Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
So now I have an M2, and a 50mm
f/1.4 Nikkor (Sonnar), and I tried
them out last night. I chose the
Nikkor because I shoot close mostly
close portraits, wide-open, and I
understand that the Nikkor is
optimized for this kind of work.
I was dismayed when I pulled the
negatives from the fixer, to see I
had committed the rookie mistake
of laying focus on my wife's temple
instead of her eyes. And I know why:
I often compose with my subject
off-center, near the edge of the frame.
This is a frame from last night, where
the focus is close to right:
(1/250 sec @ f/2)
With my Rolleiflex, I disregard the center focusing
aid and focus the eyes wherever they appear on
the screen, without moving the camera after
focusing. Similarly with my Leica II and IIIa, the
rangefinder spot nearly fills the window, so I can
focus and shoot without moving the camera.
With the M2, the rangefinder spot is small enough
that I have to move the camera after I have
focused on the eyes, to get the composition right.
And, of course, when I move, the focal distance is
changed -- at f/2, apparently, changed enough to
ruin the image. (I'm not posting them but trust me.)
Solutions? What do you M-shooters do to get focus
right for a close portrait with the subject off-center,
and the lens at f/2 or wider?
Sanders
f/1.4 Nikkor (Sonnar), and I tried
them out last night. I chose the
Nikkor because I shoot close mostly
close portraits, wide-open, and I
understand that the Nikkor is
optimized for this kind of work.
I was dismayed when I pulled the
negatives from the fixer, to see I
had committed the rookie mistake
of laying focus on my wife's temple
instead of her eyes. And I know why:
I often compose with my subject
off-center, near the edge of the frame.
This is a frame from last night, where
the focus is close to right:
(1/250 sec @ f/2)
With my Rolleiflex, I disregard the center focusing
aid and focus the eyes wherever they appear on
the screen, without moving the camera after
focusing. Similarly with my Leica II and IIIa, the
rangefinder spot nearly fills the window, so I can
focus and shoot without moving the camera.
With the M2, the rangefinder spot is small enough
that I have to move the camera after I have
focused on the eyes, to get the composition right.
And, of course, when I move, the focal distance is
changed -- at f/2, apparently, changed enough to
ruin the image. (I'm not posting them but trust me.)
Solutions? What do you M-shooters do to get focus
right for a close portrait with the subject off-center,
and the lens at f/2 or wider?
Sanders
corazon
Established
I know, I have that same problem on my m4-p.
:S A lil frustrating, but once we get better at judging distance and averaging that slight difference it won't be so much of a problem.
= D
:S A lil frustrating, but once we get better at judging distance and averaging that slight difference it won't be so much of a problem.
= D
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Sanders,
Never mind.
Console yourself with the thought that you were dazzled by your wife's beauty.
I often have the same problem.
Anyone who does not, does not deserve to be married.
Cheers,
R.
Never mind.
Console yourself with the thought that you were dazzled by your wife's beauty.
I often have the same problem.
Anyone who does not, does not deserve to be married.
Cheers,
R.
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
corazon said:
I think not. The focal plane is so thin with this lens,
that guestimations that work are sheer fortuity, I
expect. But maybe I will be proven wrong.
I am thinking that maybe I should mount the lens
on my IIIa -- I've never had any problems focusing
closely with it.
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Roger Hicks said:
Roger! You've got it backwards. I am
dazzled by my wife's beauty, but I am
certain that I do not deserve my good
fortune in being married to her.
Have you heard from our friend recently?
Drop me a note and fill me in, if you have.
Sanders
KenD
Film Shooter
Sanders-
As usual, your posted shot is wonderful.
Part of your problem may be the focusing accuracy of the M2 as opposed to the M3 or the screw mount iii series. The M2 has a smaller effective rangefinder base length, so will not focus a wide aperture 50 or a 90 all that well. I tend to use my iiic or (don't tell anyone!!) an slr when shooting close in portraits with a fast or short tele lens.
Keep posting your lovely shots.
Regards,
KenD
As usual, your posted shot is wonderful.
Part of your problem may be the focusing accuracy of the M2 as opposed to the M3 or the screw mount iii series. The M2 has a smaller effective rangefinder base length, so will not focus a wide aperture 50 or a 90 all that well. I tend to use my iiic or (don't tell anyone!!) an slr when shooting close in portraits with a fast or short tele lens.
Keep posting your lovely shots.
Regards,
KenD
Find an object in the image that is equidistant for the point of focus, or focus and recompose. Just be careful of keeping the camera in the same location, and swivel it. Remember that a Sonnar formula lens is not the best corrected for flatness of field, the focus will move slightly towards you as you progess towards the edges.
And agree, your wife is beautiful.
I've used F1.4 and f1.2 lenses on the M2 without problem. I do prefer the M3, though.
And agree, your wife is beautiful.
I've used F1.4 and f1.2 lenses on the M2 without problem. I do prefer the M3, though.
palec
Well-known
I've experienced this, too because I focused on eye iris. Try to focus on mouth or nostrils.
Limpovitj
Established
Sanders,
Annoying isn't it? Well, if you get annoyed enough times, you will also force yourself to learn to compensate. Try this old trick out: rather than focussing and, for lack of a better word, swinging the camera back to compose (thus losing focus slightly), instead move sideways to keep the planes of focus parallel. Was that understandable? Like this: you see your frame (composition), then move or lean a little sideways to pick up focus, and move back sideways to shoot, all the time keeping the camera parallel to the plane of focus.
Try it out. It does feel awkward at first, but becomes second nature after a while, and you wont even notice that you're doing it.
Great picture, by the way!
Annoying isn't it? Well, if you get annoyed enough times, you will also force yourself to learn to compensate. Try this old trick out: rather than focussing and, for lack of a better word, swinging the camera back to compose (thus losing focus slightly), instead move sideways to keep the planes of focus parallel. Was that understandable? Like this: you see your frame (composition), then move or lean a little sideways to pick up focus, and move back sideways to shoot, all the time keeping the camera parallel to the plane of focus.
Try it out. It does feel awkward at first, but becomes second nature after a while, and you wont even notice that you're doing it.
Great picture, by the way!
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Phantastic picture, Sanders.
Like Limpovitj said. And (after pre-focusing) focus by moving your body not the lens. It's awkward at first, but becomes routine quickly.
Roland.
Like Limpovitj said. And (after pre-focusing) focus by moving your body not the lens. It's awkward at first, but becomes routine quickly.
Roland.
Focussed first on my daughter's eyes, then composed. "Pivoted" the camera, but kept camera in place.
Canon 7, 50/0.95 at F1.4:
Wide open at F0.95. Focus on the eye, then pivoted. Missed the focus a bit. F0.95 is very shallow DOF.
Canon 7, 50/0.95 at F1.4:
Wide open at F0.95. Focus on the eye, then pivoted. Missed the focus a bit. F0.95 is very shallow DOF.
Last edited:
Canon 7 with the Nikkor 5cm f1.4 (Sonnar formula), wide-open:
Same method, focus on eyes and recompose by pivoting the camera.
Same method, focus on eyes and recompose by pivoting the camera.
Last edited:
aad
Not so new now.
Sanders-interesting, you're composing in the rangefinder window of your III? I'll try that next time I'm doing a close portrait.
tomasis
Well-known
I longed to see your new images. very beautiful eyes indeed
why not try a 1.25x magnifier so you can use M2 with this like M3.
why not try a 1.25x magnifier so you can use M2 with this like M3.
Nokton48
Veteran
Sanders,
I'd try the lens on your III, before I would pin-it down the M2 or your technique. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the lens has Field Curvature, meaning the plane of sharp focus is curved out at the edges.
BTW How is Norma getting along?
I'd try the lens on your III, before I would pin-it down the M2 or your technique. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the lens has Field Curvature, meaning the plane of sharp focus is curved out at the edges.
BTW How is Norma getting along?
Last edited:
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
aad said:
No no, I skipped some thoughts in there!
I find that the rangefinder on the LTM
bodies covers enough of the viewfinder
window's field that I never seem to have
to move the camera to focus it. Sorry
to be confusing. Sanders
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Thanks be to Limpovitj and Roland,
I seem to have fixed my problems.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55823
Many thanks to all.
Sanders
I seem to have fixed my problems.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55823
Many thanks to all.
Sanders
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Regardless of your focus difficulties, the shot you posted is wonderful. Hope you can forgive that I added it to my 'that's how you do portrait' folder.
Shot a fair amount of film lately, and how much I love my Nikon FM, a rangefinder would suit my needs better.
Shot a fair amount of film lately, and how much I love my Nikon FM, a rangefinder would suit my needs better.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Sanders-
If it's really that serious problem you think:
Step back, frame wider, focus in the center, and crop later.
Edit: sorry i didnt read the whole thread before opening my mouth
If it's really that serious problem you think:
Step back, frame wider, focus in the center, and crop later.
Edit: sorry i didnt read the whole thread before opening my mouth
Last edited:
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Pherdinand said:
But that would be cheating.