Recently i've used the Nikon set to do available light candids at f1.4 and found that many shots which i thought was in focused viewing through the finder turns out to be out of focused. i blame myself for the error.

my initial thought was to have a SLR 35/1.4 to compensate the mirror vibration by using a shutter speed 1 stop faster than a RF 35/2, say 1/60 against 1/30. But about a quarter of my shots are not in focused where i want it to be. i thought the shallow DOF at f1.4 helps me to focus but it is not forgiving in revealing my focusing error.

Is super-imposing RF images in direct finder more accurate or easier than plainly focusing an image on ground glass? i'd like to hear from personal experience. If so then i'm going to take the plunge because besides this issue, the noise of the FM2 mirror is attracting unwanted attention.

-- y. shawee (shawee@pacific.net.sg), September 07, 2001

Answers

Yes, focusing is generally more accurate with a rangefinder, because the distance between the "Windows" is about 2.5 inches or so, offering excellent binocular vision and distance discrimination, about that of the human eye. The accuracy of a split image in an SLR finder is limited to the width of the lens opening, and it gets darker due to the ground glass screen. Autofocus is no more accurate, really.

All else being equal, RFs give better focusing than SLRs.

Ah yes, the dreaded mirror slap-ain't none of that with an RF camera - just a discrete "snick".

Good luck

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), September 07, 2001.

I have some kind of similar experience with a Zeiss 85mmf1.4, when I use this at 1.4-2.0 I have a lot of mis-focused shots even if I try to be very accurate. When I use my M3 with a 50mmf2.0 at f2.0 I have very few mis-focused shots. This is probably due to the the fact that the range finder is stil clear and bright even at low light levels. And that the split image is very easy to see.

-- Kaj Froling (saluki@mail.tele.dk), September 07, 2001.

The advantage of an RF-camera is in equal accuracy of focussing at any distance and f-stop, and with any focus length of a lens. The accuracy just doesn’t depend on these factors.

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), September 07, 2001.

The accuracy (or in-accuracy, for that) may be equal, but with the DOF decreasing with longer lenses, any in-accuracy still tends to become more evident. BTW, if you compare the DOF of a 50mm lens @ f:2 to that of an 85mm lens @ f:1.4 you will notice that there are worlds in between. Focussing moving objects handheld @ 1,4 with a short telephoto lens is a real challenge, be it with a RF or an SLR...

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), September 07, 2001.

I used the FM2 with 35 f1.4 for a number of years. I switched to the M6 with 35 1.4 asph about three years ago. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that wide open I am focussing more accurately with the M6. I dont really use the Nikon much for available light any more.

-- Mark Eban (markeban@compuserve.com), September 07, 2001.

I mean the accouracy of a rangefinder.

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), September 07, 2001.

Well, I understood that...?!

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), September 07, 2001.

I think any pictures at f1.4 are more demanding no question. The r/f may well have advantages over an SLR here. If you use some kind of support/chest pod thing then you will not notice any camera shake with an SLR at 1/60, if you don't have a support, then there will be noticeable camera shake in my opinion. This will take the edge off the sharpness. With the r/f you should be OK at 1/60 (but it is still better to have a support if you are wanting to "cut yourself" with the sharpness). One thing it is worth mentioning is whether you have any eyesight correction issues with the Nikon? It is absolutely vital to ensure that your eyes can actually tell when the SLR screen is sharp. This is important too with an M leica. I find that the variable diopter adjustment on my R is vital to ensure I can see properly through the viewfinder.

Is R/f focussing easier? I think this is not quite the word I would use exactly - it is more accurate with 21-35mm lenses, but I am not sure it is "easier" exactly. You have to focus in the middle of the viewfinder and it is pretty hard with moving subjects. It can be done brilliantly, but I don't really think it is easy. It never is, even with a good autofocus camera. You should probably be expecting some errors too. I think you just need to persevere for a bit before deciding the reflex is hopeless. My own feeling when shooting candids with an 80/1.4 at 1.4 is that, unless the subject is static, the likelihood of getting a well focussed shot is probably only 40%, mostly due to subject movement, or it just not looking good anyway even if it is in focus.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 07, 2001.

I had the same focusing problem with my FM2n outfit, which prompted me to get an M6TTL. For the past year or so I kept getting rolls back from the developer with at least 25% of the frames out of focus. I had some trouble initially with the M6 (w/35 ASPH cron) simply because I forgot to focus, since everthing in the viewfinder was clear as a bell. Now I find that I pay much more attention to pre-focusing and the DOF marks on the lens than I ever did with my FM2n - and I'm a better photographer because of it. Oh yeah, the "snick" of the M6 shutter is sublime compared to the "thuh-whack" of the FM2n. Also handholding at 1/15th is suh-weet!

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), September 07, 2001.

I use the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 also, and I too have experienced the odd out of focus shot. If I am not going into extreme environments, I will now use my manual focus Nikkors on an autofocus camera. This to me offers the best of both worlds. I use the "electronic rangefinder" of the camera, rotating the lens in the direction that the arrow shows until the focus is confirmed and then recompose and shoot. Several times, I was sure the focus was off, but the shots came out fine... this shows that you can't trust 40-something eyes for a judgment of sharpness.

If this is a continuing problem, give one of the cross compatible auto focus Nikons a look. All of my lenses are the older AI / AIS manual focus versions, but with the AF cameras my confidence is higher in poor light. I still have an old FM2 in the bag for insurance, incase the electronic camera dies.

And yes... I also find the 35mm lens on an M6 is more certain to focus. The lens' depth of field and speed does not effect the process. If you really want to compare the SLR vs. the RF advantage, put a 20mm Nikkor on the FM2 and a 21mm on the M6.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 07, 2001.

Shot with an FM for 20 years before getting the Leica M3 and an N90S. I get much better hand held low light results with the M3 and N90s. Part of it is the mirror slap, which has been improved considerably on the N90s (and doesn't exist on a Leica of course), the other part is split image screens are not that accurate. I do better with the bright ground glass on the N90s.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 07, 2001.

Any modern SLRs focusing base-length cannot come close to competing with the Leica M's for focus accuracy, even if your using the .58x M. And it gets much worse for the SLR as you use wider lenses! Add to that the fact that most of Nikon's (and I imagine Canon's as well) newer af lenses are pretty poor performers wide open when compared to the M (Nikon's 35 in particualr is horrible, but stop them down two stops, and they improve dramatically). Compound these factors, and the likelyhood of obtaining acceptable shots regularly with any SLR in low light, dwindles. You are probably better off zone-focusing with an SLR in low-light situations.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 07, 2001.

Also, due to harmonics of the mirror slap, shutter speeds of 1/15th actually produce more vibration than 1/8th in many SLR's(!)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 07, 2001.

Methink Jack exaggerates. It is all a question of what low light means. If low light means in an average room with average lighting or a restaurant with overhead light - one can manage reasonably well with an SLR (even if you feel uncertain about having got sharp focus). With an M you will feel happier and may get a better percentage of sharp focuses, but I think Jack paints too gloomy a picture of working with an SLR - after all we are talking about an f1.4 lens. I have taken many perfectly well focussed shots in average light in rooms and bars with my 28mm f2.8 R - I don't enjoy trying to focus with it, but it does work. There is a good deal to be said for the increased M focussing over an SLR in low light, but M owners frequently exaggerate this in my opinion, implying that SLR owners should pack up and go home. If there really is no light - a face in shadow in a darkly lit bar, then any focussing is difficult. A recent set (I saw it 6 months ago) of outstanding prints taken in pool rooms and bars at the Leica gallery in New York comes to mind. This was real available light black and white stuff taken with the R8. I was greatly impressed I must say. With slow zooms, it is difficult/impossible, but with a fast prime it is quite possible, even if it less enjoyable than using an M.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 07, 2001.

Robin:

>Methink Jack exaggerates...<

No surprise here, as you almost always disagree with whatever I post.

> ...but M owners frequently exaggerate this in my opinion, implying that SLR owners should pack up and go home.<

NEVER did I suggest an SLR owner "pack up and go home" when the light gets scarce. I merely suggested they might be better off zone focusing when such conditions require it. However, I DID mean to imply that low-light, hand-held photography is easier with the M. And yes, I've even been known to zone-focus my M when the conditions required it -- The conditions just don't require it as often as they did with my SLR!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 07, 2001.

Robin, you are correct, the results I get with the Nikon N90S in hand held low light with the 50 1.8, 35 f2.0, and 28 f2.8 are often more than acceptable. None of my Nikkors at maximum aperture can capture the details like my 50 Summicron at f2.0, however. The funny thing is that if it wasn't for my learning I can do these type of shots with the M camera, I wouldn't have even tried things like f2.0 at 1/15 or 1/8 with an SLR again, because I had almost no luck ever with my FM down there.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 07, 2001.

Sorry Jack, I don't mean to! I just did not want our questionner to get the impression that he should rush out and spend a fortune on a Leica M and 35mm 'lux because he would have little chance of success of making what he wants to do happen with his Nikon and 35mm f1.4. Mr (?) Shawee can make it work with the kit he has: many many do, that was all my caution was meant to imply.

He might well enjoy it more with an M6 and arguably get better results, though I agree with you.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 07, 2001.

Robin:

All well and good, except you stated I exaggerated the facts... If you read his(?) original post, you'll find that the questioner stated he was having focusing problems with his current SLR set-up, and then asked if the RF system is more accurate or easier to use in low light situations. I answered him per my own experience as he requested, and I then went on to give him an alternative tool to try with his SLR. (Never suggesting he give it up.)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 07, 2001.

Here's an interesting experiment you can try if you own both a rangefinder and and SLR. Set them both up on tripods side by side. Aim them at the same subject about 15 - 30 feet. Rack them both to their closest focus distance and then focus on the same point with both cameras. Note the distance on the focus scales of both cameras. EXACTLY. Now set lenses at minumum focus (still pointed at the same subject) and refocus, again checking the focus scale afterwords. Try this about 4 or 5 times. You will notice that the rangefinder will focus to more less the exact same spot every time on the focus scale, whereas the SLR (and this holds for manual as well as A/F) will deviate a few mm everytime and will quite likely not arrive at the exact same spot twice. How accurate can this be?

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), September 07, 2001.

What about longer lenses?

How does a Leica with a 135mm lens compare to an SLR for focus accuracy (and manual focus speed), do you think?

-- Joel (considering Leica ownership)

-- Joel Benford (joel@joel-benford.co.uk), September 08, 2001.

The short version: Yes, almost any 35mm rangefinder will focus a 35 f/ 1.4 more accurately than will an SLR.

The long version: there are so many factors in this question that it could take up a book chapter.

The medium version: RFs have a fixed accuracy with all lenses, whereas the accuracy of an SLR varies on a sliding scale depending on focal length and aperture. With an RF you are MEASURING the distance to the subject via a fixed triangulation system (and simultaneously setting the lens TO that distance via a lot of mathematically calculated and machined cams and levers and such), while with an SLR you are judging the sharpness/fuzziness of the image itself, or a split image that varies (as already said) with aperture and focal length.

For 35mm cameras, somewhere in the range 50-90mm, depending on which RF you pick (Leica CL, Voigtlander, Leica M3, Leica M6 .58x), there is a cross-over. Above that crossover the SLR is usually more accurate, and below it the SLR is usually less accurate (the RF accuracy remains constant, but depth of field doesn't!).

With a 35 lens I find the rangefinder has about a 2-stop advantage in shake at around 1/8 to 1/30, but at 1/125 there is no difference.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 08, 2001.

Joel - you'll notice that while several SLR manufacturers make 135 f/2 lenses, Leica's fastest now is only an f/3.4. Leica used to make a 135 f/2.8, but it needed 'goggles' to magnify the RF image 1.5x in order to focus accurately.

The highest magnification Leica finder is the .91x life-size M3. With a 135 on most SLRs you are seeing the world at least 2x life size - hence more accuracy.

In addition, the RF viewfinder has a fixed magnification - using longer lenses you don't see a bigger image (as with an SLR). Instead you see a 35mm (or 28mm) lens's field of view with the image 'cropped' by frame lines to indicate the area that will actually appear in the picture.

By the time you get out to the 135 frame, it is a little box about 1/ 16th the entire window.

It works, if you're used to it and don't want to carry two camera systems for the occasional 135 picture.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 08, 2001.

dear ALL, thank you very much for the thoughts.

It was only the last year or so of my 5-6 years of practice that i pay less attention to the mis-understood "sharpness" and concentrate more on getting my subject "in-focus".

With the AIS 35/1.4 , i can get very interesting shots not acheivable with slower "sharper" lens, partly because of the way a 35mm at f1.4 blurs the background when focusing on a subject at 5-8 feet, and partly because i can use a shutter speed that can freeze motion and allow me to handhold in general indoor lighting condition.

i felt 1/60 is minimal in freezing human gesture like a passing smile. i sometimes wonder if the ability of a RF to get a steady shot at 1/15 or 1/8 is of any merit because it only register a in-focused body with a blurred face because my subject happens to move his/her head as he/she speaks.

So my concern is really the ability to get the lens to focus correctly at the point intended. i will try zone focusing the next time round. i'm already trying to familiarise myself with 2 distance, ie. 5 feet and 7 feet where most "things" happen.

From the experience of the last few rolls, i do recall the fumbling to focus back and forth even when i guessitmated the distance correctly before bring the camera to my eye. The "touching-up" of focus caused mis-shots and mis-focused shots. MHO is that even with a RF, being able to pre-focus is a valuable ability to the photographer.

But to get around the "churrck" of FM2, well...... just got to start saving then.

-- y. shawee (mr) (shawee@pacific.net.sg), September 08, 2001.

I have an real non-pro suggestion that people here might not even think about giving a try. Nikon has achieved -1EV low-light auto- focus since F801(8008) brought to market and till today no other camera maker can match. All nikon AF film body (pro or amature) can AF at -1EV without the help of AF-assist-beam, besides all pro and semi-pro body has < o > mark in the viewfinder to help focusing manually (F801/F90/F100). The only drawback is that the sound of the shutter of these 3 bodies is really loud.

There's another choise that pro photographer might not even think about, the F80(N80). F80 also AF down to -1EV but with much silent mirror-shutter noise. It's silent cause the movement of the mirror is significantly slower than the 3 above, of couse with the side-effect of longer shutter-lag. By the way F80 does not support AIS metering and does not has the < > focus indication either. If you can stand the drawback of no-AIS metering and the cheap-looking, the silent shutter and low-light AF of F80 would suprise you maybe.

BTW there's no AF 35/1.4 but only AF 35/2 and AF 28/1.4 instead.

-- Gilbert Chou (GilbertChou@hotmail.com), March 23, 2002.