shawn
Mentor
That will let one know if MF is for them but is still has some big differences from RF focusing.
With an EVF you can focus anywhere on the screen vs only focusing in the center (and recomposing) with the RF.
Low light the EVF will adjust for brightness, the RF won't.
You can see DOF on the EVF, can't on the RF. Flip side is the RF will show you the background which you may or may not see on the EVF depending upon the F stop.
Precise framing vs estimated framing.
Precise view vs parallax and changing frame size.
Possibility to visually see the exposure on the EVF vs not on the RF.
JohnSantaFe
Newbie
Glad you weighed in. Those are important considerations and that’s why I posed the question. Really grateful for your post!Rangefinder shooting with a Leica M brings its own special rewards and challenges. I have to say that while I was a dedicated Leica M guy in my 40's now that I am in my 60's I do sometimes struggle. I say this for a few reasons. Back then I always shot with a Leica M3 which had the best viewfinder and I found it eminently workable.
-The M3 had a finder magnification of .91. Since then it has all been downhill - I bought a Leica M8 digital without quite realizing what impact a viewfinder magnification of a paltry .68 would have on my shooting. The M10 has .73 I believe - better than my old M8 but not by a hell of a lot. Possibly OK if you shoot 28mm or 35mm where the depth of field is greater and focusing accuracy less critical but if you are like me and like shooting 50mm and 90mm then - bad luck! Shooting with these slightly longer lenses is a crap shoot. Of course, you could use a top mounted accessory EVF but these are hellish expensive and of course kind of defeat the purpose of using a rangefinder camera. Or you can do as I do a use a screw in accessory magnifier for the viewfinder. But the best ones are Leica and again cost $$$$$$$$$$$.
-My eyes have aged significantly and Leica M cameras do not have any inbuilt diopter adjustments. Of course you can buy a suitable Leica screw in diopter but last time I checked my local camera store these Leica ones are $400 Australian (not sure in USA or Europe but you get the idea.) And if your eyeglass prescription changes over the years as mine did then you must once more buy a new diopter as the Leica ones each only come in a single level of adjustment. You can find some adjustable ones and buy one of these, but these tend not to be as good as the Leica ones (of course) through they can work. BTW finding the right diopter is a bit of an art and a science in itself due to the way Leica calibrate their finders. That is to say if your eyeglass prescription is for -2 diopters do not assume the diopter you need to buy will be the same - it is not. (I will leave you to do the research on the intricacies.) I would advise that if you go down the Leica M route and need eye glass correction then consider buying a variable diopter one - it's just easier although it comes with its own issues.
- Success with a Leica M depends on what your shooting habits, expectations and subject types are. You need to be quite slow and deliberate. If this does not describe your style of shooting then maybe a Leica M is not for you.
- You need to budget for a recalibration of your rangefinder - many people do it annually (which also means being without the camera for a time and if you send it to Leica that might be for quite a long time. But it is something a good technician can do if you can find one locally. Again there will be a cost (I would guess around $100+ for the service) BTW I have had mine go out of calibration even though I "baby" the camera. But if your camera takes a bump or sometimes even vibration (as in an overhead storage on a long flight - this happened to mine) then this can do it too. And that can ruin a holiday - believe me, I know.
- I own some modern digital cameras but only have one or two AF lenses for them. My preference is to shoot manual focus in any event as I like trying out old vintage lenses (including Leica M glass and Leica LTM glass) on them. AF comes in handy when I know that the shooting success is likely to depending on me being able to focus and shoot quickly. I have nothing against AF and enjoy using such equipment when the need and opportunity arises. MF does take some getting used to but it's not by any means an insurmountable hurdle. And with Leica M cameras there are relatively few settings to worry about and once the camera is set up for the most part you just need to think about focusing, aperture, shutter speed and that's it (and even then these days shutter speed can be left to the camera - but you still need to be cognizant of what happending with the other two variables.)
- Shooting Leica M cameras are a labor of love. If you fall for it you will willingly tolerate all of the crap that comes with it. (A bit like being married).
I am sounding far too negative but I just want you to understand the downsides of shooting Leica M cameras. As for me if I were shooting film still, I would probably have kept my M3 and still be more or less happily shooting this Leica M but as I now shoot digital exclusively, this is not on the cards. I was seriously tempted to buy a Leica type 240 M but was put off by all of the above considerations drawn from my own prior experience. My next Leica (if indeed there is one in my future) is more likely to be one in the SL range. There is another option that many people have chosen who want a rangefinder like experience.........buy a Fujifilm X Pro 2 or Xpro 3 which is not a bad compromise.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
That doesn't allow for pull focusing though - you can pre-focus, but unless something's changed in recent years, I'm pretty sure you can't then adjust on the fly using AF alone. With manual focus, you can pre-focus on where you think they'll be and then adjust the focus as you pan to take the shot.
Incidentally, I've tried doing this with Fuji's focus-by-wire lenses and I really don't find it as easy as using a focus tab, so even when I'm shooting digital on the Fuji bodies, I prefer using adapted RF lenses, typically.
Actually.... a lot of skateboarding photographers do use manual focus bodies. Not always Leicas, although that does happen; the standard for a long time was Hasselblads because of the leaf shutter's flash sync benefits.
We must be looking at two different photographs.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have used manual focus to capture motorcycle road racing events on the Isle of Man with very good success. Used MF also to capture motorcycle Gran Prix racing back in the day at Laguna Seca (1980s? I forget) ... and that time with a medium format camera (Mamiya 1000F). I've covered other sporting events (basket ball, football, baseball, track and field, etc etc) with manual focus cameras of various types too, mostly Nikon.
I didn't own an AF camera until early '00s. I turn off AF most of the time still ...
I've worn glasses most of my life and, at 69+, can no longer read at hand-held book sight distances without them. However, I can still see the split image in my Leicas well enough to focus very accurately if I take my glasses off... eh? I dunno.
G
I didn't own an AF camera until early '00s. I turn off AF most of the time still ...
I've worn glasses most of my life and, at 69+, can no longer read at hand-held book sight distances without them. However, I can still see the split image in my Leicas well enough to focus very accurately if I take my glasses off... eh? I dunno.
G
shawn
Mentor
Sure you can. Put the camera in AF-C with back button focus. Pre-focus with the button and then let up (which stops AF) and then when you want it to adjust focus as you pan you just hold down the AF button and hit the shutter whenever you want to shoot. This is nothing new. I did this on my F5, decades ago. And then did it again with many digital bodies since then.
Which Fuji do you have? My old XP2 with the zooms could AF on very fast moving objects quite easily. The faster original primes didn't always do as well though as their motors were slower. The 100-400 was crazy fast, I could track kicked soccer balls with that thing.
As far as MF with skateboarding, I'm sure that is true but partially because a bunch shoot fisheyes and don't really focus at all.
boojum
Mentor
Again you have not addressed my argument. People who get paid for action photos use AF. This is fact. That a lot of skateboarding photographers use MF tells me that a lot of skateboarding photographers have out of focus photos, just like you. Get a nice cup of tea, sit down and look at the facts. AF follows the subject, locks on the eyes and keeps that focus. Do that manually. And do is so well that you can teach the pros how. And when the pros, the ones who get paid fir their work, follow your lead I will believe you. QED.
Your photo may be in focus on your screen from your computer but here it is not. The sign is not in focus, the skateboarder's feet are not in focus, they are not in focus. On the plus side there is a remarkable consistency to this photo.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I've got the X-Pro 1, XT-1, and X-Pro 2. I've not really seen a need to upgrade after that, TBH. I started out with the original 18/2 (very slow and noisy AF motor, you're right) and the original 27/2.8 (which I haven't used for years now and should really sell on). I picked up the 35/2 XF back in 2020 and that's a much better performer in terms of speed and motor noise than the earlier two. I still find the AF on the X-Pro 2 with the 35/2 to be seriously unreliable in certain scenarios, though. Drives me nuts.
This is true - never been a fan of that. The style I'm thinking of is more along the lines of the stuff Wig Worland was shooting in the 90s and early 2000s; much further away with carefully positioned flash rigs.
Incidentally, I bumped into Wig at a skate event in London at the end of last summer, and he was shooting with a Minolta CLE with the name blacked out. I was using my Leica IIIg at the time, and he joked about how he was "slumming it" with the CLE. So... yeah. @boojum, Wig's as professional as they get and he's still using a manual focus RF.
I'll go and enjoy that cup of tea now. Thanks!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Nowadays, 99% of photographers with 35mm-like equipment use AF. Just because most paid photographers who shoot sports all use AF nowadays does not mean that AF is essential to successful motion/speed capture photography.
Some of the most memorable sports photographs ever made were created long before AF (or digital cameras) existed. So those folks not only had to focus manually, they could only pre-visualize what they were getting since they couldn't do a couple of test shots and see if they had the focus set correctly or the timing right on the money. They achieved their results through lots of practice and experience.
No need to debate this, it's a fact. My photography grew up with me in that era.
G
Some of the most memorable sports photographs ever made were created long before AF (or digital cameras) existed. So those folks not only had to focus manually, they could only pre-visualize what they were getting since they couldn't do a couple of test shots and see if they had the focus set correctly or the timing right on the money. They achieved their results through lots of practice and experience.
No need to debate this, it's a fact. My photography grew up with me in that era.
G
boojum
Mentor
Matthew Brady was wonderful, too. Should we champion Daguerreotype? I think not. We used to wash clothes by the river. It is 2024. Let's use the best tools available unless you enjoy retro to the point of discomfort. I never said AF was essential. I said it ups your chances of in focus success.
I really do not care what you use or did use or what Coldkennel uses or did use. My point is, and it is professionally substantiated, that your success rate goes up with AF because it is in focus while the RF is still turning the focus on his trusty 50 or whatever. Look at the reality not some rosy remembrance of Babe Ruth hitting a home run decades ago. Those wonderful pictures taken without autofocus were taken without autofocus because there was no autofocus. And when it came in the sports photographers jumped on it just like they jumped on SLR's. It did not take the professionals long to drop RF for AF and SLR. They get paid for their successes.
Next you are going to tell me that you can shift faster than an automatic while racing cars now use automatics. Nostalgia is great. It can be fun to do things the "old way". It can be touted as more contemplative and a way to develop your craft/art and truly understand the medium. And HCB used RF and so on. But when you pay the rent with action shots you get yourself a camera that succeeds most often: DSLR AF.
But if I am wrong, and this is possible, please instruct me how to be faster focusing than AF. I am truly interested. I want to know. This is your chance to show me how to do it. I am waiting. And you can show the pro's, too.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Sorry, but your mocking attempt exposed you as been clueless.
It is in focus, parts which were matching panning motion. The rest is blur, not "not even in focus".
If you not aware it is the reason for panning to look like this.
Pros (or just smart enough or just not as clueless) on spot like this gives enough DOF and pre-focus on the point to have the space they need in focus.
And then they wait for action to pan.
No panning here, I pre-focused my Leica and waited.
Untitled by Kostya Fedot
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Wow, Kostya. This shot is absolutely fantastic.
...shame the sign behind the action is out of focus, though. Should have used AF, I guess. 😅
(But no, seriously... great shot.)
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I agree to disagree with you, and your attitude, about this stuff.
Want to be faster than AF? Learn to estimate distance by eye, then just set the distance on the scale and take the picture. If you get to know your lens focusing scales by feel, you can do it with the camera at your eye faster than AF can get there.
I can easily shift faster than an automatic transmission presuming a sporty car with a slick synchro box. What I can't do is continue to transfer power WHILE SHIFTING like an automatic can, which is way race cars use automatic transmissions nowadays in many cases.
Good day to you. Go make some nice photos however you prefer to do it.
G
Dogman
Mentor
Every AF lens I've ever owned allowed manual focus. The last of the great Nikkor AF-S lenses, like the Canon EF lenses, all allowed overriding AF with MF just by turning the focus ring. That allows pre-focusing as well as AF to follow the action. The Fuji X lenses are focus by wire and MF sucks big time, IMO. Although I love the look of images done with Voigtlander lenses, manually focusing them on my Fuji XPs is not my favorite thing--the focus peaking can disappear under some light conditions. I like Zeiss ZF and old MF Nikkors on my Nikons but, honestly with my 76 year old eyes, I depend on the focus confirmation light most of the time.
AF is easy, accurate and fast. That's why most people use it. Those of us using MF are really doing it because we like fiddling around with our tools and the look we get with certain ones of those tools. I admit to being a dinosaur--hear me roar. Or hiss or whatever.
AF is easy, accurate and fast. That's why most people use it. Those of us using MF are really doing it because we like fiddling around with our tools and the look we get with certain ones of those tools. I admit to being a dinosaur--hear me roar. Or hiss or whatever.
jaredangle
Photojournalist
Unrelated but I love the grain in this shot!
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Thanks. Took some time to really dial in a developing regimen for Rollei Retro 400S, but I'm generally pleased with the results now.
(If you're interested: I use LC29 1+19 and dropped the recommended developing time down to 6:00 at 20ºC. I also reduced the agitation to 10 seconds every minute instead of the 15 seconds I use with other films.)
Mcary
Well-known
I have the same issue and do the "focus horizontally and rotate the camera" when I want to shoot in portrait.
boojum
Mentor
As for the distorted image of the skateboarders, IIRC panning gives a smeared image not a blurred image.
As for RF MF as fast or faster than AF, go tell the people who can make a living with a camera. They will be interested to get your input. Poor souls, if they only could learn from the amateurs on this board they would be so much wiser and probably wealthier. You guys had better run and tell them. They will be so grateful for your input, you savvy sages of photography.
We use computers to automate those repetitive tasks in our lives and to eliminate error. Autofocus is an automated function, run by a computer. If autofocus were not as accurate or more accurate it would not be offered because it would be revealed as such with proven data rather than idle chatter. Yes, you can "break the looms" and denounce them but the Luddites are but a footnote in history and almost all our woven fiber today comes from automated mills, because it is better and cheaper. Some folks swoon still over handwoven fabric but not many. You can still do double-entry bookkeeping in a ledger but almost everybody uses spreadsheets at the minimum. You can still write and post letters but most of us do email. Should I go one? It is 2024. Hello?
As for RF MF as fast or faster than AF, go tell the people who can make a living with a camera. They will be interested to get your input. Poor souls, if they only could learn from the amateurs on this board they would be so much wiser and probably wealthier. You guys had better run and tell them. They will be so grateful for your input, you savvy sages of photography.
We use computers to automate those repetitive tasks in our lives and to eliminate error. Autofocus is an automated function, run by a computer. If autofocus were not as accurate or more accurate it would not be offered because it would be revealed as such with proven data rather than idle chatter. Yes, you can "break the looms" and denounce them but the Luddites are but a footnote in history and almost all our woven fiber today comes from automated mills, because it is better and cheaper. Some folks swoon still over handwoven fabric but not many. You can still do double-entry bookkeeping in a ledger but almost everybody uses spreadsheets at the minimum. You can still write and post letters but most of us do email. Should I go one? It is 2024. Hello?
lukitas
second hand noob
and this is the rangefinder forum. Hello?
and you're yelling at people who made a living with their cameras before you wore pants.
You seem to have exquisite manners, sir
boojum
Mentor
Bucko, I started shooting photos in 1947. I started 35mm in 1954 and did my own darkroom work since around 1949. I can change with the times. I have four RF cameras, three Leicas and a Pixii so I think that I am qualified by both experience and ownership to comment on this subject. I shoot AF with a Sony A7M III and a Hasselblad X2D.
And look around at the photographers in news and action coverage and see how many are carrying RF cameras. If you want a high batting average you do what you can to up your chances of getting that. This is not rocket surgery or a secret. It is out there for anyone to see. Believing otherwise will not change the facts.
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
That doesn't disqualify others from having a different take on the subject, a take that may be equally valid.
Somehow this thread seems to have derailed into a debate about whether action should be shot using AF with a DSLR. Not really helpful for the first poster who's shooting travel, landscape and architecture, and wondering about the transition from mirrorless autofocus to MF RF.