haagen_dazs
Well-known
kmack said:
I bought the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35/2.5 classic
sounds silly but to ALL BESSA users how you manually focus and shoot using R ??
- Thread starter haagen_dazs
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 74
- Views 4K
I bought the Voigtlander Color Skopar 35/2.5 classic
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Good lens. I used to have it in Contax mount (same optics) and liked it.
A 35 makes what I was talking about earlier even easier. Presuming a nice bright sunny day, set your aperture to 16, put the infinity mark on the 16, set your shutter to the speed closest to the 1/ISO of your film and away you go. Everything from about 3 feet to infinity is in focus. Just put it up to your eye to frame and click the shutter. That's how a RF can be very fast and discrete. No muss, no fuss.
William
A 35 makes what I was talking about earlier even easier. Presuming a nice bright sunny day, set your aperture to 16, put the infinity mark on the 16, set your shutter to the speed closest to the 1/ISO of your film and away you go. Everything from about 3 feet to infinity is in focus. Just put it up to your eye to frame and click the shutter. That's how a RF can be very fast and discrete. No muss, no fuss.
William
kmack
do your job, then let go
Like William said, the CV 35 is a great lens, it would be living on my Bessa R except for the fact that the HCB contest is going on.
Wides like the 35 are great for folks with bad eyes. It is a good lens for your question about focusing. With the 35 if you have the aperature set at f8 then everything from about 5 feet to 10 feet away will be in focus. Stop it down even further to F22 then everything from about 1 foot to 20 feet away will be in acceptable focus. Thats about the same as you would get with an SLR also, but with a rangefinder you have to keep stuff like that in your head or memorize the aperture/distance markings on the lens. 😉
Wides like the 35 are great for folks with bad eyes. It is a good lens for your question about focusing. With the 35 if you have the aperature set at f8 then everything from about 5 feet to 10 feet away will be in focus. Stop it down even further to F22 then everything from about 1 foot to 20 feet away will be in acceptable focus. Thats about the same as you would get with an SLR also, but with a rangefinder you have to keep stuff like that in your head or memorize the aperture/distance markings on the lens. 😉
Last edited:
haagen_dazs
Well-known
from what i understand from the slr world, f22 and f16 isnt that desirable.
reason coz if diffraction.
just a point to note.. thus i prob would shoot at f11 or a larger aperture.
reason coz if diffraction.
just a point to note.. thus i prob would shoot at f11 or a larger aperture.
Just a tradeoff between loss of depth of field and loss of sharpness due to diffraction. But actually using f/16 isn't necessary; it's just the starting point for the "Sunny 16" rule... In bright sunlight set the aperture to 16 and the shutter speed to the ISO of the film, mentally at least. This just gets you to the right EV and you can choose any other combination of aperture and shutter speed that will result in the same exposure.haagen_dazs said:
Checking up on the Sunny 16 rule with an incident meter will give you confidence it's valid. And interestingly it's consistent with the exposure chart on the inside of your film box. 🙂 Around my neck of the woods it seems I need to give it another half-stop, so it's more like Sunny-14 for me.
In order to gain maximum use of this, you'd also want to have focus set to the hyperfocal distance corresponding to the aperture in use. And vary focus manually (using the RF or not) for subjects on the close side of the inner DoF.
If all this "good enough" approximation feels odd to you, that's not unusual. It calls for a good understanding of the very basics of photography, and then you "wing it" from there! For someone used to precise methodical processes, it takes some re-thinking. Of course you can still be just as precise as you have time to be. 🙂
FrankS
Registered User
"If all this "good enough" approximation feels odd to you, that's not unusual. It calls for a good understanding of the very basics of photography, and then you "wing it" from there! For someone used to precise methodical processes, it takes some re-thinking."
Good point, Doug. For some reason RF photography fostered this transformation within me. Perhaps it's because the framing isn't exactly precise in a RF camera, that the rest follows naturally?
Good point, Doug. For some reason RF photography fostered this transformation within me. Perhaps it's because the framing isn't exactly precise in a RF camera, that the rest follows naturally?
S
Socke
Guest
FrankS said:
I think so, too. Add B/W film to the equation and you get to a point where you frame loosly and expose just good enough so that you can do the rest while printing.
Who said "f8 and be there"?
FrankS
Registered User
I think we may have jsut hit on the essence of RF photography!
kmack
do your job, then let go
Socke said:
Weegee, f8 on his Crown Graphic, add flash and be where the action is.
R
RML
Guest
I'm gonna put this on my blog! Probably the most succinct description of RF photography!
Nearsighted
RFF-aholic
If I'm understanding your question correctly, you specificaly want to know how to focus your Bessa quickly and your question has nothing to do with exposure. You've stated you know all that. What I do is guestamate the distance, set the lens to that distance and then use the RF patch as a "focus conformation" tool to fine tune your focus.
R
RML
Guest
While walking around I keep setting aperture or exposure time to what I think might be necessary in a certain situation. Shade, highlights, motion blur, all play a roll in my decisions. I always keep my lenses at infinity. That way I always know that I'll be focussing from infinity backwards. I find this to be the fastest way to focus. When aperture is at f5.6 or smaller than it isn't even necessary to focus extremely exact to get a corrctly focused photos as the DoF will take care of it (unless, of course, I'm way to close but by that time I'd be using a wide angle lens anyway where DoF is immense even at 1 meter).
Focussing (automatically) on a modern dSLR is indeed fast as lightning and hand focussing on an RF can't match that in sunlight. However, when there's little light available, hand focussing with an RF becomes much quicker than any auto-focused dSLR. RF focussing is also inherently accurate. In low light situations you'll beat any dSLR for speed and accuracy. Plus you hardly need a flash with the cheap but fast prime lenses available for RF cameras.
For me the biggest problem was to adjust to this "inaccuracy" in focussing. It turned out to be nothing like inaccurate. Another thing was learning to rely on zone focussing, a thing that I still find difficult with a rangefinder coupled lens but easy as pie with my non-rf-coupled CV 25/4. 🙂
Focussing (automatically) on a modern dSLR is indeed fast as lightning and hand focussing on an RF can't match that in sunlight. However, when there's little light available, hand focussing with an RF becomes much quicker than any auto-focused dSLR. RF focussing is also inherently accurate. In low light situations you'll beat any dSLR for speed and accuracy. Plus you hardly need a flash with the cheap but fast prime lenses available for RF cameras.
For me the biggest problem was to adjust to this "inaccuracy" in focussing. It turned out to be nothing like inaccurate. Another thing was learning to rely on zone focussing, a thing that I still find difficult with a rangefinder coupled lens but easy as pie with my non-rf-coupled CV 25/4. 🙂
cfoto
Established
First, I’m new to the Rangefinder world of shooting myself. In fact, I just received my first Rangefinder, the Rollei RF kit, yesterday. So, my ramblings may be way off mark and not worth much...
I have shot for many years with a Minolta XG. Focus in manual. It does have AP mode. So far, I’m finding I can focus quicker with the XG than the rangefinder. I feel this is just due to lack of experience with the rangefinder For the past 6 years, I’ve been shooting with Canon DSLRs. And, yes, auto focus and all is quick. If you’re trying to achieve the speed with the rangefinder that is comparable with an slr in auto, it’s not going to happen. The mechanics of the auto slrs and dslrs are faster than anything we humans can achieve. (Unless due to lighting or high contrast situations, the auto just can’t focus.) However, those mechanics can be wrong in choosing what you see or what you want the photo to look like. The beauty of manual is you have control over the camera and not the camera in control of the camera.
With that said, I suggest doing some research and reading on the bio’s and workshop transcripts of some of the National Geographic photographer’s. Many used to use rangefinders. (Perhaps, some still do.) David Alan Harvey and Sam Abell used to shoot exclusively with rangefinders. (Both have since switched to SLRs from what I have read. With David going digital. Sam, I’m not sure if he is still using film or not.) If you read some of there comments, speed was not a factor in their photos, though capturing the decisive moment was. I’m not sure if this differs from street photography or is the same. Many of their bio’s talk how they will spend hours in one spot waiting for that decisive moment. In this way, you speed and aperture can be set based on the current conditions. When the moment arrives, you need only focus quickly. Perhaps some of their insights will help. They certainly can inspire.
I suspect from your comments in the threads, you want more control over your DOF with set aperture rather than shutter speed. Therefore, setting the hyperfocal distance to infinity is not going to give the control of the dof that I suspect you are looking for.
I’m not sure how many bracket here with their rangefinders, but I find bracketing not a really good choice for me during the years of shooting SLRs. As Sam Abell quoted in one of his work shops:
“..when you bracket, you better try to get the right exposure with the first frame. Part of this is driven by his obsession with compositional issues that can quickly change, particularly when people or animals are subjects.”
If you want to become faster with focusing and setting shutter speed for quick shots, bracketing will only slow you down and you may miss that “decisive moment”. To me, bracketing has only become useful with digital’s where you can instantly review the bracketed shots, then set your camera based on the best exposure and carry on from there. (Even then, I’ve missed one or two prime moments where I should have been shooting rather than bracketing.)
What type of photos are you looking to shoot?
Good luck! (As I’m learning rangefinder shooting, I could use it too!)
-Eric
I have shot for many years with a Minolta XG. Focus in manual. It does have AP mode. So far, I’m finding I can focus quicker with the XG than the rangefinder. I feel this is just due to lack of experience with the rangefinder For the past 6 years, I’ve been shooting with Canon DSLRs. And, yes, auto focus and all is quick. If you’re trying to achieve the speed with the rangefinder that is comparable with an slr in auto, it’s not going to happen. The mechanics of the auto slrs and dslrs are faster than anything we humans can achieve. (Unless due to lighting or high contrast situations, the auto just can’t focus.) However, those mechanics can be wrong in choosing what you see or what you want the photo to look like. The beauty of manual is you have control over the camera and not the camera in control of the camera.
With that said, I suggest doing some research and reading on the bio’s and workshop transcripts of some of the National Geographic photographer’s. Many used to use rangefinders. (Perhaps, some still do.) David Alan Harvey and Sam Abell used to shoot exclusively with rangefinders. (Both have since switched to SLRs from what I have read. With David going digital. Sam, I’m not sure if he is still using film or not.) If you read some of there comments, speed was not a factor in their photos, though capturing the decisive moment was. I’m not sure if this differs from street photography or is the same. Many of their bio’s talk how they will spend hours in one spot waiting for that decisive moment. In this way, you speed and aperture can be set based on the current conditions. When the moment arrives, you need only focus quickly. Perhaps some of their insights will help. They certainly can inspire.
I suspect from your comments in the threads, you want more control over your DOF with set aperture rather than shutter speed. Therefore, setting the hyperfocal distance to infinity is not going to give the control of the dof that I suspect you are looking for.
I’m not sure how many bracket here with their rangefinders, but I find bracketing not a really good choice for me during the years of shooting SLRs. As Sam Abell quoted in one of his work shops:
“..when you bracket, you better try to get the right exposure with the first frame. Part of this is driven by his obsession with compositional issues that can quickly change, particularly when people or animals are subjects.”
If you want to become faster with focusing and setting shutter speed for quick shots, bracketing will only slow you down and you may miss that “decisive moment”. To me, bracketing has only become useful with digital’s where you can instantly review the bracketed shots, then set your camera based on the best exposure and carry on from there. (Even then, I’ve missed one or two prime moments where I should have been shooting rather than bracketing.)
What type of photos are you looking to shoot?
Good luck! (As I’m learning rangefinder shooting, I could use it too!)
-Eric
FrankS
Registered User
An all manual RF camera is faster and more responsive than any electronic auto-everything SLR
IF
expsoure and focus are pre-set.
IF
expsoure and focus are pre-set.
Agree with many of your well-taken points, Eric... If one is positioned in wait for the important aspects of the photo to all come together, not only is exposure pre-set, but as Frank alluded to focus is also pre-set, and without shutter lag the RF camera can react instantly, limited only by the reflexes of the user! (My gosh, does that make it a "reflex camera"??) 😀cfoto said:
I don't recall if this issue has been addressed fully in the replies... This of course is why SLR focusing is mostly done wide open, but it's not relevant to RF cameras because focusing is done with the camera's view/rangefinder, not TTL. So RFcams have no auto diaphragm, and aperture has no effect on viewfinder brightness. Indeed, superior viewfinder brightness is one of the main attractions of a good RF camera.haagen_dazs said:
Last edited:
rool
Well-known
Doug said:
I agree. I preset the focus and exposure.
So when I want to take a picture, I just raise the camera to my eye; that's when the difference between RF and SLR becomes clear: with a prefocused SLR, most of the image is not totally sharp (because of the viewing at small aperture, there is not DOF in the viewfinder) whereas with a RF, the image is totally clear. Then I can compose better and quicker with an RF when I use pre focusing.
I do use SLRs but rarely for street when I shoot "quick and dirty"!
haagen_dazs
Well-known
RML said:
didnt expect this thread to explode into such a popular topic.
everyone has been very helpful. 😀
haagen_dazs
Well-known
FINALLY dawn upon me
FINALLY dawn upon me
I was at work today, read this statement and it FINALLY dawn upon me that RF viewfinder dont get dimmer when one changes the aperture.
i knew this RF in THEORY but i didnt realize realize it !!
oh my God. I always think in an SLR
i slaped my forehead so hard at work just to make me remember. :bang:
OH MY gosh. 😱 😀
FINALLY dawn upon me
Doug said:
I was at work today, read this statement and it FINALLY dawn upon me that RF viewfinder dont get dimmer when one changes the aperture.
i knew this RF in THEORY but i didnt realize realize it !!
oh my God. I always think in an SLR
i slaped my forehead so hard at work just to make me remember. :bang:
OH MY gosh. 😱 😀
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
cfoto said:
Eric,
concerning AF and AE I agree, if lightning is changing fast and the the people around you move fast too which means quickly changing distances, then AF/AE
beats all manual cameras hands down, no matter if SLR or RF.
And of course this is the reason why all pros who have to work under such conditions (sports) use it. Of course one has to know how to use AF and AE, the cameras still cannot think, some nonethless seem to expect exactly THAT . 🙄
The RF is a compromise as all other camera designs are, and so it has weak points and adavantages as all other camera designs have. Summa summarum it may have more disadvantages as a SLR has, nonetheless for certain purposes (low light) it is still unsurpassable.
So after a while you will learn to love how easy and reliable you can focus with the patch, even in an almost dark environment.And maybe you will prefer the compact design for certain purposes in future too.
Concerning your question about street photograpy I would say that if you ask five amateur photogs what "street" is you will get six definitions at least.
The orignal word meant "outside" , photogs who left their houses and studios to shoot in urban environments. Best one does not care about the dubious content which some arty folks in the art biz tried to fill this ctatgory with.
Regards,
bertram
T
tedwhite
Guest
Rool:
I envy you. Out here in the desert there are no streets in which to shoot "quick and dirty," although there's a lot of dirt just lying around.
I have a fond memory of living in San Francisco going to grad school, then wandering around street shooting on the weekends. Two of my images are in a show from that period entitled "'Nam & the Sixties." Last I heard it was in Amsterdam. The show has toured the world and can probably be googled.
Ironically, the day I shot the anti-war demonstrations photos my Pentax had been rendered inoperable by a policeman's club the day before, so I found myself shooting on the fly with an ancient Rolleicord TLR.
And YES! Hagen_Dazs, no matter how much you stop down with an rf camera, the wonderfully bright viewfinder image never dims. One of life's simple joys.
I envy you. Out here in the desert there are no streets in which to shoot "quick and dirty," although there's a lot of dirt just lying around.
I have a fond memory of living in San Francisco going to grad school, then wandering around street shooting on the weekends. Two of my images are in a show from that period entitled "'Nam & the Sixties." Last I heard it was in Amsterdam. The show has toured the world and can probably be googled.
Ironically, the day I shot the anti-war demonstrations photos my Pentax had been rendered inoperable by a policeman's club the day before, so I found myself shooting on the fly with an ancient Rolleicord TLR.
And YES! Hagen_Dazs, no matter how much you stop down with an rf camera, the wonderfully bright viewfinder image never dims. One of life's simple joys.
Similar threads
- Article
