fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 … 13 14 end

Archive 2020 · The Leica M10-R

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · The Leica M10-R

RustyBug wrote:
BTW, I would appreciate a clarification as to (functionally) how a rangefinder would be different from a manual lens wide open on an SLR? I shoot my MF glass through the optical viewfinder of my K1 ... and yes, have trained myself to compose in my mind without requiring the forced framing from looking through the viewfinder.

I used (long ago), a Yashica rangefinder before moving to SLR, so I'm not totally unfamiliar with the difference. Also, have briefly used a Graflex long ago, too. No need for touting the Leica quality / glass (I already own some R glass) as...Show more →

A big difference is the window style viewfinder of a rangefinder gives you pretty much what your eye sees normally, in terms of depth of focus within a scene. The viewfinder adds a framing reference while maintaining that depth of focus. The focus point floats comfortably in the center of the view, allowing focusing while also seeing what's going on everywhere. For me that means I can quickly 'see' everything within the composition.

The difference from a typical OVF DSLR style camera is you're always viewing the composition wide open. Therefore with certain lenses and working distances, you will only clearly see what is in the plane of focus. This is great if you are shooting at or near wide open - what you see is pretty representative of what you'll get. Using DoF preview resolves this, but may make critical focusing more difficult. An EVF can show you what you're getting at your shooting aperture but if it's stopped down a fair amount, again, critical focus may be difficult without magnification or opening up and stopping down again. The RF system achieves critical focus at any shooting aperture because it is uncoupled from the view through the lens.

A challenge of shooting with a RF is envisioning the result at wider apertures with shallow DoF because there is not way to preview this through the finder. IMO this style of shooting wouldn't be considered the 'core' application of RF systems. That would be stopped down zone focused 'snapshot' shooting - snapshot not meaning throwaway images, rather, spontaneous situations. Related to this is the use of the full viewfinder view and observing objects outside the frame lines in anticipation of how and when they may move into the composition and how it will affect the timing of image capture. While with a DSLR you can't view outside the frame, it is possible to work with both eyes open and anticipate such movement. With the RF I find I often work with both eyes open as well and that the view through the RF window feels natural.

A challenge I've always had with OVF DSLRs is accurately focusing wide lenses. Live view/EVFs fix this somewhat, but critical focus placement while stopped down is challenging and using focus peaking is useless. It's a relatively time consuming process to set a wide aperture, zoom in, set focus and then stop down again. This is a strength of RFs where the decoupled (from the view through the lens) focusing system focus wide lenses extremely accurately, at any aperture.

Jun 28, 2020 at 10:52 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #2 · The Leica M10-R

Ron,

That's probably the best explanation anyone has provided me so far. I really appreciate the fact that you explained it, but also explained the pro / con where it is an advantage, and also where it might not be an advantage.

Well done.

Thanks.

Jun 28, 2020 at 11:11 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #3 · The Leica M10-R

pmeheut wrote:
Other people "see" differently and for them, using a rangefinder is nothing but troubles.

I don't think it would cause me troubles.

Just was wondering what aspect of it would make for "transformative".

Thanks.

Jun 28, 2020 at 11:13 AM

airfrogusmc
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · The Leica M10-R

I am perfectly happy with my M 10s and 24 mps is plenty for me. My next camera will be an M 10 Mono though. Not becasue of the high MPs but becasue it functions like an M 10. I do prefer that over my original MM. I still love the output of my origianl MM though.

I find Leica rangefinders to be extremely easy to focus It does take practice though. And as pmeheut said learning to hyper focus and zone focus using DoF scales on the lens does take practice but once learned makes using a rangefinder faster than any auto focus. And in dark situations I find that it is also faster and more acurate to use rangefinder focusing than auto focus and that is even with a 90 Cron APO wide open and my old eyes ha ha.

Kent if ever you get up this way we can go out shooting and you can barrow one of my Leica M digitals if you would like to try one.

Edited on Jun 28, 2020 at 12:52 PM · View previous versions

Jun 28, 2020 at 11:22 AM

pmeheut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · The Leica M10-R

RustyBug wrote:
I don't think it would cause me troubles.

Troubles is maybe the wrong word. I should have said hurdles or hassles.

RustyBug wrote:
Just was wondering what aspect of it would make for "transformative".

It may make you framing more intuitive. I know it did for me and I've noticed that the viewfinder has a strong influence. For instance, I've used APS-C DSLR with small viewfinders. I thought it was ok but then I discovered that my framing was not as good as with a FF.
Clearly, seing a smaller image made me compose simpler images.

As stated before, I have no idea what it would do for you: because there are more than one way to skin a cat and you can probably continue to train your eyes with your current equipment.

Jun 28, 2020 at 11:35 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · The Leica M10-R

RustyBug wrote:
Ron,

That's probably the best explanation anyone has provided me so far. I really appreciate the fact that you explained it, but also explained the pro / con where it is an advantage, and also where it might not be an advantage.

Well done.

Thanks.

Thanks!

I forgot to include in the 'snapshot' shooting style that it is often done zone focused using the distance markings on the lens to get focus in the ballpark. Depending on the aperture used, depth of field may be sufficient so that refocusing will be unnecessary. While observing the scene (before bringing the camera to the eye), the photographer sets the rough focusing distance (and shutter/aperture) based on what s/he anticipates will happen. This allows for a very immediate method of capturing an image without further adjustments or the delay of intermediary processes (such as AF). As the viewfinder is brought up to the eye, if desired, the degree of rangefinder patch coincidence will give a quick impression of how close focus is to ideal. With sufficient depth of field it would be enough to leave the focus alone, or roughly tweak it closer to perfect coincidence and let depth of field take care of the rest.

IMO, this is the sweet spot of an RF system - getting the settings, such as focus, close enough and not worrying or dithering over achieving technical perfection while maintaining attention on what's happening in the composition.

Major criticism of RF systems includes the lack of precise OVF framing and potential difficulty to achieve exact wide open focus, particularly with fast and long lenses. This is true, but IMO the need for this absolute control is overblown by many arguing against RF systems. These weren't the top parameters considered by those who want and like to work with RFs (at least not me). Cameras like the M240 and M10, with live view and EVF accessories, allow for exactly this type of determined, locked down, controlled approach, too. It's not the core strength of the system but does broaden its usability. If a photographer requires such absolute precision of composition and focus, other systems would be a better solution.

Unfortunately where things get very muddled is the value proposition offered by Leica. Their marketing as an elite, exclusive, brand also doesn't help, IMO, though I can appreciate why they do this for financial reasons. For some, the high cost of entry results in unrealistic expectations and disappointment, both technical and creative (that so much money spent on equipment should make one a better photographer). It also attracts a type of 'snob' clientele that equates spending a lot of money with superiority over those with 'lesser' equipment (not a problem exclusive to Leica). These and other factors get all rolled up into the Leica bashing one sees on various forums, etc. Unfortunately those of us who choose to use Leica M for its relatively narrow core strengths get lumped into the derogatory stereotypes perpetuated by these tiring 'discussions.'

Jun 28, 2020 at 12:41 PM

SlowDriver
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · The Leica M10-R

airfrogusmc wrote:
And in dark situations I find that it is also faster and more acurate to use rangefinder focusing than auto focus and that is even with a 90 Cron APO wide open and my old eyes ha ha.

Almost all camera manufacturers have made great progress with autofocus in the last 2-3 years.

This certainly was true with previous generations of autofocus but today I would say we have reached a level of performance where that no longer holds true.

Jun 28, 2020 at 02:56 PM

airfrogusmc
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · The Leica M10-R

Auto focus has gotten better but I will still take manual focus. And where it really excels is zone or hyper focusing. No auto focus in the world is faster than being pre focused.

Jun 28, 2020 at 03:26 PM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · The Leica M10-R

Arka wrote:
$8K? $7.5K? Leica stuff is expensive, but a 47MP may be the last M that anyone would ever need to buy.

Other than more than twice the price, this is exactly what people said when Sony introduced the high res sensor with 46 MP years ago. They are now at 61 MP. And no end in sight, it continues.

Jun 28, 2020 at 04:11 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #10 · The Leica M10-R

rscheffler wrote:
Thanks!

I forgot to include in the 'snapshot' shooting style that it is often done zone focused using the distance markings on the lens to get focus in the ballpark. Depending on the aperture used, depth of field may be sufficient so that refocusing will be unnecessary. While observing the scene (before bringing the camera to the eye), the photographer sets the rough focusing distance (and shutter/aperture) based on what s/he anticipates will happen. This allows for a very immediate method of capturing an image without further adjustments or the delay of intermediary processes (such as AF). As the viewfinder is brought up to the eye, if desired, the degree of rangefinder patch coincidence will give a quick impression of how close focus is to ideal. With sufficient depth of field it would be enough to leave the focus alone, or roughly tweak it closer to perfect coincidence and let depth of field take care of the rest.

IMO, this is the sweet spot of an RF system - getting the settings, such as focus, close enough and not worrying or dithering over achieving technical perfection while maintaining attention on what's happening in the composition.

Major criticism of RF systems includes the lack of precise OVF framing and potential difficulty to achieve exact wide open focus, particularly with fast and long lenses. This is true, but IMO the need for this absolute control is overblown by many arguing against RF systems. These weren't the top parameters considered by those who want and like to work with RFs (at least not me). Cameras like the M240 and M10, with live view and EVF accessories, allow for exactly this type of determined, locked down, controlled approach, too. It's not the core strength of the system but does broaden its usability. If a photographer requires such absolute precision of composition and focus, other systems would be a better solution.

Unfortunately where things get very muddled is the value proposition offered by Leica. Their marketing as an elite, exclusive, brand also doesn't help, IMO, though I can appreciate why they do this for financial reasons. For some, the high cost of entry results in unrealistic expectations and disappointment, both technical and creative (that so much money spent on equipment should make one a better photographer). It also attracts a type of 'snob' clientele that equates spending a lot of money with superiority over those with 'lesser' equipment (not a problem exclusive to Leica). These and other factors get all rolled up into the Leica bashing one sees on various forums, etc. Unfortunately those of us who choose to use Leica M for its relatively narrow core strengths get lumped into the derogatory stereotypes perpetuated by these tiring 'discussions.'...Show more →

Gotcha @ "f/8 & be there" ... or something similar to that via zone focusing, distance scale etc.

I again appreciate your excellent explanation. I really like how you mentioned the "core" of what it is designed for. In other words a BIF / wildlife shooter or studio product shooter might not find the same amount of value in its core essence as the reactionary shooter of PJ, street, event, etc.

I know that when I shot my Yashica (which I really liked, even if poor man's camera), it was my close focusing efforts that put me toward the slr (i.e. TTL viewing), back in the day. For "normal" stuff, the Yashica worked well enough, and I lived mostly @ f/5.6 and distance scale zone. That's been nearly 40 years ago, now.

As to the "snob" or cost value thing ... I look at Leica this way:
When I go to the optometrist, his optics frequently have a little red circle on it.

I figure you get what you pay for (insert Zeiss Otus, Canon 600/4, etc.), and just like trying to eek out that last 2% of performance on the dragstrip, the cost vs. performance difference curve is not linear. So, to that point, I think that the quality of scientific / medical optics (performance / cost) represents this curve ... conceptually, at least for me.

We've gone a bit off from the OP topic, but thanks for indulging me / my question with earnest regard.

Jun 28, 2020 at 05:24 PM

SlowDriver
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · The Leica M10-R

Jun 28, 2020 at 05:46 PM

airfrogusmc
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · The Leica M10-R

It is true for me.

Jun 28, 2020 at 06:05 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · The Leica M10-R

airfrogusmc wrote:
Auto focus has gotten better but I will still take manual focus. And where it really excels is zone or hyper focusing. No auto focus in the world is faster than being pre focused.

SlowDriver wrote:
Personal preference and zone focusing are entirely different subjects, I was reacting to your statement that it is easer to manually focus in dark situations, I believe that is no longer true.

Depends. I've shot enough wedding receptions in very dark venues to be frustrated more than once with current AF technology. Not always, but enough times where there's a delay, or you think it locked focus correctly, yet didn't. At least with RF focus, if there is a smidgen of contrast available to align the focus patches, it can be done quickly with the assurance of good focus. If there isn't enough contrast to focus then the fact RF lenses have actual, accurate distance scales on the focusing ring, allows for much more reliable zone focus estimation.

Jun 29, 2020 at 11:53 PM

zhangyue
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #14 · The Leica M10-R

Many times with AF camera and lenses, I wish I have Leica M on hand. For people use to control everything by themselves, shooting AF actually sometimes take their ability and pleasure away from photography. AF actually get in a way to keep them from getting the shots.

There were a few occasions I feel AF can�t be beat: long glass more than 200mm; tracking moving objects and let camera pick eyes or subject for you; LCD arm length shooting using AF. I found those occasion AF are more capable. manual focus pretty much VF shooting only, seldom LCD based shooting make sense of course not include zone focus and tripod based shooting.i find camera like RX1 using LCD based shooting can actually get some shots more easily than manual focus camera. It is more casual and much easy to get low angle images for event and family.

Jun 30, 2020 at 02:27 AM

airfrogusmc
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · The Leica M10-R

In my opinion if you are shooting a lot with anything longer than 90mm then Leica M is clearly not you. The one lens I thought I would really miss when I switched over to Leica M was the Canon 200 2L. I haven't missed it at all.

Jun 30, 2020 at 05:18 AM

airfrogusmc
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · The Leica M10-R

Just some food for thought. If you don't want to read the entire article scroll down to manual focus
https://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/

Jun 30, 2020 at 05:36 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #17 · The Leica M10-R

Interesting points regarding the microcontrast as a component regarding tonal transitions vs. edges alone. Also, interesting, the credence to Zeiss in similar regard (albeit diff from each).

The point about the brightness of the viewfinder being independent (decoupled) of the lens ... kinda hard to realize the difference just from reading about it. But, recalling how much less I liked the VF when going from my FE to digital ... that was based on the change in the mirror transmission of light, i.e. less light by a factor or roughly 1/2 ... enter possible epiphany regarding RF.

By that, I mean ... if one is shooting with a lens that is say f/2, the amount of light that reaches the mirror is 4x less than the amount of light that would reach the mirror if the lens were f/1. THEN, reduce that amount by the dlsr mirror reflecting only 1/2 of the light reaching the mirror, and you are effectively receiving 3 stops (8x) less light to your eye than what your eye receives in ambient vision. Shooting with f/2.8 (common pro zoom's), then becomes a 4 stop difference from ambient by the time it reaches your eye (brain) on dslr. Hmmm, how's that for a reduction in signal?

Using an RF viewfinder, the light reduction from the lens is not encountered. The light reduction from the mirror transmission (1/2 split to AF module) is not encountered. Granted, the magnification of the lens is not encountered, either ... BUT, if one does have the ability to visualize the composition in their mind before, then along with the framing lines, should be of little adjustment / temporary perceived limitation.

So, where an f/2 lens effectively incurs a 3 stop loss of light to your eye ... ding, ding, ding ... there's where the the RF can help you to see better. Literally, you can see better because you have more (and nearly the same as ambient) light coming to your eye. So, it would seem that where some of those BOLD STATEMENTS about the RF ... well, there may be some merit here.

The point that you can use manual focus on a DSLR (which I do) as you can with an RF ... that is certainly valid. Personally, I prefer to use manual lenses with aperture rings where I can focus wide open, then "count clicks" to set aperture for exposure. I prefer that over trying to read the aperture in the viewfinder (which takes me away from comp), or looking at top plate info, etc.

But, the realization that there would be a 3 stop gain in light transmission to the eye (brain) for an f/2 ... well, that now makes for a meaningful difference (at the expense of no TTL magnification). In other terms, it would be like shooting on a dslr with an f/2 at f/5.6 and viewing (focusing) it stopped down vs. wide open (3 stops less light to the eye) and trying to manual focus. Yes, our eye (and brain) can accommodate through pupil variance (which also influences visual acuity). Which one do you think you could focus more quickly (with dslr) ... f/5.6 or f/2? This is of course only in regard to amount of light to your eye / brain differential.

The other differential in play would be the difference between using ground glass or focus confirmation electronics in dslr vs. the "single image" confirmation in RF.

So, when the statements get made about the RF forcing you to see differently, etc. ... umm, (on paper, so far), it would seem that seeing with more light, and seeing the "single image" alignment could indeed be a different visual experience from manual focus on a dslr. Of course, that has been in reference to using dlsr OVF (EVF being yet a diff matter).

So, if my (hypothetical) dissection of the (functional) difference is fundamentally flawed, please advise. But, (as a non-RF user) I think that so many times we hear the bold statements made about the RF, yet they ring as being rooted in mere preference ... mostly touting the ability to see outside the frame for greater awareness, or somehow magically making you "see better" etc. I don't think I've ever heard anyone explain or reference the amount of light gain / loss to the eye (brain). With a greater light signal to the brain, then I can deduce a greater responsiveness ... I mean, (quite simply) how responsively I can drive in the dark (even with best headlights available) is different from how responsively I drive in the light. Increase signal, increase response. Fundamental physiology there ... hmmm.

Interesting ...

Jun 30, 2020 at 06:40 AM

airfrogusmc
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · The Leica M10-R

Rangefinders are deffinately not for everyone. In fact I would say most. It is a very different way of working and Leica is a true alternative to everything else out there. So glad we have choices. Most of the digital cameras made today from the major players are all capable of capturing what you are seeing. Seeing is the imporatnat part.

For me when I am working with a rangefinder I am not looking through the lens most of the time so I am not just seeing that world the lens sees if that makes any sense. Usually when I am working I am observing and only put the camera up to my eye to frame and then I am always watching what is also outside the frame lines. It is a very different experience just like working with a Rolleiflex is a very different shooting experience. Good for some, not good for others.

I don't know if you saw this piece by Meyerwotz but it does explain this much better than I can. He is far more articulate than I am.

About 1:24 to point but the entire piece is good.

What you have mentioned light transmission to the brain etc I have never even thoguht about and when working with a rangefinder since your mind focus isn't through the lens in my opinon it isn't an issue at all. Good thing is when I am working becasue I am so intuned with my equipment I am not thinking. Just responding to what I am seeing.

And yes of course there is preference. I have shot with just about everyhting someone can shoot with both professioanlly and with my persaonal work. I owned 500 C/Ms, Nikon F 3, Canon F-1s both the old model and new model (still have both) and shot with 8X10 Deardorff, Horseman, Calumet view cameras, Leica M film cameras, Minolta, Pentax, Bronica, Holgas and Dianas, and many different kinds of digital cameras. I owned Canon digital for a decade. I own my preference is my preference becasue it fits the way I see and work. No other reason. But thats me and we do live in a time when there are plenty of choices.

I could never manual focus a DSLR even with the so called better screens. My eyes are not great but with a range findr even with the image a little fuzzy with my eyes because two imges are being pulled into one and when they do appear as one things are in focus I can focus easily. Not the best but does get to it.

So I will extend my invite again, if you are ever up this way you can surely try one of mine and see for yourself.

Jun 30, 2020 at 07:29 AM

LBJ2
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #19 · The Leica M10-R

airfrogusmc wrote:
Just some food for thought. If you don't want to read the entire article scroll down to manual focus
https://www.artphotoacademy.com/the-leica-look/

This url seems to get passed around more than many times as an example of the Leica Look. I do like how the author explains the Leica Look, but not convinced by the images presented. Not to say that some of these images are not very creative and truly interesting to look at each and every time I click on that url.

My personal opinion is Ashwin Rao back in 2010, posted a single image that to me totally represents the Leica Look. He took the image with the M9 + Summilux 50 mm f/1.4 Asph. I get that wow feeling every time I look at this image.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ashwinleicalook.jpg

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/10/11/the-leica-look-comments-thoughts-by-ashwin-rao/

Jun 30, 2020 at 09:35 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #20 · The Leica M10-R

airfrogusmc wrote:
So I will extend my invite again, if you are ever up this way you can surely try one of mine and see for yourself.

You know ... I'm looking for excuses to get up that way.

Okay, so that video showing the focusing line thing ... whoa, that's different from what I recall on the Yashica. Certainly different from SLR, too.

Jun 30, 2020 at 09:47 AM

1 2 3 4 … 13 14 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 … 13 14 end