Minimum focus, why is it important?

[Sparrow]

It seems to crop up all the time, people disregard some camera or lens because it won't focus down to 0.7m, why? ... how many people take photos in that crucial 30cm? ... and anyway if one wants photos at less than 1m why bugger about using an inappropriate range-finder technology when a SLR with a macro lens will work so much better?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

It seems to crop up all the time, people disregard some camera or lens because it won't focus down to 0.7m, why?

When taking photos of people up-close and do not like to crop.

... how many people take photos in that crucial 30cm? ...

I do.

and anyway if one wants photos at less than 1m why bugger about using an inappropriate range-finder technology when a SLR with a macro lens will work so much better?

Most people feel far less comfortable having a big SLR at under 1m from their face.

 

[sanmich]

Specially when using a wide lens, I tend to get closer.
1m min focus is a deal breaker for me for anything shorter than 50mm

 

[bucs]

Most people feel far less comfortable having a big SLR at under 1m from their face.

True, this justifies it for me.

 

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A. View Post
Most people feel far less comfortable having a big SLR at under 1m from their face.

True, this justifies it for me.

Nothing big about a lot of the SLRs we cherish here ... Pentax and Olympus both make SLRs that are no larger than an M3.

But you knew that! 😀

 

[daveywaugh]

I wouldn't buy an older summilux for that reason (and the $$$ too). I guess I do shoot a lot fairly close up. The lens focusing to 0.7 means it becomes an all-rounder, and more multi-purpose for me. I don't really want to lug around multiple cameras for different purposes. I find that an M3 with a single 50 (Planar) covers nearly everything I need. My bag won't fit another SLR! Photography is always a battle of compromises (which is why I love it) but you have to draw your lines carefully. For many people it wouldn't matter of course, but for me it does. I generally avoid shooting people that close ;-) but useful for the odd nature / urban / object pic.

 

[daveywaugh]

Nothing big about a lot of the SLRs we cherish here ... Pentax and Olympus both make SLRs that are no larger than an M3.

Well the noise from my OM1 might scare them though ;-)

 

[pb908]

because i like to take picture of me, by my self, and i have short arm. (and my leica m2 don't have self timer).. For this reason i really like hexar af, it expand my narcism hoby.

 

[ruby.monkey]

When I'm photographing my companions I don't always have the time or space to back up.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Nothing big about a lot of the SLRs we cherish here ... Pentax and Olympus both make SLRs that are no larger than an M3.

But you knew that! 😀

When I tried them I was not very impressed. And still, anything smaller than a normal, regular SLR that doesn't look like a stereotypical SLR is oftentimes less intimidating.

 

[zuiko85]

That little extra doesn't seem like so much.........

Until you need it.

 

[Robin Harrison]

I find a lens with a 0.7m mfd most often passes the dining table test (can you take a photo of your partner in a restaurant without moving your chair back from its natural position), and one with a 0.9m mfd does not.

 

[Bobfrance]

Because people/flowers only like having cool looking cameras so close to their noses/stamen. 😉

 

[kossi008]

And I always hated it about the Ultron 35/1.7.

+1 on the dining table test. I bump into the restrictions of 0.7 m often enough with my daughter, when trying for that typical 28/35mm situational shot up close...

As so many things, this seems to be once more a matter of taste. Either you are a close shooter, or you aren't.

 

[Sparrow]

When taking photos of people up-close and do not like to crop.



I do.




Most people feel far less comfortable having a big SLR at under 1m from their face.

... well one wouldn't know from your website or flickr.

In fact the only close focus photos I could find in the gallery here this last week were taken with D700, Panasonics and the like ... and it seems to be an important feature here

 

[WalterM]

I find a lens with a 0.7m mfd most often passes the dining table test (can you take a photo of your partner in a restaurant without moving your chair back from its natural position), and one with a 0.9m mfd does not.

this is basically my reason for 0.7 mfd preference. Backing away from the table to take a quick photo makes expressions too posed 🙄

 

[Lss]

It seems to crop up all the time, people disregard some camera or lens because it won't focus down to 0.7m, why? ... how many people take photos in that crucial 30cm?

That extra 30 cm does come in handy. I find it very useful to be able to shoot at about arm's length. Closer than that can be a lot of fun but is not really important for the stuff that matters to me. It's a limit that works for me, although I would probably try to go for 50 or 60 cm if I were in a position to create a new (rangefinder) system from scratch.

 

[oftheherd]

I don't need that close focus often, with either SLR or RF. But when I need it, of course I want it as close as I need. But RF wouldn't likely be my preferred camera for closeups anyway. Have any of you here who don't have one but wish for close up, ever tried close up lenses?

 

[rover]

Like said, sometimes an SLR is the right tool. And no, the noise makes no difference. When you raise a camera to your eye, any camera, they know you are taking a photograph, so just fire the shutter without your own limitation.

 

[jsrockit]

Doesn't bother me... if it only focuses to 1 meter, I'll make it work. I mean, .7 meters is arbitrary too... why don't those who need .7 meters complain and say that the lens should have .6 meters? 😉