butch
Contributing Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by butch on Jun 24, 2006 8:12:50 GMT -5
I'll ask this question openly in case someone else wants to know. Will a Leica Imarect VF "work" on a nikon S, or does the position ot the shoe affect the paralax adjustment and thus the type of VF.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jun 24, 2006 18:32:30 GMT -5
The Soviets made all sorts of finders for their RFs, They were pretty cheap until postage rates went up. I have the turret finder, which is actually a copy of the German model, that works well. But if I'm shooting with a Zorki of FED 1 with a Jupiter 12 (35mm) I prefer the dedicated 35mm finder as it is more compact.
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jun 24, 2006 21:18:05 GMT -5
The Soviets made all sorts of finders for their RFs, They were pretty cheap until postage rates went up. I have the turret finder, which is actually a copy of the German model, that works well. But if I'm shooting with a Zorki of FED 1 with a Jupiter 12 (35mm) I prefer the dedicated 35mm finder as it is more compact. Wayne, there are two problems with the FSU turret finders that bother me. 1. The "foot" that goes into the camera's accessory shoe is never tight in the shoe because it's not proportioned correctly for a tight fit. A sliver of 35mm negative will often give it the correct tension but even then the framing can be off if it's canted to one side or the other.... even slightly. 2. They have, without doubt, the most miserable parallax correction of any finder I've ever used. The adjustment is completely inadequate IMO and is vastly inferior to the Imarect. If they had designed the Imarect with a 28mm setting, it would be better than it is.... which is very good. Just my opinion, of course. Walker
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jun 25, 2006 5:37:01 GMT -5
Brian,
Is it me or is this a little 'soft' compared to your previous posts of this young lady? Or were you aiming for that look?
Regards - John
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 25, 2006 6:59:20 GMT -5
Thanks for your posting about the FSU turret finders Walker. As they're going quite cheaply I was thinking of getting one for the convenience of it but I don't think I'll bother now. Nothing's really cheap if it doesn't do what you expect it to. I think I'll wait till I see a couple of the single focal length ones.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jun 25, 2006 7:24:33 GMT -5
A couple of years ago I splurged and picked up a Voigtlander 50mm 1:1 viewfinder. Not cheap but I've never regretted getting it. You can keep both eyes open while shooting and the framelines seem to float in the air. I move it from camera to camera, especially my older rangefinders that don't have very large or very accurate VF's. I've even used it on SLR's with a 50mm lens for street shooting.
Gene
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jun 25, 2006 7:54:00 GMT -5
Brian,
No criticism - it's a nice effect with this subject.
Re The Harpist; I like to see detail shots, plus before and after shots if pictures have been manipulated in P/S - especially if they have been converted to b&w.
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jun 25, 2006 13:14:42 GMT -5
Thanks for your posting about the FSU turret finders Walker. As they're going quite cheaply I was thinking of getting one for the convenience of it but I don't think I'll bother now. Nothing's really cheap if it doesn't do what you expect it to. I think I'll wait till I see a couple of the single focal length ones. PeterW Peter, I have a couple of the FSU turret finders including one that has the Soviet Best Quality marking and is in almost mint condition. It's truly a shame that more care wasn't given to the foot for a better fit in the shoe of a camera. I'm not sure what could be done about the parallax correction being so coarse and limited but I suppose it would have required a complete re-design. Leitz did make an add-on optical piece for the Imarect to give it a 28mm field but they're hard to find and usually cost as much or more than a new 28mm finder from CameraQuest. A new finder would be preferable except to a collector, I'd think. Walker
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jun 25, 2006 19:13:06 GMT -5
The FSU turret certainly isn't perfect--but it doesn't cost as much as a Leitz, either. I've never put a whole lot of faith in an RF auxiliary finder as far as paralax is concerned -- one reason I do most of my shooting with SLRs -- especially close up.
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jun 25, 2006 22:35:30 GMT -5
The FSU turret certainly isn't perfect--but it doesn't cost as much as a Leitz, either. I've never put a whole lot of faith in an RF auxiliary finder as far as paralax is concerned -- one reason I do most of my shooting with SLRs -- especially close up. I certainly don't want to appear to be argumentative but a check of recent sales on ebay shows that the Leitz Imarect finder and the Russian turret finder sell for roughly the same money and if the turret finder comes from the FSU, postage may make it less of a "deal". As for parallax up close, here are just three examples taken with my Leica IIIc and an Imarect finder. 9cm uncoated Elmar at approximately 3 feet. 9cm uncoated Elmar at roughly 5 feet. 13.5cm uncoated Elmar ar 10-12 feet. Used carefully, a universal finder that fits the shoe correctly will allow pretty precise framing when parallax is set accurately. Walker
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 26, 2006 7:38:12 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with the framing on those Walker. They're also very nice portraits!
Peter W
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 26, 2006 11:01:25 GMT -5
Like Walker, I have found the Imarect finder to be surprisingly accurate for framing and very useful. It can be time consuming to set up for parallax and an SLR is much more convenient that way. My wife thinks it looks like it should be used to examine ears. Got to like her sense of humour.
Bob Hammond
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Jun 26, 2006 11:51:53 GMT -5
Like Walker, I have found the Imarect finder to be surprisingly accurate for framing and very useful. It can be time consuming to set up for parallax and an SLR is much more convenient that way. My wife thinks it looks like it should be used to examine ears. Got to like her sense of humour. Bob Hammond Bob, that is funny...... and a rather astute observation. I also agree that for parallax correction, the SLR is - by far - quicker and better. Did you note that all of my pictures were taken with uncoated lenses? A lot of people tend to think that uncoated optics are awful but that's far from the truth. I rather like the way they show less saturated colors. Walker
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 26, 2006 14:49:35 GMT -5
Walker
The only problem that I have had with uncoated lenses is flare, especially w/o a hood. I would say that an uncoated lens when used with colour film renders a subject in a more natuaral way. They work very well considering that colour film was not a factor when they were commonly produced. I have an old uncoated 50mm/F3,5 Elmar (pre WW II) that is sharp and works well with both B&W and colour. I have never heard anyone complain about a photo take with that lens. If anyone wants more pop then PS can do that too. The shot of the rifle shooter has a very natural feel to it.
Bob Hammond
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jun 26, 2006 15:12:22 GMT -5
Walker:
I agree on the uncoated lenses--softer colors can sometimes be a good thing. The one important rule with uncoated lenses is use a lenshood whenever possible.
|
|