How difficult is it to transition from AF to M10 rangefinder?

[AndyCapp]

Dogman:"What's the whole point of taking pictures?"
Since you asked, it is the warm feeling I get when I see something beautiful I created on the screen before my eyes.
Another motivation is the feedback from my friends and peers, which is far less important.
Positive or negative does not matter. Getting the point matters.

And you. What is yours?

 

[Godfrey]

@AndyCapp ... Again, you worry too much and are obsessed with numerical specifications.

There's a vanishing insignificance to shooting f/2 or f/1.4 at 1.2m (about 4 feet) distances with a 35mm lens. The average photograph for MOST people subjects is made at 2-3m (6-9 feet) distances: a 35mm lens set to f/2 and 7.5 feet nets approximately 18-19 inches of DoF. If, however, you're intent on doing copy work, well, then you are typically using a copy stand or tripod and if there's only 5cm DoF available, who cares? The subject and/or camera doesn't move, and you need LV or a Visoflex with an RF camera to focus accurately at f/2.

Of course, why you'd want to shoot such subjects at f/2 is beyond me because most 35mm lenses will perform better at f/4-f/8 anyway for such close-up work. You certainly don't want to do portraits of people with a 35mm lens at those close distances unless you happen to be a fan of big noses and chins due to foreshortening.

The point to fast lenses, in the day of film, was that it enabled you to overcome the film speed limitations of that day and get photos in low light circumstances that were otherwise unachievable. In this day of super high sensitivity digital cameras, such lenses give you a lot of aperture flexibility so you can make sensible choices as to what lens opening to use for any given situation.

Shooting portraits with a 35mm lens at 1.2m and f/2 is not generally a sensible choice. If it's some style option you want to pursue, well, then you will have to work at it to practice both focusing and framing to get whatever results you account as "good".

G

 

[AndyCapp]

@AndyCapp ... Again, you worry too much and are obsessed with numerical specifications.

There's a vanishing insignificance to shooting f/2 or f/1.4 at 1.2m (about 4 feet) distances with a 35mm lens. The average photograph for MOST people subjects is made at 2-3m (6-9 feet) distances: a 35mm lens set to f/2 and 7.5 feet nets approximately 18-19 inches of DoF. If, however, you're intent on doing copy work, well, then you are typically using a copy stand or tripod and if there's only 5cm DoF available, who cares? The subject and/or camera doesn't move, and you need LV or a Visoflex with an RF camera to focus accurately at f/2.

Of course, why you'd want to shoot such subjects at f/2 is beyond me because most 35mm lenses will perform better at f/4-f/8 anyway for such close-up work. You certainly don't want to do portraits of people with a 35mm lens at those close distances unless you happen to be a fan of big noses and chins due to foreshortening.

The point to fast lenses, in the day of film, was that it enabled you to overcome the film speed limitations of that day and get photos in low light circumstances that were otherwise unachievable. In this day of super high sensitivity digital cameras, such lenses give you a lot of aperture flexibility so you can make sensible choices as to what lens opening to use for any given situation.

Shooting portraits with a 35mm lens at 1.2m and f/2 is not generally a sensible choice. If it's some style option you want to pursue, well, then you will have to work at it to practice both focusing and framing to get whatever results you account as "good".

G

Sorry, but your answer is a bit like, "Who needs the fifth gear?" anyway.
I have seven gears on my KIA DSG automatic. The year is 2024.

 

[Godfrey]

I believe we have become deluded into putting so much emphasis on the minutiae involved in photography that we miss the whole point of taking pictures. Manufacturers and online influencers are responsible. This "eye in focus" thing is just simply stupid. It only makes sense (kinda) if you're shooting a close face for the detail. It looks good in advertising for XYZ BladeEdge Sharpness Enhancer software and it gives the babblers something to talk about on UselessTube videos. But, really, why worry about the details when it's just a, well, detail. Especially a detail that is usually irrelevant to the subject as a whole.

What's the whole point of taking pictures? I dunno. It's fun, it's relaxing, it's creative, it's expensive, it gives us a topic of conversation. Oh...I guess the minutiae does have a purpose after all--discussion and debate.

Carry on....

The discussion and debate of minutiae happens because most people really have no idea how to talk about their own or anyone else's photographs with respect to aesthetics and intent. It's so so much easier to debate "getting the eye in focus" or "how do I focus in portrait orientation" rather than "I made this photograph because .... " and so forth.

I make photographs because I see things which catch my interest, affect me, that I want to save that moment ... and they occasionally do the same for other people. Yes, I like them to be technically "good" but that's of far less significance to me (or anyone else, in general) than whether the photograph proves interesting and/or pleasing to the eye at an aesthetic/emotional level.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Sorry, but your answer is a bit like, "Who needs the fifth gear?" anyway.
I have seven gears on my KIA DSG automatic. The year is 2024.

Your answer makes no sense. Why do you think your KIA DSG (whatever that is) has a seven speed transmission? And what relevance does that have to whether you use f/2 or f/5.6?

 

[AndyCapp]

"I want to save that moment"

That's cool; I can sympathize with that.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Sorry, but your answer is a bit like, "Who needs the fifth gear?" anyway.
I have seven gears on my KIA DSG automatic. The year is 2024.

Unfortunately your camera was designed in the early 1950s and has a three speed crash gearbox

More seriously, there’s some really valuable comment in here.

I suggested the other day that, for me, the key difference with a rangefinder is that the viewfinder shows you the world and doesn’t show you a picture. I used to think of it as a ‘subject’ focused viewing experience, in contrast to an image focused experience - although there is a bit more nuance in there. That’s a key element in the direct experience an RF can offer - you see something, echo it in the viewfinder and make the exposure. RFs are really small aperture cameras, often zone focused. Large aperture lenses were always about actually getting the shot in low light at all - and an rf is often easier to focus than an slr in those conditions, but nowhere near mirrorless or af.

On my MA, I set the exposure possibly zone or actually focus then point and shoot. Very simple. With that in mind it’s nice to simply make pictures.

 

[AndyCapp]

Unfortunately your camera was designed in the early 1950s and has a three speed crash gearbox

More seriously, there’s some really valuable comment in here.

I suggested the other day that, for me, the key difference with a rangefinder is that the viewfinder shows you the world and doesn’t show you a picture. I used to think of it as a ‘subject’ focused viewing experience, in contrast to an image focused experience - although there is a bit more nuance in there. That’s a key element in the direct experience an RF can offer - you see something, echo it in the viewfinder and make the exposure. RFs are really small aperture cameras, often zone focused. Large aperture lenses were always about actually getting the shot in low light at all - and an rf is often easier to focus than an slr in those conditions, but nowhere near mirrorless or af.

On my MA, I set the exposure possibly zone or actually focus then point and shoot. Very simple. With that in mind it’s nice to simply make pictures.

You got my point. Appreciated.
My Leica voyage has just begun. I am looking for what it is good for and what it does better than my Sony A cameras.
A more important point (for me) is the question about my current mental plasticity, if you know what I mean.
Maybe I need to stick with tracking autofocus to get the pictures I want.
There's only one way to find out.

 

[Richard G]

Unfortunately your camera was designed in the early 1950s and has a three speed crash gearbox

More seriously, there’s some really valuable comment in here.

I suggested the other day that, for me, the key difference with a rangefinder is that the viewfinder shows you the world and doesn’t show you a picture. I used to think of it as a ‘subject’ focused viewing experience, in contrast to an image focused experience - although there is a bit more nuance in there. That’s a key element in the direct experience an RF can offer - you see something, echo it in the viewfinder and make the exposure. RFs are really small aperture cameras, often zone focused. Large aperture lenses were always about actually getting the shot in low light at all - and an rf is often easier to focus than an slr in those conditions, but nowhere near mirrorless or af.

On my MA, I set the exposure possibly zone or actually focus then point and shoot. Very simple. With that in mind it’s nice to simply make pictures.

I think you make a very importaoint here. The photograph is often made in your head as you see the subject or before you even arrive at it. The raising of the camera to the eye might be required to focus with the rangefinder, or perhaps not. Perhaps the viewfinder only for the framing with the bright line framelines. Or just to centre the subject in the viewfinder, forget the framelines. Or you shoot from the hip or abdomen, previewfinder/rangefinder/lcd screen. Already with the X100 EVF or SLR viewfinder your conception of the photograph is interfered with by a rival image, a proposal to you of what you could have for this photograph, distracting you from what you know you already have. A potentially unnecessary decision step is interposed.

 

[AndyCapp]

I think you make a very importaoint here. The photograph is often made in your head as you see the subject or before you even arrive at it. The raising of the camera to the eye might be required to focus with the rangefinder, or perhaps not. Perhaps the viewfinder only for the framing with the bright line framelines. Or just to centre the subject in the viewfinder, forget the framelines. Or you shoot from the hip or abdomen, previewfinder/rangefinder/lcd screen. Already with the X100 EVF or SLR viewfinder your conception of the photograph is interfered with by a rival image, a proposal to you of what you could have for this photograph, distracting you from what you know you already have. A potentially unnecessary decision step is interposed.

From my experience thus far, the main issue is having your eye calibrated to your instrument so that you get what you expect.
My Leica journey is to achieve exactly that with the Leica RF. Unless I arrive at that point within a reasonable time frame, that's it.
"So long and thanks for all the fish." (Douglas Adams)

 

[boojum]

The extreme shallow depth of field can be useful for formal portrait work where you focus on the eyes. And you can use smaller lens openings when you want greater depth of field. The wide-open f-stop is useful for focusing interest in the photo just as a painter might have the subject of interest clear and the background not. Try following some portraitists on YT to get the idea. I find Matt Osborne, "Mr. Leica", quite helpful and good at explaining the what, why and how. Of course YMMV but he is helpful for me.

 

[AndyCapp]

The extreme shallow depth of field can be useful for formal portrait work where you focus on the eyes. And you can use smaller lens openings when you want greater depth of field. The wide-open f-stop is useful for focusing interest in the photo just as a painter might have the subject of interest clear and the background not. Try following some portraitists on YT to get the idea. I find Matt Osborne, "Mr. Leica", quite helpful and good at explaining the what, why and how. Of course YMMV but he is helpful for me.

Selective focus must be placed correctly. If not, it is not "selective" but random.
Mr. Leica is an excellent photographer, first and foremost. He has theoretical knowledge, and a ton of hard-earned experience.
His pictures are skillfully taken and beautiful.

 

[boojum]

Selective focus must be placed correctly. If not, it is not "selective" but random.
Mr. Leica is an excellent photographer, first and foremost. He has theoretical knowledge, and a ton of hard-earned experience.
His pictures are skillfully taken and beautiful.

Yes, that is why I put his name forward. He is an accountant by trade who became a photographer. By his own account he is shy by nature but has built a YT video business. The point is that many goals are attainable when we want them enough. If he can master the shallow depth of field problem so can you. Never forget the Jesuit motto of learning: "Repititio, repititio, repititio".

My analogy of RF's being like sailing holds. You can learn to sail in half a day and then spend the rest of your life becoming proficient. We all begin at the starting line.

 

[AndyCapp]

"If he can master the shallow depth of field problem so can you."

We'll see.

 

[boojum]

We'll see.

Can you ride a bicycle?

 

[Mute-on]

It is much harder to achieve the results you desire in a photograph using a Leica M than it is using a modern AF, matrix metered camera simply because the Leica M requires technical knowledge of both photographic theory and the characteristics and limitations of the camera itself, coupled with practiced proficiency. If you do not practice, you will not achieve proficiency.

Speaking for myself, I relish the challenge of trying to achieve the results I desire using a Leica M BECAUSE it is much harder than a modern AF, matrix metered camera that would do all the work for me. I enjoy the experience of the challenge at least as much as the experience of using the camera, and the pursuit of my photographic goals. If using a Leica M is ultimately more frustrating than rewarding, regardless of the output, then it may not be the right instrument for you. Don’t forget, photography is meant to be fun! It’s not life or death.

 

[AndyCapp]

It is much harder to achieve the results you desire in a photograph using a Leica M than it is using a modern AF, matrix metered camera simply because the Leica M requires technical knowledge of both photographic theory and the characteristics and limitations of the camera itself, coupled with practiced proficiency. If you do not practice, you will not achieve proficiency.

Speaking for myself, I relish the challenge of trying to achieve the results I desire using a Leica M BECAUSE it is much harder than a modern AF, matrix metered camera that would do all the work for me. I enjoy the experience of the challenge at least as much as the experience of using the camera, and the pursuit of my photographic goals. If using a Leica M is ultimately more frustrating than rewarding, regardless of the output, then it may not be the right instrument for you. Don’t forget, photography is meant to be fun! It’s not life or death.

I feel I am making progress. I appreciate your support.

 

[boojum]

I understand the "I use rangefinder cameras because they are more difficult" argument but do not subscribe to it. I do not play golf with a croquet mallet or make love standing up in a hammock. Yes, it can be done. But my goal is a photo in focus and exposed correctly. I like autofocus a lot and just how many of us are still lugging light meters around? But some folks like doing it the hard way and some do not. Thankfully I allow myself to follow the auto route.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I understand the "I use rangefinder cameras because they are more difficult" argument but do not subscribe to it. I do not play golf with a croquet mallet or make love standing up in a hammock. Yes, it can be done. But my goal is a photo in focus and exposed correctly. I like autofocus a lot and just how many of us are still lugging light meters around? But some folks like doing it the hard way and some do not. Thankfully I allow myself to follow the auto route.

I agree with your view on not making it harder - I use rangefinders where they make it easier and more joyful. Not for image quality - that’s a wash really.

Often I prefer manual focus and, sometimes, autofocus. It’s situation dependent, but I use what I brung

 

[AndyCapp]

It takes practice, and good light helps.
Also, if your subject is calm and used to his hypomanic father's fussing around.
M9+Color-Skopar f/2.5 pancake lens. Hi & lo, Radiant photo std. The green is intentionally exaggerated.