Agreed on the cost of a good IIIg, but another advantage is that it eliminates the temptation to buy M lenses
I don't think anyone did. But IIIG cameras are quite expensive to be a compromise - they rival the price of M3 cameras without being able to use M lenses.
Agreed on the cost of a good IIIg, but another advantage is that it eliminates the temptation to buy M lenses
...
A Barnack body is nothing more than a gateway drug to M family equipment.
Yup. That's exactly what it was for me. Not complaining but kinda wish I had skipped the Barnack, and gone straight to the M2. Also mildly regret selling the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar with the Leica IIIF....but I guess it all worked out ok in the end...and it **was** kinda fun along the way.
I don’t know why people make such a fuss about loading an LTM Leica. Only a klutz couldn’t get the hang of it after a few times.
Something that has not been pointed out that with a rangefinder camera you cannot detect focus shift at wide apertures until it's too late.
I expect that is something taken into consideration by the lens designers for those cameras.
Focus shift is an inherent design flaw in certain lenses.
Unlike An RF, you can preview the focus at the taking aperture on an SLR. And yes, the designers of those lenses do optimize close focus for a certain aperture (usually 2 stops from wide-open) but the photographer needs to take that into account, too. If one wants to take advantage of the wide aperture (one of the raisons d'être of such a lens) the shallow depth of field can be critical and unforgiving. Like missing focus on the eyes of a subject. For more general use stopped down, it is not an issue.Yes. But unlike for an slr, where you focus with the lens wide open but it may take the photo very stopped down, which will make for the most significant focus shift, the designer of a rangefinder lens can choose which aperture focus is optimized for. So, if that's two stops down from open, that will minimize the shift either way.
Also, the closer the focus, the more significant focus shift becomes. Most rangefinders don't focus that close.
Something that has not been pointed out that with a rangefinder camera you cannot detect focus shift at wide apertures until it's too late.
Because some of us don't have tiny fingers to pry out those wretched takeup spools, that's whyFortunately, Leica made a replacement spool for that camera that has an M2 style popup nib on it that is waaaaaaaay easier to extract. They are scarce on the ground though, and nosebleed expensive. I bit the bullet and got one and it has been a Godsend.
Total non-issue in my experience with the Leica lenses that I have in the real world.
you can preview the focus at the taking aperture on an SLR. And yes, the designers of those lenses do optimize close focus for a certain aperture (usually 2 stops from wide-open) but the photographer needs to take that into account, too.
It is mostly evident in fast lenses with spherical aberration problems like the Zeiss Sonnar 50 1.5 and the Voightlander Nokton 35 1.4, as well as the early Leica Summilux 35 1.4 ASPH.
That is my point. I am aware of focus shift and which lenses are affected. It is up to the individual and their camera and lens combination to be able to deal with the issue.If the aperture doesn't change after focusing, the focus doesn't shift. If you have a lens wide open on an slr for focusing, shift is only an issue if the lens stops down for taking.
Of course it will be a compromise with rangefinder lenses, but it will be one that is largely irrelevant due to focus distance. In the meantime, it's easy enough to test at the closest distance range. Set up a tripod and take a series of exposures through the aperture range at the closest focus distance. Tell us the results.
Lots of photographers love to shoot fast lenses wide open, not sure who is in the majority. I am well aware that SLRs focus wide open, but they also have the ability to preview the scene at the taking aperture, allowing the photographer to see if there is any shift in focus.Even with those non-Leica lenses I wonder how evident it is in the real world. The fastest lens I use with my rangefinders is f2. Probably a non-issue for the vast majority of rangefinder users - certainly my experience.
And by the way, most SLRs are focused wide open and stop down only when taking. The same perceived “issue” could happen with them.
Lots of photographers love to shoot fast lenses wide open, not sure who is in the majority. I am well aware that SLRs focus wide open, but they also have the ability to preview the scene at the taking aperture, allowing the photographer to see if there is any shift in focus.
Lots of photographers love to shoot fast lenses wide open, not sure who is in the majority. I am well aware that SLRs focus wide open, but they also have the ability to preview the scene at the taking aperture, allowing the photographer to see if there is any shift in focus.
Total non-issue in my experience with the Leica lenses that I have in the real world.
Speak for yourself.I am deeply amused to see people with $15-30K worth of digisnapper and lenses complaining about this, but whose output is destined only for the web ...
Fast zoom lenses often exhibit focus shift, usually older designs. Currently-manufactured primes like the aforementioned Zeiss Sonnar ZM 50mm 1.5 and the Voightlander Nokton 35mm 1.4 suffer from focus shift. And, yes film is more forgiving than high-resolution digital, but the shift can be annoying when one is shooting wide-open for a certain look. My point has been that one needs to be aware of the phenomenon and be prepared to deal with it. Easier to preview with an SLR, not possible with an RF camera.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?