Another shot using a 135mm on the M8

[gwebster]

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5770730-lg.jpg"><br>

<strong>Crossing the Street</strong> - <em>Leica M8, Tele-Elmar 135/4</em></center>

[richie chishty]

Very nice!

[gwebster]

I also forgot to mention that this shot was composed and focused without the aid of the 1.25x magnifier. I think it's clear from the image that the focus is well away from infinity and therefore needed to be fairly accurate at this wide aperture (shot at f4 with the actual distance to the subject being the kerb-to-kerb width of a normal city street). I feel that this demonstrates very nicely, the useability of the 135mm focal length on the M8.

[gwebster]

Thanks Richie!

[mark_amos]

Gordon, I'd say that's another really good one. I love the way her toe is not quite touching his heel, and that must have been skill and chance to catch it then. Good shot.

[gwebster]

<em>I love the way her toe is not quite touching his heel ...</em>

<p>

Thanks Mark! I'd love to be able to take credit for the heel-to-toe thing but truth is, that was luck. As far as timing goes, I just tried to catch the girl in mid-stride because at that distance, she had a much more evident stride than the old guy.

[Alex_Es]

A quick test shot of crowd on Ebisu Bridge, Osaka.<div></div>

[ron_h__portland_]

Not only technically great, the photo itself is near perfect. I love the juxtaposition of the

young woman confidently striding across the street vs the older gentleman balancing on his

cane. Note how he's wearing a biopic on his spectacles (he's visually impaired) and she's

listening to her music via headphones (she's aurally impaired). The two make perfect

bookends. This is a shot to print large and sell.

[ron_h__portland_]

Correction, that should be "he's wearing a BIOPTIC telescope on his spectacles" (not biopic).

My bad.

[gwebster]

Thank you for the kind words Ron. This is a spot I have been back to several times because I like the way the little side street drops off at such a steep angle from the main street. The last couple of times I was there (including today), I spent about twenty minutes just standing on the opposite kerb waiting for some interesting confluence of passers-by crossing the little side street.

[gwebster]

Nice capture Alex! It looks like you nailed the focus on the girl with the big hair in the center of the shot. The 135mm focal length is really great for selective focus. I imagine that the magnifying goggles on the Elmarit are a big help as well.

[vivek iyer]

It seems to me that Alex either missed the focus or focused on the guy with glasses behind the hairy girl.

 

If I look more carefully that redhead haired person is not a girl!! ;)

[Alex_Es]

Thanks. Gordon. Your shot is better than mine. Vivek got it right. Photography on the bridge is like Nintendo. Not only is the crowd fast moving but also faces and bodies tend to get in the way of your subject. The subject inavertantly changed. Instead of the weird slurping guy it became the only straight guy in the whole crowd. Not really satisfactory. I suppose an autofocus 135 on a DSLR (cheaper than the M8) would have done the trick. But maybe not. The 135 is a difficult lens to use in this sort of situation. It was good practise.

[gwebster]

Alex, Vivek - you are right - slurping girl is actually a guy! When I look more carefully I can also see that the primary focus is actually the nerdy looking guy behind him. One of the things that strikes me about shots from Japanese cities is how concentrated the crowds are. The population density over there is incredible. Some of Alex's street shots make Boston feel almost deserted by comparison. I can't imagine that these dense fast-moving crowds can make selective focusing any easier!

[aplumpton]

Nice photos. Do you guys just assume the "effective" 180 mm frame when shooting with either the f4 or f2.8? I guess the google-eyed version (or a separate 1.5X magnifier) helps RF accuracy but does nothing else. Is there a 180mm or (old) 200mm VF out there, and if so, do you think it would be of any use with these 135mm RF lenses (for frame-lining, at least)?

[jtdnyc]

<I guess the google-eyed version (or a separate 1.5X magnifier) helps RF accuracy but does nothing else.>

 

Arthur, the goggle-eyed version does do something else. It calls up the 90mm framelines which, because of the 1.5x magnified view, show the proper field for the 135.

 

As Gordon explained in his other recent thread on this subject, and Dan Flanders endorsed, it's possible to estimate coverage by using the rangefinder patch, the 90 frame and experience.

[christopher_a._junker1]

Both are great shots. Alex, I'm not so sure the redhead is out of focus as opposed to blurred. Her(his?) tee shirt seems to be in pretty good focus as compared to the head and hair. How far away were you so we have an idea as to the depth of field? The Elmarit-M 2.8 135 seems to be capable of really nice images if it can be focused with enough depth of field. Not a lightweight set up, especially with the goggles.

[Alex_Es]

Thanks for the good words, guys! I really wanted the redhead guy (and very trendy guy too)

to be tack sharp. Well, the 135/2.8 and I did our best. But no Pulitzer Prize this time. The

goggles 135/2.8 is a great lens but one I do not use often because of its size. I use it for

theater mostly. This was the first time to use it on the M8. The frame is a bit tighter than

what you actually get.

 

Christopher, I must have been three or four meters away and shooting at around f8 or 11. I

was probably shooting at about 1/500. I had set the ISO at 1250. It really was a fast crowd.

It's amazing to see a crowd that packed move so quickly.

[aplumpton]

Thanks, Jonathon, but I have a hard time believing that the 90mm frame (M8 equivalent of 120mm) can change to 135mm (M8 equivalent of 180mm). Is the frame not simply enlarged by the google eyes (that is what happened with the 0.72X M2 viewing window 135mm frame, for which the f2.8 was originally designed)? Arthur

[steve_m__pa_]

Personally, I like how the redhead, trying so hard to be the focus of attention, isn't.

[jtdnyc]

Arthur, the frame is not enlarged because it is behind the goggle lens, not in front of it. It is the image in the field of view that is enlarged to fill the frame.

 

This is what happend with the .72 viewfinder on the M2. Contrary to your statement, the goggle eyes did not magnify the frame line on the M2.

 

The viewfinder magnifier, on the other hand, being behind the frame, magnifies both the frame and the field seen by the viewfinder itself. Used with the goggle eyes, you get the benefit of an enlarged view within an enlarged frame.

[aplumpton]

OK, Jonathon, I stand corrected on what gets enlarged with what and the double enlargement effect with both google lens and 1.25X mag. However, whether you get an enlarged image in the field of view (googling) or both magnified field of view and magnified view of frameline, a part of my question remains. Is the frameline rendered an equivalent 180mm on the M8?

 

 

The M8 framelines are of course not related to the 35mm film size framelines of the lenses in question, so without a modified 135mm frameline for the 135 in the M8, I presume all we are getting is an enlarged view of the 90mm/120mm frameline and not a 135/180mm frameline.

[jerry_kirkwood]

<i>Personally, I like how the redhead, trying so hard to be the focus of attention, isn't.</i>

 

Personally, I'm struck by how popular magenta clothing is in Japan.

[jtdnyc]

Arthur, when the goggled 135 Elmarit is used on the M8, the magnified field of view fills the 90mm framelines and is thus the equivalent of a 180 on a 35mm film camera.

 

So, odd as it seems, the 90mm frameline describes an "effective 180" field of view. The goggle enlargement factor(1.5) multiplied by the sensor crop factor (1.33) is about 2...and 2 times 90 is 180. I hope this clarifies the situation.

[aplumpton]

OK, Jonathon, I will try it and perhaps have to bow deeply before your superior reasoning. I'm not from the State that underscores the approach of "show me", but consider the following: A 35 mm frameline in a 0.58 M6 is still a 35 mm frameline in a higher mag 0.72, even if it is magnified 1.24X. Or putting the goggle magnifier with 135 mm lens on an M6 camera does not change the field of view, but only brings the 135 mm frameline closer (that is, it magnifies it, without changing how the lens will bring information to the film plane).

 

Maybe I am still missing something here?