M8-Focus on focussing

[GMB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think this refers to index.html

 

Jeff

 

Thanks!

[lxlim]

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

 

 

Thanks! Its been so long I've forgotten about these. My memory is really bad. Fortunately, I have a Yashica FX3 with some Zeiss lenses which I dug out to check out.

[Rolo]

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.

 

I'm not claiming that the wedding ring shot is a Garry Winogrand moment, but I find it a stressful shot inasmuch as it's time limited, your significantly imposing of the event, the Minister never wants you there, you're not exactly sure it's going to happen and they don't stop the action for you.

 

I doubt that I could move into position, focus at close range and shoot three shots off with my M8.

 

Try it , sit or stand 5ft away from a couple in low light, with limited physical access, and then move in and take a couple of sharp shots of the ring moving up the finger, without blocking a congregation's view for more than a moment and then back out. In and out in say 10 seconds with a sharp and detailed result is enough. Tell me it's easy and I'll practice more. Ha. No result -> failed.

[diogenis]

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.

 

Well, you can always rotate your camera 90o.

[jaapv]

I'm not claiming that the wedding ring shot is a Garry Winogrand moment, but I find it a stressful shot inasmuch as it's time limited, your significantly imposing of the event, the Minister never wants you there, you're not exactly sure it's going to happen and they don't stop the action for you.

 

I doubt that I could move into position, focus at close range and shoot three shots off with my M8.

 

Try it , sit or stand 5ft away from a couple in low light, with limited physical access, and then move in and take a couple of sharp shots of the ring moving up the finger, without blocking a congregation's view for more than a moment and then back out. In and out in say 10 seconds with a sharp and detailed result is enough. Tell me it's easy and I'll practice more. Ha. No result -> failed.

 

Just take a standard shot for your archive with no identifiable clothing etc. showing. Nobody ever recognizes different hands :D

[diogenis]

I'm not claiming that the wedding ring shot is a Garry Winogrand moment, but I find it a stressful shot inasmuch as it's time limited, your significantly imposing of the event, the Minister never wants you there, you're not exactly sure it's going to happen and they don't stop the action for you.

 

I doubt that I could move into position, focus at close range and shoot three shots off with my M8.

 

Try it , sit or stand 5ft away from a couple in low light, with limited physical access, and then move in and take a couple of sharp shots of the ring moving up the finger, without blocking a congregations view for more than a moment and then back out. In and out in say 10 seconds with a sharp and detailed result is enough. Tell me it's easy and I'll practice more. Ha. No result -> failed.

 

Will do.

But I am pretty confident I will succeed. Basically I have never failed a pic with oof. Personally my biggest problem is that I hunt focus ring to get the perfect allignment.I believe I must stop somewhere, and exploit the mechanism's accuracy, but this you can only learn with practice, and I believe this is what Jaap's saying. And you dont have to always use that ring, you can also use your head, back and forth or both, this is another dexterity you can acquire.

 

On the other hand as far as I know an SLR uses many focusing spots. How would you know that you are using the central one to focus? I hear some systems dont work well with the dark. But all these factors together can also make you lose confidence.

 

On the Leica things are easy: you know instantly when you are oof. And once you decide on Aperture, then you take pics pretty fast: just allign the yellow thingy

 

 

Edit: Oh and I am not a Pro, so I miss that feeling, because indeed there is a stress feeling... when you getting paid to deliver

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Edit: Oh and I am not a Pro, so I miss that feeling, because indeed there is a stress feeling... when you getting paid to deliver

 

Therein lies the rub.

[Rolo]

Will do.

On the other hand as far as I know an SLR uses many focusing spots. How would you know that you are using the central one to focus? I hear some systems dont work well with the dark. But all these factors together can also make you lose confidence.

 

Mine has 45 spots which I've reduced to 9 and I've set mine to a single point and chose one of nine locations with my thumbwheel control before taking the shot.

 

Canon's DPP programme shows where the focus point was at the time of taking. You can see the spot shown in red here and how I've moved it about on the way in to frame the shot.

 

Please accept that I'm an avid Leica shooter, would like nothing more than to dispose of all other equipment and the M9 (or two ?) might be my answer. I pray that it is. I'm sharing these to inform anyone who's interested, that I find limitations with the M's for my work, and why. Maybe another few weeks and I'll be eBaying my way to a new world.

 

As I look at my old M3 film files I think there was more reliability in the focussing system. Maybe it was the exceptional clarity with the additional magnification of the viewfinder, or just tired eyes caused by computer screens. Focussing didn't seem to be a problem then and that was only three years ago.

 

Jaap, how do those numbers look for the M3 versus an MP x0.72 with a x1.35 Megapearls magnifier ?

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!

[jaapv]

The M3 had a 0.92 magnification, making it far more accurate.

[adli]

The M3 had a 0.92 magnification, making it far more accurate.

 

But less suitable for wide lenses without using extra accessories.

[jaapv]

I've got a lovely goggled Summaron 35

[Rolo]

The M3 had a 0.92 magnification, making it far more accurate.

 

x0.72 VF x a x1.35 Megapearls is x0.97, so Megapearls is higher manification. No?

 

Albeit not crystal clear.

 

edit: "But less suitable for wide lenses without using extra accessories."

I'd be using two bodies. Had a goggled Summaron once, but long gone, as have the 3 M3's I've owned.

 

Jaap, or anyone, you might understand the mechanics of the eye and the RF system. Please explain to me: I presume the eye can't focus within the glass of the VF, so I presume we see the rangefinder patch at the RF length, say six inches. Or, is there some mechanics that transfer the apparent patch into virtual space at 2 metres et al.

 

I'm interested because I have very good vision to arms length, but beyond that a low strength, but nevertheless important optical correction. So, if the apparent patch is beyond 1 metre, I maybe should wear my specs and maybe my hit rate would rise. Any ideas ?

[jaapv]

The rf image is transmitted through a complicated system of a pentaprism - movable lens - achromatic lens prism, merged into the viewfinder through a prism and of course the ocular, which results into the virtual distance of 2 meters we all know about. I would use a diopter. See your optician and insert his try-out glasses until you have the nearest value. THe RF patch must be sharp. Meister has most diopters available Ordering them takes ages elsewhere.

[diogenis]

Mine has 45 spots which I've reduced to 9 and I've set mine to a single point and chose one of nine locations with my thumbwheel control before taking the shot.

 

Canon's DPP programme shows where the focus point was at the time of taking. You can see the spot shown in red here and how I've moved it about on the way in to frame the shot.

 

Please accept that I'm an avid Leica shooter, would like nothing more than to dispose of all other equipment and the M9 (or two ?) might be my answer. I pray that it is. I'm sharing these to inform anyone who's interested, that I find limitations with the M's for my work, and why. Maybe another few weeks and I'll be eBaying my way to a new world.

 

As I look at my old M3 film files I think there was more reliability in the focussing system. Maybe it was the exceptional clarity with the additional magnification of the viewfinder, or just tired eyes caused by computer screens. Focussing didn't seem to be a problem then and that was only three years ago.

 

Jaap, how do those numbers look for the M3 versus an MP x0.72 with a x1.35 Megapearls magnifier ?

But isn't all this an unnecessary complex procedure that also slows down things?

You should discuss your vision with a good optician (doctor), maybe show him the camera and how it focuses and what is wrong with the patch and all. Looks like an issue with diopters. Maybe you should also contact Leica itself after seen your doctor. Tell them what you face and which is the best way to use the M8.

[diogenis]

Therein lies the rub.

 

What do you mean?

[Rolo]

But isn't all this an unnecessary complex procedure that also slows down things?

 

You should discuss your vision with a good optician (doctor), maybe show him the camera and how it focuses and what is wrong with the patch and all. Looks like an issue with diopters. Maybe you should also contact Leica itself after seen your doctor. Tell them what you face and which is the best way to use the M8.

 

Complex ? I've got £14,000, (that's $23,000) tied up in Leica gear and the M9 is due soon. With that, my work and personal passion hanging on all this, I'd be happy with a complex solution. LOL. If I get this sorted as hoped, I can end up cashing more gear in and getting three M9's with zero expense. Ha.

 

For info Dio, the Megapearls magnifier is a variable focus VF accessory. Fit it and tune it to your eyes, as best you can. I've used one for two years. Jaap knows this product and I presume he is recommending the Leica diopters because he knows them to be a better solution.

 

Whilst the Megapearls does have the advantages of magnifying the image and the adjustable diopter setting, it has the disadvantages of reducing the light passing through to the eye, reducing the overall VF contrast and substantially reducing the field of view through the viewfinder. Also, it needs stripping and cleaning now and again.

 

So, whilst it magnifies the image, it degrades the quality of image seen and defeats the goal somewhat, IMO. I have no experience with the Leica diopter lenses and so don't know if any of the above apply. I live in hope that the M3 viewfinder will be re-introduced with the M9, but it's not expected.

 

The M3 had a gold leaf VF patch and the glass was crystal clear. I hear that the x0.85 VFs used on the MP and M7's are not in the same class, but I could be put right on that. I did have an M3 VF cleaned and gold RF patch replaced, but alas, now gone.

[diogenis]

I bought the newest mag 1.4x from Leica. What I like is that it makes the VF 1:1 and helps me focusing with both eyes open. What I dislike again is that you get extra complexity, the eyepiece hangs out almost 1cm, and it sometimes hides framelines because of the mag and eye relief(you need to stick your eyes into this eyepiece). It also is a tad darker.

 

I tried focusing into extra dark environment - no problem. As long as you can define some difference in contrast and be able to find lines you have no problem -with my vision of course-

Then I took a photo using my lux 50 F1.4 @ 1/8th this is the lowest i can get: Focus perfect

 

However try to rangefind one specific leaf in a tree with millions and you will get in trouble light or no light, contrasty or not. And this is not a limitation of the rangefinder, but of the human brain apparently.

[jaapv]

Complex ? I've got £14,000, (that's $23,000) tied up in Leica gear and the M9 is due soon. With that, my work and personal passion hanging on all this, I'd be happy with a complex solution. LOL. If I get this sorted as hoped, I can end up cashing more gear in and getting three M9's with zero expense. Ha.

 

For info Dio, the Megapearls magnifier is a variable focus VF accessory. Fit it and tune it to your eyes, as best you can. I've used one for two years. Jaap knows this product and I presume he is recommending the Leica diopters because he knows them to be a better solution.

 

Whilst the Megapearls does have the advantages of magnifying the image and the adjustable diopter setting, it has the disadvantages of reducing the light passing through to the eye, reducing the overall VF contrast and substantially reducing the field of view through the viewfinder. Also, it needs stripping and cleaning now and again.

 

So, whilst it magnifies the image, it degrades the quality of image seen and defeats the goal somewhat, IMO. I have no experience with the Leica diopter lenses and so don't know if any of the above apply. I live in hope that the M3 viewfinder will be re-introduced with the M9, but it's not expected.

 

The M3 had a gold leaf VF patch and the glass was crystal clear. I hear that the x0.85 VFs used on the MP and M7's are not in the same class, but I could be put right on that. I did have an M3 VF cleaned and gold RF patch replaced, but alas, now gone.

The point is, if the problem is the strength of your eye vs the ocular strength, a diopter can correct that. A magnifier does widen the base, but in a number of cases it will magnify the problem as well. Especially if it is lack of accomodation ability of the eye. I ditched my Megaperls and Leica magnifiers in favor of simple +1.0 correction diopters and it was much,much better for me.

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped}

Try it , sit or stand 5ft away from a couple in low light, with limited physical access, and then move in and take a couple of sharp shots of the ring moving up the finger, without blocking a congregation's view for more than a moment and then back out. In and out in say 10 seconds with a sharp and detailed result is enough. Tell me it's easy and I'll practice more. Ha. No result -> failed.

 

Rolo--you're completely and totally correct here, but again, that isn't really a focus thing, is it?

 

I generally use a Nikkor 105 or longer for those moments precisely because I don't want to cross in front of people's (congregations) view to get those shots. I have nothing that's equivalent on an M8.

 

But once again, that's not a focus issue; it's a reach issue. You could certainly do what you describe with a 28mm lens... but you wouldn't get the shot and you'd still be in the way. Of course, with an M9 you could crop maybe

 

I suppose it doesn't help either, of course, that some of the wonderful longer M lenses (the 75 luxes and 90 crons for example) are sometimes more difficult to physically focus than the wider ones (though I hear the new 24 lux has no tab focus either )

 

I have no problem following the action with wides and normals up to 50s. But I can't use a 28 or 50 and stay inconspicuous (as far back as I like) at most ceremonies (except as a scene setter)--but I couldn't do it that with an AF camera either...

 

BTW--on the m8 I always use the 1.25x FWIW...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Rolo]

Rolo--you're completely and totally correct here, but again, that isn't really a focus thing, is it?

 

I generally use a Nikkor 105 or longer for those moments precisely because I don't want to cross in front of people's (congregations) view to get those shots. I have nothing that's equivalent on an M8.

 

Jamie,

the example was to explain to Dio and anybody else what the problem is specifically for focus. A little test of walking into a scene and focussing quickly. Nothing more.

 

The above shots were all done with a 70mm. I can't imagine that a 90mm stood off would get anything more than a general overview of the scene. Those are given shots with all the time in the world. If you're in the stall's, I predict you'd need a 200mm plus to get a similar image. You wrote earlier

 

"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. " (Bit of a put me down to my over-sensitive mind). But we're yet to see one of them, here. Where are they Jamie ? Show a single, preferably more, examples like the above from your 'all-the-time' archive.

 

Not being nasty in any way here, but I'm showing the goods and getting finger wagging advice back in return. Show me what you do - "all the time".