RF Focusing Speed

[xkaes]

Kaplan… what a great memory! RIP, Al.

Another similar suggestion I saw in another forum’s discussion on a semi-related topic:

Leave 'em about two stops down from fully open, and with the focus set at a reasonable hyperfocal distance. That way, when you forget about them for 30 years and the basement floods and the lenses seize up from rust and corrosion, they are the most usable in their damaged state.

That certainly works, but wastes having a fast lens. Instead, use a camera with a slower lens -- one that doesn't even have a rangefinder. There are a ton of them -- very small and light -- with fixed lenses. No need to focus at all.

But comparing a Kodak f9 or Kodak M35 to a Minolta 7SII or Olympus RD35, for example, is pretty meaningless. They all work great for what they do, but they are apples vs oranges.

 

[awty]

RF focusing is not as fast as the newer SLR AF cameras and lenses.

They're a pain. First you have to tell the camera what you want to focus on, then focus lock, then hope it will still fire, then hope the subject hasnt moved again. I would prefer full manual, because at least I will know the camera will fire when I push the shutter release.

 

[Sirius Glass]

They're a pain. First you have to tell the camera what you want to focus on, then focus lock, then hope it will still fire, then hope the subject hasnt moved again. I would prefer full manual, because at least I will know the camera will fire when I push the shutter release.

Gee, I have never had those problems. You should ditch you Canon equipment and switch to Nikon.

 

[awty]

Gee, I have never had those problems. You should ditch you Canon equipment and switch to Nikon.

View attachment 347653​

I was talking about Nikon SLR's, maybe I should try a Canon.

 

[cliveh]

I agree with awty that auto focus, or for that matter anything auto is a distraction from the real world and personal control.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree with awty that auto focus, or for that matter anything auto is a distraction from the real world and personal control.

I disagree, auto focus quickly brings the focus to the correct position much faster and allows me to concentrate on the composition much more fully.

 

[250swb]

I agree that AF can be a pain if genuine speed is needed in street photography because the closeness to the subject makes it even more important that you keep checking what the camera latched on to before recomposing (unless you always place the subject dead centre in the frame). This doesn't apply so much, or at all, if you wanted fast focusing of a football match or a horse race. The rangefinder patch is also very positive when you get used to it, or use zone focusing (which is a measure of how tolerant you are of the possibility the main subject isn't critically sharp). But I like a manual SLR, and especially ones with changeable screens so you can find the screen that suits you. Being able to see things come into focus around the main subject before critical focus is hit helps with the speed. Whether a split image is used or not is preference but I think it can slow focusing down and screen brightness is more important, but you can often find a screen that does both for you.

 

[BrianShaw]

Testing different focus screens is something I did last year with Nikon F3. It’s not inexpensive, though. This was inspired after using an old Ricoh Singlex TLS that used primarily microprism in their focus screen and finding it really fast and versatile. For me the results were that the fastest and most accurate focus (SLR) was achieved with microprism, followed by matte ground glass. Dead last was the split-image but there were times when that was required. So in the end, I began with the standard K screen and ended with it too. Now I have a bunch of other screens littering my camera bag when specialty circumstances may dictate their use, but in reality they’ll likely just remain litter.

RF… speed/accuracy was in the middle of that range for me.

 

[miha]

AF has evolved massively in the last two decades.

 

[BrianShaw]

AF has evolved massively in the last two decades.

As has autoexposure.

 

[miha]

As has autoexposure.

Much less so. Matrix / Multi / Evaluative / Honeycomb etc have been with us since the late 80s and I don't see they've improved much, in fact I would say that cheaper DSLR and mirrorless cameras available new today are not as bullet proof in this regard as the latest film cameras from the early 2000s. AF on the other hand is amazingly fast and accurate even on the entry level cameras, IME.

 

[BrianShaw]

Much less so. Matrix / Multi / Evaluative / Honeycomb etc have been with us since the late 80s and I don't see they've improved much, in fact I would say that cheaper DSLR and mirrorless cameras available new today are not as bullet proof in this regard as the latest film cameras from the early 2000s. AF on the other hand is amazingly fast and accurate even on the entry level cameras, IME.

Of course, you are correct. My point was not to quibble that difference but, rather, to make the point, perhaps not so clearly, that auto-everything has evolved to a quite sophisticated state versus the past manual state in which some of us live/prefer.

 

[xkaes]

AF has evolved massively in the last two decades.

"massively"? Certainly you could have found a more gargantuan adjective -- but we seem to be living in an era of superlatives.

 

[BrianShaw]

"massively"? Certainly you could have found a more gargantuan adjective -- but we seem to be living in an era of superlatives.

Would 'significantly' better express the situation?

 

[Saganich]

It depends on the subject and the brightness of the scene. But zone-focusing is really the best method for street photography. I like a 35mm lens stopped down to f8 or 5.6, focused at about 9ft. Fast film is your friend.

This is the best method, 35mm at f/8+. Set up a chunk of space suitable for what your shooting, usually 6-10 feet, and worry about action and framing.

 

[miha]

"massively"? Certainly you could have found a more gargantuan adjective -- but we seem to be living in an era of superlatives.

No doubt you as native speaker have a better command of the language...

 

[miha]

Of course, you are correct. My point was not to quibble that difference but, rather, to make the point, perhaps not so clearly, that auto-everything has evolved to a quite sophisticated state versus the past manual state in which some of us live/prefer.

True, and I guess many who advocate to the contrary have yet to try the latest and greatest.

 

[Saganich]

The best tip I picked up for speedy focusing (from the late Al Kaplan on another forum) is to habitually return your lens to infinity after each shot. Then you only ever need to focus in one direction, and you press the button as soon as the images come into alignment. I find this makes the rangefinder relatively quick. Most subjects are within the first few degrees of turn of the focus ring. By contrast, focusing with micro-prism or ground glass always seems to involve some to-and-fro.

The old M's have the 50mm f/16 and f/5.6 dof indicator on the RF patch to make this easy. Once I realized what those little nubs were it was like, "Hell Yea!".

 

[xkaes]

This is the best method, 35mm at f/8+. Set up a chunk of space suitable for what your shooting, usually 6-10 feet, and worry about action and framing.

Sounds like the Kodak Ultra f9 -- 31mm fixed-focus lens. DOF = 3 feet to infinity. Light and inexpensive -- in case it gets stolen.

 

[xkaes]

Would 'significantly' better express the situation?

Much too pedestrian. It doesn't evoke a world-class aura.