jett
Well-known
When you want to get this close, at this focus length, which is easier?
focusing down to 0.7m with a 50mm: rf or slr?
- Thread starter jett
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 19
- Views 2K
zuiko85
Veteran
SLR of course. Focus at .7m, (28 in.) is not close for an SLR and 50mm lens. Most 50mm SLR lenses focus to 18in. a little less than .5m.
jett
Well-known
Sorry, what I meant is, which is easier to focus at that distance.
SLRs focus closer, but they are not necessarily easier.
My RF lenses only focus down to 1m so I'm debating on purchasing new RF 50mm or a new SLR/SLR lens.
Overall, I find RF's easier to focus but the focus is more critical and closer distances. At this point, I wonder if an SLR makes sense. I don't desire to focus very close (macro, etc.).
SLRs focus closer, but they are not necessarily easier.
My RF lenses only focus down to 1m so I'm debating on purchasing new RF 50mm or a new SLR/SLR lens.
Overall, I find RF's easier to focus but the focus is more critical and closer distances. At this point, I wonder if an SLR makes sense. I don't desire to focus very close (macro, etc.).
B-9
Devin Bro
Easy,
Buy a cheap SLR with its respective kit lens (50mm f1.8-1.7-2.0)
An easy kit to find would be a Pentax K1000 with 50mm f2.0/1.7 Takumar lens.
Sub 50$ and a great place to start with an SLR.
Any RF lens that focuses below 1m will cost you atleast 10x what a simple SLR would, its a no brainer buddy!
Goodluck!
Buy a cheap SLR with its respective kit lens (50mm f1.8-1.7-2.0)
An easy kit to find would be a Pentax K1000 with 50mm f2.0/1.7 Takumar lens.
Sub 50$ and a great place to start with an SLR.
Any RF lens that focuses below 1m will cost you atleast 10x what a simple SLR would, its a no brainer buddy!
Goodluck!
Livesteamer
Well-known
Depends what you are doing. For many years my main camera was a Nikon F with my 55mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor. In good light I can still focus it well even with old eyes. A few years back I was taking a lot of pictures of infants in a big church nursery. There I was working in low light and my M6 .85 with 50 Summilux asph was excellent. Set the aperture to 1.4, lens to .7 meters, shutter as high as possible, move in and out gently till the eyes were in focus and take the photo. Worked wonderfully. Wide open in low light depth of field is very thin and the accurate rangefinder help me get it right. With cute babies, get the eyes in focus and if the rest is a little out of focus it won't matter. Joe
Lss
Well-known
RF should remain easy down to closest focus distance for anyone as long as you keep the patch over whatever you focus on.
JMQ
Well-known
SLR, hands down. Just make sure you use a plain screen that will help with focusing. I use a B screen on a Nikon F2. You could use a cumbersome conversion to SLR setup on a RF, like the Visoflex system on the Leica. It works, and is quite fun, but is heavy and bulky.
segedi
RFicianado
jett
Well-known
I mostly shoot family/friends.
I know the simple solution is to buy and try but I'd rather put more thought and buy with deliberation. I know SLR's are relatively cheap (most, atleast) but I don't like camera hoarding.
I just want a simple mechanical SLR with a 50mm lens (preferably something more modern). With RF, I'm happy with 50/2 but 50/1.4 is better. With SLR's I'd prefer a 50/1.4 but a 50/2.0 might be OK.
For RF's:
I'm thinking of a ZM Planar, Hexanon, or 50/1.5 Nokton (newer one). Leica Summicron, maybe, but they're generally more expensive and a Leica lens is not too important to me.
For SLR's:
I'm thinking a Nikon F2 with a 58/1.4 Nokton, 50/1.4 ZF Planar, or a Nikon 50mm/1.4 (or 1.2).
I'm also considering an OM1 with a 50/1.4 (or 1.2).
I know the simple solution is to buy and try but I'd rather put more thought and buy with deliberation. I know SLR's are relatively cheap (most, atleast) but I don't like camera hoarding.
I just want a simple mechanical SLR with a 50mm lens (preferably something more modern). With RF, I'm happy with 50/2 but 50/1.4 is better. With SLR's I'd prefer a 50/1.4 but a 50/2.0 might be OK.
For RF's:
I'm thinking of a ZM Planar, Hexanon, or 50/1.5 Nokton (newer one). Leica Summicron, maybe, but they're generally more expensive and a Leica lens is not too important to me.
For SLR's:
I'm thinking a Nikon F2 with a 58/1.4 Nokton, 50/1.4 ZF Planar, or a Nikon 50mm/1.4 (or 1.2).
I'm also considering an OM1 with a 50/1.4 (or 1.2).
furcafe
Veteran
Assuming manual focus, RF, if it's a Leica M or same quality, even when compared to a good pro-level SLR (Nikon F, Pentax LX, etc.).
lcpr
Well-known
SLR, simply because you don't have to recompose after focusing (which shifts the focus plane back a bit assuming your lens has a relatively flat field). At further distances it doesn't matter nearly as much.
Landshark
Well-known
At that distance parallax has to be considered with a RF. Not insurmountable but you do have to be aware of it.
Because you're viewing through the taking lens an SLR doesn't have the problem.
Because you're viewing through the taking lens an SLR doesn't have the problem.
Mark Schretlen
mostly harmless
Slower lenses are easier to critically focus when using a rangefinder. I notice this most often with a 35mm f/3.5 particularly in close focus range. AF/MF focusing of SLRs and mirrorless cameras in this situation is typically slower and less accurate. Most 50mm lenses are faster than f/2.8 so this may be a moot point.
Jerevan
Recycled User
I think the focus accuracy is dependant on how good your eyes are, what sort of camera you use and how the optical system in total works. Some people take to the RF way of doing things and others find the flexibilty of SLR suit them better.
I think an F2 with a Nikkor-H 50/2 is a pretty good way to get started, and from there on you can expand in whatever way you like.
Photography without a tripod tends to level the field quite a lot between megabucks and cheapo lenses - that is my own experience at least.
I think an F2 with a Nikkor-H 50/2 is a pretty good way to get started, and from there on you can expand in whatever way you like.
Photography without a tripod tends to level the field quite a lot between megabucks and cheapo lenses - that is my own experience at least.
raid
Dad Photographer
In an SLR if the mirror is misaligned, all photos will be unsharp.
In a RF camera if the RF is not aligned correctly, photos will not be sharp.
In a RF camera if the RF is not aligned correctly, photos will not be sharp.
Bille
Well-known
At what aperture?
Richard G
Veteran
With a Leica for 0.7m I do this: push the lens to its minimum focus stop and then move in till the two images of the eye or whatever is the target snap into alignment and press the shutter button. Pretty easy and accurate. I don't know whether it could be easier with an SLR. I doubt it. I don't know what I'd be framing with my Pentax and 50 at 0.45m, and at 0.7m, the standard Leica minimum focus, I might have focussed closer or not close enough with that SLR when I guess 0.7m and bring the camera to my eye.
segedi
RFicianado
I just did this same exercise at lunch, but at .7m I had to lean back... need a macro tube for my M!
mfogiel
Veteran
SLR will give you more flexibility, particularly if you are after portraits, where the eyes are not necessarily in the centre of the image. A fast macro lens would be ideal, a 50-2.0 or 60-2.8. It is better corrected for close up, and usually has more snap as you focus. Typical example of a lens that snaps into focus is Makro Planar 50/2. If you are after shallow dof, my favourite FL is 58mm, and there are quite a few nice old lenses you could find, like the Minolta Rokkor 58-1.2.
201211501 by mfogiel, on Flickr
201211501 by mfogiel, on Flickr
raid
Dad Photographer
Nicely done, Marek.
Similar threads
