sojournerphoto
Mentor
I agree. My view, and it is opinion and not fact, is that if a user finds themselves using live view all/most of the time then a mirrorless camera would be a cheaper and better option. The primary advantage of a rangefinder is the viewfinder and how it allows you to relate to the world. It’s the opposite of the mirrorless experience, which gives you the picture and not the world.
That said, rangefinders are more suitable around normalish focal lengths - both constrained by the focusing system for longer lenses and as a consequence of the very relationship with the world presented by the viewfinder.
I first picked up a Zorki 4K around 2005 and, in spite of itself, that led me into a Zeiss Ikon and later M4 and MA. As a tool for everyday photography they fitted me perfectly. I’ve now added some mirrorless digital stuff alongside, but the rangefinders just ‘fit’z
Out to Lunch
Menteur
Or like my nieces used to say: "That's old, right"?
boojum
Mentor
The bottom line for me is which camera works for better photos most of the time. What other parameter matters?
sojournerphoto
Mentor
I don’t think we’re far apart on that, for each of our perception of ‘better’.
Archiver
Mentor
If using liveview or Visoflex, the benefit of using the M10 is that M mount lenses are specifically calibrated to work on it. Sony bodies are notoriously bad for using M mount lenses, with colour fringing, focus plane shifting, and overall lesser image quality. Sure, people use M mount lenses on Sony bodies, but this is why sensor mods offered by Kolari have a market.
I haven't used the Nokton 75/1.5 specifically, but I can say that even on a Panasonic S5 which has a thinner sensor filter stack than Sony bodies, M mount lenses don't quite have the same sharpness or focal plane consistency as a M body.
brusby
Well-known
I'd be suspicious that either the lens or M9 or both are out of adjustment, particularly if you've used a diopter and/or magnifier to focus -- which I find pretty important for critical focus of 50mm and longer lenses. I own and regularly use M9, preferring some things about it to more recent M models. But the one serious drawback is its lack of live view, which can be wonderful for checking focus in real time.
How would I trouble shoot this? It's important to confirm the focus accuracy of both the M9 and the lens separately. Without actual lab measurement equipment, it's possible to get good useable results by using a lens or lenses known to be calibrated accurately. I'd start by trying to locate a lens or two known to focus correctly. If you have access to a 50mm Summilux or Summicron that is accurate on a friend's M camera or maybe at a local Leica store, I'd mount it on the M9, place it on a very stable tripod and then focus on something that has a bright specular highlight at a mid distance. I'll often use kitchen silverware in the range of 6 to 12 feet (I check this distance because I do a fair amount of model photography and often focus in this range, so I want things to be dialed in correctly here). Then do the same at infinity if you can find a small bright object. A small specular highlight gives a nice point that is easy to focus on with a rangefinder. I'd take a series of photos making the rangefinder patch images coincide as precisely as possible. If these images are sharp, the camera is probably either correct or very close, Then I'd do a few racking the lens to focus just a tiny bit closer and also a bit farther away. This will let you know whether the system is front or back focusing. When you review the images if any of these latter images are sharper, it probably indicates the camera rangefinder is off.
I'd also try to test the Nokton 75mm on a known correct M240 or M10. It should be very easy to put the camera on a tripod, focus with the rangefinder and then just switch to live view to see if the image produced was sharp or not.
Good luck!
Last edited:
A
AndyCapp
Guest
I appreciate your answer. My main problem is visualising the rangefinder. I have my fingers blocking the view or blocking the parallax meter.
The focusing ring and the aperture are not in my muscle memory yet. If I continue my Leica journey, M10 might be a possible gateway.
I have been spoiled by the mirrorless ease where you actually see what is happening on the sensor level.
The nearest Leica store is in Johannesburg, ZA, a four hour flight from here.
Patience.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
In your case, just get a Z5 and be done with it. You'll be happier in the end than you'll ever be with a rangefinder AND you can use every lens you ever wanted to use on a rangefinder if you buy the lens and the right adapter.
But really? You will never be happy with a rangefinder. You are not the type. That's ok, few are. Deal with it and move on. We do what we have to when it happens but forget it after...
When my Leica M Type 240 finally goes south, I expect I'll simply get a Nikon Z5 and the appropriate adapters. Why not? It works perfectly for that!
But really? You will never be happy with a rangefinder. You are not the type. That's ok, few are. Deal with it and move on. We do what we have to when it happens but forget it after...
When my Leica M Type 240 finally goes south, I expect I'll simply get a Nikon Z5 and the appropriate adapters. Why not? It works perfectly for that!
Archiver
Mentor
I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet. It took me a good month and a half of daily shooting to get reasonably familiar with the M9, and that was after concerted reading of advice for rangefinder shooting similar to what has been suggested in this thread, and asking questions of experienced RF users. If the OP experiments with the camera and the raw files over a few months, he will be deeply rewarded.
boojum
Mentor
I cannot tell someone whether they will be happy with rangefinder cameras or whether they have the ability or inclination for one. I cannot even predict how long the transition will take. Let's face it, this is not rocket surgery. The principle is simple. It is also outdated. But so is film and people like film for their own reasons. The bottom line is that the camera will not make you a great photographer. Maybe, maybe, you will have fun with it. If not, sell it. Easy, eh?
brusby
Well-known
I have and use both rangefinder and mirrorless. They result in different shooting experiences -- both have their places but can easily be used together on shoots to good advantage -- and at current mirrorless prices it's not too expensive to have both.
If you'd like the smallest, most portable kit with sharp lenses get manual rangefinder lenses by Leica, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Voigtlander or one of the many other brands made over the last century. There are plenty options of focal length and aperture available at very reasonable prices and even the least expensive can make excellent images, particularly if stopped down just a bit from wide open. Plus all these manual lenses can work just fine on both platforms although I prefer to use manual rangefinder lenses on rangefinders because I don't like focusing manual lenses on mirrorless cameras when the lenses are stopped down more than a stop or two. They work ok like that but focusing seems awkward to me. Much better to use a stopped down manual lens on a rangefinder where the smaller apertures don't materially affect the focusing experience.
I'll often bring one or two M9 bodies mounted with 35mm and 50mm as well as a mirrorless like the Leica SL2S with a 24-70mm zoom plus an adapter to use M lenses. Just personal preferences but it all fits in one small, very portable bag along with a few other M lenses for variety. Plus this way I have much less lens changing to do, and often none.
If you'd like the smallest, most portable kit with sharp lenses get manual rangefinder lenses by Leica, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Voigtlander or one of the many other brands made over the last century. There are plenty options of focal length and aperture available at very reasonable prices and even the least expensive can make excellent images, particularly if stopped down just a bit from wide open. Plus all these manual lenses can work just fine on both platforms although I prefer to use manual rangefinder lenses on rangefinders because I don't like focusing manual lenses on mirrorless cameras when the lenses are stopped down more than a stop or two. They work ok like that but focusing seems awkward to me. Much better to use a stopped down manual lens on a rangefinder where the smaller apertures don't materially affect the focusing experience.
I'll often bring one or two M9 bodies mounted with 35mm and 50mm as well as a mirrorless like the Leica SL2S with a 24-70mm zoom plus an adapter to use M lenses. Just personal preferences but it all fits in one small, very portable bag along with a few other M lenses for variety. Plus this way I have much less lens changing to do, and often none.
Last edited:
A
AndyCapp
Guest
No Nikon for me, thank you.
I already have Sony FF and APS-C cameras and FE & E lenses.
For me, RF is an experiment to map how far my brain plasticity has degraded.
I already have Sony FF and APS-C cameras and FE & E lenses.
For me, RF is an experiment to map how far my brain plasticity has degraded.
Last edited by a moderator:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
What it takes for one to become proficient at focusing with a Leica M is:
- that the lens and rangefinder are properly calibrated. (This is usually the case ... unless you bang your equipment around a lot, the Leica M rangefinder is pretty robust and durable; it does not ordinarily just "go out of calibration" unless the camera is banged or dropped pretty hard.)
- that the user practices focusing until it comes as second nature. (It's not difficult, but it does take both a good feel for the lens' focusing ring and the visual appropriation of when the RF image coalesces together. If you read the Leica M instruction manual and follow the instructions for use, and then practice, it comes pretty quickly and easily for most people.)
And then, how the M (whether film or digital) differs from a 100% view SLR, DSLR, or mirrorless EVF camera is that the optical system's rangefinder framing lines are *always* approximate. And lens focal lengths are, again, *always* approximate. So what happens is that, with continued practice and use, you get to know your camera and lenses intimately and use the RF framing lines as they are intended to be: as close approximations of what you're going to capture. Once you have learned your camera and lenses, and how they work with one another, you begin to find that you mostly ignore the frame lines because you KNOW what the lens is going see.
It is at that point that using a Leica M becomes fast and intuitive in the hand ... You stop thinking about focus, you stop thinking about the frame lines, you just do it and it is just natural and quick.
The digital Ms (typ 240, M10, M11) have, additionally, the easy capability to use Live View either with the LCD or the optional EVF. This extends the versatility of the basic camera because you can use them for SLR-like/EVF-like camera TTL focusing and framing ... but this capability should be considered definitely an extension of the basic camera functionality rather than the primary way to use it.
If that kind of framing and focusing accuracy is what you're after, buy a DSLR or mirrorless camera. When you do that, just accept that for such cameras (with the Leica models being an exception) that the Leica M lenses are not really best computed for that use. I had several different mirrorless cameras prior to returning to Leica M bodies (Sony, Olympus, Panasonic) and while the Leica M lenses worked "okay" with them, they have always returned superior results for me when used on an Leica M body. Leica R lenses worked much better on the Sony A7 series body, and also on the Olympus and Panasonic bodies... I haven't used the Nikon and Canon mirrorless cameras thus far, but I suspect it is similar for them.
G
- that the lens and rangefinder are properly calibrated. (This is usually the case ... unless you bang your equipment around a lot, the Leica M rangefinder is pretty robust and durable; it does not ordinarily just "go out of calibration" unless the camera is banged or dropped pretty hard.)
- that the user practices focusing until it comes as second nature. (It's not difficult, but it does take both a good feel for the lens' focusing ring and the visual appropriation of when the RF image coalesces together. If you read the Leica M instruction manual and follow the instructions for use, and then practice, it comes pretty quickly and easily for most people.)
And then, how the M (whether film or digital) differs from a 100% view SLR, DSLR, or mirrorless EVF camera is that the optical system's rangefinder framing lines are *always* approximate. And lens focal lengths are, again, *always* approximate. So what happens is that, with continued practice and use, you get to know your camera and lenses intimately and use the RF framing lines as they are intended to be: as close approximations of what you're going to capture. Once you have learned your camera and lenses, and how they work with one another, you begin to find that you mostly ignore the frame lines because you KNOW what the lens is going see.
It is at that point that using a Leica M becomes fast and intuitive in the hand ... You stop thinking about focus, you stop thinking about the frame lines, you just do it and it is just natural and quick.
The digital Ms (typ 240, M10, M11) have, additionally, the easy capability to use Live View either with the LCD or the optional EVF. This extends the versatility of the basic camera because you can use them for SLR-like/EVF-like camera TTL focusing and framing ... but this capability should be considered definitely an extension of the basic camera functionality rather than the primary way to use it.
If that kind of framing and focusing accuracy is what you're after, buy a DSLR or mirrorless camera. When you do that, just accept that for such cameras (with the Leica models being an exception) that the Leica M lenses are not really best computed for that use. I had several different mirrorless cameras prior to returning to Leica M bodies (Sony, Olympus, Panasonic) and while the Leica M lenses worked "okay" with them, they have always returned superior results for me when used on an Leica M body. Leica R lenses worked much better on the Sony A7 series body, and also on the Olympus and Panasonic bodies... I haven't used the Nikon and Canon mirrorless cameras thus far, but I suspect it is similar for them.
G
sojournerphoto
Mentor
There’s a lot to be said for this. I use MA, S1r and GFX and can share M lenses across platform, albeit with some restrictions for some lenses on the digital bodies. I have some other slr type manual focus lenses that can be used on anything apart from the MA, but could be used on an M11 with an adapter and evf. The mirrorless revolution, which I didn’t like initially, has given us a lot.
I agree on stopped down shooting on mirrorless too. Once you get down to f5.6 or f8 it can start to feel a bit odd, just because there’s so much depth of field that you need a bit more than focus peaking to nail it and it’s unfamiliar.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
This, absolutely.
A
AndyCapp
Guest
I am having great difficulty focusing in the portrait (vertical) position. I want to keep the eyes in focus, but they fall outside the rectangle, so how can I tell if they are in focus or not? People move, too, so I have to move or refocus accordingly. This is harder than I thought.
Greg was very patient with me, though he said that I am worse than her aunt with my pointing finger this way and that way (she is a pro photographer).
Greg was very patient with me, though he said that I am worse than her aunt with my pointing finger this way and that way (she is a pro photographer).
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I focus horizontal than recompose portrait.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You're worrying too much and thinking too much:
Just focus holding the camera horizontally, and turn the camera for portrait orientation to make the exposure. Unless you're using a very fast lens wide open all the time, it's not going to change the focus enough to be noticeable. For a good portrait you should always be stopped down enough to allow at least 4 to 5 inches of DoF so that you get the eye in focus, as well as the tip of the nose and the ears...
G
Just focus holding the camera horizontally, and turn the camera for portrait orientation to make the exposure. Unless you're using a very fast lens wide open all the time, it's not going to change the focus enough to be noticeable. For a good portrait you should always be stopped down enough to allow at least 4 to 5 inches of DoF so that you get the eye in focus, as well as the tip of the nose and the ears...
G
A
AndyCapp
Guest
I see something that is physically within my reach.
Today, my question is: What is the point of f/1.4, let alone f/1.0 lenses, if your camera body is not capable of taking advantage of their specialty, the shallow DoF? LV seems to be the answer for M10; for M9, I don't know.
Today, my question is: What is the point of f/1.4, let alone f/1.0 lenses, if your camera body is not capable of taking advantage of their specialty, the shallow DoF? LV seems to be the answer for M10; for M9, I don't know.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dogman
Mentor
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....
😀
...................
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....
😀
...................