Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jaapv

M8-Focus on focussing

Recommended Posts

I would send the lot to Will. Faster and cheaper and as least as good.

 

Who is is Will -- if I may ask? My problem is that i wonder whether my unstable results are because I do not have the right technique or because something is wrong the camera or the lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is is Will -- if I may ask? My problem is that i wonder whether my unstable results are because I do not have the right technique or because something is wrong the camera or the lenses.

 

A tripod should give you the answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed we are talking different things here. If professional, I would not chance missing those shots either, even if it were my fault and not the camera's Even as an amateur I would opt for certainty.

 

Except I do those kind of shots all the time with both a D3 and the M8. And I don't miss them when I use the M8 due to focus.

 

I might miss due to reach (past 90 nothing is reliable on the M8)--or even miss them to low light if I don't want to use flash; but not to focus.

 

With all due respect, in neither of Rolo's shots is the subject moving in the slightest, and in neither of them I'm not seeing something very wide open.

 

So given a 35 or 50 Lux on the M8, and some way of getting f2.8 or 3.2, you are as certain of focus with the RF as you would be with the dSLR in those situations.

 

YMMV.

Edited by Jamie Roberts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except I do those kind of shots all the time with both a D3 and the M8. And I don't miss them when I use the M8 due to focus.

 

I might miss due to reach (past 90 nothing is reliable on the M8)--or even miss them to low light if I don't want to use flash; but not to focus.

 

With all due respect, in neither of Rolo's shots is the subject moving in the slightest, and in neither of them I'm not seeing something very wide open.

 

So given a 35 or 50 Lux on the M8, and some way of getting f2.8 or 3.2, you are as certain of focus with the RF as you would be with the dSLR in those situations.

 

YMMV.

 

I agreed with Rolo because I am primarily still prefer to use a DSLR when dealing with combination of:

 

1. clients who I am largely unfamiliar with

2. events unfold unexpectedly

3. long stretch of 8 hours or more

4. Rapid ISO changes might be needed.

5. Flash

 

My corporate clients' events are usually fast paced but after years of working with them I know what they want. I know what I can get away with not covering. Sometimes its DRF sometimes its DSLR.

 

At the end of the day, I am still building my competency in using the rangefinder

 

If the M8 has ISO 2500 like its 640, that will make a huge difference to me.

 

Weddings, if I were to do them needs a DSLR shooter paired with me and an assistant with a pocket wizard triggered Qflash on a monopod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap,

I had recently have one idea for a possible focus improvement over RF and leicas, and maybe MarkNorton could confirm us how easy it would be to implement it. Here it is:

First, I am real happy about how fast and accurate the mechanism is, but indeed there are occassions where (myself included) one hunts for vertical lines.

 

Would it be possible to improve the central yellowish patch to indicate both vertical and horizontal displacement maybe in a separated patch? Like two patches one for horiz one for vertical movement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rolo and Jaap as for the wedding photos, every system embeds a possible error according to complexity. So, there is a chance that something might go wrong and lose the prescious moment. on a RF however, all one has to do is to allign correctly two images. If you can do this fast enough, then you can take 4-5 shots of that wedding ring Rolo. It is a matter of practice, something you already know by shooting weddings arent you?

For me, capturing these dogs would be more difficult than the wedding ring. The wedding ring on the other hand is indeed a moment in time quite small, but you expect it to happen, you almost know when it will occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just toss in that's there is a difference between aligning a split-image in an SLR screen (more or less Leica-like) and just trying to focus on a ground-glass. I never used anything but a split-image in my Nikon/Canon days - until the very end, when they disappeared (hello, rangefinders!)

 

There is - somewhere, but I haven't seen it in 20 years - a formula for split-image SLR screens. Maybe it's the one jaapv gave. Does include lens focal length. With a nice big pre-AF SLR view (45mm eyepiece focal length, no "high-eyepoint" BS) the SLR split would match an RF at about 90mm f/2. And generally I had no problem all the way down to 16 fisheyes - with the split.

 

There is a weird dynamic where the faster the lens, the easier SLR focusing is, whereas, the faster the lens, the HARDER RF focusing is.

 

Easy way to find out the focal length of an SLR eyepiece. Put on a zoom including the 30-60mm range (True focal lengths, not "equivalents"), look through the eyepiece with both eyes open, and zoom until the viewfinder image is exactly the same size/scale as your natural view with the other eye. Then check the zoom setting (carefully, without moving it).

 

Generally, they are a bit longer than 55mm. But good pro SLRs c. 1980 (F-1, F2) usually had 50mm eyepieces. Olympus went even shorter, which is what made for that HUGE screen inside the tiny OM series. About a 45mm eyepiece focal length.

 

Modern APS-crop cameras should have had the eyepiece focal length reduced to 35mm or 33mm (the new normal) to increase magnification. Most have not (although the Nikon D80/90 have improved a bit) so the view is of a tiny postage stamp. If Maitani (designer of the OM series) saw an Oly E-3 viewfinder, he'd weep!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to improve the central yellowish patch to indicate both vertical and horizontal displacement maybe in a separated patch? Like two patches one for horiz one for vertical movement?

 

Then the camera has to contain a vertical rangefinder in addition to the horizontal. If you look at the front of your camera the rangefinder mechanism is in the top of your camera between the rangefinder vindow and the viewfinder window. Building a vertical rangefinder means that you need a rangefinder window at the same distance above or bellow the viewfinder window. This will obvoiusly not fit into an M-body. An other problem is that the rangefinder patch i displayed in the viewfinder with a mirror. Using two mirrors in two different angles will complicate things further. Unless you want to go back to the pre-war Leicas with separate rangefinder and viewfinder windows, but wants that.

 

Look up any good book on rangefinders, and you will sew the complexity of the rangefinder mechanism (I personally recomend Gunter Osterloh -

Leica M: Advanced Photo School).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaap,

I had recently have one idea for a possible focus improvement over RF and leicas, and maybe MarkNorton could confirm us how easy it would be to implement it. Here it is:

First, I am real happy about how fast and accurate the mechanism is, but indeed there are occassions where (myself included) one hunts for vertical lines.

 

Would it be possible to improve the central yellowish patch to indicate both vertical and horizontal displacement maybe in a separated patch? Like two patches one for horiz one for vertical movement?

Well, this thing in the hot shoe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just toss in that's there is a difference between aligning a split-image in an SLR screen (more or less Leica-like) and just trying to focus on a ground-glass. I never used anything but a split-image in my Nikon/Canon days - until the very end, when they disappeared (hello, rangefinders!)

 

There is - somewhere, but I haven't seen it in 20 years - a formula for split-image SLR screens. Maybe it's the one jaapv gave. Does include lens focal length. With a nice big pre-AF SLR view (45mm eyepiece focal length, no "high-eyepoint" BS) the SLR split would match an RF at about 90mm f/2. And generally I had no problem all the way down to 16 fisheyes - with the split.

 

There is a weird dynamic where the faster the lens, the easier SLR focusing is, whereas, the faster the lens, the HARDER RF focusing is.

 

Easy way to find out the focal length of an SLR eyepiece. Put on a zoom including the 30-60mm range (True focal lengths, not "equivalents"), look through the eyepiece with both eyes open, and zoom until the viewfinder image is exactly the same size/scale as your natural view with the other eye. Then check the zoom setting (carefully, without moving it).

 

Generally, they are a bit longer than 55mm. But good pro SLRs c. 1980 (F-1, F2) usually had 50mm eyepieces. Olympus went even shorter, which is what made for that HUGE screen inside the tiny OM series. About a 45mm eyepiece focal length.

 

Modern APS-crop cameras should have had the eyepiece focal length reduced to 35mm or 33mm (the new normal) to increase magnification. Most have not (although the Nikon D80/90 have improved a bit) so the view is of a tiny postage stamp. If Maitani (designer of the OM series) saw an Oly E-3 viewfinder, he'd weep!

 

If there are no verticals, how do you normally focus with the SLR split? Thanks, for the input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The formula quoted is valid for all focussing aids, including split image and microprisms. There are very few real matte screens out there. The only ones I can think of are the Visoflex and the Leicaflexes and some other very old SLR cameras (EXA, early Praktica, Praktina, etc). Most others are fresnel screens, and then the formula applies. The whole story about focussing on a screen is quite elaborate, and would take an impossibly long post to explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there are no verticals, how do you normally focus with the SLR split? Thanks, for the input.

 

The same way as I do with a rangefinder. Tilt the camera.

 

(Of course, most modern SLR manual focussing screens have a 45 degree split image anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes 50mm, 45mm or less but i've never heard of the 60mm value of Jaap's EFL (eyepiece focal length) value so far.

 

...Generally, they are a bit longer than 55mm. But good pro SLRs c. 1980 (F-1, F2) usually had 50mm eyepieces. Olympus went even shorter, which is what made for that HUGE screen inside the tiny OM series. About a 45mm eyepiece focal length.

Modern APS-crop cameras should have had the eyepiece focal length reduced to 35mm or 33mm (the new normal) to increase magnification...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica R has 61.53 (official specification by Leica)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, this thing in the hot shoe?

Lol.. of course not: I am talking about an elegant solution here, like maybe a lens that can turn image 90degrees and ofcourse be coupled with the main RF mechanism. I dont know.. just an idea. I' m perfectly happy with how the RF works on this camera. It's simple and accurate- very accurate. Even if they could make two patches one vertical and one horiz, even then that would add a complication most might not need

 

edit: where did you found that thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there are no verticals, how do you normally focus with the SLR split? Thanks, for the input.

Yes tilt the camera or choose a diagonal split image focus screen instead (here from Brightscreen).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol.. of course not: I am talking about an elegant solution here, like maybe a lens that can turn image 90degrees and ofcourse be coupled with the main RF mechanism. I dont know.. just an idea. I' m perfectly happy with how the RF works on this camera. It's simple and accurate- very accurate. Even if they could make two patches one vertical and one horiz, even then that would add a complication most might not need

 

edit: where did you found that thing

Collecttable cameras is selling it.

 

It would be very difficult. One would need an extra window at the bottom of the camera with an unobstructed view (hands??) and the projecting lens would have to swivel in two dimensions instead of just horizontally like now. In actual fact it is really quite impossible to build for a camera. It might be done for a naval gun, but there radar has taken over.

If you just want to turn the orientation of the rangefinder, it is just as impossible, as it will always work parallel to the connecting line between the rangefinder windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×