How to compose your pics with a Rangefinder at wide aperature F2 or F1.4 ??

Here is a bad example from me 🙂 elmarit 90mm at wide open (2.8) and agfa 400iso.

as you can see left eye is out of focus due to DOF. but uhligfd 's suggestion can be tried. Though I still have doubts as if the subject is angled, it may not work at those conditions. Only solution to me is to use higher iso and narrow down the aperture one or two stops at such instances like mine.

2760088062_800bba95e7_o.jpg
 
Cosine law or rule assuming you recompose by rotation of the camera around a fixed point. As you shift your subject your true point of interest comes forward.
You can compensate by tweeking your focus ring to a distance closer than the the original focus point. Usually 1mm or so is correct.
The DOF mark at F1 is what I use for my Noctilux.
Good luck.
Simon
 
If ypu have ever seen HCB's book of portraits. you will notice that very often, the subject is placed in the lower left or right part of the frame in such a way, that the face is marginally "touching" the focusing patch of the rangefinder - this is the most practical way to approach it - make sure the point of precise focus is touched by the corner of the patch and shoot without recomposing...

This one has been shot ith the Zeiss Ikon and the Nokton 35/1.2 wide open: I could have de-centered the face of the subject slightly more while keeping it in the focusing patch.

1794807300_0c82908851_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
OK. Let's take a practical example:

- the Noctilux 50mm/f1 wide open at 1m focus distance
- the FOV is around 46 degrees (across the diagonal)
- if you do a typical 1/3rd composition, you focus in the center and then rotate the camera by 46 degrees / 6 = 7.66 degrees.
- assuming that it's perfectly straight (which for the Noctilux, it's not ...) the focal plane will have moved to the back a little, and is now from the camera, at distance 1 m / cos(7.66 degrees) = 1.009 m.

Meaning, you have about 0.9 cm focus error. The DOF of the Noctilux at that distance is around 2cm and covers the error well.

Best,

Roland.
Click to expand...

Well, in a close-up, a centimeter is the difference
between focusing on eyes and focusing on temples.

You see this mistake all the time, especially in the
close-up portraits of Rolleiflex newcomers -- they
use the focusing aid in the middle of the screen to
focus, then swing the camera to compose, and the
eyes are soft and the hair by the temples is in
perfect focus.

I had the same problems shooting tight portraits
with the M3 and the 50/1.4 Nikkor until people here
recommended the focus-and-slide approach. Since
using it, I've been able to focus my portraits at
wide apertures without many focusing errors.
Here, for example, is a portrait shot with the
Nikkor 50/1.4 at f/2:

2322669911_b70bd6a093_o.jpg


Melanie at the Cheyenne Diner

Do it a few times and it will feel second-nature.

Sanders
 
Sanders McNew said:
I had the same problems shooting tight portraits
with the M3 and the 50/1.4 Nikkor until people here
recommended the focus-and-slide approach.

:

Do it a few times and it will feel second-nature.

Sanders
Click to expand...

Not to brag or anything but "people" included me, Sanders 🙂 (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55743).

Medium format, longer focal length, shorter focal distance is much more of a problem, DOF is much thinner than a Nikkor 50/1.4 at 1m and above.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
To me this is the main reason I will always have at least one SLR in my kit with a fast lens. I find focusing on the subject if they/it are well of centre and then having to slide back to my intended composition, the main weakness of the rangefinder system. I think it's one of the reasons I don't use my M2 a lot ... it has a very small RF patch!

I can focus my OM-1 with the 1.2 Zuiko on it in a fraction of the time it takes me to focus a rangefinder with my 1.2 Canon in many situations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom