Hello! Hope you don't mind if I ask abt Rf as well. I have a Canon DSLR but I find myself using ard 24mm-50mm when I shoot street. I'm eyeing the M8 because I'm only comfortable with digital. I was told focusing is much more difficult with a RF am I correct? And since most things are manual, what if I get the estimation of distance to the subject wrong? Will my picture difinitely be blur? It's daunting to take the plunge into digital RF since it is so ex and I've no experience using it. Hope you can help. Thanks in advance.
buying a RF
- Thread starter littleweddingday
- Start date
- Status
I would recommend you start with a cheaper RF or even borrow from friends before making the plunge to get the M8. I have also justed started to learn about RF photography only a few months back and I've learnt that (also from this sub-forum) that RF photography isn't about taking the nicest photography but more of a different photography art form and style.
Posting #43 in this thread has got some very good links to RF stuff, or search this sub-forum for more on RF photography.
Just my newbie thoughts. Cheers.
alternatve
Senior Member
I don't agree with your statement that focusing is much more difficuit. For me, I feel that my rangefinder (RF) is easier to focus, and to those new to RFs, with a 5 minute training you should be able to focus it as well as your SLR.
A film RF can be had for around $100-$200. I recommend you get a small fixed lens RF or a russian one to try out the whole concept first. If you don't like it, sell it and you won't lose a lot. If you like it, sell it off and get the M8 or the RD-1. Either way, you are spending $200 max to get a working camera which probably is 1/5 of the price of one of your lenses.
As with focusing, if you get the focus wrong, you will get blur pictures, same as any camera in the world. Auto focusing RFs are harder to get and if you want a auto focusing everything, I think you would be better off with a digital PnS IMHO.
clubgrit
Senior Member
Well, if you have bad and uncorrected eyesight, it will be difficult to focus pinpoint, on any manual focus camera. With a DSLR camera that has an auto-focus, even a blind person can take a focused shot 
.
An acquaintance handled and tried my Leica RF, and he said he couldn't see very well inspite of the Leica having one of the best viewfinders among RFs. It turned out he needed a diopter to help see better (diopters are already built into his DSLR), and I don't use them on my RF, as I have the right spec eyeglasses. Diopters can be fitted on if required.
The RF patch actually helps in pinpoint focusing, it will be more difficult without the RF patch, IMHO. Even on my other non-RF MF camera, I prefer the focusing screen that is similar to an RF's.
To quote one review of the M8 - "No auto-focus makes them less suitable for action shots (or at least doing so requires a lot more skill)"
Using an RF will certainly improve your skills in time. Taking an action shot for example can be faster than when using an auto-focus camera, but one needs practice in both handling and reaction time.
P.S. $100 - $200 RFs may not have bright viewfinders, even if they take great photos, just fyi ... not all RF viewfinders are the same.
. An acquaintance handled and tried my Leica RF, and he said he couldn't see very well inspite of the Leica having one of the best viewfinders among RFs. It turned out he needed a diopter to help see better (diopters are already built into his DSLR), and I don't use them on my RF, as I have the right spec eyeglasses. Diopters can be fitted on if required.
The RF patch actually helps in pinpoint focusing, it will be more difficult without the RF patch, IMHO. Even on my other non-RF MF camera, I prefer the focusing screen that is similar to an RF's.
To quote one review of the M8 - "No auto-focus makes them less suitable for action shots (or at least doing so requires a lot more skill)"
Using an RF will certainly improve your skills in time. Taking an action shot for example can be faster than when using an auto-focus camera, but one needs practice in both handling and reaction time.
P.S. $100 - $200 RFs may not have bright viewfinders, even if they take great photos, just fyi ... not all RF viewfinders are the same.
Hi Mr Big Fan of U2,
Nice to know that you have questions about RF and that shows you are keen in exploring into non-main-stream photography.
I think there are many people who are like you... heard something about RF (RangeFinder), read some of it here and there and in RFF.com (RangeFinderForum.com), but haven't seen much of it in Pennisular and Cathay photo or other major electronics shops (Harvey or Courts).... AND haven't even touch, feel or molest one yet. :bsmilie:
Those on the window display of second hand camera shops, don't really entice you enough to want to spend even $50 to try out one. Well, the thought of buying a roll of colour Kodak or Fuji 400 at $4 and spending another $15 for processing and printing put most people off wanting to try out film at all. Then what happens the 36 shots turn out like #$%@*%#$... then waste $20 for nothing.... Digital.... don't even have this problem at all... :bsmilie:
Am I right????
I've always suggest to my customers.... understand what you want first before buying my RF cameras or buying another camera body.
Understanding what one wants... I believe is the most difficult process one can experience. In this age of so much choices and seduction, it's hard not to compare even if one do not necessary need it. One will almost always choose to spend money on the best, thinking that one will need it someday.
At this present moment, one only have 2 choices with digital RF, Epson R-D1s or Leica M8. It's harder to get a R-D1s now and the risk is higher owning it because support is difficult to get locally today. Especially electronic stuff at humid weather, no one can be sure how long it will operate without giving trouble....
Or the Leica M8! If one wants to own a piece of the latest Leica legendary M... at $7K... for the body alone.
OK... get back to RF...
If you don't want to spend an arm or leg, borrow a RF from a friend and try out a few rolls first. And if you are very new to film, get a cheapo manual body, SLR or RF at sub 100 and see whether film is for you... (a few EOS film bodies selling sub 100 at B&S...) if you really really can't live without the LCD screen and instant gratification, then I suggest you stick to DSLR or go for R-D1s & M8.
With film, the possibilities is endless.... no qualms about image quality... to many people in this forum... film still rocks.
If you can live with film and want stealth and like something small to carry around, then RF probably makes sense.
If you want a new film RF body, then you can either go for Leica M7 or MP... or my Voigtlander R3M or R3A or R4A or R4M.
Just give me a ring to make an appointment to view.For second hand RF bodies.... there are a number of beautiful Leicas lurking around in the B&S now...
To answer your question on focusing... it's just a matter of getting used to focusing on a manual lens. Personally, to me (I stress again... to me), those AF lenses are the most difficult to focus with. I have never relied on AF lenses even when using AF lenses on DSLR bodies. If you are afraid of getting unsharp pictures, use a fast film, push down the aperture to f8 or f11, almost everything from 2~3m to infinity will be sharp.
So... hope I have made your buying decision easier. There isn't very much choices for new 35mm RF these days... Good luck!
Thank you! Sounds good. Perhaps I should just get a cheap film one to practise. What's holding me back is that with film I don't know how badly I'm shooting until I develop them
Taking street photography has some amount of moving images right? Let's say if I want to take a photo of an old man in front of me. If I estimate his distance as 2m and set aperture at f5.6. What if he is actually 2.5m away and f5.6 is too low an aperture? How would I know if I can capture the shot? With a DSLR I know cos I would be told the shot is underexposed and the image is blur, but can a RF tell me since it does not have a mirror?
Thanks in advance
robertcapa
New Member
After a few rolls, you will learn what to do to make things in focus (or out of focus)..
With DSLR, perhaps, one will get lazy.. forget.. with RF, you pay $ for each mistake.. so you end up learning because got penalty ($)... so eventually, after paying tuition ($), you learn..
also you will appreciate tricks rf camera users use to focus -> what is called pre-focusing.. in fact, can be faster than autofocus...
szhoe
Member
Hi Panzer
Nice to see your reply
& many thanks for the pointer. Last Dec brought my custom made dry-cabinet back to Sing. At this moment, using digital due to requirements in work. However, I prefer a smaller film cam for my personal leisure & street pics.
Cheers & pleasant day to you..:heart:
Kah Hoe..
clubgrit
Senior Member
Taking street photography has some amount of moving images right? Let's say if I want to take a photo of an old man in front of me. If I estimate his distance as 2m and set aperture at f5.6. What if he is actually 2.5m away and f5.6 is too low an aperture? How would I know if I can capture the shot? With a DSLR I know cos I would be told the shot is underexposed and the image is blur, but can a RF tell me since it does not have a mirror?
Thanks in advance
Robert Capa explained it well, you will learn in time ...
If you are going for a digital RF, of course you can see it immediately too, being digital. Miss, shoot again and again until you get it
. However, first and foremost, even with a DSLR, the basics of photography should be learned.
If you are talking about a film RF, especially fully manual ones, then you have to know everything beforehand, like metering, range, shutter speed needed, etc. You have to think faster too ...
And as Robert Capa mentioned, pre-focusing is one of the tricks to learn. In your example above, if using a 35mm lens and below, at f/5.6, even if you focused on 2m but subject is actually 2.5m, you'll still capture the image without blur (assuming shutter speed is safe no-blur speed). This is relating to depth of field scales on the lens itself.
From a Leica manual (applicable to other brands too) :
"The depth-of-field scale - The plane which is rendered sharpest is the plane, parallel to the film, upon which the lens is focused. The optimum sharpness decreases progressively in front of and behind this plane so that a certain range exists within which the image is, to the eye, rendered sharply.
This range is termed the depth-of-field. It is dependent on the focus setting, the focal length of the lens (the two values together determine the reproduction ratio) and the aperture. Stopping down, i.e. selection of a larger f-number, increases depth-of-field, while opening the aperture, i.e. selection of a smaller f-number, decreases it. The depth-of-field scale in conjunction with the focusing ring indicates the range of sharpness at the set focus distance.
For example, using the LEICA SUMMILUX-M 50mm f/1.4 lens focused at 5 meters, the depth of field at f/4 ranges from approximately 4 to 8 meters. Stopping down to f/11 at the same focusing distance, however, increases the range to 3 -20 meters."
.
bigu2fan, manual focus doesn't necessarily mean you have to guess the subject distance. Rangefinders have a focusing patch which will indicate whether the subject is in focus. No guessing unless you want to.
Similarly, the camera's light meter should give you a good indication of what the correct exposure is. You don't have to pluck random numbers out of the air. After a while you will be able know the different lighting situations which could fool the meter, and learn to compensate accordingly. This skill is very useful whether you are shooting digital or film.
gommy
Senior Member
Focusing is certainly different and it needs a little getting use to at first. Overall, I'm enjoying my first week with RF. R-D1S is quite nice, IQ even in high ISO is pretty good
Hehe, you must be so used to people like us
yep, never molested a RF so no RF has ever pressed charges on me:bsmilie: thank you for your detailed explanation. I like the stealth and weight of the RF, especially for streets and travelling, which is why I am thinking of an RF. That's my purpose. I'll use my DSLR when I need longer range. I'm also more comfortable with digital, and find changing/processing film daunting. My challenge is whether I can shoot without the aid of the mirror and thru the lens convenience of DSLR.Thank you robertcapa, I'll bear in mind the pre-focusing and find out more about it.
I'll be most interested to see how the light meter and focusing patch works. My tots was to maybe geta cheap RF to practise before getting a digital. Do all RF have the focusing patch and light meter?
Focusing is certainly different and it needs a little getting use to at first. Overall, I'm enjoying my first week with RF. R-D1S is quite nice, IQ even in high ISO is pretty good
R-D1s? Wow, very nice, I would consider getting one but I heard it is almost out of production...
if you already have a DSLR, i really dont see the point in getting a digital rangefinder... sure its a little bit different, but from all accounts, you are not going to see a huge improvement in the quality of the pictures.. and frankly for that price, i would rather get a canon 1D Mk III.
to me, the beauty of rangefinders is the fact that u shoot them with film. black and white, slide whatever takes your fancy. i have pictures that ive taken with my RF, that i dont think i can ever replicate with my DSLR. its not just peculiar aspects of film... eg grain tonality etc, but the interpretation given by the lenses as well.
there is a slightly steeper learning curve with rangefinders.. e.g. limited metering mode, manual focus etc... but u have to realise its just a different way of taking pictures..
to me, the beauty of rangefinders is the fact that u shoot them with film. black and white, slide whatever takes your fancy. i have pictures that ive taken with my RF, that i dont think i can ever replicate with my DSLR. its not just peculiar aspects of film... eg grain tonality etc, but the interpretation given by the lenses as well.
there is a slightly steeper learning curve with rangefinders.. e.g. limited metering mode, manual focus etc... but u have to realise its just a different way of taking pictures..
nightbreed
New Member
Ok, I've been struggling with this for some time now. Let's see if I got it right:
Say I have a subject along the path outside Wisma Atria that I estimate to be 8-10m in front of me. The day is fairly sunny, but the pathway is shady. I use ISO 200 film and a 50/2, shooting at f5.6. So I pre-focus at 8m and I see from my DOF scale that f5.6 coincides with about 4.8m to over 20m. Shutter speed would be something like 1/500. Does this mean that anything from 4.8m to 20m is going to be IN FOCUS and SHARP, including my subject, which is actually 10m away? :dunno:
Have you considered starting out with the Contax G system? I am selling my G2+28/45/90+TLA200 Flash for $1900 or best offer. Another set is being offered at BnS at $1100 for G2+45/90. This is an RF with AF. And the lenses are very good, IMO better than the usual Nikons and Canons.
clubgrit
Senior Member
There is only actually 1 plane that is in sharpest focus. The rest within the DOF are what is called "acceptably sharp". Furthermore, this is different between formats, but let us assume 35mm format.
Check this calculator out :
http://johnhendry.com/gadget/dof.php
For your example, (metering is assumed to be correct here) DOF range is between 5.32mm to 16.1mm, and the subject at 10mm will be acceptably sharp.
However, using this calculator will really slow you down in the field, it's just a guide. Using the markings on your lens can only show you a limited range. But you'll get used to it.
If I was the one shooting, in your example, I have some options :
- Since subject is quite a distance away, I can do a quick focus check (or more like range estimate) looking through the viewfinder. This is because I am more accurate at estimating near distances like 2m to 7m rather than far.
- if I can't do the above for some reason, at 1/500, it means I still have room to play, right up to 1/30 (safest speed for me). I can step down further right up to f/16, giving me a speed of 1/125, but expanding the DOF range considerably. I will have the point just before the infinity marking above the f/16 marking (the f/16 marking on the right side).
- but if I can't do the first one and really want f/5.6 only, then I will have the point just before the infinity marking above the f/5.6 marking (the f/5.6 marking on the right side), that should cover a lot as well. But this last option will be the most error prone, for me at least without looking through the VF at least to get an estimated range, since I am more accurate at near distances. So I would probably see if I can get even closer.
For option 2 and 3 above, if one looks through the viewfinder, subject will not be in focus. But it will come out fine, not the sharpest but acceptably sharp. Of course, what is acceptably sharp may not be for others, then the only way is to really focus pinpoint.
Here is an example where I prefocused at f/8 or f/11 (can't remember exactly) with a 40mm, pointing at the building behind, using a $200 Yashica Electro GSN RF, good camera if one can get past the dim viewfinder. I don't remember exactly the settings, but I wanted to take the subjects nearest me, so my DOF scale must have been from 1.5m (where I am more used to near distances). Notice that the building was not exactly within the DOF range since the building name is not so clear anymore, same with the people near it. If I stepped down to f/16, it would be different. This way, subjects don't know I am taking their picture, they think I am taking the building (I can crop most of it out if needed), and it is fast too, raise and click (the Yashica has AE so I didn't have to worry about the speed).
Now there are other pre-focus methods, like Infinity Focusing by Merklinger, or Hyperfocal Distance focusing, you can read up on it if interested. I find the DOF scale method has the sharpest though.
"The day is fairly sunny, but the pathway is shady"
- now this can be another long topic, just read up on the Zone System, or metering ...
Check this calculator out :
http://johnhendry.com/gadget/dof.php
For your example, (metering is assumed to be correct here) DOF range is between 5.32mm to 16.1mm, and the subject at 10mm will be acceptably sharp.
However, using this calculator will really slow you down in the field, it's just a guide. Using the markings on your lens can only show you a limited range. But you'll get used to it.
If I was the one shooting, in your example, I have some options :
- Since subject is quite a distance away, I can do a quick focus check (or more like range estimate) looking through the viewfinder. This is because I am more accurate at estimating near distances like 2m to 7m rather than far.
- if I can't do the above for some reason, at 1/500, it means I still have room to play, right up to 1/30 (safest speed for me). I can step down further right up to f/16, giving me a speed of 1/125, but expanding the DOF range considerably. I will have the point just before the infinity marking above the f/16 marking (the f/16 marking on the right side).
- but if I can't do the first one and really want f/5.6 only, then I will have the point just before the infinity marking above the f/5.6 marking (the f/5.6 marking on the right side), that should cover a lot as well. But this last option will be the most error prone, for me at least without looking through the VF at least to get an estimated range, since I am more accurate at near distances. So I would probably see if I can get even closer.
For option 2 and 3 above, if one looks through the viewfinder, subject will not be in focus. But it will come out fine, not the sharpest but acceptably sharp. Of course, what is acceptably sharp may not be for others, then the only way is to really focus pinpoint.
Here is an example where I prefocused at f/8 or f/11 (can't remember exactly) with a 40mm, pointing at the building behind, using a $200 Yashica Electro GSN RF, good camera if one can get past the dim viewfinder. I don't remember exactly the settings, but I wanted to take the subjects nearest me, so my DOF scale must have been from 1.5m (where I am more used to near distances). Notice that the building was not exactly within the DOF range since the building name is not so clear anymore, same with the people near it. If I stepped down to f/16, it would be different. This way, subjects don't know I am taking their picture, they think I am taking the building (I can crop most of it out if needed), and it is fast too, raise and click (the Yashica has AE so I didn't have to worry about the speed).
Now there are other pre-focus methods, like Infinity Focusing by Merklinger, or Hyperfocal Distance focusing, you can read up on it if interested. I find the DOF scale method has the sharpest though.
"The day is fairly sunny, but the pathway is shady"
- now this can be another long topic, just read up on the Zone System, or metering ...
I would go for the G system. I just got one off a fellow CSer and am loving it to bits. I no longer bring my EOS system out except for work.
- Status
Similar threads
