stuny Posted September 21, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 0-7: I've had many rangefinders (and two TLRs, and many SLRs) over the years but I could never reliably get the results with a rangfinder camera that I could with an SLR. Perhaps you are in a similar situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Hi stuny, Take a look here There's no 'Z' in Rangefinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Marty Posted September 21, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 21, 2009 SLR's are so small these days there is no appreciable difference in size This makes no sense. Not only are they bigger, but "these days" they are digital and not really comparable to an MP in that sense. I suppose you have gone through all the discussed advantages of rangefinders on this forum and found them unconvincing. In that case have you tried the Noctilux on an Olympus E-P1? It is small, digital, has liveview, focus assist and all the bells and whistles you might be missing on the MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted September 21, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 21, 2009 Zeroseven, It takes time to learn the tricks of focusing accurately and quickly with a rangefinder camera. Once mastered, perhaps with the aid of a viewfinder magnifier, you can then concentrate on learning from your results. Admittedly with film you have a delay, but one trial film taking subjects of your choice with the lens of your choice you should quickly learn how acceptable the sharpness is in out-of-focus zones. Digital does allow quick appraisal and you might consider getting an ex-demo M8 so that it is compatible with your Leica lenses. I have been astonished how readable human expressions are in faces out of focus. There is a delightful softness which rules out competition with the main subject, while still allowing recognition. I have been exploring the use of wide open apertures, albeit slower than the Noctilux, but the lessons are still valid. Noctilux users can give you more specific guidance, I'm sure. Persevere; it will be worth it once you develop a slightly different 'mind-set' compared with SLR working. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted September 21, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 21, 2009 As a photographer I don't like the ultra-shallow DOF look, instead I prefer to stop down when possible to make layered photographs with lots of information in the background. I always found that with SLR cameras, I would often get distracting backgrounds since I was viewing the scene at F/1.4 and shooting stopped down a bit. The dof preview is useless--by the time you fiddle with it the moment is gone. I like rangefinders because I get to see everything within the frame sharply. I find I make fewer images with distracting, unwanted elements in the background or edges of the frame. I think the reason Leicas have a reputation for being good for documentary work, street photography and other work that requires capturing specific moments is because of the more direct viewing method. You really do get a sense that you're capturing a slice of life out of the world. For this type of work there is no time to check a dof preview on an slr. For work that requires more set-up or in controlled situations, and especially where the very specific look of the depth of field is important, then the SLR might indeed be a better tool. And I'm not saying one camera or type of photography is better than the other. Knowing your DOF with a rangefinder is just a matter of getting to know your lenses. I've found most Leica lenses don't have many bad habits, so once you use a lens for a while you just get a feel for the way they work. I use M8s (soon to be M9s) for all of my professional documentary work. I keep it simple and stick to a small set of lenses and at this point I just know how they will respond. I also find that I can focus more accurately in low-light (with wide/standard lenses). I've shot Canon and Nikon and I'm just not as good at focusing SLRs as I am rangefinders. When you're using large lenses like the Noctilux, size may not be a consideration for you. But the M9 body is a heck of a lot smaller than a D3x or even a 5dMKII. And the lenses are smaller too--compare the size of a 35 Summilux with the Canon L 35/1.4. It's not a small difference. And since much of my work involves travel, any savings in size is a huge benefit. If you prefer to shoot wide open, then you're probably right, an SLR makes more sense for you. If I liked super-shallow DOF and if the specific appearance of the out-of-focus areas was very important to me, I might also choose an SLR. If you're shooting wide open, then viewing wide open seems ideal. For me SLR's lose their advantage once you stop down. My work doesn't allow time for using the DOF preview and checking the background on every frame. It's been said a million times but part of photography is choosing the right tools for the job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeroseven Posted September 21, 2009 Author Share #25 Posted September 21, 2009 There used to be a member of this forum (Tony Brown?) who genuinely was a DP and I remember he got frustrated with the limitations of focussing his Noctilux (also on an MP). One and the same. I'd bought 3 x Noctilux to assemble a 3d rig for a project. Two of the lenses were far from calibrated to the MP. I took the body and the three lenses to Leica in Milton Keynes, who told me that they could only calibrate one of the lenses to the body. This they did. The other two lenses were just not usable at F1.0. One also had a far more severe vignette that the others, the difference between the three was very interesting. Another was sent to les Bosher in Wales to see how limited the back focus would be if mounted to a reflex system to enable me to utilise the lens character. Sadly the maths didn't work, even if the lens has only focused to 6', using eye focus on the reflex system it would have been amazing. We then flirted with the the idea of using Kubricks NASA Ziess f0.7 lenses on BNC's, but the cameras are so big it prohibited the mounting of a dual camera set up on the remote heads that we required. It was an interesting few weeks to be sure. The Noctilux that was calibrated to my MP I kept and I sold the other two. What I may do is chop the MP for an M9, at least then I can preview the results There was a member on here called Nils who was a very early pioneer of the digital revolution and I enjoyed the banter with him. I met him on a shoot in San Francisco when he came down to visit the set. I did a search but could find no trace of him....though my own details had also vanished Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted September 21, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 21, 2009 You do have many good points: Depth of field cannot be seen and instead of the minimum DoF at the maximum aperture you have on an SLR, the RF gives you the maximum DoF in the viewfinder and only after developing can you confirm the "bokeh". Sorry that is the limit of RF photography. You can look at it as either something you will learn after many shots, or something that is a surprise every time. Yes there are some SLRs (Olympus and Pentax come to mind) that are almost as small as the MP. What are the advantages though? Viewing outside the photo. Full clear view of the scene which is brighter than any SLR will ever give you. Leica M lenses are much smaller than equivalent SLR lenses. I do not know any SLR as quiet as the M series? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeroseven Posted September 21, 2009 Author Share #27 Posted September 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) This makes no sense. Not only are they bigger, but "these days" they are digital and not really comparable to an MP in that sense. I suppose you have gone through all the discussed advantages of rangefinders on this forum and found them unconvincing. In that case have you tried the Noctilux on an Olympus E-P1? It is small, digital, has liveview, focus assist and all the bells and whistles you might be missing on the MP. By these days I meant the last 25 years, the Pentax MX for example was no bigger than an M and certainly lighter. Combined with the little 40mm Takumar (sp) it was a great little street camera I'll look into the Olympus - thanks for that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 21, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 21, 2009 What am I missing? SLR's are so small these days there is no appreciable difference in size, yet you can benefit from what you see is what you get. The MP is more of a point and hope, it records whats in front of it yet lacks one of the most of the creative factors that turns a picture into a photograph ?? They are but they are not when you add a lens.. In fact they, all of them (SLR's) are much bigger then any 35mm RF. You will never find better lenses then Leica M lenses, especially the current versions. To me what I saw in the SLR viewfinder was not what I got. Focusing was not as good, precise, and it limited me to seeing just what was inside the VF. The ground glass of a SLR VF really doesn't convey what is really OOF and what is not and to what degree it is OOF. There are no lenses for a SLR that are as fast as Leica M lenses, except those made by Leica for there SLR cameras. I guess this is one of those cases where a rangefinder camera really don't suit the photographer. Not sure a digital RF, M8 or M9, would help. I have no problem judging DOF taking into consideration the lens I'm using, whether f/1.4, f/2 or f/2.8. For some this doesn't seem to work out and you may be one of them. The only thing to try is to actually use the camera more often with all the lenses you have until you get a good feel for what the camera and lenses are doing. This may be harder with a film camera but one way around that is to go out with only one lens at a time. Shoot at least one roll of film with that one lens at varying apertures, recording what shots were taken at each aperture, shutter speed and approximate distance so can get a feel for what that lens at that aperture at that certain distance will give you. After a while it becomes fairly intuitive. Yes a digtial camera helps in this exercise because it records what lens and what shutter speed was used, and with DSLR's the actual aperture that was used (the Leica M digitals don't do that) and you get instant feedback. Rangefinder cameras have never been for the point & shoot, autofocus type of photographer. But many that are use to SLR cameras do get on very well with rangefinder cameras once they get a handle on them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 21, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 21, 2009 This is an interesting and thought-provoking thread. I have to say that I have never been a big user of DOF preview on an SLR, whether film or digital, because I never found any great benefit from it. I have always used DOF as a bit of a blunt instrument - ask me to visualise the difference between f1.4 and f2.0 and I couldn't, but between f1.4 and f8.0 the answer would be yes, I could, in general terms at least. A bit like a zoom lens used at either extreme, but seldom in the middle. I tend to use shallow DOF to make my subjects stand out, and deep to compensate for focussing errors when working quickly, in the street, for instance. I suppose therefore that it is not a phoenomenon I make sophisticated use of, regardless of the tool I am using. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeroseven Posted September 21, 2009 Author Share #30 Posted September 21, 2009 Hello Bill, did you used to organise Leica user meets in London a few years ago? I was due to attend and take part in a december(ish) photo comp you may have once organised. In the end I couldn't attend due to work commitments Shootist - I'm interested in your comment "The ground glass of a SLR VF really doesn't convey what is really OOF and what is not and to what degree it is OOF." I'd counter thats EXACTLY what it does, to the degree that if you have two staggered objects to be kept sharp the ONLY way to really tell if they are both acceptably sharp is to check it on the ground glass (or focusing screen). When I'm shooting on a reflex, some of the things i can judge as the shot takes place are focus, flare, and OOF areas, exactly as they appear the following day in dailies. Would you care to elaborate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 21, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 21, 2009 That's all true provided that you stop down. How many people do that? As John says above the problem with stopping down to check focus - for me at least - is that everything becomes so dim that I actually can't see what's in focus and what isn't. Sure, I can see that something that was totally out at focus at f1.4 is now more in focus, but I'm unable to tell for certain if it's acceptable or not. One of the great advantages for me with the rangefinder system is the very fact that everything is more or less in focus in the viewfinder. That allows me to look around the scene without having to refocus. If something else catches my eye, then I refocus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted September 21, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 21, 2009 This is interesting, I just did a comparison, it seems I have some trouble doing accurate focusing on the ground glass alone. Checking with the split-image prism, I tend to be slightly off. No general statement, though, I haven't used the MF SLR for a while and have certainly more training with rangefinders. I should add, being far-sighted, the RF viewfinder works out very nicely for me personally. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted September 21, 2009 Share #33 Posted September 21, 2009 zeroseven, I have both the M2 & M3 (since 1973) film cameras as well as the Leica SLR R8, DMR & several lenses for both systems. As an old cinematographer/digital video operator in NYC I just want to point out that although the principles seem the same, in fact, they aren't. My own use of the Nocti appears to be not far from yours, Very few images are as designed. It's not just that there's a razor thin dof, but that the light that plays inside that lens & renders all kinds of phantasmas. From my experience it's very difficult to duplicate the same frame & look, even in the same location. For a more predicable choice, I use the R80 Summilux, wide open at 1.4, which renders an ultra thin dof, with exquisite bokeh, As nice & for me more beautiful than any Nocti I have used. The Nocti is untamable & it's signature is unique, but to try & apply it to work is very difficult, if not near impossible, if you need to be able to count on it to give you predicable results. That said, the M rangefinder is my tool of choice in low light in the subway, alleyways and dark spots of NYC. My M3 is nearly silent & the 50 Summilux wide open gives me a sharp definition of form, with an oof areas that is sublime. Kubrick's lens is a curse. Ever since I saw Barry Lyndon I have been on a pilgrimage to replicate that look. Impossible. I'm not Kubrick. Since you own the kit, go out & shoot with the other lenses, wide open at dusk & after dark to get a chance to understand what the rangefinder can provide at it's best. It won't be a waste of time. It may not be what you set out for, but you might, like me, just fall in love anyway. All the best. Ben Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted September 21, 2009 Share #34 Posted September 21, 2009 Zeroseven, I guess you are discussing knife and spoon with people, who grew up on chopsticks. In other words - probably more a question of habit rather than 'right' and 'wrong'... Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 21, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 21, 2009 Hello Bill, did you used to organise Leica user meets in London a few years ago? I was due to attend and take part in a december(ish) photo comp you may have once organised. In the end I couldn't attend due to work commitments Shootist - I'm interested in your comment "The ground glass of a SLR VF really doesn't convey what is really OOF and what is not and to what degree it is OOF." I'd counter thats EXACTLY what it does, to the degree that if you have two staggered objects to be kept sharp the ONLY way to really tell if they are both acceptably sharp is to check it on the ground glass (or focusing screen). When I'm shooting on a reflex, some of the things i can judge as the shot takes place are focus, flare, and OOF areas, exactly as they appear the following day in dailies. Would you care to elaborate? I've always found the outer areas of a SLR/DSLR VF ground glass to never clearly show in focus areas even if they were truly in focus, it always , to me, looked slightly OOF even if the split image or microprism ground glass areas in the center showed the same part of the image in focus. If the outer areas did not show the same focus as the center areas just how could I truly judge how OOF that outer areas is. In fact on the last DSLR I had it was almost impossible to get correct manual focus using a Overall Matte focusing screen. That was a Nikon D200 on which I replaced the Nikon screen with a Bright Screen split image type. This is just my experience. EDIT: By the way I wrote this reply before I read # 32 post above. Which is basically what I was stating in this post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeroseven Posted September 21, 2009 Author Share #36 Posted September 21, 2009 Zeroseven, I guess you are discussing knife and spoon with people, who grew up on chopsticks. In other words - probably more a question of habit rather than 'right' and 'wrong'... Stefan Very well put Stephan. i (probably) agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeroseven Posted September 21, 2009 Author Share #37 Posted September 21, 2009 Shootist.Obviously its a personal choice but i think you can forget split screen or microprism for SLR work, a plain screen is far better. The coarseness of the 'grain' on the screen will have an effect on what you perceive to be ease of focusing, a good tip is not to focus on a static images, move the camera slightly and the 'grain' will 'melt' A plain screen also has the advantage that you can focus on any part of it, not just the centre section so reframing to refocus is not necessary. The fact that the the screen is calibrated to mirror the focal depth ensures that the focus and OOF area that you see on the screen replicates exactly what the film 'sees'. If this is not the case then it needs collimating. I shoot over a hundred thousand feet of film a year. I've yet to see a shot that didn't mimic the ground glass for focus and OOF area. i could of course be confusing motion picture with stills reflex systems, but I'd be amazed if the principle isn't the same. On some high speed cameras the focus is hard to judge due to the excessive vibrations, but anything below 150 frames per second on the current cameras the ground glass is king. Its no doubt because of this background that I'm tuned to wanting to be aware of all aspects of the image as the image is recorded, any drop in information is for me disconcerting. Another flaw of the Noctilux which is a character I love, is the vignette. The lens may well be f1.0 at the centre, but at the edges i bet its more like f2. Allowing for its tiny size thats still remarkable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinis Posted September 21, 2009 Share #38 Posted September 21, 2009 I'm sorry ,I've always understood that if you want depth of field preview you buy an slr with a dof button on it (no k1000 Pentax then ) not a Leica M .This is so basic that it isn't worth commenting on .I think mr Z is being rather disingenuous here and has done a fine job of winding a few people up . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeroseven Posted September 21, 2009 Author Share #39 Posted September 21, 2009 I'm sorry ,I've always understood that if you want depth of field preview you buy an slr with a dof button on it (no k1000 Pentax then ) not a Leica M .This is so basic that it isn't worth commenting on .I think mr Z is being rather disingenuous here and has done a fine job of winding a few people up . And how would I use a Noctilux on an SLR? Have you read the thread? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 21, 2009 Share #40 Posted September 21, 2009 And how would I use a Noctilux on an SLR? Have you read the thread? You could use it on a 4/3 camera with an adaptor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.