It forces me to concentrate on things that are more (IMHO) important, like composition in time (gestures, expressions, moments), or the relationships of things within the frame (near/far, big/small), rather than around the edges. Personally, I find the "sloppiness" of RF composition to be a benefit, even liberating. As Magnum photographer David Alan Harvey ( David Alan Harvey) once put it, "Rangefinders are as different from SLRs as they are from view cameras." They aren't - they are a whole different way of seeing the world. It is a common mistake to think the Leica M (or other rangefinders) are supposed to be just cute little lightweight SLRs. But it is infinitely more rewarding than SLRs (imho).ītw - Judging from how you describe your use of the camera ("raise the camera, focus (because I shoot wide open), and take the picture") I guess you mean you shoot with small apertures, ie high numbers, not wide open. ![]() Using a rangefinder really does require more from the photographer in terms of pure photographic skill. With a slightly smaller aperture, say around f8 - to allow for sufficient DOF the rate of well-focused photos will be high. Many set it at 3m, estimate the distance to the subject and compensate while raising the camera to their eye and take the picture. ![]() somewhat less.Įxperienced rangefinder photographers (and there are loads at this forum who, I'm sure, will chime in regarding their technique) will have learnt the distance settings of the focus ring of their lenses. 7.3% (28 mm) to 18 % (135 mm) more of the sensor is covered than the bright-line frame actually shows, the opposite is the case for focusing distances less than 1 meter, i.e. Focused at infinity, and depending on the focal length, approx. Please let me know what you think about this, if you have similar problems and if you found a way to work with this.Ĭorrespondence between the viewfinder and the actual image - At a focusing distance of 1 meter, the bright-line frame size corresponds precisely to that of a sensor of 23.9 × 35.8 mm. I believe I am not the only with this problem because I once read that Ascough who was famous for his Leica wedding photography switched to Canon and one of the reasons for this was that he found the composing with a rangefinder was not precise enough. In one sentence: composing the picture in the camera. The outcome is often much better when compared with the Leica. OK, a tiny step back (very easy with autofocus), oh, and a little movement to the right - better - your are fine - take it." "Ok, the hand is in, the head a bit cut off - that´s all right. The results are more than OK for me.īut, when I use my Nikon it starts of course with the same "seeing the picture", than raising the camera, focus is snapp on and than I find myself composing more carefully, like: When I shoot my Leica I often see the picture, just raise the camera, focus (because I shoot wide open), and take the picture. Furthermore there are the problem with the parallax effect, which can be quite annoying when trying to compose exact for example through a door or with people close on the foreground. It is hard to see the 35mm framelines all at once and they are not very accurate. ![]() The problem I have is that i find it hard to compose the picture. The main problem I have with my M9 is not the focus, of course not the fully manual operation which I love. My main tools are the M9 or my D700 (only with primes). Mostly I photograph people, with 35 or 50 mm, unposed, often in motion, often wide often. I would like to put something to discussion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |