Focusing M2 wide open.

S

Sanders McNew

Rolleiflex User
Local time
4:50 PM
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
514
Location
Deepest Appalachia
View My Gallery
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:

Melanie15Aadj.jpg


(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
 
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
 
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.
 
corazon said:
but once we get better at judging distance and averaging that slight difference it won't be so much of a problem.

= D
Click to expand...


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.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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:

attachment.php


Wide open at F0.95. Focus on the eye, then pivoted. Missed the focus a bit. F0.95 is very shallow DOF.

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Canon 7 with the Nikkor 5cm f1.4 (Sonnar formula), wide-open:

attachment.php


Same method, focus on eyes and recompose by pivoting the camera.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Last edited:
aad said:
Sanders-interesting, you're composing in the rangefinder window of your III? I'll try that next time I'm doing a close portrait.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom