Rangefinder focusing - choosing a target

[matt_sachs]

Greetings, All:

 

While using estimates of distance for choosing the focus-point has its

merits for speed, I would be grateful to learn how other photographers

choose specific subject detail for evaluating focus using the

split-image system quickly, and how do they do the evaluation? That

is, what are the preferred target areas for evaluating the convergence

of the split-image (e.g., on a human figure or face?) What technique

(move the focusing ring past, then back?)

 

My limited experience focusing by split-image only without

ground-glass (M7 vs SLR) is that when there are edges at the correct

distance, it seems relatively easy to quickly get to the correct focus

by split-image. But it seems not so easy to focus on specific points

in scenes containing repetitive elements (e.g., a field of flowers) or

in low-contrast situations in general.

 

Thank you.

[john_collier2]

I always focus on the eyes of people and animals. To focus properly on

patterns with repetative elements, tilt the camera to 45 degrees form

horizontal.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

What John said, but adding that sometimes, lack of detail will make it just about impossible to focus on something, in which case, you'll have to guesstimate, or focus on a similarly distant object.

 

As an aside, I've found that the Leica lens OOF image to be quite pleasing, and that a slight goof in target selection (except for the eyes, they MUST be in focus for me) is often not too objectionable.

[Troll]

Co-incidence focusing is quicker, but if you're looking for the most accurate focus (by a factor of five), do it by lining up benchmarks at the edge of the frame. Leitz went to a great deal of trouble in designing the M-3 RF/VF so it could be done. Incidentally, is everyone aware that late M-3s have DOF indicators for two apertures built into the RF?

[sandy_gruskin1]

Bill,

Please describe your technique of lining up benchmarks in the M3 VF.

How can I determine whether the VF in my M3 has depth of field indicators for two apertures? My M3 is numbered 923 378. Are they the two notches that appear in the focusing rectangle? Which apertures are covered?. Please describe the technique for using the depth of field indicators. Thanks.

Sandy Gruskin

[al_kaplan1]

Having the eyes in perfect focus is ideal, the nearer eye even better. In a fast moving situation in low light I'll try for the edge of a necktie against a white shirt or the edge of an ear against a very dark or much brighter background. Eyeglass frames are easy to focus on also. Better top get a slightly less than optimum focus than miss the shot. Everybody else is probably shooting with an AutoEverything Wondercam and only God and the computer chip know what it will decide as the place to focus. And their shutters might fire a second after they press the button while God and the computer chip argue it out. A second after the great expression or perfect composition briefly appeared in your viewfinder.

[mike dixon]

What John Collier said. I often ignore the convention of focusing on the near eye, though. If the subject's face is at an angle, focusing on the far eye will generally result in a cheek/jawline that is sharply rendered against an out-of-focus background--I prefer that to a sharp near eye and soft definition of the face.<P>

<img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/livcol04.jpg">

[tim_franklin]

Sandy,

Yes, its the two "notches" on the RF patch. The narrow one is for

f/5.6, and the wider is for f/16

[albert_smith]

Sandy,

 

This is from my M2 instruction book. The M3 cut-outs are the same.<div></div>

[john_fleetwood]

Mike, you have re-defined blue.

[djphoto]

What an absolute knock-out, Mike! (The photography is good, too.)

[david enzel]

Mike,

 

Another stunning image? What lens did you use? I would guess a 50.

[mike dixon]

Thanks, guys! I'm fairly certain the lens used was the 75 Summilux (the intimacy of a 50 but with less distortion).