SLRs harder to manually focus than rangefinders?

[amin_sabet]

So far with digital cameras, my manual focus experience hasn't been that great. I have an Ee-S screen in my Canon 5D and can manually focus my Zuiko OM primes okay, but not with true precision. Canon AF is not only faster, but more accurate and precise than my manual focus. Same goes for my Olympus kit. I shoot an E-410. Manual focusing is very much hit or miss with the little Olympus. Recently I bought my first film camera in years, a Canonet G-III QL17. Focusing with the rangefinder was a revelation. With time to compose and focus the shot, I was always on target. Unfortunately the Canonet had other problems, and so did it's replacement. I was therefore looking for a different manual focus camera, but the better rangefinders are pretty expensive. Since I already have some nice Zuiko OM glass (24/2, 50/1.2, 50/1.8, and an OM mount Vivitar S1 135/2.3), I went ahead and purchased an OM-2n, which is on its way to me. Can I expect the OM-2n focusing experience to be as precise as the Canonet rangefinder? Are rangefinders, by nature, more accurate and precise for manual focusing than SLRs? If so, I'll bite the bullet and pick up something like the Bessa R3a and a couple CV lenses.

 

[sfb_dot_com]

Yes and no. In some circumstances, but not in others

Both have their merits

Regards

Andy

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Autofocus SLRs like the Canon 5D are hard to manually focus because the screens in them are made for brightness, not focusing accuracy. Your OM-2 will a lot easier to manually focus. I have a Nikon F4 that I got in high school and I replaced its screen with one that has the traditional focusing aids in the middle and its a lot easier to manually focus than the plan screen that came with it.

 

[rxmd]

Can I expect the OM-2n focusing experience to be as precise as the Canonet rangefinder?

With lenses longer than 50mm you probably can, with shorter lenses you probably can't, but there it doesn't matter quite as much.

Are rangefinders, by nature, more accurate and precise for manual focusing than SLRs?

Depends. Rangefinders have an edge with wideangles, SLRs have an edge with longer lenses. Your 135/2.3 would be pretty impossible to focus accurately wide open on most rangefinder cameras while on a SLR it is pretty easy. For a 24, on the other hand, the rangefinder should be easier. Then again, for wideangles focusing accuracy often isn't as critical due to the larger depth of field.

Part of why you had problems focusing your gear accurately on an SLR is probably that your SLRs aren't really optimised for manual focusing. The 5D is OK to some extent with a good screen, but its autofocus will always be more precise unless you want the focus to be somewhere where the camera doesn't know it. (Corollary: If you have decent AF lenses, know how to use the autofocus, and are comfortable with it, you won't need manual focus all that often.) The E-410 with its small finder is a pain to focus manually. The OM-2 should be a revelation in comparison.

Philipp

 

[cmedin]

It's no surprise that the E-410 is hard to manually focus; the 4/3 sensor makes for a pretty minute viewfinder.

Have you tried somethin glike a Katz Eye screen for the 5D?

 

[wolves3012]

To some extent it depends on the models compared. An RF is easier to focus with wideangle lenses and closer distances. An SLR is better for telephotos. In theory...if the SLR has a nice bright screen and good focussing aids it'll be better than an RF with a dim finder and short-base RF....horses for courses...

 

[ruben]

As previously said, it depends on your experience with each breed. But all other factors being equal, focusing a RF is much faster than forcusng an SLR. And focusing a RF with a contrasty yellow patch is even more fast to do than with a dim yellow patch.

Nevertheless, experience is perhaps the most crucial factor. By accumulating experience with focusing SLRs you may be as fast as a RF user. And vice versa.

On the other hand, if speed is not a factor, I suspect that the split image screen of the SLR is of more accuracy than the yellow patch justaposition.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[wgerrard]

I've got a Bessa R4M, a Hexar RF, and some CV lenses, as well as a Canon DSLR. I don't even attempt manual focus with the Canon since the image in the viewfinder is so small.

That said, I do not find manual focus on the R4M and the RF to be an unblemished joy. Frankly, it's annoying. Although the results don't show it, I'm never really sure I've got the bloody things focused correctly. As a result, I spend a lot more time than I want to futzing about before taking the shot.

So, if autofocus works for you, and you're otherwise happy with SLR's, why sweat it?

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Manual focus cameras: Yes and for this reason. I have found that autofocus cameras focus on the center of the image (Some cameras focus faster than others.) When shooting on the "street" you can pre-focus and, in addition, you may want the area that will be in focus to be off the center of the image. Auto focus cameras are excellent with sports or action where the information to be focused is in the center of the frame.

 

[Morca007]

Despite trying my darndest for the past few months, I can still pick up my Nikon FG and snap an image into focus much faster than I can on my Bessa R.
Especially when it comes to doing portraits, it seems.

 

[Prosaic]

Are rangefinders, by nature, more accurate and precise for manual focusing than SLRs? If so, I'll bite the bullet and pick up something like the Bessa R3a and a couple CV lenses.

Well... superfast lenses are tricky on either side.

 

[Rapscallion]

I still find SLRs easier to focus. I need more practice.

 

[amin_sabet]

Wow, I wasn't expecting this many replies so fast! cmedin asked if I had tried a Katz Eye for the 5D. Katz Eye doesn't offer one, so my choices are Haoda Fu, SLRDaren, and Brightscreen for split prism focusing aides, but most folks seem to recommend just the Ee-S. Honestly, it's not so bad. At f/2.8 and slower, I can manually focus okay. Still, the rangefinder method seems much more effective. I mainly like to shoot with wides and normals, rarely telephotos. I'm really hoping to be able to manually focus the OM-2n. Did the OM-2n come with a good focusing screen, or is that something I should look for to purchase separately?[FONT=Geneva, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Cale Arthur]

I'm really hoping to be able to manually focus the OM-2n.

I think you're in for a very pleasant surprise! OM finders are fantastic.🙂

--c--

 

[cmedin]

Did the OM-2n come with a good focusing screen, or is that something I should look for to purchase separately?[FONT=Geneva, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

I kind of assumed that KatzEye would have one, strange that they don't.

The OM-2n probably has a 1-13 focusing screen in it (split image and microprism). You will love it. I have an OM2 and it's the best finder and screen I've ever used.

 

[Johnmcd]

Wow, I wasn't expecting this many replies so fast! cmedin asked if I had tried a Katz Eye for the 5D. Katz Eye doesn't offer one, so my choices are Haoda Fu, SLRDaren, and Brightscreen for split prism focusing aides, but most folks seem to recommend just the Ee-S. Honestly, it's not so bad. At f/2.8 and slower, I can manually focus okay. Still, the rangefinder method seems much more effective. I mainly like to shoot with wides and normals, rarely telephotos. I'm really hoping to be able to manually focus the OM-2n. Did the OM-2n come with a good focusing screen, or is that something I should look for to purchase separately?[FONT=Geneva, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

I have an OM2 and a 20D DSLR. The viewfinder of the OM2 is HUGE! Though you are a better off with the 5D viewfinder than my 20D 🙂 As others have said, the screen on the 5D is not designed for manual focus so don't expect too much.

The split image screen on an OM2 is designed solely for fast manual focussing and is a pleasure to use fast.

Maybe it is beacuse I was raised on split image manual SLR's, but I can focus much quicker than with my RD1. I'm like wgerrard, I sometimes fudge back and forth making absolutely sure I'm in focus, especially when wide open as I am paranoid of not being spot on. Never felt like that with the OM.

Maybe I just need more practice.

Note : the only problem with the split image is that sometimes with telephotos one half of the split circle will 'black' out. Pain when that happens but I think that is due to the design and can't be helped.

Don't sweat it - you'll love the OM2 🙂

Ohh and BTW the OM2 has many different focussing screens that can be changed in a second or two. Just find one on the bay that suits you.

Couldn't help myself - here's my OM2. You can just about see that big viewfinder through the 1.4 🙂

Cheers,

John

 

[FallisPhoto]

So far with digital cameras, my manual focus experience hasn't been that great. I have an Ee-S screen in my Canon 5D and can manually focus my Zuiko OM primes okay, but not with true precision. Canon AF is not only faster, but more accurate and precise than my manual focus. Same goes for my Olympus kit. I shoot an E-410. Manual focusing is very much hit or miss with the little Olympus. Recently I bought my first film camera in years, a Canonet G-III QL17. Focusing with the rangefinder was a revelation. With time to compose and focus the shot, I was always on target. Unfortunately the Canonet had other problems, and so did it's replacement. I was therefore looking for a different manual focus camera, but the better rangefinders are pretty expensive. Since I already have some nice Zuiko OM glass (24/2, 50/1.2, 50/1.8, and an OM mount Vivitar S1 135/2.3), I went ahead and purchased an OM-2n, which is on its way to me. Can I expect the OM-2n focusing experience to be as precise as the Canonet rangefinder? Are rangefinders, by nature, more accurate and precise for manual focusing than SLRs? If so, I'll bite the bullet and pick up something like the Bessa R3a and a couple CV lenses.

Depends. As a general rule, rangefinders are more precise, especially in low light or mixed light. This is because most SLRs are not really built for precision; this has been the case ever since they went from the highly precise ground glass focusing screens to much brighter but less contrasty plastic fresnel lens focusing screens. SLRs have a range of focus adjustment where the image seems to be in focus, but within this range of adjustment, only one setting can be right; the rest are off, sometimes by quite a bit.

 

[amin_sabet]

I think you're in for a very pleasant surprise! OM finders are fantastic.🙂

--c--

I kind of assumed that KatzEye would have one, strange that they don't.

The OM-2n probably has a 1-13 focusing screen in it (split image and microprism). You will love it. I have an OM2 and it's the best finder and screen I've ever used.

Don't sweat it - you'll love the OM2 🙂

Thanks all. Now that's the stuff I want to hear 🙂.

Ohh and BTW the OM2 has many different focussing screens that can be changed in a second or two. Just find one on the bay that suits you.

Couldn't help myself - here's my OM2.

Very nice looking OM2 you have John. With regards to the different screens, is there one you'd recommend?

 

[Cale Arthur]

Here's a link to the run-down of all the OM screens (link) - be forwarned, though: they can get a bit pricey, depending on rarity. I have a 1-13 in my OM-1, and had an 1-3 in my OM-2 (before it was gifted).. i preferred the 1-3 for it's simplicity.

--c--

 

[JoeV]

Concerning ease of focus, I don't think it wise at all to generalize that 'all rangefinders are more accurate to focus than all SLRs'. There is more variability between models and brands of SLRs, and between models and brands of rangefinders, than across species. Some FSU rangefinders just plain suck for focus, while many manual focus SLRs from the 1970s and 1980s are pretty darn good. In my opinion the downfall in manual focus for SLRs began with the first autofocus film systems.

Like most anything else in life, the devil is in the details. Like the urban myth about slow shutter speeds hand-held and rangefinders being better than SLRs; I find a much wider difference between curtain shutter and leaf shutter designs, in this regard, than between SLR and rangefinder. My Retina IIIc, with a leaf shutter up front, is just plain sweet for slow speed shooting, primarily because of the shutter design, not because it's a rangefinder.

And, of course, the camera that's 'best' for any occasion is the one you happen to be carrying, regardless of type, brand or model. F/8 and be there.

~Joe