ChrisP
Grain Lover
Whats the minimum focus distance for Leica M's? Does it depend on the lens focal length (I know it will change depending on lens but whats the closest the RF will be coupled for)? Does it depend on the magnification? Do you find this limitting compared to an SLR?
My current go to lens is a Pentax-M (I really like cameras with M's I guess) 50/1.7. Min distance is 45cm. I assume rangefinders can't go this close. But how close can you go and how accurate is the RF in these circumstances? Do you get parralax problems or are they parrallax corrected to this min distance? I don't do alot of Macro work but I do use most of the focal range of my 50mm.
Has anyone gone SLR to RF and back again because of this problem? The RF system seemed perfect to me before I bumped into this little difference and I really want one system to do it all for a small take everywhere camera.
My current go to lens is a Pentax-M (I really like cameras with M's I guess) 50/1.7. Min distance is 45cm. I assume rangefinders can't go this close. But how close can you go and how accurate is the RF in these circumstances? Do you get parralax problems or are they parrallax corrected to this min distance? I don't do alot of Macro work but I do use most of the focal range of my 50mm.
Has anyone gone SLR to RF and back again because of this problem? The RF system seemed perfect to me before I bumped into this little difference and I really want one system to do it all for a small take everywhere camera.
Ljós
Well-known
Hi Chris,
minimum rangefinder coupled focus distance on all M cameras after the Leica M3 is 0.7m. (One hears that the M3 can be modified to focus down to 0.7m).
However, M-lenses come with their own limitations. For example, early 50mm Summicrons can only focus down to 1m. Or a Minolta Rokkor 40mm f2 down to .8m.)
But current 50mm lenses tend to make full use of the 0.7m closest focus of the M-System. So, .45 versus .7 is certainly palpable, but not THAT earthshattering.
One thing: you mention the 1.7 50mm Pentax-M lens. I used one for years. Have marvellous negatives with it - if you want to try out Rangefinders, there are many good reasons. But do not expect dramatically "better" (sharper etc.) pictures lenswise: the 1.7 50, cheap as it is on the used market, is a very, very capable lens.
minimum rangefinder coupled focus distance on all M cameras after the Leica M3 is 0.7m. (One hears that the M3 can be modified to focus down to 0.7m).
However, M-lenses come with their own limitations. For example, early 50mm Summicrons can only focus down to 1m. Or a Minolta Rokkor 40mm f2 down to .8m.)
But current 50mm lenses tend to make full use of the 0.7m closest focus of the M-System. So, .45 versus .7 is certainly palpable, but not THAT earthshattering.
One thing: you mention the 1.7 50mm Pentax-M lens. I used one for years. Have marvellous negatives with it - if you want to try out Rangefinders, there are many good reasons. But do not expect dramatically "better" (sharper etc.) pictures lenswise: the 1.7 50, cheap as it is on the used market, is a very, very capable lens.
ChrisP
Grain Lover
ChrisP
ChrisP
Thanks for the quick repsonse. While it is a fantastic lens the only thing I'm not a big fan of is the Bokeh. I'm also in love with the shape and form of Leicas. They just look amazing. Maybe I spend too much time on this forum looking at them but the asthetics and the quietness combined with the lack of mirror (no vibration) seems perfect to me. So not really looking to upgrade much on the lens, more the body.
I think I'll shoot a week without focusing closer than .7 and see how many shots I lose (or make not how many I would have missed) due to this.
ChrisP
Thanks for the quick repsonse. While it is a fantastic lens the only thing I'm not a big fan of is the Bokeh. I'm also in love with the shape and form of Leicas. They just look amazing. Maybe I spend too much time on this forum looking at them but the asthetics and the quietness combined with the lack of mirror (no vibration) seems perfect to me. So not really looking to upgrade much on the lens, more the body.
I think I'll shoot a week without focusing closer than .7 and see how many shots I lose (or make not how many I would have missed) due to this.
brokencivilian
Established
I have a question, also regarding focus distance.. Are there macro options to leica's?
not that i shoot much macro.. but it's a relevant question.
not that i shoot much macro.. but it's a relevant question.
mooge
Well-known
Broken- macro on a Leica is with either a Visoflex (turns your rangfinder into... an SLR!) or with that 90mm whatever lens with goggles... the viso might cost $100, the 90 costs $3000 or something.
or the Summicron DR, focuses to .45m or so. with goggles. not terribly expensive either...
sure, the M2 and onwards focus to 0,7m, but all the cheap 50s cap out at 1m. so that's the jupiter, all the Canons... 1m is a little far, I've gotten used to it but I have to step back more than I like to...
if you want a fast 50 that goes to 0.7 (like I do), I think the cheapest options are either a a hacked Nokton 1.5 (~$450) or a Summilux (~$1000). ugh. Cosina, where are you ??!?!
for what it's worth, those Pentaxes are not much bigger than Ms... fairly quiet cameras too.
or the Summicron DR, focuses to .45m or so. with goggles. not terribly expensive either...
sure, the M2 and onwards focus to 0,7m, but all the cheap 50s cap out at 1m. so that's the jupiter, all the Canons... 1m is a little far, I've gotten used to it but I have to step back more than I like to...
if you want a fast 50 that goes to 0.7 (like I do), I think the cheapest options are either a a hacked Nokton 1.5 (~$450) or a Summilux (~$1000). ugh. Cosina, where are you ??!?!
for what it's worth, those Pentaxes are not much bigger than Ms... fairly quiet cameras too.
Ljós
Well-known
Chris, regarding the bokeh of the 1.7 Pentax: it may not be a bokeh machine... but certainly leaps and bounds nicer than, say, the 1.8 50mm AF Nikkor 
The only nit to pick with the lens would be that it has only six iris blades, giving hexagonal highlights in some situations.
But if you are looking at compactness and quietness of the bodies, certainly Leica M will deliver. (Though I have to agree with the above poster: a Pentax MX really is in about the same league, sizewise. Thicker, though, because of the mirror housing.
If you can, do try out an M before you commit - they are quieter than a Pentax MX etc, but they are not silent.
The parallax correction works nicely enough, but what might bug you is actually the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the frameline coverage! As you focus any lens from near to far, the effective focal length changes a bit. The M rangefinders move the framelines to account for parallax, but the overall size of the shown framelines remains constant. At longer distances you will get progressively more on the negative than the framelines indicated.
Also, and this can be a real bear, any M body will have only a certain number of framelines/focal lengths. Love 75mm, but have a M2, M3? You will have to compromise. Same for 40mm, etc...
Then there is the fact that you can only focus via the patch in the middle of the viewfinder. Rangefinders do tend to be more inobtrusive than SLRs, but sometimes, if you want to be sure to nail focus, you will have to point at the subject and then recompose, whereas you can get away with offcenter focusing on the screen of a SLR, saving some time and not giving subjects the "I point my lens at you"-vibe.
Not trying to talk you out of rangefinders - just to point out it's not all roses
Have fun exploring the possibilities!
Greetings, Ljós
The only nit to pick with the lens would be that it has only six iris blades, giving hexagonal highlights in some situations.But if you are looking at compactness and quietness of the bodies, certainly Leica M will deliver. (Though I have to agree with the above poster: a Pentax MX really is in about the same league, sizewise. Thicker, though, because of the mirror housing.
If you can, do try out an M before you commit - they are quieter than a Pentax MX etc, but they are not silent.
The parallax correction works nicely enough, but what might bug you is actually the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the frameline coverage! As you focus any lens from near to far, the effective focal length changes a bit. The M rangefinders move the framelines to account for parallax, but the overall size of the shown framelines remains constant. At longer distances you will get progressively more on the negative than the framelines indicated.
Also, and this can be a real bear, any M body will have only a certain number of framelines/focal lengths. Love 75mm, but have a M2, M3? You will have to compromise. Same for 40mm, etc...
Then there is the fact that you can only focus via the patch in the middle of the viewfinder. Rangefinders do tend to be more inobtrusive than SLRs, but sometimes, if you want to be sure to nail focus, you will have to point at the subject and then recompose, whereas you can get away with offcenter focusing on the screen of a SLR, saving some time and not giving subjects the "I point my lens at you"-vibe.
Not trying to talk you out of rangefinders - just to point out it's not all roses
Have fun exploring the possibilities!
Greetings, Ljós
brokencivilian
Established
presspass
filmshooter
If you're going to stay with 50s, the posts are right. Same goes for the 90 f4.0 macro, a wonderful if slow and expensive lens. If you want fast and expensive, along with a .7 meter near focus limit, try the 75 Summilux - a wonderful lens and a challenge to focus accurately at maximum aperture and minimum focus. The Viso works well and is relatively inexpensive, and gives you access to one of the all-time underrated Leica lenses, the 65 Elmar, which was designed to focus from infinity down to nearly 1:1.