Re: Moving from rangefinder to reflex

[seungmin@luxmail.luxcom.com]

     Hi Doug,
     
      I am sorry to hear that you did not have good results from you first 
     SL2 with 135.  The 135 was my first lens for my Leica reflexes and I 
     have been using it for about 10 years now with no problem at all.  It 
     is an excellent performer.  I believe that it has the same design as 
     the 135/2.8 for M.
      It sounds like your SL2 might have a focusing problem or the lens 
     itself might be bad.  You might want to check the body with another 
     known good lens or test the lens with another known good body.
     
     Regards,
     David

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Moving from rangefinder to reflex
Author:  leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at Internetmail
Date:    6/1/97 10:34 AM


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