dee
Well-known
It's strange , having been seduced by Leicas and like-a-likes from Zorki and Fed , I am intending to buy an adapter for my24 / 28 / 35 mc /md Rokkors for my treasured M 8 , which means a return to '' primitive '' scale focusing , eased by the instant imaging .
Following intensive practise , with the M 8 , i am prompted to buy a Zara Fed or even a Leica 1 , which could be a kind of release from the constant worry over the precise focusing point . it would make no difference in reality to using a rangefinder , but there is something satisfying about the simplicity ...
Any comments ?
dee-mented ?
Following intensive practise , with the M 8 , i am prompted to buy a Zara Fed or even a Leica 1 , which could be a kind of release from the constant worry over the precise focusing point . it would make no difference in reality to using a rangefinder , but there is something satisfying about the simplicity ...
Any comments ?
dee-mented ?
mnmleung
Established
Dee, I am currently using a Nikon D50 with manual focus AI / AI-S lenses. I often guess distance (scale focussing) rather than try to focus via the finder when using 20mm and 28mm lenses. I use the histogram sometimes to determine exposure. I think this is similar to what you are talking about. I like it, because it separates the focus / exposure from framing and timing. Ming
wolves3012
Veteran
Dee,
I often use hyperfocal distance to save the time of focussing, on a wide-angle lens it's very useful. Scale-focussing or hyperfocal focussing is plenty good enough for many situations. I think I spend too much time determining exact focus in many situations, where I lose sight of the fact that focus is truly accurate in a flat plane only. So far I've had few shots where bad focus was a serious issue...go for it!
I often use hyperfocal distance to save the time of focussing, on a wide-angle lens it's very useful. Scale-focussing or hyperfocal focussing is plenty good enough for many situations. I think I spend too much time determining exact focus in many situations, where I lose sight of the fact that focus is truly accurate in a flat plane only. So far I've had few shots where bad focus was a serious issue...go for it!
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Simplicity is often a virtue, but we should not forget that the R/F of the Leica II was taken to be what it was, a great convenience.
QUAsit
Established
It is not `Zara` - it is `Zarya` (Заря)
Nickfed
Well-known
dee said:
Go for it. Quite a lot of wide angle lenses made for rangefinder camareas have no coupling cam anyway.
An alternative is to have the satisfaction of having the RF windows obscured...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42411&d=1173971242
350D_user
B+W film devotee
Being hopeless with scale/guess focussing, I've taken to remembering a couple of hyperfocal settings. Basically, a 35mm lens, set at 20m, you're good for any aperture from about f2 onwards.
Well, it works for my Leica Standard anyway.
Well, it works for my Leica Standard anyway.
dee
Well-known
Well , my M 8 is set up with adapter to screw lenses . So i shall buy a Minolta SR to Leica screw adapter for £ 62 - and practise on my M 8 - here the 1.33 magnification works in my favour , 'cos i retain the depth of field of the 24 mm , but get a useable 32mm lense , or a 28mm as a 37mm and that magic 35 mm f 1.8 as a nominally 47mm lense - all for '' free ''. This has relieved me of the worry of having to buy more Leica lenses to extend the M 8 experience ... and that 135 mm F 3.5 , is going to be a usefull long distance optic - even if it is restricted to infinity !
when I bought the m 8 , I had no idea that I could use my SLR lenses !
thanks to everyone .
dee
when I bought the m 8 , I had no idea that I could use my SLR lenses !
thanks to everyone .
dee