Question for those coming from SLR to M8

[Per P.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

 

I am early in the process of adjusting from SLR to RF viewfinder and do find it hard getting used to the Elmarit 28mm occupying a not insignificant part of the view

 

For those of you who have made a similar switch, or who use both types, how difficult have you found this to be?

 

Thanks for sharing, Per.

[Wolfgang Esslinger]

It is a nuisance you have to live with. With the 28 Elmarit I hardly notice it anymore. Other lenses cover a lot more of the viewer so I would always try out a new lens before I buy it.

[SJP]

Compared to this one the problem is marginal

 

Don't worry you will get used to this soon enough. Also it depends on the type of hood you are using. The "vented hoods" are better in that respect but I cannot seem to find a suitable one for the elmarit, maybe someone else has a suggestion? I think you can use a 35mm hood if it is on the M8 due to the crop factor.

 

EDIT: cheapest I could find here and here. The original for 35 mm I believe is Leica Metal Hood #12585 but that needs checking.

[borowiec]

You do get used to not seeing the corner. I've used Fuji 6x9 rangefinder cameras for twenty-five years and don't even notice the problem. However, their hoods have a cut-out.

 

The Leitz hood 12504 works perfectly on the current 28mm Elmarit. It has a cut-out so you can see much more of the lower right corner than with the standard rectangular hood. This hood was originally supplied for the 35mm Summicron and Summilux in the 1980s. You can find them on e-bay in the $50-100 range depending on condition; there's one on Photo.net for $75.

 

Andrew

Andrew Borowiec

[Walt Calahan]

Let go and ignore it. To see with a rangefinder is never like an SLR. Your mind will adapt over time.

[Marty]

If you have this problem with a lens as compact as the latest Elmarit 28 then everything else is going to come as a shock But remember that you do not have to use the hood all the time - removing it has never killed anyone.

[gfspencer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let go and ignore it. To see with a rangefinder is never like an SLR. Your mind will adapt over time.

As Walt said, you will adapt. Every now and then I will get something in the picture that I didn't want but I can easily crop it out.

[Double Negative]

If you have this problem with a lens as compact as the latest Elmarit 28 then everything else is going to come as a shock But remember that you do not have to use the hood all the time - removing it has never killed anyone.

 

I was going to say... That 28 is one of the smallest lenses out there. Heh.

[lars_bergquist]

With a SLR--especially with a zoom lens--you 'search for the picture' with the camera at your eye. Experienced RF photogs however have their pictures composed in the rough even before they raise the camera. They have already adjusted their way of seeing to the lens they have on the camera, and they selected the lens 'proactively' because they knew pretty well in advance what focal length would be the most useful one considering the situation. So it does not matter that part of the frame may be masked. They have already seen that part, in its relationship with the rest of the picture.

 

For the rest, RF photographers fine-tune the cropping with their legs, not with a zooming control!

 

This is of course an entirely different way of thinking, seeing and shooting. We are rewarded with quick-reaction cameras and with optics that are compact, light and generally far superior to what Canikon and the rest can offer us. We are required to think, of course. Some of us do not regard that as a disadvantage.

 

The unregenerate old man from the Age of the Rangefinder

[wda]

Per, you will be more aware of the intrusion on first acquaintance. It does not take long to find that you just ignore it. If you are concerned about the subject matter located at the corner of the frame, try moving your camera to the right and check what is there. Then resume your chosen framing. Consider the imaging frame as a 'floating' frame and float it over the area you wish to capture. It comes easily with practice. Don't give up!

[A. Cheng]

Lars, your words summarize the basic fun of RF photography (for me at least), great.

[john_newell]

For me, and I have been using SLRs and Ms side by side for more than 35 years, they are complementary, not exclusive. There are things that I just don't think the RF does well. Sports/action where you need telephoto coverage, for example. Landscape where you need accurate control of 100% of the frame. OTOH, for people, the M has no peer. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[khiromu]

No problem for me.

But if you don't like it, just take of the hood. Or, use even smaller lenses such as Voigtlander skopar 28mm...

[Fotomiguel]

With a SLR--especially with a zoom lens--you 'search for the picture' with the camera at your eye. Experienced RF photogs however have their pictures composed in the rough even before they raise the camera. They have already adjusted their way of seeing to the lens they have on the camera, and they selected the lens 'proactively' because they knew pretty well in advance what focal length would be the most useful one considering the situation. So it does not matter that part of the frame may be masked. They have already seen that part, in its relationship with the rest of the picture.

Nice words! This must be the way to follow to use any camera.

[lars_bergquist]

The RF camera is not the scratch for all itches of course. There are some specialised itches that a SLR scratches better--for instance, macro work, micro work, long telephotos. But RF cameras are superb for what might be called "general photography". And especially for "action photography".

 

I do not agree that SLR cameras are better for landscape photography, either. In those days when I used SLR cameras as the start of a wet workflow, I always determined the final cropping under the enlarger. After all, printing paper with 2x3 proportions is not to be had. And sometimes I used a square format medium format camera ... Remember, you can do those kinds of adjustments in digital too. They are actually easier than in analog.

 

For historical reasons, RF cameras are seen to occupy a 'niche'. But that niche does actually span three quarters of all photographic needs! Three out of four people who want a system camera would be better off with a Leica. --Oops, I forgot. There's that thinking matter ... That is probably a minority option.

 

But it is also worth something to be able to look at a good picture and to tell yourself: "I made that shot--not an electronic imp in a plastic box".

 

The ungenerate old man again

[jaapv]

Both of Lars's posts should be made a sticky...

[giordano]

With a SLR--especially with a zoom lens--you 'search for the picture' with the camera at your eye. Experienced RF photogs however have their pictures composed in the rough even before they raise the camera. They have already adjusted their way of seeing to the lens they have on the camera, and they selected the lens 'proactively' because they knew pretty well in advance what focal length would be the most useful one considering the situation.

 

I think you're exaggerating the difference between RF and SLR technique.

 

1) Surely all experienced photographers form a concept of the picture before raising the camera. Exceptions are when following (as opposed to anticipating) fast action, and maybe at extremely long ranges or with very small subjects where the naked eye cannot see clearly enough.

 

2) Likewise they select their lens in advance (unless using an 18-200 zoom or some such).

 

3) "Seeing" the picture in advance is even more important with a view camera, when "raising the camera" takes minutes.

 

4) The presence or absence of a rangefinder is a total red herring. There's a difference between a direct finder and a reflex finder or ground glass, but by no means all cameras with direct finders have rangefinders (Rollei 35 & Hasselblad SWC to name but two).

 

5) You didn't mention this but I'll drop it in for good measure: the claim that rangefinder cameras let you see the area outside the image frame while SLRs don't. Again this has nothing to do with the rangefinder as such: there are RF cameras that don't let you do this (e.g. Contaxes, pre-M Leicas) and non-RF cameras that do.

 

So it does not matter that part of the frame may be masked. They have already seen that part, in its relationship with the rest of the picture.

 

Lars, if you're right-eyed do you open the left one when you need to check that nothing untoward has happened in the masked area (or to see "outside" a frameless viewfinder?)