The Leica M and bad eyesight

[Katsunami]

Since some time ago, I've decided to switch my Canon gear over to an M-based system. To be honest, I'm not a Leica affictionado, but I like the M-system because there is a big choice of lenses from different manufacturers, and with the mirrorless system, more and more camera's, also from different manufacturers, will be able to use M-lenses in the future.

But, there is the catch.

I've often read that using an M-type rangefinder requires 20/20 sight. I don't have that; in Europe we measure in percentages, where 100% is equal to 20/20. My sight is only 34% after corrections. If someone with 100% can see something at a distance of 10 meters, then someone with 50% sight has to be at 5 meters to see the same; and so on.

At the moment, I use the Ricoh GXR-M, which has focus assist, and enlargement. I can focus this camera very well, even when only using the enlargement. I set it so the "effective" image in the viewfinder would be around 200mm. (So my 35mm is around 52mm on the camera, I set an enlargement of 4, and I can perfectly focus.) Combining the enlargement with MODE 2 assist (high pass contrast highlighting), it gets even easier.

I've never tried Sony's NEX peaking, but I imagine it will be similar with similar results. (I actually really like the NEX-7 a lot; pity about the crap results with sub-35mm M-lenses.)

I can see myself buying a second hand M9 some day, after the M10 hits the market (or another rangefinder appears, or something), firstly because it's full frame, secondly because I think I'd like the rangefinder experience. I can see the appeal of seeing outside the frames, and that sort of stuff.

But... How well can a rangefinder be used by someone with eyesight as bad as mine? Is it something like:

• It can be done, but you will be slow (no problem, I'm slow with the GXR-M too)
• It can be done, but half of your images will be out of focus (only happens occasionally with the GXR-M)
• It can't be done. Better stick to EVF-camera's with focus assist and enlargements.

It'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Cadder]

Do you know what your vision is in numbers, ie. 6/6 or 6/36 etc. and why is it not very good? You would need pretty good central vision to be able to focus the split image method of focusing. Can you try an M Leica?

Cadder

 

[Daedalus2000]

Hi

You are raising some very interesting questions and actually I was thinking of posting something similar to let people know of my experience with the M9 which I used for a few months. I was very happy with the results but, although my eyesight is not bad, I started getting very tired after using it. I was ok with the focusing, but slow, and most of my pics were acceptable in terms of focus, even using f2 or f1.5. But, I found that I was using the M9 less and less and I could not understand why. Then one day I used the M9 for a few hours and when I was driving home I realised that I had a terrible headache and I was so tired that driving was becoming difficult. I connected that to using the M9 a lot that day and then it became clear why I was getting so tired after using it. I sold it the next day. It actually felt a bit funny to give to the dealer one camera body and to receive 2 other camera bodies (XPro-1 and OMD-EM5) plus 4 lenses plus extra stuff...

Now, this is my own experience and it may be the case that I should get glasses or some diopter correction and the problem will go away. But I personally decided that autofocus is the right thing for me (I also have a GXR which I find a lot easier to use and I will continue to use it as I kept all my Leica lenses).

My advise will be to test an M before you buy and not only for a few minutes. If you can hire one for a few days that will be the best. Or, you can do what I did and buy it used and then after a few months sell it again if you find that you do not like it or use it a lot. I had the M9 for a few months and when I sold it I realised it cost me only £200 to have it for a few months. One good thing about the Leicas is that they keep their value well.

The Ms are wonderful cameras but not for everyone, unfortunately...

D

Since some time ago, I've decided to switch my Canon gear over to an M-based system. To be honest, I'm not a Leica affictionado, but I like the M-system because there is a big choice of lenses from different manufacturers, and with the mirrorless system, more and more camera's, also from different manufacturers, will be able to use M-lenses in the future.

But, there is the catch.

I've often read that using an M-type rangefinder requires 20/20 sight. I don't have that; in Europe we measure in percentages, where 100% is equal to 20/20. My sight is only 34% after corrections. If someone with 100% can see something at a distance of 10 meters, then someone with 50% sight has to be at 5 meters to see the same; and so on.

At the moment, I use the Ricoh GXR-M, which has focus assist, and enlargement. I can focus this camera very well, even when only using the enlargement. I set it so the "effective" image in the viewfinder would be around 200mm. (So my 35mm is around 52mm on the camera, I set an enlargement of 4, and I can perfectly focus.) Combining the enlargement with MODE 2 assist (high pass contrast highlighting), it gets even easier.

I've never tried Sony's NEX peaking, but I imagine it will be similar with similar results. (I actually really like the NEX-7 a lot; pity about the crap results with sub-35mm M-lenses.)

I can see myself buying a second hand M9 some day, after the M10 hits the market (or another rangefinder appears, or something), firstly because it's full frame, secondly because I think I'd like the rangefinder experience. I can see the appeal of seeing outside the frames, and that sort of stuff.

But... How well can a rangefinder be used by someone with eyesight as bad as mine? Is it something like:

• It can be done, but you will be slow (no problem, I'm slow with the GXR-M too)
• It can be done, but half of your images will be out of focus (only happens occasionally with the GXR-M)
• It can't be done. Better stick to EVF-camera's with focus assist and enlargements.

It'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Katsunami]

Hi

My vision is bad since birth because an illness my mom contracted during pregnancy.

Short version: I was born 2 weeks and a day early, also because of that illness; should I have been born on the anticipated time, I would have probably been blind.

Long version: In my left eye, I'm missing part of my retina, causing my angle of vision to be less than normal. (My right eye compensates for that, so I'm able to see distance with just one eye. My sight barely changes when I close my left eye.) My left eye requires -5 correction using glasses or lenses, and my right needs -10. (When reading, it's -3 and -8; therefore the diopter on my GXR-M is set to +2). Lastly, both eyes are missing a huge number of cones and rods, which lowers the "resolution" I can see in.

while sometimes difficult, I lead a normal life, and apart from glasses and some care when being outside, I don't need any aids.

I can't try a Leica M easily, because the closest shop that sells them in the Netherlands is on the other side of the country. It would take me 5 hours with public transport just to get there. Should I decide at one point to get an M9 (probably second hand; the M8.2 is too old for me, and does not provide any extra's on top of the GXR-M apart from the rangefinder style of shooting), I will first go and try it out in person.

Or, I'll order it, try it, and return it if it's a shop that sells it. In the Netherlands, goods bought online can be returned within 14 days.

 

[Katsunami]

Daedalus2000 wrote:

It actually felt a bit funny to give to the dealer one camera body and to receive 2 other camera bodies (XPro-1 and OMD-EM5) plus 4 lenses plus extra stuff...

Don't get me started about the price of the M9 Prices of lenses are all well and good... they survive many camera's if need be. A digital camera gets old in 2 years, older in 3, and ancient in 5....

Now, this is my own experience and it may be the case that I should get glasses or some diopter correction and the problem will go away. But I personally decided that autofocus is the right thing for me (I also have a GXR which I find a lot easier to use and I will continue to use it as I kept all my Leica lenses).

The GXR is indeed very easy to use.

I was thinking. Camera's like the OMD-E5 can detect when an image is in focus, using contrast detection. Would it be possible to create a "rangefinder" with a "patch" in the middle (an electronic one, that does not move, but acts like a focus point in a DSLR), and make it go BEEP! when the point you're aiming the patch at is in focus on the sensor? Any camera with focus points can do that. I'm sure the Olympus camera's can do it.

The GXR can already see which point in the image is sharpest using MODE 1 or MODE 2, so it would be possible to provide above functionality: the middle of the frame is also the middle of the sensor, so when MODE 2 detects focus on that point, it could beep.

Put it into an EVF using framelines, combine it with an OVF as in the X-PRO1, and you have a focus confirming "rangefinder". I was actually hoping that the X-Pro1 would be such a camera, and it almost is, but not quite.

One doesn't even need to rangefinder-couple the lenses as the point of focus is read from the sensor. Also, focus shift will be a thing of the past.

My advise will be to test an M before you buy and not only for a few minutes. If you can hire one for a few days that will be the best.

I'll surely do something like that.

 

[Steven-T]

I use a -3 diopter, and most of the time a 1.25 magnifier. The focal lengths I used are normally 35mm to 90mm, and taking off my glass when focusing (that definitely can slow down if you are wearing the glasses to locate a scene). I shoot mainly urban landscape and street with my M9 plus 35/1.4 ASPH and 90/2 APO.

I have to agree Leica M is not for everyone and/or every photography task. But if-or-when you use it, it's such a joy.

Steven

Since some time ago, I've decided to switch my Canon gear over to an M-based system. To be honest, I'm not a Leica affictionado, but I like the M-system because there is a big choice of lenses from different manufacturers, and with the mirrorless system, more and more camera's, also from different manufacturers, will be able to use M-lenses in the future.

But, there is the catch.

I've often read that using an M-type rangefinder requires 20/20 sight. I don't have that; in Europe we measure in percentages, where 100% is equal to 20/20. My sight is only 34% after corrections. If someone with 100% can see something at a distance of 10 meters, then someone with 50% sight has to be at 5 meters to see the same; and so on.

At the moment, I use the Ricoh GXR-M, which has focus assist, and enlargement. I can focus this camera very well, even when only using the enlargement. I set it so the "effective" image in the viewfinder would be around 200mm. (So my 35mm is around 52mm on the camera, I set an enlargement of 4, and I can perfectly focus.) Combining the enlargement with MODE 2 assist (high pass contrast highlighting), it gets even easier.

I've never tried Sony's NEX peaking, but I imagine it will be similar with similar results. (I actually really like the NEX-7 a lot; pity about the crap results with sub-35mm M-lenses.)

I can see myself buying a second hand M9 some day, after the M10 hits the market (or another rangefinder appears, or something), firstly because it's full frame, secondly because I think I'd like the rangefinder experience. I can see the appeal of seeing outside the frames, and that sort of stuff.

But... How well can a rangefinder be used by someone with eyesight as bad as mine? Is it something like:

• It can be done, but you will be slow (no problem, I'm slow with the GXR-M too)
• It can be done, but half of your images will be out of focus (only happens occasionally with the GXR-M)
• It can't be done. Better stick to EVF-camera's with focus assist and enlargements.

It'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Cadder]

Hi,

Given that your eyesight is poor because of retinal pathology, I would give rangefinder cameras a miss. You might be able to get some good pictures, but you would miss most.

This opinion is coming from an ophthalmologist who has used rangefinders for over 30 years.

Regards,

Cadder

 

[SpiritShooter]

About 8 years ago I had Lasik surgery on my eyes. I had complications from the surgey and was left with both eyes suffering from severe irregular astigmatism that is not correctable with glasses. Fortunately, I can be corrected to 20/25 in my left eye and 20/30 in my right eye with gas permeable contact lenses but the residual astigmatism manifests in double images. This makes the central spit focus point extremely difficult for me to align.

Over the years, I have owned a number of Leica cameras from the M6 to the M9. They are indeed difficult to focus for someone like me due to a reduction i my visual contrast and less than perfect vision.

On a tripod, I do fine as I can take my time, but handheld, my hit rate of in focus images is not very good. For street photography, using zone focus my hit rate is probable as good as anyone with some experience.

I have though about moving on from Leica, but the deep rooted love affair with these fine cameras and lenses is something I can't overcome. Recently, I purchased a Nex7 and have been using it with my Leica lenses with great success. Image quality is excellent and the camera is fun.

I also have a Nikon d800 and although I enjoy it and make lovely images, it is not as small and inconspicuous as the Leica. For me, if I could get by my ego, I would sell the M9 and move on.

Hope this helps.

 

[boarderphreak]

At least for me - I have mild astigmatism too. While I need glasses for reading, I hate wearing them for shooting. The perfect solution, at least in my case was the Walter RX Eyepiece. Check out this review:

http://lavidaleica.com/content/walter-rx-eyepiece
--
http://lavidaleica.com - La Vida Leica!
http://litpixel.com/ee - Gallery

 

[DavidGBK]

I am about -6.75 in both eyes and wear spectacles.

I have a M9 and for focussing with lenses 50+ mm I use the 1.4x magnifier available from Leica.

Enables me to focus to an acceptable level.

Do not seem to need it on the 28/35 mm lenses.

Regards

David

 

[Katsunami]

I have though about moving on from Leica, but the deep rooted love affair with these fine cameras and lenses is something I can't overcome. Recently, I purchased a Nex7 and have been using it with my Leica lenses with great success. Image quality is excellent and the camera is fun.

Hope this helps.

It certainly helps. I have one big advantage over you, and that is the fact that I never handled a Leica M, nor Leica lenses.

My current lenses are three Zeiss ZM lenses (21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2) and two Voigtlanders (15/4.5 and 75/2.5), and the camera is a Ricoh GXR using the M-mount. The reason for going for this system is not that I want a rangefinder someday. The reason is that it's compact, and that there are three lens manufacturers, many second hand lenses, and more and more camera's to put the lenses on as mirrorless camera's get better and better. Now we have Leica, Ricoh GXR-M, NEX-5N and NEX-7 (as long as you don't use wides), in a short while Fuji, and maybe more in the future, from Leica, Zeiss or Voigtlander.

As you can see, my connections to Leica are zero. The only reason for me to consider a rangefinder, is the wish to try one, not because it's a Leica. I couldn't care less about the brand printed on the camera or lens if it's good quality and does what I need.

I have no emotional reasons to choose or not to choose Leica. If anything, I'm a Zeiss fanboy... (don't kill me... please...)

 

[Katsunami]

Thanks for your input. I fear that you may be right, but still:

• My teachers thought that I should go to a special school, thinking I would be unable to handle a normal one.
• Most people thought I wouldn't be able to play the organ because I couldn't read normal sheet music.
• Everybody thought I was an idiot for trying martial arts.

In all three cases, my mother told me to try it first: sit more in front of the class, use enlarged sheet music, and use intuition and anticipation in martial arts. To summarize: I now have a university degree, a few degrees in playing the Hammond organ, and I hold two 1st dan black belts in different martial arts

Despite my bad eyesight I picked up photography in 2004, and I had no notable problems with DSLR's, and even the manual GXR-M works for me. While there is a big chance that I may well fail to use a real rangefinder, I will definitely try it first before discounting it entirely.

Nevertheless I value your input, so I certainly will not set my expectations to high, and will be prepared for a failure if I ever try

If it doesn't work, it will have it's advantages too. It forces me to stay with mirrorless/EVF camera's. Camera's such as the GXR-M are a lot cheaper, and they don't need seperate viewfinders for wider lenses or magnifiers for longer lenses. They'll never suffer from focus shift. I only hope that someday there will be a full frame mirrorless camera on which I can put my lenses

 

[DaveOl]

Hi

My vision is bad since birth because an illness my mom contracted during pregnancy.

Short version: I was born 2 weeks and a day early, also because of that illness; should I have been born on the anticipated time, I would have probably been blind.

Long version: In my left eye, I'm missing part of my retina, causing my angle of vision to be less than normal. (My right eye compensates for that, so I'm able to see distance with just one eye. My sight barely changes when I close my left eye.) My left eye requires -5 correction using glasses or lenses, and my right needs -10. (When reading, it's -3 and -8; therefore the diopter on my GXR-M is set to +2). Lastly, both eyes are missing a huge number of cones and rods, which lowers the "resolution" I can see in.

while sometimes difficult, I lead a normal life, and apart from glasses and some care when being outside, I don't need any aids.

There probably is a place online that will rent you that M9 and lens for a week or so, which is a lot more honest than buying one knowing you are going to return it. If you return a bought camera, some companies charge a 10-15% restocking fee which would be more expensive than renting.

I can't try a Leica M easily, because the closest shop that sells them in the Netherlands is on the other side of the country. It would take me 5 hours with public transport just to get there. Should I decide at one point to get an M9 (probably second hand; the M8.2 is too old for me, and does not provide any extra's on top of the GXR-M apart from the rangefinder style of shooting), I will first go and try it out in person.

Or, I'll order it, try it, and return it if it's a shop that sells it. In the Netherlands, goods bought online can be returned within 14 days.

 

[Katsunami]

There probably is a place online that will rent you that M9 and lens for a week or so, which is a lot more honest than buying one knowing you are going to return it. If you return a bought camera, some companies charge a 10-15% restocking fee which would be more expensive than renting.

As far as I know, there isn't a shop in the Netherlands that rents camera's except one, and they don't rent Leica gear because of the price it costs.

I am honest enough to contact a shop telling them beforehand that I will return the camera if I am unable to use it, and that it'll be returned the day after I receive it if it turns out to be so. (And I certainly will not try this with a brand new camera.) Still, ordering and returning goods is perfectly legal in the Netherlands, but I know it's inconvenient for the store.

(Restocking fee is prohibited in the Netherlands as far as I know.)

If I decide to try this and I can get to and from the store in one day by public transport, then I'll of course go have a look in the store itself.

 

[Godfrey]

... I've often read that using an M-type rangefinder requires 20/20 sight. ...

I don't have 20/20 vision. I've been working with M rangefinders since the 1970s. I've never had a problem focusing accurately. Like with all camera focusing/viewing systems, it does take some learning and skill that comes through practice, particularly if your background is primarily AF system cameras.

Some models are easier to work with than others due to the viewfinder magnification, depending on the focal length you are using. My M4-2 has .72x magnification which is perfect for my eyes with lenses from up to 90mm f/4, still useable for my 135mm f/4.5. The M9 has a .68x magnification which is fine at 90mm f/4, but I would like a 1.4x magnifier for the 135. For the 21, 35, 40 and 50 mm focal lengths I use the vast majority of the time, both bodies are just fine.

My results obtained with the M9 are very sharp and very satisfying to me. When they're not sharp, the issue is I was sloppy in my focusing technique ... no fault of the camera's.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

 

[DaveOl]

The prescription eyepiece seems like a good way to go. Unfortunately, it's almost $ 500. But if you're buying a $ 7000 camera and expensive lens, it's not that big of a deal.

As your prescription changes over the years can you get it changed for less money?

 

[Artichoke]

Since some time ago, I've decided to switch my Canon gear over to an M-based system. To be honest, I'm not a Leica affictionado, but I like the M-system because there is a big choice of lenses from different manufacturers, and with the mirrorless system, more and more camera's, also from different manufacturers, will be able to use M-lenses in the future.

one of the greatest advantages of the M system
also the RF design seems to be very favorable for making great lenses
Konica, Miinolta, Canon & Nikon have all produced M lenses coveted by RF users

But, there is the catch.

I've often read that using an M-type rangefinder requires 20/20 sight. I don't have that; in Europe we measure in percentages, where 100% is equal to 20/20. My sight is only 34% after corrections.

snip
not true
snip

I can see myself buying a second hand M9 some day, after the M10 hits the market (or another rangefinder appears, or something), firstly because it's full frame, secondly because I think I'd like the rangefinder experience. I can see the appeal of seeing outside the frames, and that sort of stuff.

But... How well can a rangefinder be used by someone with eyesight as bad as mine?

snip

the critical matter is how well you do with sight in short range, which may be better for you than for distance

when your eyes close in, the pupils narrow & all lenses improve with stopping down
more important may be your own tenacity

I believe marginal vision is less a problem with RF than many believe, particularly if the problem is a refractive one, rather than a primary retinal defect

as one learns techniques & practices, you may find you prefer ( greatly ) RF photography which is almost always more accurate & often faster than what one can do with the best available AF systems

I know this last statement may cause a ruckus among folks not skilled with both systems, but for the vast majority of situations that I shoot, I find this true

the seeing beyond the frame is a huge plus for RF cameras, though I am pleased to see Fujifilm's hybrid VF system offering this ability

unfortunately I do not see an M10 being released anytime soon & I suspect the M9 will hold its value, better than any other digital camera by a wide margin
--
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
DPR forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

"Avoid making a commotion, just as you wouldn’t stir up the water before fishing. Don’t use a flash out of respect for the natural lighting, even when there isn’t any. If these rules aren’t followed, the photographer becomes unbearably obtrusive" -- attributed to HCB

 

[Katsunami]

Yes, it says on the site that the lens in the eyepiece can be replaced by any optician.

I do not want to use such an eyepiece, or it should need to be one that I can use in combination with my glasses. Taking off my glasses for each picture is undoable, and leaving them off and then walk around basically is equivalent to killing myself on the spot.

 

[DaveOl]

Check to see if the Zeiss Ikon cameras are auto focus. They also take M mount lenses. A lot less expensive than Leica too.

 

[Michael Everett]

The NEX system is something to think about. Focus peaking does not require perfect eyesight. I set my NEX 7 on BW, shoot in RAW, which gives a color image, but a BW image on the LCD or EVF. Focus peaking is yellow (really a yellow-green), and it is very obvious, and easy to nail a focus without seeing all the detail. The 7 does have some color shift problems on wider RF lenses, but the 5n doesn't, and the peaking works the same.

Michael