external view finders

[doubs43]

kiev4a said:

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.

Wise words from both you and Bob. I have one of the old FIKUS hoods that adjusts from 5cm ~ 13.5cm and fits the Elmars. It also fits the 13.5cm Hektor. All three of those shots were taken with that hood installed. The most difficult to work with was the second B&W because the light wasn't nearly as good as I'd have liked. It took a bit of work in Corel Photo-Paint to make it half-way decent. The gentleman is my neighbor and is a good subject. He's also as good a neighbor as one could hope for.

Walker

[GeneW]

Speaking of external VF's, this is the VC 50 1:1 VF I like using on my rangefinders:



Not only pleasant to use, but much better than the imprecise VF on my Zorkis.

Gene

[doubs43]

Gene, IMO the 3M is possibly the nicest looking FSU rangefinder camera of all. It just has such a classic look about it. Yours appears to be an excellent example.

Walker

[GeneW]

Ah yes, I'd certainly agree, Walker. The 3M is really nice, and handles well too. I sold this one to a friend after I got a Leica IIIf which the 3M resembles quite closely. I'm glad to see he's using the 3M quite a bit.

I now use the 50mm VF on the Leica IIIf, as well as my Zorki 4.

Gene

[physiognomy]

I recently picked myself up an Alpex zoom finder (35-200mm) and was initially surprised by its size... A little bigger than I had imagined! I often use my FSU turret finder (not lilliputian by any standards) so that is not really a big deal. The problem that made me seek out another finder is that my turret is orientated for Kiev/Contax & impedes access to the speed dial on my LTM cameras. I thought having a zoom finder would be the answer to my problem, but now I'm not sure. The following are some of my thoughts & comparisons between the two... Any input from other members would be appreciated.

Size issue already mentioned, but it is only about 2/3rds the width of the turret and therefore it doesn't interfere with any of the dials on my LTM cameras. The zoom finder is also symmetrical with the foot located centrally.

The view through the zoom finder to my eye is bright & clear and a little brighter than the turret finder. One thing about the zoom finder is that I do miss not being able to see outside the frame like you can on the turret. The magnification is also not as great at the longer end on the zoom, so the overall view is smaller although frame coverage seems to compare well.

I have had one slight paralax issue with the turret finder using the 135mm setting for a close portrait, but would like to know whether those using a zoom finder found that this was much of a problem? My zoom finder has a paralax adustment ring that you can set from infinity to 3 feet.

What are others thoughts on these finders?



Thanks,

Peter

[physiognomy]

nikonbob said:

...It can be time consuming to set up for parallax and an SLR is much more convenient that way.
Bob Hammond

doubs43 said:

I also agree that for parallax correction, the SLR is - by far - quicker and better. Walker

In essence I think you guys are right, but I think it might depend on your particular SLR as to whether it is really that much 'better'... I was just reminded over on RFF that the frame coverage of SLRs is not always 100%, and some SLRs might be less than 90%. If this cropped view is not centered within the real frame then your framing might be a little more convenient (not setting paralax), but I don't know if it is all that much better?

I'm definitely not trying to start a 'this camera is better than that one' argument, just thinking out loud.

Peter

[doubs43]

physiognomy said:

nikonbob said:

...It can be time consuming to set up for parallax and an SLR is much more convenient that way.
Bob Hammond

doubs43 said:

I also agree that for parallax correction, the SLR is - by far - quicker and better. Walker

In essence I think you guys are right, but I think it might depend on your particular SLR as to whether it is really that much 'better'... I was just reminded over on RFF that the frame coverage of SLRs is not always 100%, and some SLRs might be less than 90%. If this cropped view is not centered within the real frame then your framing might be a little more convenient (not setting paralax), but I don't know if it is all that much better?

I'm definitely not trying to start a 'this camera is better than that one' argument, just thinking out loud.

Peter

Peter, IIRC some SLR's were designed with a 90% image view in the finder to show what a slide would look like. Slide frames typically reduced the image area by 10%.

The Olympus OM-1 shows about 97% as I recall and I think the Nikon F shows 100%. Others vary according to brand, model etc.

Walker

[kiev4a]

One reason, I always have liked the Nikon "F" series is their 100 percent viewfinders. What you see is exactly what you get. It does get me into trouble sometimes when I'm shooting with my other SLRs and am later surprised that there is more picture than anticipated. Too much is better than too little, however.

physiognomy said:

nikonbob said:

...It can be time consuming to set up for parallax and an SLR is much more convenient that way.
Bob Hammond

doubs43 said:

I also agree that for parallax correction, the SLR is - by far - quicker and better. Walker

In essence I think you guys are right, but I think it might depend on your particular SLR as to whether it is really that much 'better'... I was just reminded over on RFF that the frame coverage of SLRs is not always 100%, and some SLRs might be less than 90%. If this cropped view is not centered within the real frame then your framing might be a little more convenient (not setting paralax), but I don't know if it is all that much better?

I'm definitely not trying to start a 'this camera is better than that one' argument, just thinking out loud.

Peter

[butch]

I was able to pick up a reasonably priced Imarect finder and will try it out tomorrow. Even bespectacled I'm able to see all the edges. It certainly beats the 50 mm view of the S where I can just barely see the focus patch.