shutter.

Now obviously, that doesn't work so well at f/2 (or larger) because of the more shallow DOF, but even at that, you can pre-judge your most likely focusing distance and pre-set that for faster action. 

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The obvious things are to: make sure your eyes are corrected as best as possible (for distance and astigmatism); ensure your camera and lenses are well calibrated; and still experiment with additional diopter correction. With aging eyes, I found that a +.5 diopter, in addition to my glasses, provides optimal focusing and viewing. A trip to my local optician made for easy experimentation with free trial diopters.  I also use thin, flexible eyeglass frames, which allow me to press tightly against the VF.

The forum FAQ cites the different methods for focusing an M, but I assume you’re well aware of those by now.

Jeff

[spydrxx]

I agree with most of the above. I've also had to contend with constant changing vision over the last 20 years, and lens replacement in both eyes in conjunction with glaucoma. What I have learned for better and faster focusing: If you need glasses to focus, make sure you have a current prescription and a diopter correction lens if necessary to ensure things are crystal clear. If you can preset your focus it is a good idea. Where possible choose an f stop large enough for depth of field to compensate for minor misfocusing. I've also found on LTM lenses it helps removing the infinity lock button so that the focus range is smooth from MFD-infinity and back. You can always replace it later if you decide to sell the lens. Just keep the little parts in a sealed, labelled plastic bag. Lastly, for some lenses, I know I need to go back & forth to achieve proper focus (sorry Hepcat). If the lens doesn't have a finger shaped focus tab, I often attach rubber stick on tabs, whch seem good for a year or so. One lens I put two diametrically  opposed for quick back and forth micro focusing. I cut them down so they aren't too obtrusive, and they work like a charm. I learned this trick from my old Ricoh 500 rangefinders, which incorporated the idea on their top of the line RF cameras in the 1950s. If you or anybody need a picture drop me a line and I'll show you how the originals work and how I adapted it for my Leica lenses. Not all lenses can use this trick, but it works pretty well on some 35 and 50mm lenses.

[charlesphoto99]

3 hours ago, hepcat said:

  As a matter of fact, there's really no reason to focus at all.   

 

IMO terrible advice. What typically makes a great (street) shot is the separation of the subject from the background, not f11 and just point. Look at documentaries of the greats like Winogrand or Cartier-Bresson or Meyerowitz - they are constantly micro focusing, and therefore they are constantly ready. I do similar when working a subject. So really it comes down to practice. And as somebody suggested above, 'dancing' with your subject - so that the micro-movements of your body become like micro focus movements, and that way you stay in a concentrated zone, so to speak, even if shooting at a more realistic  f2.8 or f4. That said, you can't 'worry' the focus. Just keep getting it to a place that's accurate as your subject moves, and then don't ignore taking the shot just because you may not have the focus 'prefect.' 

Also keeping your viewfinder windows clean can sometimes help with 'vision problems' immensely. 

[dpitt]

If you struggle seeing the focus patch perfectly you should use some form of eye correction. The problem is that you need glasses for perfect vision at 2 m. Reading glasses are made for 30cm and a bit further, so that does not work well with the RF. I found that I need glasses that are 0.5 to 1.0 less than my reading glasses. I am currently using +2.0 for reading and found that my old glasses of +1.0 work great for shooting with my M9.

[evikne]

Even before I put the camera to my eye, I decide where I want to focus. I choose a clearly defined contrast area, preferably vertical, on the main subject. If this is horizontal, I hold the camera vertically while focusing and, if desired, turn it back to a horizontal position before taking the picture.

The focus area does not necessarily always have to be exactly where you want the main focus, as long as it lies on the same focal plane. The most important thing is that the area has a clear contrast. For example, if I'm taking a picture of a full-figure person, it may be better to focus on the part between the jacket and trousers than on the face. You have to recompose afterwards anyway.

I'm pretty near-sighted. But even without glasses, I manage to take sharp images this way.

Edited November 10, 2023 by evikne

[Pyrogallol]

After using a Leica 111g and M4-2 the other day for indoor pictures of people moving about, I wondered again why Leitz stopped providing a dioptre eyepiece adjuster  when they introduced the M cameras. The 111g was much easier to focus because it has the adjuster, as did all the screw cameras from the model 111. I came home and ordered a secondhand +2 adaptor for my M cameras. Apparently the M cameras default to -0.5 dioptre. I have + adaptors for my Fuji X Pro 1 and Nikon Film SLRs, both use the same size adaptor and default to -0.5.

Also, because rangefinder focussing is more accurate than SLR focussing we tend to try to get the rangefinder images perfectly aligned when the depth of field will cover any small inaccuracies, except my recent closeup pictures of people moving at f1.4

Edited November 10, 2023 by Pyrogallol

[Al Brown]

I have two techniques when I need to shoot fast:

1. Shoot as is with f-stop at f/8 and then refocus quickly for the subject
2. Look at the subject, judge the distance and set it on the lens scale fast and shoot, fixing for the second shot

Luckily practically never have to shoot this way.

[Greenhilltony]

First of all, get a diopter matching your eyesight. If you live without glasses, this is the best solution.

Next, if you really want to focus faster, you should learn where you want to focus first. Find yourself the most comfortable focal length, and then practice and learn the relationship between compositions and focus distance: for example, with a 35mm lens, you can accommodate the whole figure of an average-sized person in horizontal composition at 3m; you will leave more space around it at 5m, and you can tighten the frame to accommodate the upper-half figure at the distance of 1.5-2m. With the composition you want to achieve in mind, approach to the subject or react to the current scene and set the focus to the corresponding distance. When you’re looking through the viewfinder, hit the shutter as long as the desired composition appears. If you have to shoot from the hip then just practice and master your sense of distance judging. I never screw up the focus too much and sacrifice too much sharpness in this method, and with my experience growing, I don’t have to stay at F8 and be there. I can nail the focus judging confidently at F2.8 for 35/40mm lens, which allow me to shoot at city night without pushing my film so hard to ISO1600 or 3200ish.

[LocalHero1953]

With Barnacks, where the RF is separate and tiny, for rapid focusing I set the range from the focus lock button position: usually one of: just unlocked, 6o’clock or 5 o’clock. 

[dpitt]

29 minutes ago, Greenhilltony said:

First of all, get a diopter matching your eyesight. If you live without glasses, this is the best solution.

Next, if you really want to focus faster, you should learn where you want to focus first. Find yourself the most comfortable focal length, and then practice and learn the relationship between compositions and focus distance: for example, with a 35mm lens, you can accommodate the whole figure of an average-sized person in horizontal composition at 3m; you will leave more space around it at 5m, and you can tighten the frame to accommodate the upper-half figure at the distance of 1.5-2m. With the composition you want to achieve in mind, approach to the subject or react to the current scene and set the focus to the corresponding distance. When you’re looking through the viewfinder, hit the shutter as long as the desired composition appears. If you have to shoot from the hip then just practice and master your sense of distance judging. I never screw up the focus too much and sacrifice too much sharpness in this method, and with my experience growing, I don’t have to stay at F8 and be there. I can nail the focus judging confidently at F2.8 for 35/40mm lens, which allow me to shoot at city night without pushing my film so hard to ISO1600 or 3200ish.

That is the reason That I prefer tabbed lenses, even for 50mm. You can work with finger memory without bringing up the camera.

[charlesphoto99]

And remember, tab going left means closer; going right means farther. So just by the feel of the tab you can get the lens at least ready and in range when approaching a subject. 

[hepcat]

9 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

IMO terrible advice. What typically makes a great (street) shot is the separation of the subject from the background, not f11 and just point. Look at documentaries of the greats like Winogrand or Cartier-Bresson or Meyerowitz - they are constantly micro focusing, and therefore they are constantly ready.

As an aside, I've been doing commercial photography since about 1971, and my formal training was at the Naval School of Photography in Pensacola FL.  We started our training on Speed Graphic kits, transitioned to Mamiya C3 and C33 kits, and ultimately to Leica KS-15 (military M2) kits later in training.   For combat and general photography, zone focus was taught as THE method for obtaining photos when their wasn't time to focus critically.   Obviously, for other purposes... portraits, product illustration, and any other jobs that either required critical focus and DOF, or you weren't under time pressure and could take your time, critical focusing was appropriate and necessary.

Metering and trying to critically focus EVERY exposure only came into vogue after single-lens-reflex cameras started including internal light meters that were in front of your eye with every exposure.   Consumers without formal photography training often didn't understand either what their exposure meter was telling them, or understand the concept of depth of field and zone focus.  That was particularly pronounced with the advent of wide-open metering where DOF was only achieved at the moment of exposure when the lens stopped down automatically.   it takes discipline to trust that your zone focus will work when looking at an out-of-focus scene through and SLR's viewfinder. 

The sources I've been able to find indicate that both Cartier-Bresson and Winogrand both used pre-set zone focus much of the time.   For much of what we do, critical focus just isn't that important, especially for "grab shots" and with 50mm or shorter focal length lenses on 35mm film/sensors.   "Separation from the background" has only become a "thing" in the last 30 years, first with the advent of really fast films, and later with high-ISO shooting in digital that allow for faster shutter speeds.  The term "bokeh" wasn't applied to photography for the first time until 1997.   Those are all relatively new concepts in the discussion of the history of photography.

Obviously, critical focusing is appropriate when you have time, but when you don't, zone focus is a long-traditioned, tried and true method for bringing home the saleable photo.

Keeping track of history is important.

[charlesphoto99]

If you watch Winogrand work, yes, he does use zone focusing, but you also see him first look down at his 28mm, make a focus adjustment to his lens with the tab, and then move his body in relation to the subject, looking through the hot shoe mounted viewfinder all the while. Every time. So really a hybrid approach (one that I also use as well, light dependent of course). Why I say it's a bad idea to suggest zone focus to a new user, is that they really should learn how to properly focus an M first, and then use zone focusing not as a crutch, but as a technique developed on a foundation of intention and skill. I also think film was/is much more forgiving of mis-focus than 60mp digital. 

Funny, I think you got it somewhat backwards - with the advent of clean high iso in digital, separation from the background has become 'less' of a thing, imo, than with film, when one was often forced to use wider apertures or longer shutter speeds. A lot of 'street' photography has, unfortunately, in the hands of amateurs, devolved to not much more than 'capturing' people walking down the street looking at their phones. Not much technique, skill, or artistry needed there. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hepcat]

24 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

If you watch Winogrand work, yes, he does use zone focusing, but you also see him first look down at his 28mm, make a focus adjustment to his lens with the tab, and then move his body in relation to the subject, looking through the hot shoe mounted viewfinder all the while. Every time. So really a hybrid approach (one that I also use as well, light dependent of course). Why I say it's a bad idea to suggest zone focus to a new user, is that they really should learn how to properly focus an M first, and then use zone focusing not as a crutch, but as a technique developed on a foundation of intention and skill. I also think film was/is much more forgiving of mis-focus than 60mp digital. 

Funny, I think you got it somewhat backwards - with the advent of clean high iso in digital, separation from the background has become 'less' of a thing, imo, than with film, when one was often forced to use wider apertures or longer shutter speeds. A lot of 'street' photography has, unfortunately, in the hands of amateurs, devolved to not much more than 'capturing' people walking down the street looking at their phones. Not much technique, skill, or artistry needed there. 

Winogrand checked his zone focus because he got up in people's faces, and wanted to make sure his zone would cover his working distance.

Zone focusing IS a way to "properly focus an M" camera.  Not, of course, the ONLY way, but understanding hyperfocal distance is one of the critical skills a photographer must possess.

As far as the order of the chicken or the egg, technique, and exploring the range of what lenses can do using hyperfocal distance, I can only direct you back through the history of photography; the Pictorialists, the Modernists, the Dada and Surrealists, "straight" photography and the f64 group... each held a belief that their use of hyperfocal distance was THE way and was what separated their genre from those movements they were trying to escape, and those movements whose practitioners came after them with the same goals.  Interestingly, however, no where in those discussions of those groups or BY the members of those groups will you find discussions about "separation of background" or "bokeh."  Those are truly recent concepts, both only first discussed since the advent of the widespread use of digital. 
 

And lastly, I can't agree more with the de-evolution of what constitutes "street" photography.  Actually, I think Winogrand led the charge of that de-evolution.   I've never cared either for his technique or style.   He made thousands of exposures that have little value; much the same as what we see today.

Edited November 10, 2023 by hepcat