How difficult is it to transition from AF to M10 rangefinder?

[jszokoli]

Don't worry, the original poster is likely off taking pictures...
Joe

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I'm not sure how hard it is to transition from AF to RF, I started using an RF when I was 11 in 1969. I started using AF in the 90s, learned I could do better with the RF. AF has gotten better, the Nikon Df is the last AF-DSLR that I've bought. It could not focus in the low-light of the skating rink that I take my Daughter to.

With an RF- you just bring two images together. With AF, I'd have to rewrite the firmware to make it better and they do not release the source code.

 

[boojum]

That doesn't disqualify others from having a different take on the subject, a take that may be equally valid.

Somehow this thread seems to have derailed into a debate about whether action should be shot using AF with a DSLR. Not really helpful for the first poster who's shooting travel, landscape and architecture, and wondering about the transition from mirrorless autofocus to MF RF.

It certainly does not, I agree. But my initial point was and remains your chances with AF are better than with RF. QED

How long does the transition take from AF to RF? Depends on who is holding the camera. And has been already stated, most AF cameras can be focused manually. So practice with your AF to see how you like it and if you like it.

Here is an AF taken on the fly while having coffee with an old friend. In the blink of an eye I had the shot and the subject was not burdened with a camera in his face while I focused. Just lift, frame and click the shutter. Please note that it is in focus. The hairs on Noel's chin are easily discernible and sharp, as is his face in the shallow depth of field, no blur or smear. The AF also has 7 stops of IBIS. The subject, Noel, is a great fellow and a gifted water-colorist. He is retired now and I think I got his last two works. Real gems.

Flickr link:
​

 

[sojournerphoto]

back for the OP, there has been plenty of discussion of af vs mf. More than is really helpful I suspect. A lot of us here generally like mf and there are ways to make it work in all sorts of situations. On the other hand, I was chatting very amicably with a working pro a few weeks ago and he wouldn’t have given up his Sony’s eye af for shooting portraits of clients’ fast moving children. I say we had a very pleasant and amicable chat as he didn’t set out to say his system was better, just that it worked for him. He was intrigued by my film Leica (though if I did his job I’d likely use his kit).

I’ll go back to my earlier comment, rf is really all about the window finder and manual focus goes with the territory. It’s a different way of seeing the world. I also shoot mirrorless with manual and auto focus glass.

The Fuji x-pros and x100 offer a similar view of the world to an rf, but with af. I bought and sold two before reverting to rf. great camera but for me was really an af camera with the window finder and evf for mf.

One other point, Leica’s should need rangefinder adjustment every year but some people do seem to get this.

 

[shawn]

back for the OP, there has been plenty of discussion of af vs mf. More than is really helpful I suspect. A lot of us here generally like mf and there are ways to make it work in all sorts of situations. On the other hand, I was chatting very amicably with a working pro a few weeks ago and he wouldn’t have given up his Sony’s eye af for shooting portraits of clients’ fast moving children. I say we had a very pleasant and amicable chat as he didn’t set out to say his system was better, just that it worked for him. He was intrigued by my film Leica (though if I did his job I’d likely use his kit).

Speaking for myself... shooting eye AF with fast lenses (85mm f1.4 DG DN or 35mm f1.2) at or nearly wide open was really an eye opener for me. The number of shots with critically focus on the eyes went way up. Without eye AF I've found AF tends to go for the nose and throws the face off slightly. With off center or moving subjects this is even more true. Just the focus and reframe can throw off critical focus when shooting like this.

 

[Evergreen States]

The Fuji x-pros and x100 offer a similar view of the world to an rf, but with af. I bought and sold two before reverting to rf. great camera but for me was really an af camera with the window finder and evf for mf.

Before getting a Leica I eased into rangefinders, first with the Fujifilm X100S, then with the X-Pro1, then the X-Pro3. They're not rangefinders but they use window finders. At some point, I gradually got into shooting film more and I had a Canonet G-III QL17 and an Olympus 35RC - real rangefinders. These 1970s compacts are not at the same level of sophistication as the Leica M3, but I'm glad to have gotten the experience shooting with them. For anybody shooting film and worried they wouldn't be able to adjust to a rangefinder, I would recommend starting with cheaper fixed lens rangefinders like these before committing to the cost of a Leica. Leicas have a much nicer shooting experience and you will notice it but the basic functions are all the same. Like I said earlier, they're just cameras at the end of the day.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Speaking for myself... shooting eye AF with fast lenses (85mm f1.4 DG DN or 35mm f1.2) at or nearly wide open was really an eye opener for me. The number of shots with critically focus on the eyes went way up. Without eye AF I've found AF tends to go for the nose and throws the face off slightly. With off center or moving subjects this is even more true. Just the focus and reframe can throw off critical focus when shooting like this.

That 85/1.4 really is something, and the 35/1.2. I don’t have either, but I’m sure they’re much faster to focus accurately than my manual focus Zeiss.

Interestingly, I think mirrorless cameras have an advantage over dslr’s at these apertures. Certainly in the earlier days phase detect didn’t accurately focus at f1.4 and I had one body that I couldn’t get to focus any of the lenses I really wanted it to.

 

[shawn]

That 85/1.4 really is something, and the 35/1.2. I don’t have either, but I’m sure they’re much faster to focus accurately than my manual focus Zeiss.

Interestingly, I think mirrorless cameras have an advantage over dslr’s at these apertures. Certainly in the earlier days phase detect didn’t accurately focus at f1.4 and I had one body that I couldn’t get to focus any of the lenses I really wanted it to.

My last DSLR was the D700 which had good spot AF. It was better in AF with the 85 1.4D than I could do in MF even with a Katz Eye focus screen.

The XP2 would out track the D700 and the S1R's eye detect is next level from that. It really impresses me. It will even pick up an eye behind a fencers mask and can do so anywhere on the frame if I decide to set it that way.

 

[Archiver]

The M9 will be my favourite camera for the past 14 years as of this month, and I've had a lot of practice shooting action sports like boxing and kickboxing in the past four or five years. Having said this, it is not my preferred camera for action - that task is better served with AF cameras like the Panasonic G9 and S5 with fast lenses, and even the Panasonic 24-105 f4 works well for action in good light. For athletics and football, obviously a long zoom on a mirrorless cam is the more appropriate choice.

There are times when I miss the shot with the M9 that I could probably have got with a mirrorless, especially when seeing something interesting but fleeting - the tiny moments focusing manually (I tend to shoot wide open) have caused me to lose images. But for some reason, when shooting with the M9 and Distagon 35 in particular, I get much more interesting and well composed images than when I shoot with any autofocus camera. Perhaps it's the need to be deliberate. I just don't seem to 'see' the same way when I shoot with AF. I never really experienced this with the 5D Mark II and 35L, so it's not a fast 35 thing, either. From what I've experienced, my shoot rate is lower but my hit rate is higher when I shoot with the M9.

As for how difficult it is to transition to a digital rangefinder after using mirrorless cameras: it's not that hard once you get used to manual focus. As others have explained before, get used to just one lens first, and develop muscle memory from the position of the focus tab if the lens has one. Learn to zone focus or hyperfocus if shooting in well lit scenes and you don't need shallow depth of field. Learn to put the focus patch on something like an eye, line or object that will allow you to see when you've achieved focus. It will be frustrating at first, but it will come.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The 50/1 Nokton wide-open on the M9.


In light like this, the rangefinder is much like edge-detection or focus peaking. It works. The AF on the Df cannot keep up with this. The Mirrorless Nikon Z5 with manual focus lenses is very good, but slightly more latency.

 

[shawn]

Tthe first image looks like it iis focused several feet behind the subject. Lights on the left look like the focus point. Middle one is tough to tell due to motion blur, bottom is good.

D700 85 1.4d @1.4 w/AF.

 

[Guth]

I have been shooting mirrorless autofocus for years, mostly landscape, travel, architecture , but never on a rangefinder. I’m drawn to acquiring a used M10 because so many photographers rave about the shooting experience and image quality. But I also see posts where some go back to AF cameras, after being frustrated by manual focus. How difficult is the transition, and how long does it take to master the Leica rangefinder? Thanks.

I'm not sure how this morphed into a discussion of action photography, but when it comes to subjects like those you've mentioned I would imagine that you would do just fine using a MF rangefinder. Just know that there is no shortage of hype out there when it comes to both rangefinders and Leica cameras.

Most people can adapt to using various tools during the course of their lifetime. Whether they enjoy using them is a different matter. I enjoy shooting (film in my case) with MF rangefinders, driving cars with manual transmissions, and writing with typewriters for example because in each case I enjoy the process involved and just as importantly the need to be very involved in the process. Whether or not you will gel with a MF rangefinder will depend largely on you. If in doubt, you could always look for a cheap fixed-lens rangefinder film camera and carry it around with you and practice focusing with it just to see how it strikes you. While the viewfinder and the rangefinder patch would no doubt be dimmer than those of the M10, it would still give you an idea of what using a rangefinder is like.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

As for the distorted image of the skateboarders, IIRC panning gives a smeared image not a blurred image.

As for RF MF as fast or faster than AF, go tell the people who can make a living with a camera. They will be interested to get your input. Poor souls, if they only could learn from the amateurs on this board they would be so much wiser and probably wealthier. You guys had better run and tell them. They will be so grateful for your input, you savvy sages of photography.

We use computers to automate those repetitive tasks in our lives and to eliminate error. Autofocus is an automated function, run by a computer. If autofocus were not as accurate or more accurate it would not be offered because it would be revealed as such with proven data rather than idle chatter. Yes, you can "break the looms" and denounce them but the Luddites are but a footnote in history and almost all our woven fiber today comes from automated mills, because it is better and cheaper. Some folks swoon still over handwoven fabric but not many. You can still do double-entry bookkeeping in a ledger but almost everybody uses spreadsheets at the minimum. You can still write and post letters but most of us do email. Should I go one? It is 2024. Hello?

Hold to yourself fifty years old assumptions what if someone is selling pictures it automatically means some advanced technical skills. This very naive and not the case anymore.

You just can't understand why in some scenarios people with capabilities are using pre focus.

Google... no.. obviously it is too complicated...

Back button focus. Every knowledgeable person is using it in situations (you are not capable to understand) where just an AF is not preferable method.

AF on separate from shutter button not only means much more shots in focus with AF servo mode, but also allowing to pre-focus with AF and wait for the action on the spot to be taken in the most reliable way. Which is no AF, no MF simply because focus is already where it should be.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Speaking for myself... shooting eye AF with fast lenses (85mm f1.4 DG DN or 35mm f1.2) at or nearly wide open was really an eye opener for me. The number of shots with critically focus on the eyes went way up. Without eye AF I've found AF tends to go for the nose and throws the face off slightly. With off center or moving subjects this is even more true. Just the focus and reframe can throw off critical focus when shooting like this.

This is the trend I was into before I sold my Canon 5D and 50L 1.2. No eye AF wasn't really problem.



But lets be honest, is it really this important? Only one eye is in focus or only nose in focus. F1.2, F1.4 taken portraits to me became as special effect "portraits".
I don't see it on paintings or often on classic portraits from photogs I respect.

To me the portrait or street shot is where person is in focus. Not just an eye.
Except I do something on porpoise, like taking street photos at 1/8 shutter speed.

And then I look at people shots I took with film, no AF cameras... I missed focus few times over thousands. Moving or not.

 

[wlewisiii]

I have been shooting mirrorless autofocus for years, mostly landscape, travel, architecture , but never on a rangefinder. I’m drawn to acquiring a used M10 because so many photographers rave about the shooting experience and image quality. But I also see posts where some go back to AF cameras, after being frustrated by manual focus. How difficult is the transition, and how long does it take to master the Leica rangefinder? Thanks.

Landscape is predominently what I do. It's what I love. I have three primary cameras that I use for it:

A Leica M 240 - manual focus digital rangefinder. I got it used and dearly love it.
A Nikon D810 - DSLR with wonderful autofocus and far superior low light response to the Leica.
A Rolleicord III - a much more specialized film TLR, manual focus, but where appropriate it's a delight, especially with the 6x6 format.

You will want to look up the techniques of pre-focusing and the hyperfocal distances of your lenses. That can make things faster and easier.

The key is to use the right tool at the right time. This morning when I get done with having worked overnight at the hotel, I am going to go out with my Leica and a handful of lenses and take pictures of rocks, trees, rivers and clouds and I am not going to worry about if I'm manual focusing or not.

As for the people arguing in this thread, eh, let them argue. Go take pictures. That's a much better use of your time.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Tthe first image looks like it iis focused several feet behind the subject. Lights on the left look like the focus point. Middle one is tough to tell due to motion blur, bottom is good.

D700 85 1.4d @1.4 w/AF.

The first image- motion blur, look at the seam on the pants- in focus. I was panning with the shot. Even with ISO2500 and F1, slow shutter speeds on these.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

This past weekend, took the Z5 to the skating rink. Week before- took the M9.
For manual focus lenses- the EVF and Focus peaking produces a higher success rate than the RF.

This is a bit older, Canon 50mm F0.95 wide-open on the Z5.

My next camera will be the Zf.

 

[Richard G]

The M9 will be my favourite camera for the past 14 years as of this month, and I've had a lot of practice shooting action sports like boxing and kickboxing in the past four or five years. Having said this, it is not my preferred camera for action - that task is better served with AF cameras like the Panasonic G9 and S5 with fast lenses, and even the Panasonic 24-105 f4 works well for action in good light. For athletics and football, obviously a long zoom on a mirrorless cam is the more appropriate choice.

There are times when I miss the shot with the M9 that I could probably have got with a mirrorless, especially when seeing something interesting but fleeting - the tiny moments focusing manually (I tend to shoot wide open) have caused me to lose images. But for some reason, when shooting with the M9 and Distagon 35 in particular, I get much more interesting and well composed images than when I shoot with any autofocus camera. Perhaps it's the need to be deliberate. I just don't seem to 'see' the same way when I shoot with AF. I never really experienced this with the 5D Mark II and 35L, so it's not a fast 35 thing, either. From what I've experienced, my shoot rate is lower but my hit rate is higher when I shoot with the M9.

As for how difficult it is to transition to a digital rangefinder after using mirrorless cameras: it's not that hard once you get used to manual focus. As others have explained before, get used to just one lens first, and develop muscle memory from the position of the focus tab if the lens has one. Learn to zone focus or hyperfocus if shooting in well lit scenes and you don't need shallow depth of field. Learn to put the focus patch on something like an eye, line or object that will allow you to see when you've achieved focus. It will be frustrating at first, but it will come.

Very interesting. Matches my experience with the school basketball. Is it that the Leica has you looking, with a camera, not looking through a camera? With right eye to the finder maybe that’s part of it.

 

[shawn]

The first image- motion blur, look at the seam on the pants- in focus. I was panning with the shot. Even with ISO2500 and F1, slow shutter speeds on these.

I wasn't complaining about the panning motion blur. I was saying it was preventing evaluating focus. Can't tell if it is front focused or motion blur on that one. Yes, mine has motion blur too, but it is also clearly in focus, just like your third shot.

 

[shawn]

This is the trend I was into before I sold my Canon 5D and 50L 1.2. No eye AF wasn't really problem.



But lets be honest, is it really this important? Only one eye is in focus or only nose in focus. F1.2, F1.4 taken portraits to me became as special effect "portraits".
I don't see it on paintings or often on classic portraits from photogs I respect.

To me the portrait or street shot is where person is in focus. Not just an eye.
Except I do something on porpoise, like taking street photos at 1/8 shutter speed.

And then I look at people shots I took with film, no AF cameras... I missed focus few times over thousands. Moving or not.

Yes, it is still important. If you are shooting off center eye focus makes sure the camera is focusing on what you want it to be focused on. That is a benefit no matter what aperture you are shooting at. Sometimes we shoot wide open because we need to due to the light, sometimes we do it to highlight the subject more. It is one of the many choices a photographer makes.

Ditto Eye AF. I rarely used it before the S1R as it wasn't reliable enough on my Sony or the Fuji. It is a different tool on the Panasonic. And becomes another choice when that is what I want in the shot.