redisburning wrote:
a Leica isn't even remotely comparable to a Patek (as nice a watch as it is). people who make their livings timing things are using computers and clocks costing many, many times more than those watches. but a Leica can legitimately be used as a pro tool.
How many pros do you know who are shooting Leica as a primary system?
vuilang wrote:
so, How would a MF camera/shooters confirm his focus is spot on the target? You dont look at the LCD?
I shoot with my film Zeiss Ikons everyday without LCD, so no exposure and focus confirmation. I rarely miss either. I agree with Telyt that checking focus is for AF (no one knows when and if the camera/lens will focus accurately) or manual focus with DSLR as the screens are not well designed for manual focusing. I never need to check focus with a range finder, as long as I know it is well calibrated. This thing is so precise I have full confidence when I'm shooting.
vuilang wrote:
so, How would a MF camera/shooters confirm his focus is spot on the target? You dont look at the LCD?
A good manual-focus camera's viewfinder is good enough to tell where the focus is before the exposure.
With the typical AF camera and a big LCD, suppose the focus is off: your choices are either re-do if your photo is repeatable or say "oh #@*& " and move on. If you can re-do it's most likely a static subject in that case what's the point of the AF? If you can't re-do the only advantage of confirming focus on the LCD is that you say "oh #@*&" a little sooner.
Most of my photography is environmental portraiture - people doing things and moving within an environment. So feedback on the framing, movement, posture, gestures, expression and accurate focus where it is needed is all essential.
Most of my photography is environmental portraiture - people doing things and moving within an environment. So feedback on the framing, movement, posture, gestures, expression and accurate focus where it is needed is all essential.
You don't need an LCD for feedback on focus if you see it in the viewfinder. That's my point. The typical AF camera is a massive fail on this feature.
You don't need an LCD for feedback on focus if you see it in the viewfinder. That's my point. The typical AF camera is a massive fail on this feature.
I use both manual and auto focus and use a maxwell screen - so I do see focus in the viewfinder. What I don't see is critical focus - whether there is a slight miss due to a last, brief movement. I use a DSLR nowadays, and there is a momentary blackout, unlike with my old M6's, and I can never be sure I've caught exactly what I want. Unfortunately, a candid shot of someone sawing/chiseling/sweeping/lifting etc. is exactly that, candid - they don't pose, and movements of people working can be sudden and unpredictable. I need the feedback of the screen to make sure I've got exactly what I want.
If I haven't then I can keep that in mind while they continue to work, waiting for the combination of light, task, gesture, expression, eye movement etc. until I find the right moment again.
wolfloid wrote:
... a candid shot of someone sawing/chiseling/sweeping/lifting etc. is exactly that, candid - they don't pose, and movements of people working can be sudden and unpredictable. I need the feedback of the screen to make sure I've got exactly what I want.
A good viewfinder allows you to see critical focus, i.e., Nikon F w/E screen, Leicaflex SL, Leica M. The M doesn't need a big LCD because not only is the viewfinder good enough to see critical focus, you also see if anything/anyone twitched out of focus at the moment of exposure because there's no viewfinder blackout. You just keep shooting, no missed opportunities while chimping to check critical focus.
telyt wrote:
A good viewfinder allows you to see critical focus, i.e., Nikon F w/E screen, Leicaflex SL, Leica M. The M doesn't need a big LCD because not only is the viewfinder good enough to see critical focus, you also see if anything/anyone twitched out of focus at the moment of exposure because there's no viewfinder blackout. You just keep shooting, no missed opportunities while chimping to check critical focus.
The problem would seem to be that if the rangefinder calibration is off, all bets are off with critical focus on an M. Without LV or a good LCD, how do you double check that everything is working as it should during the shoot? In a "worse case" scenario, if you "just keep shooting", everything you get might be unusable.
telyt wrote:
A good viewfinder allows you to see critical focus, i.e., Nikon F w/E screen, Leicaflex SL, Leica M. The M doesn't need a big LCD because not only is the viewfinder good enough to see critical focus, you also see if anything/anyone twitched out of focus at the moment of exposure because there's no viewfinder blackout. You just keep shooting, no missed opportunities while chimping to check critical focus.
how does that work with a rangefinder if the subject is off center?
Andrew Gough wrote:
Personally, I just focus and recompose. I also meter the subject at the same time. But I am new to rangefinders, so there maybe a better technique...
i mean with regard to knowing for sure that you got correct focus.
sebboh wrote:
i mean with regard to knowing for sure that you got correct focus.
If you know the RF is well calibrated, there is no need to check. The RF is more precise than AF or any other manual focus method up to 50mm FL. I have tested the cameras with all existing lenses, and know exactly how they behave.
sebboh wrote:
If you know the RF is well calibrated, there is no need to check. The RF is more precise than AF or any other manual focus method up to 50mm FL. I have tested the cameras with all existing lenses, and know exactly how they behave.
that doesn't matter when the subject is off center and you need to focus and recompose. there are a number of m-lenses with field curvature as well as the difficulty maintaining identical distance as you recompose. thus, you need to be able to check whether or not you lost focus in between the focus and the recompose.
I have never found RF to be much of a problem with off center subjects. Sure, sometimes you have to trust your technique and in the film days it could be an anxious wait to see if you had nailed it or not - but in reality the amount of keepers with RF was as good as with my SLR.
I have had many RF cameras, but only one out of whack; a Mamiya 7 which had to be calibrated. Even as a kid I could nail focus easily with RF p&s cameras.
RF works as good as I've ever needed with FL up to 50mm for me.
For most of the weddings I've shot I would bring a RF and a SLR, the latter for some macro/detail work and portraits. The combination worked a charm.
I will probably never find myself able to justify the price tag of the current Leica M's and the 50/2 ASPH.
kosmoskatten wrote:
I have never found RF to be much of a problem with off center subjects. Sure, sometimes you have to trust your technique and in the film days it could be an anxious wait to see if you had nailed it or not - but in reality the amount of keepers with RF was as good as with my SLR.
indeed, i was never implying that rangefinders are worse than slrs in this regard. you should get more keepers with a rangefinder on wide angle shots and less on telephoto shots with manual focus. my point was just that sometimes it's helpful to be able to check that you got correct focus. it doesn't come up that often, but the idea that you always know whether you nailed it without looking at the shot is ridiculous.
