markbrennan
Established
Hi Canon RF users!
More questions from this newbie P users. The level of expertise and the willingness to help is so pervasive and consistent here, I can't help coming back w/ more questions!
Being new to the RF experience in general, perhaps it's typical that I find RF focusing different. But I'm wondering if I'm having some trouble focusing, and whether it's a question of learning.
Using the 50 framelines in my P finder I find it easy to focus when there are distinct edges. However, when focusing on people and people's faces, I find my percentage of out of focuse shots increases. Not surprisingly, this is also the case when shooting w/ wider apertures in lower light.
So I'm wondering if this is typical, or whether it's a matter of getting used to using the RF patch in the P finder, or something else? Maybe the RF patch could be brighter? The alignment seems fine.
Not to blame the gear (because God knows I'm very much an amateur and still learning), but I'm also wondering if the relatively small effective base length (41mm, I think) of the P is partly to blame? For example, would someone like me notice any difference shooting w/ something like the M3, which has an effective base length of something like 62mm? Will that really make a difference? Or is it more a matter of my technique?
Joe, I know that you shoot pretty much only w/ the P, so you're quite the veteran; what's your experience w/ this?
Many thanks.
Regards,
-Mark
More questions from this newbie P users. The level of expertise and the willingness to help is so pervasive and consistent here, I can't help coming back w/ more questions!
Being new to the RF experience in general, perhaps it's typical that I find RF focusing different. But I'm wondering if I'm having some trouble focusing, and whether it's a question of learning.
Using the 50 framelines in my P finder I find it easy to focus when there are distinct edges. However, when focusing on people and people's faces, I find my percentage of out of focuse shots increases. Not surprisingly, this is also the case when shooting w/ wider apertures in lower light.
So I'm wondering if this is typical, or whether it's a matter of getting used to using the RF patch in the P finder, or something else? Maybe the RF patch could be brighter? The alignment seems fine.
Not to blame the gear (because God knows I'm very much an amateur and still learning), but I'm also wondering if the relatively small effective base length (41mm, I think) of the P is partly to blame? For example, would someone like me notice any difference shooting w/ something like the M3, which has an effective base length of something like 62mm? Will that really make a difference? Or is it more a matter of my technique?
Joe, I know that you shoot pretty much only w/ the P, so you're quite the veteran; what's your experience w/ this?
Many thanks.
Regards,
-Mark
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Mark, it might be that your RF isn't properly aligned. Is it dead on at infinity? That's an easy enough thing to confirm. Or, maybe the RF patch isn't very bright, so you have difficulty making out when the images are correctly aligned. It may also be that, since the P doesn't have the clearly defined RF patch the way Leicas, Bessas and Hexars do, you're not placing the patch right on the critical point. I don't think it's really the effective base length so much -- though of course you didn't say what lenses you're using, or what aperture. Less room for error with a portrait-length lens at max. aperture than with, say, a 35mm.
back alley
IMAGES
'Using the 50 framelines in my P finder I find it easy to focus when there are distinct edges. '
i think that's the key with all rf cameras really. when focussing on a face i look for the 'lines' in the eyes or nose or glasses if they are wearing a pair.
rf's are made for lines but some things don't have easy lines to line up.
practice and more practice and then use hyperfocal distance
joe
i think that's the key with all rf cameras really. when focussing on a face i look for the 'lines' in the eyes or nose or glasses if they are wearing a pair.
rf's are made for lines but some things don't have easy lines to line up.
practice and more practice and then use hyperfocal distance
joe
markbrennan
Established
Hi Nick - thanks so much for the reply. I believe the alignment is good. I'm thinking it has to do w/ the brightness of the patch. I may take another look at an M3 to compare; I tried one in a shop once, but it was before I pursued the P. I do remember the M3 finder being very bright, though.
I'm only using the Canon 50 1.8 chrome lens.
Regards,
-Mark
I'm only using the Canon 50 1.8 chrome lens.
Regards,
-Mark
markbrennan
Established
Thanks, Joe, makes sense. On the street I do indeed use zone focusing and simply snap once I've framed.
When I'm home and trying to take some casual portraits of my wife or daughter using wider apertures (and hence w/ a smaller hyperfocal distance) I run into trouble w/ edges. I do feel that it's partly to do w/ practice. I'll keep at it.
Best,
-Mark
When I'm home and trying to take some casual portraits of my wife or daughter using wider apertures (and hence w/ a smaller hyperfocal distance) I run into trouble w/ edges. I do feel that it's partly to do w/ practice. I'll keep at it.
Best,
-Mark
ChrisN
Striving
Hi Mark - I know the brightness of the viewfinder patch can vary considerably, and that can make a big difference to ease of use. I've also found that I need to concentrate to ensure that my eye is centred in the viewfinder - I can detect a difference in the measured focus point by tilting the camera slightly so that I'm looking through the top of the RF patch or through the bottom of the patch. I use the 100mm framelines as a guide (like an aperture gunsight) to make sure I'm looking through the centre of the RF patch.
markbrennan
Established
Thanks, Chris, for the suggestions. I will try out your technique when I have some time at home.
Regarding the RF patch brightness, can this be improved by a cleaning?
Regards,
-Mark
Regarding the RF patch brightness, can this be improved by a cleaning?
Regards,
-Mark
R
ray_g
Guest
Try looking through the viewfinder and cover up the main viewfinder so that you only get the image through the RF window. Is it bright and clear, or is it dim and hazy? Hold the eyepiece up to a light and look at it from the front of the camera. You should see the light coming through the main viewfinder and RF window. Again, how do the images look? If they are hazy, a good cleaning will do. If the RF image is very faint, it could be the beamsplitter. This can be repaired, but gets a bit more expensive. If both look good, a little practice.
My Canon VI-t was somewhat hazy when bought, a CLA really cleared things up. My Leica IIIf required a new beamsplitter, but came back like new.
Just to add, the baselength of the Canon P and VI-t is the same, and I had no problem using it for an 50mm F1.2 lens.
My Canon VI-t was somewhat hazy when bought, a CLA really cleared things up. My Leica IIIf required a new beamsplitter, but came back like new.
Just to add, the baselength of the Canon P and VI-t is the same, and I had no problem using it for an 50mm F1.2 lens.
VinceC
Veteran
I don't have a Canon P, but one of my cameras does have a very dim rangefinder patch. When photographing people, I get the best results when I focus on the eyes. Eyes are the one part of someone's face that have a lot of contrast, especially between the whites and the cornea or if there are highlights reflected in their eyes. In close-ups, focusing on the glasses always leave the eyes out of focus.
djon
Well-known
I specifically shopped for my first recent rangefinder (Leica IIIC several years ago) when I found my eyesight had aged to the point that I couldn't quickly focus my F1s. I did a bad job of a nieces wedding...brought the problem to my attention.
Rangefinders are a LOT easier for me to focus quickly, though now that I'm really aware of my SLR issue, and have rethought the F1 screens, and had them CLA'd, the F1s are equally attractive to that Leica and my Canon Ps...each type best for its purpose.
Rangefinders are a LOT easier for me to focus quickly, though now that I'm really aware of my SLR issue, and have rethought the F1 screens, and had them CLA'd, the F1s are equally attractive to that Leica and my Canon Ps...each type best for its purpose.
markbrennan
Established
Ray, Brian, Vince, Djon -
Thanks for all your help.
Ray, I like Rick's idea, but I'd lose the transparency of the RF image, and thus perhaps have even more trouble w/ faces.
Brian, as usual, I'm really appreciative of your precise diagnostics; you are so reliable w/ this kind of help! Many, many thanks. I did examine the RF patch and find it's somewhere between dim and bright. Perhaps a cleaning is in order. What I find myself wishing for w/ the RF patch is more contrast. But it's also clear to me that it's partly to do w/ my own technique and getting used to RF focusing. I think Chris's suggestion might help.
Vince, the suggestion about the eyes is very helpful. I will try it.
Djon, the speed aspect of RF focusing still somewhat eludes me, though focusing w/ my FM2 wasn't always easy either. For me, I get speed essentially when I zone focus; that is, I don't really focus at all, just frame and click - the focus is pre-set at a distance and I use the hyperfocal distance. So I get speed w/ my P through the framing and shutter release; the experience is more fluid than when I had to squint down the tunnel of the SLR pentaprism through the lens. But finding the focus w/ a face when i'm not zone focusing is what I'm struggling w/. Again, I think it's partly practice.
I've gotten a lot of great info from this thread; I'm really grateful to this great community of RF users!
Best,
-Mark
P.S. - I hope finally to share some snaps soon; I got some scans of some recent street snaps, but left them at work! I'll post next week, I hope. Cheers.
Thanks for all your help.
Ray, I like Rick's idea, but I'd lose the transparency of the RF image, and thus perhaps have even more trouble w/ faces.
Brian, as usual, I'm really appreciative of your precise diagnostics; you are so reliable w/ this kind of help! Many, many thanks. I did examine the RF patch and find it's somewhere between dim and bright. Perhaps a cleaning is in order. What I find myself wishing for w/ the RF patch is more contrast. But it's also clear to me that it's partly to do w/ my own technique and getting used to RF focusing. I think Chris's suggestion might help.
Vince, the suggestion about the eyes is very helpful. I will try it.
Djon, the speed aspect of RF focusing still somewhat eludes me, though focusing w/ my FM2 wasn't always easy either. For me, I get speed essentially when I zone focus; that is, I don't really focus at all, just frame and click - the focus is pre-set at a distance and I use the hyperfocal distance. So I get speed w/ my P through the framing and shutter release; the experience is more fluid than when I had to squint down the tunnel of the SLR pentaprism through the lens. But finding the focus w/ a face when i'm not zone focusing is what I'm struggling w/. Again, I think it's partly practice.
I've gotten a lot of great info from this thread; I'm really grateful to this great community of RF users!
Best,
-Mark
P.S. - I hope finally to share some snaps soon; I got some scans of some recent street snaps, but left them at work! I'll post next week, I hope. Cheers.
ChrisN
Striving
On the speed thing, there's one trick which was so incredibly obvious to the old hands, they rarely think to mention it. It took me ages to discover it (slow learner). Early on in my short experience with RFs, I had trouble focussing quickly, as I did not automatically know which way to rotate the focussing ring, and invariable had to work it backwards and forwards several times. Now I always leave the focussing ring parked on infinity, so I know I have to move the focussing tab to my left and stop as soon as the images coincide.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
With the exception of my V/C 35/2.5 Skopar, all of my lenses have a lot of focus ring travel. I usually guess the focus distance, preset the focus ring and work from there. Most of my glass is 5 decades old.
Joe and Vince mentioned using the person's eyes to set the focus and that works best for me.
On SLR's and TLR's I need to use a split prism focusing screen, which is a rangefinder of sorts.
Joe and Vince mentioned using the person's eyes to set the focus and that works best for me.
On SLR's and TLR's I need to use a split prism focusing screen, which is a rangefinder of sorts.
VinceC
Veteran
Many RF users find they can focus faster than with an SLR because of the certainty that a (correctly adjusted) camera is in focus when the images line up. With manual-focus SLRs, I often find myself constantly focusing the lens back and forth ever so slightly to repeatedly confirm that I'm in the best focus. With rangefinders (especially if you start from infinity, as noted above) you twist the lens until focused, then worry about composing. If the subject isn't moving, you have no lingering doubt in your mind that the focus is accurate.
Longtime use will also let you instinctively know which way to turn the lens for moving subjects who are coming toward you or going away from you. This is a problem for people who like to use many different camera systems because different systems focus in different directions. I was a Nikon SLR shooter for a decade before I discovered the simplicty of rangefinders, and a big factor for me choosing the obsolete and arcane Nikon RF system was because the aperature rings and focusing rings turned in the proper direction for me.
Markbrennan's P clearly has a hard-to-use rangefinder image. When they're bright and contasty, they're a joy to use. When contast is poor and dim, they're a little hard to use. Out of doors, zone focusing works fine, as does getting it "about right" with the low-contrast rangefinder image. Indoors, it just takes longer. My Nikon SP has a dim, very low contrast image. I love the camera but focusing in low light can be very hit-and-miss if I'm in a hurry.
Longtime use will also let you instinctively know which way to turn the lens for moving subjects who are coming toward you or going away from you. This is a problem for people who like to use many different camera systems because different systems focus in different directions. I was a Nikon SLR shooter for a decade before I discovered the simplicty of rangefinders, and a big factor for me choosing the obsolete and arcane Nikon RF system was because the aperature rings and focusing rings turned in the proper direction for me.
Markbrennan's P clearly has a hard-to-use rangefinder image. When they're bright and contasty, they're a joy to use. When contast is poor and dim, they're a little hard to use. Out of doors, zone focusing works fine, as does getting it "about right" with the low-contrast rangefinder image. Indoors, it just takes longer. My Nikon SP has a dim, very low contrast image. I love the camera but focusing in low light can be very hit-and-miss if I'm in a hurry.
markbrennan
Established
Chris, Andrew, Vince - more great feedback! Thank you. Things are really getting clearer for me, so to speak (excuse the lame pun).
Chris - you are right! I keep forgetting which way to turn! You'd think I'd know by now, but for some reason, because of some unknown distraction, I keep ignoring this simple fact. Starting w/ infinity in all cases and turning it back (left) is an amazing and simple trick which should help me a lot. I think I was actually trying to be consistent w/ the focusing ring, but it was in the OTHER direction - starting at the closest distance. Somehow, this way of focusing seems to confuse me. I see that it makes more sense DECREASING the distance to achieve coincident images in the RF window.
Andrew, thanks for reinforcing the eye technique.
Vince - I too found myself readjusting my manual focusing w/ my FM2 all the time, and switched to a RF for the speed and freedom (open view through the finder). I still think this will bear out - it is already. But as you note, my dim RF patch hinders me somewhat. But it's also clearly a matter of getting used to RF focusing.
This is clearly not such a big deal for experienced RF users, but for a beginner like me, these tips are extremely valuable in helping me learn. Thanks very much!
Finally, though it's partly the neophyte's tendency to obsess over gear, and as much as I just love the build quality and simplicity of my P (it's a real joy to use), I can't help wondering if the bright finder and RF patch of an M3 might be better for me...
Best to all,
-Mark
Chris - you are right! I keep forgetting which way to turn! You'd think I'd know by now, but for some reason, because of some unknown distraction, I keep ignoring this simple fact. Starting w/ infinity in all cases and turning it back (left) is an amazing and simple trick which should help me a lot. I think I was actually trying to be consistent w/ the focusing ring, but it was in the OTHER direction - starting at the closest distance. Somehow, this way of focusing seems to confuse me. I see that it makes more sense DECREASING the distance to achieve coincident images in the RF window.
Andrew, thanks for reinforcing the eye technique.
Vince - I too found myself readjusting my manual focusing w/ my FM2 all the time, and switched to a RF for the speed and freedom (open view through the finder). I still think this will bear out - it is already. But as you note, my dim RF patch hinders me somewhat. But it's also clearly a matter of getting used to RF focusing.
This is clearly not such a big deal for experienced RF users, but for a beginner like me, these tips are extremely valuable in helping me learn. Thanks very much!
Finally, though it's partly the neophyte's tendency to obsess over gear, and as much as I just love the build quality and simplicity of my P (it's a real joy to use), I can't help wondering if the bright finder and RF patch of an M3 might be better for me...
Best to all,
-Mark
djon
Well-known
One nice thing about rfdr focus is that the image looks clear all through the process, only the center doubles. Some SLR screens are like that in the larger field, but they're not as dramatic when they're out of focus.
planetjoe
Just some guy, you know?
I'll contribute my two cents here, as well, since I'm an avowed P-shooter (peashooter?) as well.
I've been thinking that my RF patch is somewhat tarnished with age, as some have suggested Mark's is, since I find myself "hunting" for focus, SLR-style, in low light situations. Even worse, I have trouble in low-contrast lighting (i.e., indoors) which is where I do most of my shooting. From what I've read, the P (and generally later-model Canon RFs) are subject to RF aging. I should note that a dim RF patch makes it difficult for me to compose, as well, since I find that I mis-align the framelines with the image "center".
Since the P has a 1:1 VF, I've lately begun to compose with both eyes (why it took me so long to try this technique I'll NEVER know), and I find that it's actually improved my ability to find the focus point quickly. I couldn't tell you why, but I'm sure that my brain finds it easier to focus with cues from BOTH eyes for a change.
I will suggest the following, though, as an alternative: in similar fashion to what Brian suggested earlier, cover the VF window in order to emphasize the RF patch. However, only cover the CENTER of the VF window, using a piece of opaque tape or similar, thereby enhancing the relative brightness of the RF image. This will, of course, eliminate the "double-image" effect, but you'll retain a very distinct split-image focus cue. I saw this hint on the web, somewhere, but don't recall where. The suggestion was to use a permanent marker, which I thought better of. The tape worked for me at a wedding I was shooting, but I've since learned my P well enough that I've since removed it.
Having said all this, I do think that a CLA could improve a hazy VF/RF. That's my next step.
Cheers,
--joe.
I've been thinking that my RF patch is somewhat tarnished with age, as some have suggested Mark's is, since I find myself "hunting" for focus, SLR-style, in low light situations. Even worse, I have trouble in low-contrast lighting (i.e., indoors) which is where I do most of my shooting. From what I've read, the P (and generally later-model Canon RFs) are subject to RF aging. I should note that a dim RF patch makes it difficult for me to compose, as well, since I find that I mis-align the framelines with the image "center".
Since the P has a 1:1 VF, I've lately begun to compose with both eyes (why it took me so long to try this technique I'll NEVER know), and I find that it's actually improved my ability to find the focus point quickly. I couldn't tell you why, but I'm sure that my brain finds it easier to focus with cues from BOTH eyes for a change.
I will suggest the following, though, as an alternative: in similar fashion to what Brian suggested earlier, cover the VF window in order to emphasize the RF patch. However, only cover the CENTER of the VF window, using a piece of opaque tape or similar, thereby enhancing the relative brightness of the RF image. This will, of course, eliminate the "double-image" effect, but you'll retain a very distinct split-image focus cue. I saw this hint on the web, somewhere, but don't recall where. The suggestion was to use a permanent marker, which I thought better of. The tape worked for me at a wedding I was shooting, but I've since learned my P well enough that I've since removed it.
Having said all this, I do think that a CLA could improve a hazy VF/RF. That's my next step.
Cheers,
--joe.
raid
Dad Photographer
I would try some photos inside your home with all the lights on or move your daughter or wife close to a window from which you can get some extra light. This should help you with better focusing.
djon
Well-known
If your P rangefinder isn't startlingly bright, it may not be "tarnish," it may more likely be dust and other schmutz that's accumulated inside the larger front window. Open er' up and clean er' off with gentle lens cleaning tissue and fluid or distilled water with a tiny whiff of Photoflo
(eg two drops in 500cc and you'll only dip your tissue in it, wasting the rest).
(eg two drops in 500cc and you'll only dip your tissue in it, wasting the rest).