Daniel wrote:
The focus and recompose limitation you describe, though, has nothing to do with low light. It's a limitation in broad daylight too-- if you're shooting wide open.

Who said that focus and recompose was only a low light issue????

Daniel wrote:
Without giving my eyes more than a minute to adjust to turning the light off, I was able to focus reliably on the crack between one of my closet doors and the moldings around it. If one were to meter that scene it would be well below EV -5 (f/1.4, 1s, ISO6400).

Superman vision?

Come on EV -5 is so damn dark. Your really claiming you can reliably focus in that light.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Size...

the x-t1 wins and it is remarkable what quality comes from this dinky little camera....

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2931/140 … d199_o.jpg

Download this with save image as and open it in photoshop.

Then look at this:



what is also remarkable is that the fuji and Ziess touit lenses track focus really well at 4 fps.

What's happening with his fingers on his right hand?

Daniel wrote:
That can be overcome with practice, experience, or chimping should one so desire. It's also in the spirit of scale focusing, I suppose (you're going to need to pay attention to how much further or closer away you now are from your subject so you can adjust accordingly).

So you are claiming that you can guess the adjustment you need to make after rangefinder focusing at the center of the frame and recomposing with a really fast lens?

OK let's see 10 consecutive frames shot at f1.4 focused on the eyes and then recomposed placing the eyes close tone corner of the frame. No tripod, model and photographer standing. Digital.

SPV Photo wrote:

What's happening with his fingers on his right hand?

Lets see if you can wrap your brain around this... taking a picture with another camera.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Who said that focus and recompose was only a low light issue????

From your reply to my reply to the portion of your post that I had questioned, your explanation for Leicas being poor in low light in your experience, as far as I could tell, had only to do with focus/recompose.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Superman vision?

Come on EV -5 is so damn dark. Your really claiming you can reliably focus in that light.

I mean, I can't see what color your underwear is.

It is dark, but it's not difficult. I can't see a black film carrier sitting on my chocolate ottoman. I can see some dust I missed on the hardwood floors though...

Fred Greissing wrote:

Lets see if you can wrap your brain around this... taking a picture with another camera.

1. Your reply here and private message to me are both rude.

and

2. I was talking about the right hand of the portrait you posted. There seems to be some banding around his fingertips and I was wondering what caused it.

Zack Zoll wrote:

Presumably because a mirrorless camera uses the ISO-boosted preview image to focus, and can be zoomed in for critical focusing.

Can also use Phase Detection. That is where the digital split screen is generated from.

Fred Greissing wrote:
OK let's see 10 consecutive frames shot at f1.4 focused on the eyes and then recomposed placing the eyes close tone corner of the frame. No tripod, model and photographer standing. Digital.

I only shoot film, but I'm going to go out on a limb say that if there is softness in the results, it's more likely to be from corner softness shooting wide open than being able to tell that the subject's right eyelashes are now a couple of inches farther away. Even then, since the minimum focus distance on this hypothetical lens (let's assume it's a 50mm) is .7 meters, I'll still get a whole .02 meter long crutch.

Daniel wrote:

I only shoot film, but I'm going to go out on a limb say that if there is softness in the results, it's more likely to be from corner softness shooting wide open than being able to tell that the subject's right eyelashes are now a couple of inches farther away. Even then, since the minimum focus distance on this hypothetical lens (let's assume it's a 50mm) is .7 meters, I'll still get a whole .02 meter long crutch.

While the subject may move while you are focusing and then recomposing that is not the problem. The problem is the the inclination of the focus plane changes when recomposing. Guessing the correction required to put the focus plane back on the desired subject and correcting it by hand with the manual focus ring is close to impossible.

Fred Greissing wrote:

While the subject may move while you are focusing and then recomposing that is not the problem. The problem is the the inclination of the focus plane changes when recomposing. Guessing the correction required to put the focus plane back on the desired subject and correcting it by hand with the manual focus ring is close to impossible.

Scheimpflug principle?

This is smart - never thought of this.

Most of my rangefinder use has been with fairly wide angle lenses shot at smallish apertures so I've never seen the effect you describe but you're spot on.

I use one of these for street shots:

Fred Greissing wrote:

.... zone and hyper-focal can be set up on just about any camera.

"Traditional street photographers" had to use it.

IT works OK for some situations, but not for many.

Also hyper-focal forces you to use very deep depth of field.

Zone doesn't, but street photography with a narrow DoF doesn't make sense. The story is the location, you want a deep DoF. Especially shooting up close.

Blanchard Photography wrote:
I like zone with my Leica X2 for street. Pretty much, "F8 and be there!" I can set and forget the aperture and focus. I can focus more on the composition and content. Not worry about things.

Shutter sound silenced, compact size, inexistent shutter lag when in manual focus mode.. gives me the stealth camera I like.

I don't need to worry about evf, complicated menus, bells and whistles. Just slap the optical view finder on it, and im ready to go.

I think thats why Ive always enjoyed shooting with Leica. It's simple, and lets me focus more on what i'm shooting.

I use an X1 for a lot of my street shooting.

Try turning your ISO up to 1600 or even 3200 during the day. It's amazing how much sharper everything looks with a deep DoF and fast shutter.

Zack Zoll wrote:
That's what I told my Dad when he bought a BMW.  I told him that it wasn't really faster, more comfortable, or better-handling than my Taurus - it was all in his head, because he spent so much.

No, the BMW is faster, handles better, and is just far better than your Ford

But not everyone needs that, not everyone can drive well or has the opportunity to push a performance car - granted that is still no reason to buy a Ford.  I think it's the same with certain cameras.  Some people don't mind the size of a DSLR or the noise and delay in shooting.

However a rangefinder is not inferior or a snob factor, at least not originally.  You could argue that for the brand in question but not the format.  They are smaller, quiet, and were easier to focus in the film days (IMHO).

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

Zone doesn't, but street photography with a narrow DoF doesn't make sense. The story is the location, you want a deep DoF. Especially shooting up close.

I think you are confusing street photography with landscape and architectural photography. Street photography is about the people, the human condition and the moment. Street photography often does not involve a street. The Story is not the location the story is the humanity. The humanity can even be a photograph without people.

Also regarding depth of field, whatever depth of field you have it is all relative.
THERE IS ALWAYS ONLY ONE PLANE IN ABSOLUTE FOCUS. The rest is relatively in focus. Personally I find it unpleasant when the focus is sloppy when zone focus is used "alls instamatic". While there is depth of field much of the time something of less importance in the image is sharper than the subject.

Many of the best street photographers made their work very effective because not only did they capture the human condition, emotion and moment, but they also did so with a beautiful (or deliberate) aesthetic.

SPV Photo wrote:

1. Your reply here and private message to me are both rude.

and

2. I was talking about the right hand of the portrait you posted. There seems to be some banding around his fingertips and I was wondering what caused it.

You are right, I see it too and it isn't pretty.

Zael Photography wrote:
35mm equivalent question:  shoot Leica in addition to Nikon/Canon/other brand DSLR?

No.

Zael Photography wrote:
If not for the price, I'd make the plunge tomorrow.

I have different interests which do not justify this type of choice.