Moving from rangefinder to reflex

[Doug Richardson <meditor@demon.co.uk>]

There's seen some discussion recently regarding the problems of converting
from reflex to rangefinder - I'm trying to tackle the process in the
opposite direction. After some 35 years of rangefinder (II, IIIb, IIIg, M2
& CL), I've bought an SL2. In a nice camera to use, but I'm very
disappointed with the results I get. The image looks sharp through the
viewfinder, but what's captured on film leaves a lot to be desired. This is
particularly the case with a 135mm lens, even more with the same lens +
Leitz X2 extender.

A few weeks ago I was in Abu Dhabi, and took some pics at the camel races
(no, I'm not making this up - they hold camel races over there!)

The track was some distance from the grandstand, about 80 - 80 yards I'd
guess.

I fitted the 135 + extender, and carefully focussed (using the split-image
rangefinder) on the rails at the edge of the track. To my surprise, the
focussing scale showed a distance of around 40ft, which was obviously
incorrect. 

I took my pics at 1/000 sec to avoid shake, and panned on the subject. The
image looked sharp in the finder, but the resulting photos were more like
Instamatic quality than Leica quality.

There seems to be an inverse relationship between focal length and quality.
Stuff from the 28mm is razor-sharp, stuff with the 50mm is acceptable but
hardly an advert for Leitz quality, while most from the 135mm is just not
sharp.

There are four possibilities here: 

1 the camera has a fault which would account for a sharp finder image not
equating to a sharp image on film

2 depth of field is much shallower than I'm assuming (but why does it look
sharp in the finder?)

3 camera shake 

4 some fault in my technique

I suspect 3 or 4. My late father rarely used a tripod, yet obtained
negatives with his IIIb & 3.5/50mm Elmar which were razor-sharp. I now own
that camera and lens, but shooting at 1/100 sec or faster and carefully
rangefindering, I can't get anything like the sharpness he did!

The rangefinder remains my first love, but I'd like to get the hang of
reflex photography. Can anyone who has made the transition offer any
advice?

Regards,

Doug Richardson






One is that depth of field with