RF - if & what - technical

[Ruvy]

A friend has landed me his M6. I enjoy the feel of it against my body and holding it for shooting and feeling the quality of each component very satisfying. I am only on my third roll but progress toward deciding to buy RF. I am posting now two items. This one is about use. The next one will be about price.

The sensory joy described above is accompanied here with some unresolved problems. I assume they are related to unavoidable comparison with shooting ease and style in Sigma DSLR and Rolleiflex TLR.

1.Shooting with eyeglasses makes frame line not visible
2.Unless using inaccurate focusing by hyper-focal diagram on lens, focusing is time consuming and confusing complex with many similar elements hunting for the the correct second image takes too long and not entirely clear.
3.when exposure meter is dead there is no way to prevent shooting with lens cap on
4.shooting full frame portrait with 35mm lens makes subject equally uncomfortable with the Leica as with any dslr
5.composing on this size view finder makes composing more of challenge with .

Loving the feel of RF (M6 is the only one I have tried) I am looking for a way to overcome the limitations. Any general technical advice or reference to another body where these problems can be better solved is welcome.

Ruvy

 

[Fred Burton]

The things you don't like about the RF (as described above) are simple traits of a rangefinder. They are what they are. You will probably be happier with an SLR. RF's aren't for everyone (actually, for relatively few).

Of course, you can look so kewl with an M6 around your neck that you may never have to take photos, so all these limitations won't matter!

Seriously, you are describing the whole panoply of complaints about range finders. Only you can determine if the pluses (small size, quiet shutter) outweigh the issues you describe above for you personally.

 

[Ruvy]

Yes and NO

Yes and NO

The things you don't like about the RF (as described above) are simple traits of a rangefinder. They are what they are. You will probably be happier with an SLR. RF's aren't for everyone (actually, for relatively few).

Of course, you can look so kewl with an M6 around your neck that you may never have to take photos, so all these limitations won't matter! ]
Well, the Leica name plate is embarrassing for someone who shy away from brand names all his life so there is no chance for that.

[Seriously, you are describing the whole panoply of complaints about range finders. Only you can determine if the pluses (small size, quiet shutter) outweigh the issues you describe above for you personally.

A first reading your reply have mirrored my concerns but couple of days later, I have my DSLR next to my RF on the table and most my shooting is still with the RF still grab the RF. It could be the size but I take a lot of care about each frame I compose so I doubt its onl the size.

I think presenting the problems was more of a call for advices about solving them... Repllies re. how people who ware glasses are handling RFs, suggestion of a RF body that is easier to focus (bigger brighter contrastier VF) if there is one etc. are still needed and missing...

 

[user237428934]

2.Unless using inaccurate focusing by hyper-focal diagram on lens, focusing is time consuming and confusing complex with many similar elements hunting for the the correct second image takes too long and not entirely clear.

This is just a matter of training. You must know your lenses. My CV 1.4/35mm has a focussing lever. If it points directly down, the discance is at 1.5m. And I have a good feeling for the position of the lever at 5m.
When I want to take a photo fast, I do a quick guess and prefocus (without looking at the lens) while I take the camera to the eye. The correct focussing is quickly done with the viewfinder.
And NEVER hide the right focussing window with a finger. That makes focussing quite hard (Happend to me the first months with my M6 quite often)
Of course my 40D is even faster but right now I'm fast enough with my M (most of the time).

 

[jody36]

u can zone focus and with practice u can figure out where in viewfinder ur ubject needs to be without seeing framelines. but really its just a thing where u love or not. try a few rolls if u like the challenge u will love the RF.

 

[Ruvy]

u can zone focus and with practice u can figure out where in viewfinder ur ubject needs to be without seeing framelines. but really its just a thing where u love or not. try a few rolls if u like the challenge u will love the RF.

Thanks

I am getting there

 

[Ruvy]

Thanks. Coming from DSLR you know what I meant. Thanks

This is just a matter of training. You must know your lenses. My CV 1.4/35mm has a focussing lever. If it points directly down, the discance is at 1.5m. And I have a good feeling for the position of the lever at 5m.
When I want to take a photo fast, I do a quick guess and prefocus (without looking at the lens) while I take the camera to the eye. The correct focussing is quickly done with the viewfinder.
And NEVER hide the right focussing window with a finger. That makes focussing quite hard (Happend to me the first months with my M6 quite often)
Of course my 40D is even faster but right now I'm fast enough with my M (most of the time).

 

[Al Kaplan]

After each shot or sequence of shots turn the lens back towards infinity. That way when you pick up the camera you always know which way to turn the lens to focus (unless you're shooting distant mountains or such.) As soon as the images align you push the button.

In dim light it can be hard to align the images in the rangefinder patch. Instead, notice that there's a sudden jump in contrast when you achieve focus. This works well if you need glasses and they're in your pocket.

 

[MartinP]

I'll second the "contrast" thing mentioned by Al. It took a long while for me to notice it, but eventually it seemed that r/f was more accurate in dark conditions than my SLR - and that was with a FED-2 (highly recommended by the way).

Now with an M3 it works even better - there is actually no need to laboriously line-up images (ok, 1/2 second, but you know what I mean), just when the r/f patch "pops", then click.

 

[Ruvy]

I'll second the "contrast" thing mentioned by Al. It took a long while for me to notice it, but eventually it seemed that r/f was more accurate in dark conditions than my SLR - and that was with a FED-2 (highly recommended by the way).

Now with an M3 it works even better - there is actually no need to laboriously line-up images (ok, 1/2 second, but you know what I mean), just when the r/f patch "pops", then click.

Also to Al

Thanks. So far I didn't even notice it. Will look for it next time I shoot. Is it only in dim light?

Between Fed 2 and M3 - is there a difference in size or brightness of view finder?

 

[MartinP]

There is a huge difference between a FED-2 and an M3 !!! The Fed is simply a good camera, when cla'd and in good condition, and is even the same size as an M. However, the M3 viewfinder is as good as it gets (though I admit that I miss out the Zeiss as I've never looked through one) - it is far bigger and brighter and clearer and usable than any other I have tried.

There are also the multiple framelines and parallax correction too of course, which the Fed does not have.

If you can afford an M, then you can certainly afford a Fed-2, if only out of curiosity ! The usual lenses are nice Tessar designs which give a character that is useful sometimes, even on an M with an adapter.

Edit: I think maybe the contrast thing is usually more noticeable in low light because otherwise one automatically concentrates on the image, with lines edges etc, instead of the sharpness or contrast effect.

 

[amateriat]

Okay, my Zen is showing a bit here...

The best way to approach shooting with an RFis with "beginner's mind"...in other words, pretty much forget about the way you've worked with any SLR (film or digital). For me, it helped that the very first "real" camera I ever owned was an RF, so its "peculiarities" weren't all that peculiar at all when I returned to shooting RFs full-time, over six years ago. The funny thing is that I now find SLRs to be somewhat "peculiar"...I actually find it weird not to be able to see beyond the "frame."

As far as finding an RF to get to grips with, I'd say a Zeiss Ikon would be good, especially for its fairly large VF. I've been bespectacled all my photographic life (and beyond). This is an issue that can be dealt with a number of ways. The Hexar RFs I've used for the last six years are pretty good in terms of general eye-relief, but I think the ZI is just a bit better in this respect. You might want to check out some of the CV Bessas as well.

And, if you just have to have a Leica, remember that you have a choice of VF magnification (though, if you're buying used, you might have to search a bit for a real choice). After deciding which focal lengths "work" for you, you'll want to explore this. If you lean toward 50mm and wider glass, a Leica with lower magnification (.58) can help in terms of eye-relief, but forget about shooting 90mm glass with one of these. (A Bessa R4 works pretty much in the same vein, albeit more extreme.)

Like I said, there are a few things to sort out. All worthwhile, I'd say.


- Barrett

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I ended up getting contact lenses just for RF shooting. It makes a huge difference.

 

[Ruvy]

Okay, my Zen is showing a bit here...

The best way to approach shooting with an RFis with "beginner's mind"...in other words, pretty much forget about the way you've worked with any SLR (film or digital). For me, it helped that the very first "real" camera I ever owned was an RF, so its "peculiarities" weren't all that peculiar at all when I returned to shooting RFs full-time, over six years ago. The funny thing is that I now find SLRs to be somewhat "peculiar"...I actually find it weird not to be able to see beyond the "frame."

As far as finding an FR to get to grips with, I'd say a Zeiss Ikon would be good, especially for its fairly large VF. I've been bespectacled all my photographic life (and beyond). This is an issue that can be dealt with a number of ways. The Hexar RFs I've used for the last six years are pretty good in terms of general eye-relief, but I think the ZI is just a bit better in this respect. You might want to check out some of the CV Bessas as well.



And, if you just have to have a Leica, remember that you have a choice of VF magnification (though, if you're buying used, you might have to search a bit for a real choice). After deciding which focal lengths "work" for you, you'll want to explore this. If you lean toward 50mm and wider glass, a Leica with lower magnification (.58) can help in terms of eye-relief, but forget about shooting with 90mm glass with one of these. (A Bessa R4 works pretty much in the same vein, albeit more extreme.)

Like I said, there are a few things to sort out. All worthwhile, I'd say.


- Barrett

Thanks Barrett. No, I will not feel comfortable with the name Leica on my camera nor with BMW on my car but I appreciate its quality no that I am using it as a loaner.
Your post is very helpful. Being new o it here are couple of questions:
1. You say lower magnification can help in eye relief. I thought its the other way around (larger magnification makes focusing easier). How does it work?
2. What is CV. I am sure its not the one I use for resume

 

[Ruvy]

I ended up getting contact lenses just for RF shooting. It makes a huge difference.

he. he. I thought about it too but am afraid to put things in my eyes - even eye drops. Do you feel comfortable with them? for the time being until I make up my mind I am using my better eye without glasses and hope for the best which is a funny way to do it.

 

[amateriat]

I ended up getting contact lenses just for RF shooting. It makes a huge difference.

You know, now that I'm in need of a new prescription (actually, I'm way overdue for one), I'm sort of going back-and-forth about finally getting contacts. On the one hand, I remember the horror show my younger sister went through , years ago, dealing with contacts for the first time. She stuck to using them, however, and between her determination/stubbornness and evolution of contact-lens design, things worked out. I probably wouldn't have to go through the same issues she did, but I'm still a little gun-shy about the whole thing (not as much as I am about LASIK, though).

This subject likely requires a thread of its own...


- Barrett

 

[gb hill]

About the M6 you are using. Which viewfinder does it have? .72 or the .85. Also, Do you tend to shoot wide, say 35mm & wider or are you more into the 35 to 50 range? You might be more suited to a Zeiss Ikon. I haven't handeled one but from what I have read has the best finder. I think it's the Bessa r3a that has a 1:1 viewfinder that allows you to keep both eyes open. I have a bessa r and wear glasses without any trouble.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I first noticed the contrast popping effect about the time I started needing reading glasses at about age 40. I'm right eyed but I practice focusing and framing using the left eye also. Now a few weeks shy of 66 I'm developing a cataract in the left eye but I can still detect the popping even if the image itself is fuzzy with the left eye.

 

[amateriat]

Thanks Barrett. No, I will not feel comfortable with the name Leica on my camera nor with BMW on my car but I appreciate its quality no that I am using it as a loaner.
Your post is very helpful. Being new o it here are couple of questions:
1. You say lower magnification can help in eye relief. I thought its the other way around (larger magnification makes focusing easier). How does it work?

Eye-relief works differently in a rangefinder camera versus an SLR. Since, in the latter case, you are viewing through the taking lens, a camera with greater eye relief (say, comparing a Nikon F3 with its standard, early-generation VF, vs. an F3 with the later High Eyepoint finder) might be a bit tougher to focus, depending on the particular focusing screen used. In the case of an rangefinder, where the VF is separate from the taking lens, the focusing patch in the viewfinder remains constant, as does the angle of view. What a lower magnification gets you is an improved view, in the case of any .58 magnification Leica, or Zeiss Ikon, of the 28mm framelines, without the need to shift your eye around (unless you're cursed with having to wear Coke-bottle-thickness lenses). This also allows you to better see beyond those 28mm framelines, yet another RF advantage. In addition, unlike an SLR, the VF brightness remains constant, whether you're shooting with a 50mm f.1.2 or 28mm f/3.5.

2. What is CV. I am sure its not the one I use for resume

Shorthand for Cosina-Voigtlander. More specifically, the camera and lens line Cosina manufactures and markets under the Voigtlander name. (They purchased the rights to the Voigtlander name some years ago; unlike most companies, that buy the rights to old and illustrious brand names, Cosina has actually worked hard to live up to the Voigtlander legacy, and then some.)

More CV info can be found at the site of the Head Bartender.


- Barrett