boffen
Established
I like rangefinder style focusing a lot more. I find it to be faster, and most of the time, more accurate.
how do you justify rangefinders?
- Thread starter anorphirith
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 77
- Views 6K
bwcolor
Veteran
I justify them via alignment.
Toad
Newbie
Excellent Question
Excellent Question
I have been shooting a rangefinder now for about a year - coming from DSLRs before that. There isn't a day go by that I don't struggle somewhat with the lack of autofocus, but those days are becoming fewer and fewer as I become more experienced. If I had the choice of owing an M9 that could autofocus on demand, I would buy one - but I don't.
So how do I rationalize it?
1. I get great IQ from the combination of Leica FF sensor and lenses - better than I could ever pull out of my DX size Nikon senor and lens combinations
2. The M9 and attached lens is small - very small when you consider that it is a full frame sensor. When I hiked Iceland this year, I could carry my camera body and 3 lenses in a very small camera bag - and that is significant when you are carrying your kit all day.
3. I come from an old school background - taking pictures in the BA (before autofocus) period - so I understand that autofocus isn't truly required - at least not in the same sense that a great lens is. It just isn't one of the "can't take a decent photo without it" features.
4. Simplify, simplify, simplify: it drives me nuts to carry around a mountain of gear. I typically only carry the M9 and a single lens (typically a 50) and I like that just fine. I don't mind zooming with my feet or cropping a photo to taste - but I sincerely hate changing lenses in the field. It breaks my creative flow and introduces unnecessary risk to my hardware - i.e. dropping a lens or taking on sensor dust.
It's all about compromises What compromises does your photographic style supprt? These days, I find that using a DSLR is far more of a compromise than the lack of autofocus. Your mileage may vary.
Excellent Question
I have been shooting a rangefinder now for about a year - coming from DSLRs before that. There isn't a day go by that I don't struggle somewhat with the lack of autofocus, but those days are becoming fewer and fewer as I become more experienced. If I had the choice of owing an M9 that could autofocus on demand, I would buy one - but I don't.
So how do I rationalize it?
1. I get great IQ from the combination of Leica FF sensor and lenses - better than I could ever pull out of my DX size Nikon senor and lens combinations
2. The M9 and attached lens is small - very small when you consider that it is a full frame sensor. When I hiked Iceland this year, I could carry my camera body and 3 lenses in a very small camera bag - and that is significant when you are carrying your kit all day.
3. I come from an old school background - taking pictures in the BA (before autofocus) period - so I understand that autofocus isn't truly required - at least not in the same sense that a great lens is. It just isn't one of the "can't take a decent photo without it" features.
4. Simplify, simplify, simplify: it drives me nuts to carry around a mountain of gear. I typically only carry the M9 and a single lens (typically a 50) and I like that just fine. I don't mind zooming with my feet or cropping a photo to taste - but I sincerely hate changing lenses in the field. It breaks my creative flow and introduces unnecessary risk to my hardware - i.e. dropping a lens or taking on sensor dust.
It's all about compromises What compromises does your photographic style supprt? These days, I find that using a DSLR is far more of a compromise than the lack of autofocus. Your mileage may vary.
Leica0Series
Well-known
How can you justify using the Internet when there is so much crap on it?
cosmonaut
Well-known
Don't use a camera just because its cool, its a tool, use what gets the job done for you.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Two points come to my mind, the first is personal experience (covered by laws of optic, though), that focusing a 50/1.4 RF lens is much more accurate than with an SLR (~ 70mm RF length vs. ~10 mm for the split-image of an SLR) but focussing an SLR lens is faster because (35mm) SLR lenses are optically designed to visibly snap into focus on the small ground-glass.
The second is that the existence of the Leica 0-series without any focusing aid (same for the Rollei 35 or other scale focus cameras) and the many photos with the subject in focus proove that already estimating focus can be sufficient for many kind of subjects, not only landscape.
Focusing a really fast lens, like 90/2.0, 75/1.4, 50/1.0, is challenging and needs a lot of practice and a close to 100% adjusted RF plus similar good eye-sight. 🙂
The second is that the existence of the Leica 0-series without any focusing aid (same for the Rollei 35 or other scale focus cameras) and the many photos with the subject in focus proove that already estimating focus can be sufficient for many kind of subjects, not only landscape.
Focusing a really fast lens, like 90/2.0, 75/1.4, 50/1.0, is challenging and needs a lot of practice and a close to 100% adjusted RF plus similar good eye-sight. 🙂
Chinasaur
Well-known
Life's too short to worry about justifying fun 🙂
Brian Legge
Veteran
I've hit the point where I find it easier to focus with a rangefinder than when looking at ground glass, particularly without some sort of assistance like a split prism.
I realized that while trying to focus with a TLR recently at its near focus limit. I found myself seeking around, looking for something sort of detail I could use to see if my focus was solid. I would have been able to do this much more easily with a rangefinder.
Granted that TLR didn't have a split prism but how useful those are depends on the surface you're trying to focus on.
I realized that while trying to focus with a TLR recently at its near focus limit. I found myself seeking around, looking for something sort of detail I could use to see if my focus was solid. I would have been able to do this much more easily with a rangefinder.
Granted that TLR didn't have a split prism but how useful those are depends on the surface you're trying to focus on.
andredossantos
Well-known
Im not sure if the OP's post was "concern trolling" but I'll take a rangefinder over a auto everything or even a non auto-everything SLR any day of the week. They are just more fun, FOR ME.
And besides the fact that I like operating them, I can focus a RF with the lenses I use 99% of the time (28mm, 35mm, 50mm) just as quickly as with a SLR. I dont shoot telephotos and i dont have any ultra fast lenses. When I use an SLR I constantly cycle in and out of focus obsessively, wondering if I'm nailing it perfectly. An RF was a revelation for me as since I could not see the focus, I had to just trust that I got it.
yes it is totally possible to do "serious" shooting with one.
And besides the fact that I like operating them, I can focus a RF with the lenses I use 99% of the time (28mm, 35mm, 50mm) just as quickly as with a SLR. I dont shoot telephotos and i dont have any ultra fast lenses. When I use an SLR I constantly cycle in and out of focus obsessively, wondering if I'm nailing it perfectly. An RF was a revelation for me as since I could not see the focus, I had to just trust that I got it.
yes it is totally possible to do "serious" shooting with one.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
In all honesty, yes. I can focus my Nikon FE2's faster than my M6 0.85 – even after the MP optics were installed.
And it's not a matter of experience. I've been using an M6 as my primary camera since 1998, and the first manual-focus camera I ever used was my dad's M3.
But the M has other advantages: with a lens mounted it's noticeably smaller and substantially quieter than the Nikons, the lenses (especially 35mm FL) are noticeably better at wider apertures. In addition, for street work I strongly prefer a viewfinder where everything is in focus, and I often scale focus by touch. There, the M is much better (due to the small size of the lenses, and the fact that the VF view does not change with the taking lens's focus). I find that the overall speed of operation is not slower than the FE2's, and overall my hit rate is higher with the RF than with the SLR.
But faster focusing? No way, not for me.
It's a terrible error to start shooting rangefinder with a lens that has a DoF about the thickness of a piece of paper. Really, that calls for serious expertise. The Noctilux is not a beginner's setup – and the M9 without a VF magnifier really doesn't have an accurate enough RF to nail focus with that lens, anyway.
It's like getting a Moto GP bike as your first motorcycle. Even for an expert, one wrong twitch and you're face down in the asphalt.
Last edited:
Frontman
Well-known
I like rangefinders much in the same way that I like bicycles, or writing with a pen. There are better ways of getting around or communicating, but I use them anyway.
Old cameras are a lot of fun, and even new film Leicas can be considered old, as they are more or less 50's era cameras whch are still being produced. I like to shoot with a mix of cameras, the results are generally similar, it's not so different than finding a different way to commute. Some commutes are more interesting than others, though they make take more time.
Lately I have been shooting with a Nikon F. I love it's sturdy and rugged simplicity. I find it focuses pehaps a bit more quickly than a Leica M, and produces images which are just as good. But it is a heavy and clunky camera, and operates much the way it looks. My Leica M cameras are so smooth and refined as to be on a completely different level.
On the other hand, my Nikon S3 is every bit as smooth as a Leica M, but it is less easy to focus, and the aperture ring on the lens is not consistently-spaced. Even so, once I got used to it, the camera was easy enough to use, and it takes great pictures.
I love them all, and enjoy using each one. If I could only keep one, I have no idea which one I would choose.
Old cameras are a lot of fun, and even new film Leicas can be considered old, as they are more or less 50's era cameras whch are still being produced. I like to shoot with a mix of cameras, the results are generally similar, it's not so different than finding a different way to commute. Some commutes are more interesting than others, though they make take more time.
Lately I have been shooting with a Nikon F. I love it's sturdy and rugged simplicity. I find it focuses pehaps a bit more quickly than a Leica M, and produces images which are just as good. But it is a heavy and clunky camera, and operates much the way it looks. My Leica M cameras are so smooth and refined as to be on a completely different level.
On the other hand, my Nikon S3 is every bit as smooth as a Leica M, but it is less easy to focus, and the aperture ring on the lens is not consistently-spaced. Even so, once I got used to it, the camera was easy enough to use, and it takes great pictures.
I love them all, and enjoy using each one. If I could only keep one, I have no idea which one I would choose.
FrankS
Registered User
Again, just use whatever works for you.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
The OP may simply need to acquaint himself with a good DOF table. I suspect that he attempted to focus his Noctilux at close distance. A 50mm lens at 6 feet and f/1 has a DOF of less than 2 inches.
http://dofmaster.com/
http://dofmaster.com/
bobbyrab
Well-known
Focusing an M6 really shouldn't be difficult so there must have been a reason why you had difficulty. Had the cameras alignment been checked? I've never had one out of alignment but I would assume it wouldn't look quite so crisp. I also found I had a tendency when I first used one to want to keep confirming the focus with even slight changes in the subject due to the focus patch either being in register or not, sort of on/off, unlike an SLR's gradual increase then decrease in sharpening. You have to learn to have faith, and if it turns out not to be bang on there's a good chance it will be close enough. Lastly, and in all seriousness, is your vision perfect, I probably needed glasses 2 or 3 years before I realised.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Because when walking through Rittenhouse Square in Philly or Washington Square in NYC, the Leicas grab the attention of all the girls...
Really, I don't use my cameras as a siren song for hipster photographer girls though. They usually attract nerdy old men anyway... Not my thing. 🙄
I use Leicas because they are what I like. I have a bunch of Leica gear and that's that, I guess. Just simple photography broken down into the most minimal controls possible in a very small package. I guess their small size has something to do with it. Quiet, sharp, reliable, whatever. Plenty of SLR's are these things too. I just like the Leicas.
(and you try putting a real R series Super Angulon on a modern SLR. None of them have real mirror lockup, so it's impossible.)
Phil Forrest
Really, I don't use my cameras as a siren song for hipster photographer girls though. They usually attract nerdy old men anyway... Not my thing. 🙄
I use Leicas because they are what I like. I have a bunch of Leica gear and that's that, I guess. Just simple photography broken down into the most minimal controls possible in a very small package. I guess their small size has something to do with it. Quiet, sharp, reliable, whatever. Plenty of SLR's are these things too. I just like the Leicas.
(and you try putting a real R series Super Angulon on a modern SLR. None of them have real mirror lockup, so it's impossible.)
Phil Forrest
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Sounds like the OP won't be getting a Leica screwmount in the near future! 😀
For speed of focusing I'd rate my M2 as my best camera ... the Ikon I owned had a better finder but the patch contrast varied too much with eye position for it to be as consistently reliable as the M2. An OM-1 with the right screen and an f1.2 Zuiko would be unmatched by any other SLR I would imagine ... it's up there in RF territory.
For speed of focusing I'd rate my M2 as my best camera ... the Ikon I owned had a better finder but the patch contrast varied too much with eye position for it to be as consistently reliable as the M2. An OM-1 with the right screen and an f1.2 Zuiko would be unmatched by any other SLR I would imagine ... it's up there in RF territory.
CK Dexter Haven
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?"
• I don't understand this. How are they "stupid?" They only do what you tell them to do. If you manually select the focus point at the time of the exposure (using the dial or joystick or ECF), you are controlling what the camera focuses on- same as if you turn the barrel of the lens. I don't imagine any serious photographer advocates the AF setting where a bunch of lights go on in the viewfinder and the camera is deciding to focus on the object closest or most prominent in the viewfinder. THAT is 'stupid' AF.
----
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.
• What i don't understand is how the process of manual focus with an SLR is any different than using a rangefinder. With the SLR, you're turning the barrel until the image sharpens. With a rangefinder, you're turning the barrel until two rectangles coincide. Same process. The only difference is that with an SLR, you can do that WHILE in the same eventual compositional position you will use to make the exposure. With a RF, you have to focus and then change. An additional step. I don't see how that can help composition.
----
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'.
• Oh, lord. I don't know where to go with this one. The RF is a gun or rifle? You can shoot an SLR the same way as any rangefinder. The same way. The-- same-- way. I would suggest that a fully automatic camera DOES beat it. It's why pros who HAVE to have results shoot SLRs. And why the few who also shoot RFs say they save them for 'personal projects.'
Automatic cameras CAN be shot in "bursts." They don't have to be. Of all the 'auto' cameras i've owned, i've never shot them in burst mode. Single shot only.
Rangefinders "follow the action?" Except they can't actually capture the action unless you've chosen an aperture that permits you to be sure you 'catch' the subject within the given DOF. Which means the camera has dictated the qualitative aspects of the eventual image. An RF means compromise. It decides you have to 'trap focus' or stop down, or wait and get one shot and then hope it was the right millisecond. Of course, all the RF 'hunters' like to crow that they've chosen the decisive moment.... And all the other possible 'moments' were the wrong ones. But, then in a personal project, no one knows you missed the shot....
[Don't get mad. I've had two M7s, a Zeiss Ikon, a Mamiya 6 and a Bronica RF645....]
• I don't understand this. How are they "stupid?" They only do what you tell them to do. If you manually select the focus point at the time of the exposure (using the dial or joystick or ECF), you are controlling what the camera focuses on- same as if you turn the barrel of the lens. I don't imagine any serious photographer advocates the AF setting where a bunch of lights go on in the viewfinder and the camera is deciding to focus on the object closest or most prominent in the viewfinder. THAT is 'stupid' AF.
----
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.
• What i don't understand is how the process of manual focus with an SLR is any different than using a rangefinder. With the SLR, you're turning the barrel until the image sharpens. With a rangefinder, you're turning the barrel until two rectangles coincide. Same process. The only difference is that with an SLR, you can do that WHILE in the same eventual compositional position you will use to make the exposure. With a RF, you have to focus and then change. An additional step. I don't see how that can help composition.
----
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'.
• Oh, lord. I don't know where to go with this one. The RF is a gun or rifle? You can shoot an SLR the same way as any rangefinder. The same way. The-- same-- way. I would suggest that a fully automatic camera DOES beat it. It's why pros who HAVE to have results shoot SLRs. And why the few who also shoot RFs say they save them for 'personal projects.'
Automatic cameras CAN be shot in "bursts." They don't have to be. Of all the 'auto' cameras i've owned, i've never shot them in burst mode. Single shot only.
Rangefinders "follow the action?" Except they can't actually capture the action unless you've chosen an aperture that permits you to be sure you 'catch' the subject within the given DOF. Which means the camera has dictated the qualitative aspects of the eventual image. An RF means compromise. It decides you have to 'trap focus' or stop down, or wait and get one shot and then hope it was the right millisecond. Of course, all the RF 'hunters' like to crow that they've chosen the decisive moment.... And all the other possible 'moments' were the wrong ones. But, then in a personal project, no one knows you missed the shot....
[Don't get mad. I've had two M7s, a Zeiss Ikon, a Mamiya 6 and a Bronica RF645....]
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
- Local time
- 3:30 PM
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,045
Rough compose, switch the rangefinder and focus, go back and rough compose...or do what I did most of the time with a IIIf, either completely forget to focus or completely forget to compose!
I feel like people were a little too touchy here. I read the OP's post and quickly forgave the usage of "justify". Maybe from being in international education I tend to read past word choice to try to get to the underlying meaning (my wife is Slovak--and a woman!--so actually I practice this all the time! 🙂 Anyway, I took it as a query about how we best use the rf technology to our advantage. I'm glad some people chimed in with helpful hints and suggestions. It also occurred to me that the rf patch in the OP's camera may have been dimmer than normal.
Having owned a D300/D700, which has the best AF system I've ever encountered, I admit I'd be hard pressed to repeat some of the shots with my rangefinder. I also admit that that might be a matter of practice. The rangefinder has other strengths that outweigh its slower focus (in my hands).
This was always my favorite forum because people were positive and forgiving and helpful and I rarely saw people getting defensive.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It's faster for me, and I have plenty of experience with both MF SLRs and RF's.
For coarse focus, the entire SLR field is giving you information about the focus point as you close in on correct focus*, not just a fiddly little patch in the middle of the VF. That gets you into the ballpark much faster, and with visceral, gut-level certainty – especially important when things are moving fast. When the subject is moving, it can be a real challenge to keep a single contrasty subject feature hovering in that little patch. With an SLR you just don't have to worry about that, so long as the subject is in the field.
For fine focus, I find that a diagonal split image with microprism collar, or even just a central fine groundglass, works in a wider array of situations than an RF patch.
I currently use the M6 for wider lenses, and the Nikon FE2 for tele.
Put bluntly, I think that the RF method of focus confirmation is the least attractive thing about the M. Admittedly, the M has one of the better RF's ever implemented, and it is adequate most of the time, but really, that's gilding a turd.
*Yes, you can learn a lens's focus throw with an RF, but the exact same is true of any manual focus SLR lens, so that's a generic feature of manual focus cameras with hard infinity stops, not an RF-specific advantage. In fact, I put a ziptie on my SLR lenses to provide a tactile focus indicator, similar to the levers on some (but by no means all) RF lenses.
Last edited:
filmfan
Well-known
Rangefinders are fun and that keeps me shooting.
Similar threads
