anorphirith
Established
Hello everyone, I have been thinking about this for a while.
I love the design of Leica's M cameras; I think they are the most beautiful cameras hands down, and every couple month I get the urge to buy one. So I bought an M6 a little more than a year back ( I already sold it), played with it a bit, even got a .95 noctilux on it (got blurry pictures of course…). But the rangefinder focusing was so hard, especially in low light or low contrast. Aligning two rectangles to get the image in focus was fun at the beginning but was just getting more and more annoying and stressful as time passed by. I had a 5D mk II at the same time and a Hasselblad 500c/m that I was using much more, even though I loved the feeling of the small M6 hanging around my neck. The only practical way I can see the use of a Leica M nowadays would be with shooting at summarit or slower aperture, and at a 35mm or wider angle; because the time spent focusing on a fast aperture the subject is gone or the composition lost. So as much as I like M cameras they are so impractical that every time I am about to get another M, the memory of these dreaded rectangles discourages me. I am now much more inclined of using a R8-9 with those very sweet R lenses than an M camera...
As a compromised I bought a fuji X100 that I absolutely love besides the (relatively) poor construction. The autofocus makes it so much more usable, for example I could have never taken these pictures and gotten sharp images with any M camera
Or this one
I think M cameras reminisce of classical photography, they are great for someone who already owns reflex cameras and wants to take some landscape pictures, they’re also attached to the names of a few masters of photography so they are regarded as great tool, but today it’s more like a collector’s or an amateur’s piece. Even though very few pros are still using them for their work, I don’t think it’s wise to take them out for some serious shooting
If you are using a rangefinder as your main shooter, how do you justify the focusing? Do you only shoot landscapes?
How can you make sure than when you are shooting a head portrait with a 50mm at 1.4 that your image will be sharp, looking at dim rectangles on your viewfinder (the depth of field would be 3cm if you shoot at 1 meters away!!!! )
I love M cameras help me out here
I love the design of Leica's M cameras; I think they are the most beautiful cameras hands down, and every couple month I get the urge to buy one. So I bought an M6 a little more than a year back ( I already sold it), played with it a bit, even got a .95 noctilux on it (got blurry pictures of course…). But the rangefinder focusing was so hard, especially in low light or low contrast. Aligning two rectangles to get the image in focus was fun at the beginning but was just getting more and more annoying and stressful as time passed by. I had a 5D mk II at the same time and a Hasselblad 500c/m that I was using much more, even though I loved the feeling of the small M6 hanging around my neck. The only practical way I can see the use of a Leica M nowadays would be with shooting at summarit or slower aperture, and at a 35mm or wider angle; because the time spent focusing on a fast aperture the subject is gone or the composition lost. So as much as I like M cameras they are so impractical that every time I am about to get another M, the memory of these dreaded rectangles discourages me. I am now much more inclined of using a R8-9 with those very sweet R lenses than an M camera...
As a compromised I bought a fuji X100 that I absolutely love besides the (relatively) poor construction. The autofocus makes it so much more usable, for example I could have never taken these pictures and gotten sharp images with any M camera
Or this one
I think M cameras reminisce of classical photography, they are great for someone who already owns reflex cameras and wants to take some landscape pictures, they’re also attached to the names of a few masters of photography so they are regarded as great tool, but today it’s more like a collector’s or an amateur’s piece. Even though very few pros are still using them for their work, I don’t think it’s wise to take them out for some serious shooting
If you are using a rangefinder as your main shooter, how do you justify the focusing? Do you only shoot landscapes?
How can you make sure than when you are shooting a head portrait with a 50mm at 1.4 that your image will be sharp, looking at dim rectangles on your viewfinder (the depth of field would be 3cm if you shoot at 1 meters away!!!! )
I love M cameras help me out here
How did people ever get any photos with any Leicas? Ever? Either amateurs or pros?
As none have ever had autofocus...
Can one focus an R Leica or any SLR any faster?
As none have ever had autofocus...
Can one focus an R Leica or any SLR any faster?
FrankS
Registered User
Range Finder cameras are not for everybody. Film is not for everybody. Manual focusing is not for everybody. Oil paints are not for everybody. But nothing needs to be justified. Find what works for you and be happy.
To be honest, I feel no need to justify anything just because you have trouble focusing a rangefinder. I am happy to hear you have found an alternative that you like.
ka1axy
Member
Justify? I have to justify using something I enjoy using? How do you justify using film when everyone else is using digital?
Because I enjoy using a rangefinder and film. It makes me happy and that's enough.
Because I enjoy using a rangefinder and film. It makes me happy and that's enough.
anorphirith
Established
yes but the capacities are now very limited compared to the available technology
is this even arguable ? it's also more precise & comfortable
redisburning
Well-known
this is gonna sound kind of dick-ish but less QQ more pewpew?
I recently picked up a cornet (a trumpet like instrument) and have been trying to learn how to play it. I sound awful. However, I can pick up my guitar which Ive played for 4 years now and sound good. Doesnt mean the cornet is a crappy instrument. Just means I need more practice.
Sounds like YOU need more practice, honestly.
Beyond focusing, in general an M is lighter, smaller, has better optics on the wide end and is quiet than an SLR. That's how you justify it. Im in no hurry to carry around a 5d (or, better yet an EOS-1n) and a behemoth 24-70L when I could for comparable money buy an M camera, a 21, 35 and 50 plus a viewfinder and have it take up the same amount of room
I recently picked up a cornet (a trumpet like instrument) and have been trying to learn how to play it. I sound awful. However, I can pick up my guitar which Ive played for 4 years now and sound good. Doesnt mean the cornet is a crappy instrument. Just means I need more practice.
Sounds like YOU need more practice, honestly.
Beyond focusing, in general an M is lighter, smaller, has better optics on the wide end and is quiet than an SLR. That's how you justify it. Im in no hurry to carry around a 5d (or, better yet an EOS-1n) and a behemoth 24-70L when I could for comparable money buy an M camera, a 21, 35 and 50 plus a viewfinder and have it take up the same amount of room
FrankS
Registered User
I don't like the colour red. Would those of you who do think they like red, justify why you do.
Does the original poster know this site is the rangefinder forum? Isn't his post like a someone joining a Toyota enthusiasts forum and posting, "how could anyone own and drive a Toyota?"
if I didn't think the best of people I would consider this a troll. But I imagine the OP is genuinely wondering and simply poorly worded his inquiry, not meaning to be so confrontational.
Does the original poster know this site is the rangefinder forum? Isn't his post like a someone joining a Toyota enthusiasts forum and posting, "how could anyone own and drive a Toyota?"
if I didn't think the best of people I would consider this a troll. But I imagine the OP is genuinely wondering and simply poorly worded his inquiry, not meaning to be so confrontational.
Last edited:
Moriturii
Well-known
I see your point, but 0.95 is an extreme example. Even dSLR's would have a difficult time focusing with that I would've thought.
So yea, let's sat f1.4 and up which is more realistic for 99%, that is not hard at all. First of all, like any craft if you just picked up a hobby or interest, you are naturally going to suck pretty bad, but after a while, and I think other more experienced photographers in this forum can agree with me, you instantly get a feel for how far an object is, so at the same time you are raising the camera to your face you already have the focus pretty close to where it should be, and perhaps only need to fine tune the setting to get exact focus.
Now this is how I work, and I am still a novice I think so other people who have more years on their neck I am sure do it better. It's kind of like, when you see something you might like to take a picture of your finger moves the focusing ring RIGHT AWAY. It's easy when it has a tab, you just move the tab just THAT or THIS much and you KNOW you are good'ish, hard when it's just a ring around the lens with nothing to grab on to.
You never tried that did you? You just thought you could instantly focus like a 40 year old master who works at Magnum photos? Nonsense. You need to learn, just like after a few years you immediately know what exposure you need in ANY given situation (because it's not like there are a million light conditions out in the world, if you know a dozen or so you are 90% set), so now you don't even need any sort of light meter in your camera, you just roll by experience, of course no reason not to carry around a small light meter but still
So yea, let's sat f1.4 and up which is more realistic for 99%, that is not hard at all. First of all, like any craft if you just picked up a hobby or interest, you are naturally going to suck pretty bad, but after a while, and I think other more experienced photographers in this forum can agree with me, you instantly get a feel for how far an object is, so at the same time you are raising the camera to your face you already have the focus pretty close to where it should be, and perhaps only need to fine tune the setting to get exact focus.
Now this is how I work, and I am still a novice I think so other people who have more years on their neck I am sure do it better. It's kind of like, when you see something you might like to take a picture of your finger moves the focusing ring RIGHT AWAY. It's easy when it has a tab, you just move the tab just THAT or THIS much and you KNOW you are good'ish, hard when it's just a ring around the lens with nothing to grab on to.
You never tried that did you? You just thought you could instantly focus like a 40 year old master who works at Magnum photos? Nonsense. You need to learn, just like after a few years you immediately know what exposure you need in ANY given situation (because it's not like there are a million light conditions out in the world, if you know a dozen or so you are 90% set), so now you don't even need any sort of light meter in your camera, you just roll by experience, of course no reason not to carry around a small light meter but still
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Jeezus, guys. Forgive him his choice words.
Everyone's defensive and on-edge... because he has a point..... : )
• Rangefinder Pros
+ People think you're cool/rich/good because you wear one.
+ YOU think you're channeling HC-B because you wear one.
+ The lenses actually ARE first-rate.
+ No mirror slap!
+ They're small-ish.
+ They look and feel cool.
• Rangefinder Minuses
- Have to focus in the center. And then re-compose?
- Limited top-end shutter speed.
- Can't focus on a moving subject.
- They don't 'outperform' SLRs.
- You think your 'street photographs' have value because they were made with brand of camera used for relevant/interesting street photographs... 30+ years ago.
- You develop identity issues. Your screen name, avatar, and pets are Leica-related.
----
I don't know... the number of pictures i've lost because of AF i can count on one hand. And those were with my first roll on a Contax G2. The number of pictures i lost or didn't even TRY to take on a Leica... well, that's a heck of a lot.
Everyone's defensive and on-edge... because he has a point..... : )
• Rangefinder Pros
+ People think you're cool/rich/good because you wear one.
+ YOU think you're channeling HC-B because you wear one.
+ The lenses actually ARE first-rate.
+ No mirror slap!
+ They're small-ish.
+ They look and feel cool.
• Rangefinder Minuses
- Have to focus in the center. And then re-compose?
- Limited top-end shutter speed.
- Can't focus on a moving subject.
- They don't 'outperform' SLRs.
- You think your 'street photographs' have value because they were made with brand of camera used for relevant/interesting street photographs... 30+ years ago.
- You develop identity issues. Your screen name, avatar, and pets are Leica-related.
----
I don't know... the number of pictures i've lost because of AF i can count on one hand. And those were with my first roll on a Contax G2. The number of pictures i lost or didn't even TRY to take on a Leica... well, that's a heck of a lot.
anorphirith
Established
yes I'm trying to see how you make it work, not accusing your way of life !
for example does a leica viewfinder magnifier 1.4x helps in focusing ? I'm looking for solutions not arguing
FrankS
Registered User
Right, I figured. But can you understand the cynical view of your post?
Honestly for me, focusing with a leica RF patch was simply never a problem. Sometimes I've used an alternate focus target the same distance away, or used the distance scale on the lens to focus.
Last edited:
anorphirith
Established
HAHAHAHAH lol !
what's HC-B ?
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
Well said Frank.
If the camera fits you and makes you happy to take pictures then pictures will come out of it. With enough time maybe even good ones but no guarantees there.
To argue over one formats superiority over another is like forcing avid SLR shooter to use rangefinders while trying to explain why the system he dislikes is better (and vice versa).
paulfish4570
Veteran
i'm thinking the proper corrective eyepiece might have solved the op's issue ...
redisburning
Well-known
actually I find even modern autofocus cameras to be incredibly stupid.
I put my 40D on center point only, lock on then recompose. the camera cant read my mind, so why try and make it?
with MF (which I like 100x better) slrs I actually tend to naturally point the camera at the subject to focus then recompose it. it's easier to see with glasses IMO plus that's where the split image and microprism ring are.
oh and if I want to channel why not carry around an fm2 and be Steve McCurry? or a rollei and be Vivian Maier? or a gr-21v and be Daido Moriyama? one can use a leica and have no desire to be HCB.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I don't really get how SLR focusing is faster for anybody. It's a statement I see made a lot, but I really haven't ever experienced that, except when using autofocus.
But then again maybe it's because I prefer a plain ground glass screen for my SLRs. A split image rangefinder glass is faster to focus... um but it works basically like a rangefinder then! I also think low light focusing is also easier with a rangefinder. But I guess your mileage may vary.
As always in the end it doesn't matter what tools you use, so long as you get the results you want.
But then again maybe it's because I prefer a plain ground glass screen for my SLRs. A split image rangefinder glass is faster to focus... um but it works basically like a rangefinder then! I also think low light focusing is also easier with a rangefinder. But I guess your mileage may vary.
As always in the end it doesn't matter what tools you use, so long as you get the results you want.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I'll take a split image rangefinder on a RF or SLR over auto focus any day. If you are having a hard time with it, of course use what you want or maybe get an eye exam. I did the other day and both eyes are still in my head.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Rangefinders aren't for sissies
Rangefinders aren't for sissies
Shooting trap or a quick draw single six shooter is akin to shooting a rangefinder. When it's mastered and one gains the photographer's eye for exposure and rhythm, there is no fully automatic camera that beat it.
Automatic cameras are shot in bursts, rangefinders are: 'follow the action and composition, drop the bead while focusing, and squeeze'.
Rangefinders aren't for sissies
Shooting trap or a quick draw single six shooter is akin to shooting a rangefinder. When it's mastered and one gains the photographer's eye for exposure and rhythm, there is no fully automatic camera that beat it.
Automatic cameras are shot in bursts, rangefinders are: 'follow the action and composition, drop the bead while focusing, and squeeze'.
zauhar
Veteran
I think maybe your rangefinder was dim - the one in my M3 is very crisp, I can focus even in pretty low light. My Canon 7 is not as clear, it is more difficult to use at night (although even with my 52-year-old eyes I can manage under streetlights).
If it is speed of focussing, I am not sure - it's been a while since I used an SLR, but I am not sure I was that much faster.
Some people swear by autofocus, I swear at it - that's why I like the M3.
Randy
If it is speed of focussing, I am not sure - it's been a while since I used an SLR, but I am not sure I was that much faster.
Some people swear by autofocus, I swear at it - that's why I like the M3.
Randy