Re: Moving from rangefinder to reflex

[John Buford <jbuf@ix.netcom.com>]

Dear Doug;
		Here are a few techniques that i found have worked for me in the last
20 or so years.  After you compose your shot, take a deep breath and
hold it, gently squeeze the shutter, always try to stand wide legged, it
gives you a more stable base.  Tuck your elbows in tight to your body. 
The problem with the SL-2 sounds like you are taking the effect of the
mirror slap into account.   Also the longer the lens the harder it is to
hold steady, it is somethinng that takes practice.  If you know any one
who does target shooting as a hobby they may be able to give you some
lessons.

HTH
John





Doug Richardson wrote:
> 
> 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