Which is Easier to Focus -- M or R?

[Robin Smith]

Leica is a cult more than a camera. While it might be worth

joining that cult for an M rangefinder and its absolutely

superb feel, ergonomics and cachet (I own an M3), the SLR's are

another matter entirely, being many years behind the pack

technologically. IMO Canon EOS rules the 35mm SLR world these days,

with Nikon a struggling second.

 

<p>

 

Peter...back in August.

 

<p>

 

What happened to you and EOS??? I hate to say it, but perhaps it is my

privilege here to say "I told you so"? Why the change?

[andy_piper2]

Peter: Sorry to step all over your 90mm question - hope this additonal

info also comes in useful.

 

<p>

 

Robin:

 

<p>

 

IM very HE: I've borrowed store R4/5/6/7s for years and always thought,

"Boy, these R lenses are overrated. They can't produce a sharp image

for beans!" Recently I've tried the same lenses - including the 90

'cron (back on topic) as well as all those 180s tested recently - on an

SL - and suddenly they're SHARP! Even the 90 at 1/30th.

 

<p>

 

I can't swear that it's the mirror shake, or the focusing screen, or

the hand ergnomics - but something sure changed!

 

<p>

 

I found a similar effect in my Nikon days with the F vs. the FM2 - the

FM2 had the features, but the same lenses on the F were noticably

crisper.

 

<p>

 

I pointed out some of the SLs drawbacks - and you added the meter

limitations and the lack of diopter adjustment - both good points. If

you crave a 24 or 16 or motor you're SOL with the SL.

 

<p>

 

But "It commands the lowest price" - that's just another positive in my

book. 8^)

 

<p>

 

RE: yours - I'll get back to you. I'm not actually ready to do anything

now, but have my eye on a slightly dinged black chrome for $400 - same

one I used for my tests. What've you got?

[douglas k.]

Re Andy Piper's comments on a "cosmic match" between an M camera and a

specific lens: in the "Technical" section of Jim Marshall's website,

it states that "Once a lens is perfectly matched to a camera body, he

never takes it off. He feels this gives a slight edge to the focus and

helps produce a consistant result." This explains why Marshall

carries 4-5 Leicas at a time.

 

<p>

 

Marshall is one of the greats. His site is at

http://www.marshallphoto.com/

[doug herr]

>>><BR>

To fit a motor on an SL you need an SLMOT which are certainly rare

and no one in their right mind would ever want to actually use the SL

motor compared to the R winder or motor. Also while it has excellent

image brightness, I have not noticed the R6.2 being markedly inferior

(the R4 is inferior) and it has the advantage of interchangeable

screens, a very sensitive meter with spot and center-weighted

metering and a hot shoe, prerelease (I thought that was always

considered an advantage for long tele shots?), diopter adjust for the

viewfinder and it is smaller and lighter. I used an SL for seven or

eight years and I was always told by other Leicaphiles how awful it

was ("diesel Leica" ha-ha etc.) Now I still have it but rarely use it

as a) it has no diopter adjust - very useful for those of us

whose "eyes are not what they were". b) does not accept all the

lenses I have c) unuseable meter when it gets at all dark d) noisier

than the R6.2 e) heavier f)no TTL flash or hotshoe g) no winder

possibilities that make any sense. Still now I know I am holding on

to a veritable solid-gold classic! I find this all rather ironic. How

the worm turns! I like the camera myself, but, the fact is, I always

use my R6.2 instead of the SL. The SL now is a back up. <BR>

<<<

<P>

All true! I miss not having a lightweight winder on the SL but for

<B>my</B> use the R6.x's other additional features don't help

<B>me</B>.<P>

I find I can grip the SL body better than the R4-R7 bodies.<BR>

The SL has a continuously-variable shutter, which the R6.x doesn't

have. The other R-bodies only have continuously-variable shutters in

auto-exposure modes, which I've found to be more likely to produce

exposure errors than manual exposure. The continuously-variable

shutter is a very big deal to me because I'm using long lenses hand-

held, at full aperture so I can get the fastest possible shutter

speed. The continuously-variable shutter means I don't have to

compromise my exposure.<BR>

I don't need a viewfinder diopter.<BR>

I don't need the R-only lenses, but just in case I ever do need any

of them I've bought a beater SL2; most of those lenses can be

retrofitted to work on the SL2.<BR>

The mirror pre-release doesn't do anything for me because most of

my subjects are active (see <A

HREF="http//www.wildlightphoto.com">http://www.wildlightphoto.com</A>)

and I prefer to use the camera hand-held. If I ever do need a pre-

release it's possible to pre-release the SL or SL2 mirror by flicking

the shutter release.<BR>

The meter sensetivity isn't a problem 99% of the time, again

because I'm using the camera hand-held. In really dark light I'm out

of hand-held range <enter the SL2>.<BR>

I rarely use flash, and when I do the cord is no big deal.<P>

I'll be the first to acknowledge that it fits my needs only because I

have limited requirements. For those whose equipment needs don't

include the newer R-bodies' features the SL is bomb-proof and

affordable, and in <B>my</B> case I've been far more productive with

the SL than with any R body before the R8.><P>

One of the main reasons the SL is so inexpensive is because there

were 33,000 of them made. It's not a rarity like the R-E or R4sP,

with only about 5,000 of each made.

<BR>

[doug herr]

>>><BR>

The meter sensetivity isn't a problem 99% of the time, again because

I'm using the camera hand-held. In really dark light I'm out of hand-

held range .

<BR><<<<P>

This should have included (enter the SL2) and the end but the

software stripped it off. Also the link to my website doesn't work.

Try the copy-and-paste routine: http://www.wildlightphoto.com

[ken4]

wow, i really like how marshall's leicas are all beat up. guess i'll

have to use mine a lot more to get them like that. But why is the

site written in the 3rd person?

[dh]

The brassing gives the cameras some character, huh? It's like the

patina on old leather or wood ... but heck, it's the pictures that

count and boy, Marshall's a master! Great subjects of course (and a

great era) ... we're not worthy ... ps. Please, Tony, make Alfie stop

posting his inane comments about things he knows nothing about; after

seeing his pictures, I doubt that he knows the first thing about

anything in photography ... this is such a refreshingly informative

and civil forum and a joy, it's a shame that one immature and

socially maladjusted person can bring out the worst in everyone and

ruin the character of the discussion.

[tse_sung_wu7]

<i> this is such a refreshingly informative and civil forum and a joy,

it's a shame that one immature and socially maladjusted person can

bring out the worst in everyone and ruin the character of the

discussion.

</i>

<p>

I take<font color = "#990000">

<b>extreme

</b></font>

issue with this statement. Alfie has

<b>never</b>

been uncivil. He may not be as knowledgeable as others, he may be

undeniably wrong, and he may not share the esthetics of others here

(frankly, while technically brillant, I find some of Mike Dixon's

portraits rather cheesy, but I do not think he should be barred from

this forum.

<i>A chacun son gout</i>).

<p>

The character of the discussion has not been ruined by his posts. It's

those knowitalls who come out of the woodwork and spend more time

bashing Alfie than actually correcting his statements and setting the

record straight. If these people would just relax their lower

sphincters, the character of this forum would remain unchanged,

enhanced.

<p>

If you or others are unable to remain civil in the presence of his

posts, which you are

<b>not required</b>

to read, then by god that is

<b>YOUR</b>

problem. What is this "bring out the worst in everyone" bull? What

happened to personal responsibility?

<p>

The credit for civility and the blame of the lack thereof rests with

one person only, yourself. If

<b>you</b>

can't behave and you blame someone else, that is truly "immature and

maladjusted."

[dh]

Well, you can disagree as much as you want but a community this is

and whether or not I take personal responsibility for my reactions to

Afred Wang's posts or others' replies to his posts, it cannot be

denied that Wang is annoying to many and is most responsible for the

ire engendered by his posts. Take his voluminous and ridiculous

posturing (and name dropping and philosophizing and

sanctimoniousness) and inane posts out of the equation and the

character of the community will be much improved. Instead of trying

to change human nature, I think asking one member to change his ways

is much more reasonable ... it's not asking for much. And Wang's

happiness wouldn't be affected in any way. He can still hold true to

his aesthetic principles and snap-shots and opinions about

equipment ... all I ask is that he ration is out much more sparingly

(with much more discrimination). A decent community on the web is a

rare gem and should be actively encouraged and protected. As it is

open to all comers, it can degenerate rapidly and unexpectedly. Wang

shows no inclination to take due care to contribute positively; in

fact, he seems bent on getting his way regardless of how others may

feel about it. That's fine for the the sake of his "art" and fine in

life, trudge ahead and do your own thing Mr. Wang, but is it really

too much to ask that he not ruin something that affects more than

himself with a seemingly small change in his behavior? If you or he

feel that it is too much to ask, then I say you are acting in an

overly selfish manner ...

[john15]

"As a rule your forum members shoot Leicas because they adhere to

higher standards and have heightened sensibilities......."

Gulley, I hope that you wrote this with a lot of tongue-in-cheek. The

Leica M's are fine cameras capable of Good Stuff in the hands of a

talented photographer.I'am afraid that, too often, they are used as

pass keys to an elitist Good Old Boy Club whose effete membership

seems to be growing in direct proportion to the sales of M's [ I just

bought a Minolta CL so I can't join]. But then, what you said was

really TIC, right?

 

<p>

 

Best,

John

[tse_sung_wu7]

At the risk of being completely OT... I completely agree with you that

a decent web community is a rare gem indeed.

<p>

But guess what. I have NO idea what you're talking about, re: Wang's

name dropping, getting his way, santimoniousness. Why? Because I

don't read all his stuff! That simple.

<p>

<font size=2>Um, it's an idea I freely share with anyone. Really.

Free of charge.

</font>

<p>

In the good ol' days of Usenet, there were trolls, spammers, and all

manner of malcontents ruining it for everyone. As you may or not may

recall, it could have a big effect on everyone, b/c fora were not

orgnaized as LUSENET is: i.e., people couldn't start threads that were

very separate from one another. These trollers were bad, and they made

it impossible for people to come to meet and commune. EVERY post would

be met with verbal aggression, anger, inflammatory remarks- racist,

sexist, homophobic, you name it.

 

Unless you're talking about some other group, I don't think Wang's

posts come close to that. <p>Perhaps you may with to point out where

he's been...

<p>

<i>posturing (and name dropping and philosophizing and

sanctimoniousness) and inane posts

</i>

[dh]

If you insist on saying that it is over-reaction on the part of

people who find Wang annoying rather than Wang himself, I see no

point in engaging in a debate with you. Re-read his posts and

people's reactions to them... If you still insist that he's a

positive element in this community, then we should just agree to

disagree, call it a day, and go home ... there is no accounting for

taste or perspective. It's not a matter of rhetorical nitpicking:

Wang's posts _are_ annoying and irrelevant to many--many seemingly

reasonable people (if I may, I'd like to count myself among them),

people whom I'd like to have around to discuss Leicas and pictures

taken with Leicas. Wang threatens to scare many of these same people

away, and I'd their contributions over Wang's. You may say that I

should just ignore his posts, but if you look at the message that

generated this chat, it is not authored by Wang nor does it appear to

have anything to do with him, yet I am confronted by his ridiculously

misinformed posts. Would the series of posts not benefit from missing

his posts? And can I say something about that, when clearly Wang

himself makes no attempt to change? We (I and others who have

commented on Wang) have been reasonable, I think, Wang and people

like yourself have not ...

[dh]

Let me just add one more point before I call it a day (and it's not

to make the last point but to just put a thought out there). An open

community such as this depends on more than a decent moderator (which

Tony is in spades!). It requires the due care of a core of decent

participants to prevent a rapid decline into ascerbic attackes ...

people who care about how the community functions and evolves and

contribute to its health. The forum is more than its space in

cyberspace, it is the participants. If we see a person who is a

blatant source of conflict or negativity, it shouldn't be too much to

ask the person to moderate his/her behavior. When this fails, as it

has with Wang, I don't think it's too much to point this out and ask

others to think about why this is so... So my initial post was meant

to point this out to Tony and to others ...

[Rob F.]

Wasn't the original thread about a focusing issue? But now look

where it has gone. Alfie himself only takes up a fraction of the

space that's being devoted to him. To minimize the disruption, we

can minimize the space being given to Alfie-Analysis. Why not

discuss the matter by private email instead, when necessary?

[jacques_balthazar1]

Peter,

 

<p>

 

Some beautiful (and fun) shots on your site. Thank you.

 

<p>

 

You have made your choice and swapped (arrgh!) your M6 for a R8. I

own both but cannot really afford that, so I am considering swapping

(arrrgh!) the R stuff for more M stuff. But with exactly the same

existential questions: if I go for the 75 'lux and 135 'apo-telyt +

0.72M, will I increase my focus failure rate or not at full aperture

shots, compared to the focus success rate achieved with my R8 and 180

apo-elmarit or obtainable with a R8 and 80 'lux (do not own that

one)?...

 

<p>

 

In real life, there is absolutely no question I rather go for the M

when deciding what to carry out. Weight and volume are such a

punishment with R stuff. I only use R for paid shooting (in this case

the R gear -w/motor of course- also looks more impressive to the

customer's eye, and that strangely helps price discussions!).

 

<p>

 

My experience of 0.72 M +90 mm elmarit is that I get a BETTER focus

success rate compared to equivalent R setup, even wide open, and even

at close distance. I find the 90 framelines to be more of an asset

than an inconvenience, as I can freely weigh alternative angles and

framing while shooting. Contrary to what is stated by some pseudo-

experts, there is NO problem focusing on the near eye through those

frames (there is even no problem focusing in low light on a low

contrast pinpoint through those frames...).

 

<p>

 

Obviously the question of the eventual lack of precision in the

linkages between your lens, your body and the telemetering system is

a question that is independent of the correct usage of the focusing

patch. But that can be true for a SLR as well: a slight mirror

problem or a slight screen placement problem might not be detected at

shooting stage, but lead to OOF pictures. WYS Is not necessarily

WYG...

 

<p>

 

I often shoot in low light, never use flash, never do studio, so my

needs are not the same as yours. And you sometimes crop real tight,

at or beyond the limit of the M's minimal focusing distance, so SLR

is indeed "safer" for you.

 

<p>

 

However, I'm sure that you WILL soon re-purchase a M + short tele for

your "non-gothic" outdoor portraits. Your Monterey woman artists will

feel more comfortable, and so will you. This ongoing M-R balancing

act is probably one of the elements that help Leica survive..... ;-)

 

<p>

 

PS Alfie: do not let yourself be terrorised !

[peter_hughes1]

Jacques -- Thank you for the thoughtful and informed response. I'm

glad this thread has returned to the matter at hand.<p><i>...the

question of the eventual lack of precision in the linkages between

your lens...</i><p>I'm quite sure my M was aligned properly. When it

was in, in was <i>in</i>. But I don't think the rangefinder is as

adept at discerning the difference between the eyeball, eyelash

and/or the eyeglass frames as a SLR would be.<p>Frankly, even as a

once-time EOS-1v owner, I am mightily impressed by the R8. It is an

ergonomic masterpiece, the high points of which I do not have time to

list right now. Suffice it to say that the love affair was firmly

established when I realized that, for once, the PC socket was

situated in a logical place: the 1v's is on the left side, which

means the PC plug either fell out or put pressure on the strain

relief; the M6's is on the back, which means that I am always

wrestling it away from the eyepiece. In fact, the R8 is the first

35mm camera I've owned in recent years that did not need gaffer's

tape to hold the synch cord in place!<p>I hate to punch a hole in

your theory, but the Monterey women artists were shot mostly with an

EOS-1v; only the photo of Claire Lerner was shot with an M--an old M3-

-with the 90mm Summicron.<p>I find a motor drive almost essential for

both fashion and portraiture. The closer focusing distance will be a

big plus. And the Aperture Priority mode will certainly come in handy

on occasion.<p><i>...I'm sure that you WILL soon re-purchase a

M...</i><p>Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[jacques_balthazar1]

Peter,

<p><i>I don't think the rangefinder is as adept at discerning the

difference between the eyeball, eyelash and/or the eyeglass frames as

a SLR would be.</i><p>

 

This is precisely the opposite of my experience. Blame it maybe on my

eyesight, but I have a much easier time discriminating such details

by placing my confidence in the rangefinder patch of the M than

placing it in my capacity of visualising very slight focus shifts on

the ground glass of any SLR.

 

By trusting the patch, I can easily focus on a very small low

contrast point that would painfully torture me in the manual focus

SLR world (and that would fool any AF system). The closer I am, the

easiest it is to discriminate such small details of course, and the

more necessay it is to do so. No use nitpicking on lashes/eyeball

with a 90mm 5 meters away from the subject...

 

I KNOW through personal experience that with the 90 elmarit at

minimum distance, my 0.72M rangefinder patch will be totally reliable

at f2.8. I unfortunately do NOT know through personal experience if

that would still be the case with the 90 'cron at f2, the 75 at f1.4

or the 135 at f3.4. Reading other people's experiences with such

settings gathers a mass of contradictory conclusions, and maintains

my own level of FUD at a high enough level to justify my R8

investment (aaargh!).

 

This FUD traces one of the main braking points that lead users (such

as myself) to opt for SLR usage. The other main braking points could

be the will to access macro applications, tele applications, studio

applications or zoom features.

 

However, I still find strange that after decades of 0.72 monopoly,

this debate on focus has not been terminated once and for all...

 

Anyone want to lend/rent me a 75 f1.4 for a couple of weeks ?

 

On another level, I totally agree that the R8 is THE SLR dream body.

 

And I was not assuming that your Women artists pics had been shot

through any particular system, I simply stated my belief that such

subjects would feel more comfortable posing in front of a M... ;-)

[peter_hughes1]

<center>

<img src="http://www.ravenvision.com/images/charleneportrait.jpg">

</center><p>My first shoot with the R8 confirms my belief that the R8

is indeed easier for me to focus at close range then the M6

0.85.<p>It is true that the M is a less imposing and less threatening

camera then the R8, which is much like the EOS-1v HS in that

regard.<p>A Canon or Nikon nameplate signifies <i>professional</i> to

a client. The Leica nameplate signifies elegance, luxury and an

uncompromising pursuit of quality. Now, if only I had a Porsche and

some handmade Italian suits to go with it!

[raymond_tai]

With my R8 I consistantly get sharp in-focus shots with the

90mm Summicron even wide open from 5 feet away. However I

can't say the same with the 90mm Elmarit on my .85x M6, and I

get about 30% in-focus shots with the 75mm Summilux wide

open from 6 feet. I have sold the 75mm Summilux out of

frustration and now use the M6 for 21mm to 50mm only.

 

<p>

 

On the other hand I find the R8 extremely difficult to focus with

wide angle lenses. I have tried the microprism screen and it

was an improvement. I don't what it is since I don't have this

problem with Nikons. Now the R8 is for 50mm and above and

the M is for 50mm and below.

[eliot]

Getting an 0.85 mag M6 and a 1.25X magnifier is not the solution if

you can't focus a 75/1.4 or 90/2.0 M lens accurately at full aperture

(though these will improve the accuracy of focus). Either you (or

less likely, your equipment) is the problem.

 

<p>

 

These lenses as well as the 50/1.0 Noctilux were designed so that

they can be focussed accurately at full aperature at all distances,

using the 0.72 viewfinder of the M2, M4, M4-2, M4-P, or M6. If you

don't understand the basic principles of rangefinder focussing, I

recommend Gunther Osterloh's excellent book on the M system.

 

<p>

 

I have never had a problem focussing fast lenses (including the

90/2.0 and 50/1.0) at full aperture before. The depth of field is

relatively small in the near distance, but the plane of focus always

comes out where I place it. I think frequent failures to obtain

sharp focus under these conditions suggest faulty technique. Such

errors of focus would not show up at greater distances or when the

lens is stopped down, because the increased depth of field will mask

these errors.

 

<p>

 

There has been a lot of nonsense on this site about the Leica M being

a "wide angle camera". This is simply not the case. Believe me, if

you can't focus longer and faster lens on an M camera, you need to

learn how to use the M system properly. It was designed for highly

precise spot focussing. It is annoying to see so many people

interpret their own failure to focus the camera properly as some type

of design flaw.