wgerrard
Veteran
My comfort zone with manual focus seems to be shrinking noticeably. I shoot a Bessa and a Hexar RF. Unless I can use some bright and well-contrasted lines, I don't have a lot of confidence that I've really got the thing in focus. And, forget about dim light. The results show that I'm doing better than it seems, but an annoying number of my shots are not, in fact, focused correctly.
My corrected vision is as good as it's going to get, so there's nothing to be done there.
I'm curious, then, about what others might have done when they decided manual focus was becoming a hassle. The obvious answer is to go buy an autofocus kit.
My corrected vision is as good as it's going to get, so there's nothing to be done there.
I'm curious, then, about what others might have done when they decided manual focus was becoming a hassle. The obvious answer is to go buy an autofocus kit.
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Oddly, my worsening presbyopia has brought me back to manual focus RF cameras. I just could not trust AF to focus on the point I wanted - and I could not see well enough through the shocking looky-holes on any of the cameras I tried (Nikon, Canon & Contax).
My MP and M3 are a delight, and I can even manage perfectly well with a 1932 Leica II. I do know what you mean about seeing the engraving on a lens in low light though - I find I count clicks from f2.
Trust me to be the black sheep
My MP and M3 are a delight, and I can even manage perfectly well with a 1932 Leica II. I do know what you mean about seeing the engraving on a lens in low light though - I find I count clicks from f2.
Trust me to be the black sheep
Last edited:
bsdunek
Old Guy with a Corgi
When my cataracts were growing, I had increasing difficulty focusing. It became very fustrating to develop your negs and find most of them out of focus. Since I had lens implants, back in 1999, I can see better than when I was 10.
There are many things that result from aging, but if cataracts are your problem, consider lens implants and Verifocal or similar glasses.
There are many things that result from aging, but if cataracts are your problem, consider lens implants and Verifocal or similar glasses.
fishtek
Don
I've learned to trust the camera, when it'll let me. What I mean, is with my AF SLR'S, I don't second guess the camera. When I'm using an RF, I find myself looking for hard/contrasty or straight lines somewhere near the object of interest. I only get REALLY critical when I'm doing something macro, then I concern myelf with DOF, bokeh, and all them OTHER things that's s'posed to separate me from the "casual" snappers (Just kidding, really).
I do get frustrated in darker situations, but try to make a challenge of it, and try to remember what I did if I get something right!
Regards!
Don
I do get frustrated in darker situations, but try to make a challenge of it, and try to remember what I did if I get something right!
Regards!
Don
Tuolumne
Veteran
When I started having problems with my eyes I went to rangefinders from SLRs. I found the rangefinder double image easier to focus that a ground glass. Seems to be working well so far. BTW, Varifocal lenses work worse when focusing a camera that fixed foucs. I recommend trying tri-focals. They work much better than Varifocals.
/T
/T
pvdhaar
Peter
Obvious, but not necessarily the most appropriate..wgerrard said:
There are tremendous differences when it comes to ease of focussing with different rangefinders. I've had a Hexar RF in the past, and nice as it is, it's not the king of easy focus. The low 0.6x viewfinder magnification worked against me, and the sensitivity to the position of the eye behind the finder doesn't help either.
After selling the Hexar RF, I got a Bessa-T and a Leica M4 (0.72x finder). The M4 is already a big step up from the Hexar RF, but the absolute winner is the T. And that's not by a small margin; there simply is no contest. The RF is separate, so no contrast is lost because of projecting the RF image in the VF, the RF has a built-in adjustable diopter (+2 to -2), and the 1.5x magnification is more than lifesize. After a day of working behind a computer screen, the T is the only camera that I can focus without any eye strain.
The only downside to the T is the need for separate viewfinders, but you could argue that it's an asset too, as there are some tremendous viewfinders available. The 50mm 1.0x is so clear and bright, it makes framing a breeze too.
You didn't tell which Bessa you have, but they come in a variety of magnifications, 0.7x being the most common. If you've got one with an 0.7x finder, you really should have a look through either an R3a/R3m with a 1x finder, or even a T with its 1.5x RF. If either of these two work for you, you can keep using the lenses you already have..
dacaccia
M246&X100V&GFX 50R
Try glasses. I have to wear them - and no problem with focussing.
The best viewfinder I ever saw is that of Leica M7 or MP. Wonderful in dim light. I would suggest to try the viewfinder - then buy a used M6 and let build in the MP viewfinder. I did so with my M6.
Cheers,
dacaccia
PS: AF is not easier to handle - in contrary. I have a Contax G2 too - and produce more misfocused pictures with it than with manual focus of M6. You must be very precise in centering your focusing motive.
The best viewfinder I ever saw is that of Leica M7 or MP. Wonderful in dim light. I would suggest to try the viewfinder - then buy a used M6 and let build in the MP viewfinder. I did so with my M6.
Cheers,
dacaccia
PS: AF is not easier to handle - in contrary. I have a Contax G2 too - and produce more misfocused pictures with it than with manual focus of M6. You must be very precise in centering your focusing motive.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
I shoot mostly in available light / @ night and focussing a SLR became more and more impossible for me. Hassy / Rolleiflex with magnification glass and for static subjects are OK but everything else ... M3 with a bright VF is really easiest to focus for me, f/1.4 with my M4 or M4-P is starting to become difficult, too.
R
ruben
Guest
Dear Friend,
Before you give away your actual kit, you still can try two venues that luckily may improve your viewfinder vision dramatically. Or not.
The first is the "diopter correction" one, with your own twist. Go with your cameras to the biggest pharmacy in your city, and start trying "reading lenses".
They usually range between diopter +0.5 to +3.5.
What happens is that within the rangefinder mechanism there is a whole interplay of mirrors and lenses, which affect each of us differently when our vision deteriorates. So you try the different lenses there, looking for one improving your vision both a short and long distance, while looking through the viewfinder - and giving you as well an acceptable vision for walking.
The other venue is to try the dark/contrasty viewfinder approach. Measure your vision either with a Yashica Electro, or with a Kiev. In case your particular eyes problem happen to improve with dark/contrasty viewfinders, you will have to take your Hexar and Bessa to a technician, to insert close to the outer viewfinder lens, a piece of ND Lee Filters No 3.
The most important in my recommendation is that you act without any prejudice, but pragmatically, ready to let facts the upper hand.
Cheers,
Ruben
Before you give away your actual kit, you still can try two venues that luckily may improve your viewfinder vision dramatically. Or not.
The first is the "diopter correction" one, with your own twist. Go with your cameras to the biggest pharmacy in your city, and start trying "reading lenses".
They usually range between diopter +0.5 to +3.5.
What happens is that within the rangefinder mechanism there is a whole interplay of mirrors and lenses, which affect each of us differently when our vision deteriorates. So you try the different lenses there, looking for one improving your vision both a short and long distance, while looking through the viewfinder - and giving you as well an acceptable vision for walking.
The other venue is to try the dark/contrasty viewfinder approach. Measure your vision either with a Yashica Electro, or with a Kiev. In case your particular eyes problem happen to improve with dark/contrasty viewfinders, you will have to take your Hexar and Bessa to a technician, to insert close to the outer viewfinder lens, a piece of ND Lee Filters No 3.
The most important in my recommendation is that you act without any prejudice, but pragmatically, ready to let facts the upper hand.
Cheers,
Ruben
wgerrard
Veteran
Thanks for the advice, guys. It's all food for thought.
Bruce: No cataracts. Very nearsighted, though, plus
the other usual maladies.
Peter: The Bessa is an R4M, so its VF magnification is about the same as the RF's. I find the RF is a bit more finicky to focus, but, on average, the R4M is just as problematic. Of course, the weaker the light, the bigger the problem.
Dacaccia: I've worn glasses for decades. These days, they're compressed progressives.
Ruben: Thanks for the interesting diopter twist. As you say, the combination of a camera's design with each person's vision results in a unique situation. I've resisted putting a diopter on the camera because I've never seen one with a sufficiently powerful correction factor (I'd need a +4.0) and because I don't want the hassle of constantly putting my glasses on and off.
I'm gonna let this play out for a while in an effort to determine what's really bothering me. Right now, I'm not sure if I'm being bothered by dimness in the VF or by the negative magnification of the RF and R4M. Or, both. I do know that I spend more time than I want trying to focus, and that I rarely have the experience of the image "clicking" into obvious focus. Typically, I acquire what I think is the right focus, and then move the lens back and forth to check.
In any case, the problem is taking the enjoyment out of taking pictures, so something has to change. It is not fun to futz with the focus ring, seemingly forever, only to press the shutter with very little confidence that I have, in fact, managed to put the subject in focus.
Going to autofocus would almost certainly mean going SLR. Frankly, the only downside to that, from my perspective, is the doubling of the size and weight of the stuff I'd carry around. My attachment to rangefinders is practical (size, weight and simplicity), not emotional.
Bruce: No cataracts. Very nearsighted, though, plus
the other usual maladies.
Peter: The Bessa is an R4M, so its VF magnification is about the same as the RF's. I find the RF is a bit more finicky to focus, but, on average, the R4M is just as problematic. Of course, the weaker the light, the bigger the problem.
Dacaccia: I've worn glasses for decades. These days, they're compressed progressives.
Ruben: Thanks for the interesting diopter twist. As you say, the combination of a camera's design with each person's vision results in a unique situation. I've resisted putting a diopter on the camera because I've never seen one with a sufficiently powerful correction factor (I'd need a +4.0) and because I don't want the hassle of constantly putting my glasses on and off.
I'm gonna let this play out for a while in an effort to determine what's really bothering me. Right now, I'm not sure if I'm being bothered by dimness in the VF or by the negative magnification of the RF and R4M. Or, both. I do know that I spend more time than I want trying to focus, and that I rarely have the experience of the image "clicking" into obvious focus. Typically, I acquire what I think is the right focus, and then move the lens back and forth to check.
In any case, the problem is taking the enjoyment out of taking pictures, so something has to change. It is not fun to futz with the focus ring, seemingly forever, only to press the shutter with very little confidence that I have, in fact, managed to put the subject in focus.
Going to autofocus would almost certainly mean going SLR. Frankly, the only downside to that, from my perspective, is the doubling of the size and weight of the stuff I'd carry around. My attachment to rangefinders is practical (size, weight and simplicity), not emotional.
literiter
Well-known
I found minus 2 diopters for my Hasselblad 501cm, M4-P, F2, and F3hp. I wear my eyeglasses always with a cord, so I drop my glasses to my chest when working with a camera.
I like to be able to get my eye right up to the finder and see the whole frame. This works for me very well.
I like to be able to get my eye right up to the finder and see the whole frame. This works for me very well.
biomed
Veteran
corrective lenses
corrective lenses
Here is my solution -
Actually, I had problems with my SLRs (Nikon F2, FE2) and went with a Canon auto focus camera. Later I tried a Bessa R3. With a rangefinder I found I could focus manually again. I have a Nikon hinged magnifier to use with my Bessas when rangefinder focus becomes a problem.
Mike
corrective lenses
Here is my solution -
Actually, I had problems with my SLRs (Nikon F2, FE2) and went with a Canon auto focus camera. Later I tried a Bessa R3. With a rangefinder I found I could focus manually again. I have a Nikon hinged magnifier to use with my Bessas when rangefinder focus becomes a problem.
Mike
dacaccia
M246&X100V&GFX 50R
wgerrard said:
not necessarily SLR. Though no longer built there is the Contax G2 with AF around. The quality of pictures is very good - though I found out it won't do well with every film. The AF is quite quick. But you must shoot well ...
Cheers,
dacaccia
Dogman
Veteran
I can manually focus rangefinders and my medium format Pentax SLRs okay. I started having problems with my Nikon F2 models years ago and switched over to Canon autofocus. The EOS cameras are not easy for me to manually focus either but their AF is excellent--faster and more accurate than I ever was in my younger days.
literiter
Well-known
biomed said:Here is my solution -
Actually, I had problems with my SLRs (Nikon F2, FE2) and went with a Canon auto focus camera. Later I tried a Bessa R3. With a rangefinder I found I could focus manually again. I have a Nikon hinged magnifier to use with my Bessas when rangefinder focus becomes a problem.
Mike
This is indeed an excellent solution. Do you actually affix the camera's viewfinder to that system? Have you tried two cameras at once? This could actually let one's hands free to do other things, perhaps drive etc. I know we'll all want one.
peterm1
Veteran
You know its funny you should ask this. Apart from my Leica camera I have been shooting a lot with digital lately and recently was enticed to buy a Panasonic L1 - partly because it has the ability to use adapters that allow me to mount my Nikon and Takumar manual focus glass. Fantastic I thought, now I can continue to use all of that wonderful old classic glass that I still own.
But I have found that I cannot focus worth a damn! The L1 focussing screen is OK (if a bit dark) but there is no focus assist, I guess because these lenses do not have a chip in them. (The stock lens that came with the camera can be used in manual focus mode and it does give focus confirmation in the viewfinder.) Consequently a high proportion of my shots taken with MF lenses are duds. I have tried zone focussing but have found that with my M42 adapter mounted on the camera, it does not seem to show correct distances, so I cannot read off the distance scale shown on the lens. So scrap that idea - the result is even worse. (Fortunately the Nikon adpater does not seem to have this problem and it looks as if it is giving me correct distances by scale.)
I have not noticed foccussing to be an issue with my Leica M3. I guess I haev been taking it for granted! The method of focussing on Leica bodies with their great system of split images is so definite that its hard to avoid seeing when you are in focus. Its just these damned manual focus SLRs that give me problems!
Having said that, call it good luck or good management - I have gotten a few wonderfully sharp shots with a variety of manual lenses. Nikon 50mm f 1.4 and f2.0, Nikon 105mm f2.5, Takumar 50mm f1.4 and 135mm f2.5 to name a few, but boy have I also thrown a lot away. Even if they look dead sharp in the viewfinder they are too often just a bit out when seen on my PC's screen. I suspect that the diopter adjustment for the finder may be ever so slightly off and that I need a half diopter setting to get it just so for my eyes.
So either I practice more, or get my eyes laser corrected, because I while I will keep experimenting just for fun, I dont think I will be trusting that one in a million shot to the hit or miss of manual focussing and my bodgey eyes.
But I have found that I cannot focus worth a damn! The L1 focussing screen is OK (if a bit dark) but there is no focus assist, I guess because these lenses do not have a chip in them. (The stock lens that came with the camera can be used in manual focus mode and it does give focus confirmation in the viewfinder.) Consequently a high proportion of my shots taken with MF lenses are duds. I have tried zone focussing but have found that with my M42 adapter mounted on the camera, it does not seem to show correct distances, so I cannot read off the distance scale shown on the lens. So scrap that idea - the result is even worse. (Fortunately the Nikon adpater does not seem to have this problem and it looks as if it is giving me correct distances by scale.)
I have not noticed foccussing to be an issue with my Leica M3. I guess I haev been taking it for granted! The method of focussing on Leica bodies with their great system of split images is so definite that its hard to avoid seeing when you are in focus. Its just these damned manual focus SLRs that give me problems!
Having said that, call it good luck or good management - I have gotten a few wonderfully sharp shots with a variety of manual lenses. Nikon 50mm f 1.4 and f2.0, Nikon 105mm f2.5, Takumar 50mm f1.4 and 135mm f2.5 to name a few, but boy have I also thrown a lot away. Even if they look dead sharp in the viewfinder they are too often just a bit out when seen on my PC's screen. I suspect that the diopter adjustment for the finder may be ever so slightly off and that I need a half diopter setting to get it just so for my eyes.
So either I practice more, or get my eyes laser corrected, because I while I will keep experimenting just for fun, I dont think I will be trusting that one in a million shot to the hit or miss of manual focussing and my bodgey eyes.
Last edited:
craygc
Well-known
Have been suffering diminishing visual capabilities in my right (dominant) eye for a couple of years, and havent really adjusted to left eye shooting. Just recently had the problem diagnosed as a cataract so hopefully after getting an IOL implant next month things will get back to normal
dacaccia
M246&X100V&GFX 50R
@peterm:
If you want to use your old lenses on a DSLR you have to test before how the screen is (is it changeable?), and how the manual focussing works.
Just try the Canon 40D, build in its screen for manual focussing, buy an adapter (half automatic) Nikon FD on Canon - and be happy with it.
It really works - I use Leica-R lenses on 40D. No problem with focussing, since the focussing light is bright - and works correctly (depending on the lens, of course).
Cheers,
dacaccia
If you want to use your old lenses on a DSLR you have to test before how the screen is (is it changeable?), and how the manual focussing works.
Just try the Canon 40D, build in its screen for manual focussing, buy an adapter (half automatic) Nikon FD on Canon - and be happy with it.
It really works - I use Leica-R lenses on 40D. No problem with focussing, since the focussing light is bright - and works correctly (depending on the lens, of course).
Cheers,
dacaccia
wyk_penguin
Well-known
One problem with the R4M is the maths. The construction of the RF mechanism puts a limit to what you can focus accurately (computed using the average normal resolution of a human eye. I think I saw it on Erwin Outts web.), and from what I remember, the R4M will not focus a 50mm f/2 correctly, and of course not a 85mm f/2.