[Leica] Re: [MUGers] Re: .58 or .72 Again!

[Henry Ting <henryting10@yahoo.com>]

Nothing I say could be constituted as fact Maurice,
especially on this forum where some folks get mighty
defensive on what their M can/cannot do.
I just provide my own impression of the "M" vs "R" in
terms of pro or con in a situation where tele-lens is
warranted for action shots.
In action shots, I find tele-lens and the "M" just
does not mix. First of all, the image within the
viewfinder is always sharp and clear compared with the
matt screen of Rs which will tell instantly as you
focus whether whether you are in focus. Secondly, on
an R, the tele-lens enhances the image with the
enlargement, and you see all the details, whereas the
M is exactly the opposite, the image decrease in size
with the smaller framelines. 

There is no doubt the the M outfit is faster and a joy
to use, ONLY if the lens are in the wide thru
mid-range. The reason being these lens have very large
DOF and the sweep between the close range to infinity
is very short. Hence, with the focusing tab, with the
lens set at infinity, raising the camera, sweeping the
focus tab with my middle finger under the lens, and
shoot. All adjustments from raising the camera, to
focusing and pressing the shutter in a fraction of a
second. Now that's the essense of ergonomics of the
classic Leica "candid" photography.
 
However, this distinct function decreases
exponentially when longer focal lens are being used.
First of all, the narrow DOF of these lens make it
more critical to be able to focus right on. Secondly,
the range of turning the focusing from close range to
infinity again gets exponentially wide when longer
focal length is being used. When you get to the 135mm
range, the focusing requires an entire 360 degrees
revolution from close-range through infinity on the
focusing barrel. You cannot just sweep the focus as
the shorter lens. Then there is a problem with framing
due to the smaller imagery.
 
Again some folks can get used to it and vouch for the
Leica M's ability in the combination of tele-lens and
action shots, but for myself, this stretches the
ability of the M and those that vouch for it, will
only agree to disagree.



- --- "Maurice J. Tepper" <fotospinner@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Hi Henry,
> I'm taking what you said below as a fact, because
> there is no arguing that
> is what is true for you.  I just do not understand
> it, and maybe you or some
> other MUG'ers can enlighten me (Not being
> sarcastic!).  I do not have a
> Leica SLR, just a whole flock of old Nikon manual
> cameras, so I experimented
> with them using a 105mm/f2.5 Nikkor  manual lens. 
> Just like the Leica
> SLR's, I assume (always dangerous to assume
> anything), I had to focus by
> turning the lens barrel.  As you said, this focus is
> much more critical when
> using telephoto lenses or very fast lenses, like the
> 50mm/f1 at full
> opening.  In focusing the Leica M with a 90mm, I am
> also turning the lens
> barrel...in the opposite direction from the Leica,
> but that is another
> problem that takes getting used to.  The only
> difference is that in the
> single lens reflex finder I can focus on ground
> glass or use the center
> split-image, or micro-prism ring (depending on what
> focusing screen I have
> installed in the prism viewfinder), and with the
> Leica I have the
> split-image and double-image - no ground glass.  I
> found that
> psychologically, when I used the ground glass only,
> like with the Nikon all
> ground glass "B" screen, I "thought" I was focusing
> faster...but probably
> was fooling myself.  This fooling myself was O.K. in
> most instances, because
> when you get the results back in a negative, the
> focus is within usable
> limits anyway.  When I took the Leica M, focused
> very fast and sort of got
> the image superimposed for a minute amount of time
> that may correspond with
> taking the picture...something I had done in the
> past...which is again
> probably fooling myself as to complete accuracy at
> the moment of having the
> shutter click.. the picture came out O.K. in terms
> of being within
> acceptable limits of focus.  Outside of the
> self-deception involved...the
> psychological affect of looking thru a rangefinder
> and seeing accurate lines
> that "need to be exactly aligned"...but in fast
> situations probably
> don't...there was no difference in the speed of
> focusing the Leica M over a
> SLR. However, if you think there is..then there is.
> Maurice
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henry Ting" <henryting10@yahoo.com>
> To: <MUGers@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [MUGers] Re: .58 or .72 Again!
> 
> 
> >
> > Some additional thoughts to consider.
> > With 35mm and the 50mm you can pretty much preset
> the
> > focus and fire away. But a longer focal length of
> 90
> > or 135 does not have such DOF and you pretty much
> have
> > to focus, and with moving objects, it's not easy
> > because the lens of these focal length have to be
> > focused on the barrel, quite unlike the 35, 50mm
> that
> > have a focusing tab on the lens which makes it
> faster.
> > The Leica M is pretty much a lame situation when
> it
> > comes to tele-lens for moving objects. I don't
> care
> > what Leica claims in the advantage of M viewfinder
> > being able to see outside of the framelines, it
> just
> > cannot compare with the Leica R when it comes to
> > action shots with teles . . . my 2 cts...
> >
> > --- tvhead00 <thericker@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
> > >
> > > So, yes, higher magnification will ensure more
> > > accurate focus.
> > > This is good if I'm shooting a static object in
> a
> > > studio.  I got that.
> > > Now, is there a real world difference?  Is it
> that
> > > much more
> > > difficult to get accurate focus with the .58
> when
> > > you're out
> > > shooting moving objects in the real world?   I
> feel
> > > like I might
> > > screw up focus for a number of other reasons
> > > instead.   People
> > > moving out of range for instance.
> > >
> > > This leads me to another question about
> accuracy.
> > > How
> > > accurate does the m6 need to be?  Erwin Puts
> says
> > > that the .58
> > > should be more than accurate enough to focus a
> > > Noctilux.   Let's
> > > use this analogy. Say one person had 60 million
> > > dollars in their
> > > bank account  and another person had 80 million
> in
> > > theirs. Does
> > > it make a difference?  They're both rich, but
> > > neither will have
> > > enough to solve world hunger.   Wait, did that
> > > analogy work?
> > >
> > > I can see the 35 mm framelines of my .72 M2. 
> Not a
> > > problem.
> > > But I feel like I need a little more performance
> > > space.  Do you
> > > know what I mean?  I want to see the whole image
> > > with a quick
> > > glance through the viewfinder.  I want to see
> whats
> > > around the
> > > viewfinder so I can anticipate shots.  I can't
> > > really do that with the
> > > .72 m2.  I don't know how people can use the 28
> > > framelines.
> > > They must have their eyes touching the
> viewfinder..
> > >
> > > I'll probably only get a 35 and leave that
> > > permanently attached
> > > and do what VSINGH suggests and later get a .85
> with
> > > a 90
> > > permantly attached.  I still have my slrs for
> the
> > > longer stuff..
> > >
> > > --- In MUGers@y..., "Maurice J. Tepper"
> > > <fotospinner@e...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > So...you can see the 35mm frame in an M2
> without
> > > any
> > > problem.  Good, this means you can see the 35mm
> > > frame in any
> > > .72 viewfinder, which is in the M2...and
> M4...and
> > > M6..and
> > > "classic" M6... and .72M6TTL.  You are going to
> buy
> > > (you said
> > > below) a 28mm, another 35mm and a 90mm...never
> mind
> > > of the
> > > fancy descriptive "ASPH" or "short" stuff...they
> are
> > > still 28, 35 and
> > > 90mm lenses. Optical rangefinders work on
> > > triangulation, or
> > > measuring the angle between sightings from 2
> > > different
> > > viewpoints.  The distance between the viewpoints
> on
> > > the Leica M
> > > cameras...all of them..is called the rangefinder
> > > base length.  It
> > > determines rangefinder accuracy...accuracy, not
> > > frames we are
> > > talking about here, and on the Leica this base
> > > length is just
> > > under 70mm.  FINDER SCALE REDUCTION lowers this
> > > figure to
> > > about 50mm.  The .58 finder is an example of
> > > viewfinder
> > > reduction, as are the "high eyepoint" finders
> > > produced by Nikon,
> > > etc...good for eyeglass wearers to see the
> frame,
> > > bad for
> > > rangefinder accuracy.  Now you can also buy a
> 1.25
> > > magnifier to
> > > screw onto the viewfinder to make up for this
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html