Related Local Links:
Autofocus Problems Page
Diopters Page
Fresnel Lens Pages
Human Eye vs. Lens and Camera
Nikon Finders and Right Angle Finders (Rodrigo Gimenez)
Nikon Screens (Rodrigo Gimenez)
Viewfinder Magnification and Cutoff
Related Links:
Accessory Finders (wide angles, rangefinder..)
Popup Magnifier for Medium Format Prisms
Universal Viewfinders (russian..)
We can't avoid getting older, except by dying anyway. So here are some
alternative tips and tricks to make your photography better and easier
despite aging and failing eyesight and vision. Many of these tricks have
been forgotten or dropped from current camera models, but you can still
use them - if you know about them!
Still, if autofocus works for you and solves your vision problems, by all
means consider it. But evaluate carefully. Look at the higher end
cameras, where autofocus problems are minimized, albeit at a higher cost.
What features and aids are available besides autofocus on the latest models?
| Handy Focusing Aid on Every Film Box Tip |
|---|
| The bar code label on film boxes makes a nifty and always handy focusing aid in dim light situations or when using ground glass, whether 4x5" or medium format cameras (or 35mm) - tips from Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz, Medium and Large Format Handbook, p. 71 |
A modest disadvantage of high eyepoint prisms is that you generally get
this feature at the cost of lower magnification in the finder. In other
words, while a standard prism may present a 1X or 0.92X magnification
image, a high eyepoint finder may be more like 0.72X magnification. So
you pay for the greater eye relief with a smaller image factor.
The pop-up part is a small hinge which screws or slips into your regular
eyepiece holder. Thanks to this hinge, you can lift or pop-up the
magnifier out of the way whenever you want to use the full viewing screen.
Besides OEM made versions, there are also generic pop-up magnifiers sold
by various importers under their own brand labels (Spiratone, Porter's..).
A nice feature of many such finders is dual magnification settings,
featuring either 1X or the normal view and 2X to 5X magnified views
(strength of magnification depending on the finder brand and model). Many
such finders have variable diopter strengths, from -3 diopters to +5
diopters being typical. That feature lets you dial in the diopter
correction you need. As your eyes continue to age, you can simply keep
twisting the eyepiece until you get the strength you need, within its
limits anyway!
The main disadvantage is that the image is right side up but reversed in
action, so a person walking to the left in front of you appears to be
moving to the right in the non-prism WLF viewer. You quickly figure this
out, but some people find it confusing at first. You also have an unusual
viewing stance compared to regular 35mm users, which can be an advantage
in taking candid pictures. You can simply look down into the WLF and
compose. As with the angle finder, the WLF lets you use the camera
close to the ground while looking down on it, rather than crawling
around on your knees in the dirt to look thru the viewfinder.
A major plus is that this item doesn't require you to have a replaceable
prism camera, just an eyepiece with threads or one that can be jammed to fit.
Cost is moderate (circa $50 US), and you can always get the housing to
go with it too!
Fortunately, companies like Ikelite make an accessory viewing aid. The
good news is that they are relatively low cost, yet provide a huge field
of view up to about a 20mm lens or better. Interchangeable plastic masks
are provided with fields of view of different lenses marked. The glass is
the size of a lemon, easily viewed at arm's length even while wearing a
scuba mask. Think how easy it will be closer up with your glasses on!
What's the bad news? The standard color is a bright orange, to make them
easier to find if you put them down on a reef underwater. But you can
paint them a less flashy color. They aren't as cheap as you would like,
but are still well under $100 US for the adapter and mask kits. Still,
they make great ultrawide and very wide lens viewfinders, and fit into the
flash hot-foot on most cameras. Think of them as a sort of sports finder
for wide angle lenses. For telephoto lenses, you can use them, but the
coverage is relatively small in the center. A sports finder would be
faster and cheaper for such longer lenses.
A slow f/4.5 to f/5.6 zoom may be marginal at f/5.6, both for your eyes
and autofocus system ("hunting"). But a constant aperture f/4.5 or f/4
zoom could help, and an f/3.5 would be a modest improvement too. A pro
cost and speed f/2.8 zoom might extend your photography significantly as
well as improving results.
You can also resurrect that fast 50mm f/1.4 normal lens you have stashed
away. Surprise! It is really a lot brighter and easier to focus than the
f/2.8 standard zoom you are using. See Curing Lens Envy on rediscovering the
50mm lens.
Unlike fast glass lenses, this extra stop or so of light is a one-time
expense and works with all of your camera's lenses and accessories. The
cost is moderate, usually circa $100 to $150 US and up for an installed
screen on 35mm SLRs.
Autofocus cameras are also known for their very bright images.
Unfortunately, such screens can be harder to focus in dim light, due to
the lack of high contrast (ground glass) screens. Still, you may find
that these very bright screens are easier to use with your aging eyes,
especially with slower (zoom) lenses.
So if you are having trouble with doing macrophotography because your eyes
can't see the dim images, switch to closeup lenses. Now you can use that
50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens at f/1.4 for focusing, instead of an f/2.8 or
slower macro lens, or a tube set as dim as f/4 or f/5.6 or worse. Welcome
back to macro!
Monopods and tripods offer another easy way to
get steadier pictures at smaller f/stops at the same shutter speed.
Anything such as fast film or better support which allows you to use a
smaller f/stop for more depth of field will obviously help cover up
errors in focusing and other vision related problems.
A higher tech solution is a small, $40-50 US laser distance measuring device.
Readout is to a tenth of a foot within 75 to 100 feet or so, depending on
model and battery used.
An older optical viewfinder system is usable if you get a good one, but
most of them are too small and hard to use for someone with vision
problems in my opinion. They were used for rangefinder replacements with
cameras that didn't have rangefinders built-in. Most of the bigger and
better ones are rare and pricey nowadays, I have discovered too. So they
aren't as easy to use as the big viewfinder laser pointer with digital
display.
For a 28mm lens (on 35mm SLR), everything from 2 feet 8 inches to
infinity will be in focus at f/16 (set at 5 feet 6 inches). Use Michael Gillett's DOF
calculator to check out other lenses. Wide lenses have even greater
depth of field. Even a 105mm lens at f/16 will have everything from 38
feet to infinity in focus when set at a hyperfocal distance of 76 feet.
For example, suppose the wall is at 75 feet, and you are using that 105mm
lens at f/16 again. If you use hyperfocal settings, the near limit of
focus is only 38 feet. But if you adjust the 105mm lens so 75 feet is the
far limit (not infinity) at the castle wall, then the new near limit is
25 feet (versus 38 feet before). See the difference?
Sports finders are also cheap. Some twin lens reflex cameras have a
facility to provide a direct viewing sportsfinder. Many low cost plastic
sports finders simply mount on the flash hot shoe.
I like and use a Nikonos plastic viewfinder, which has coverage for a
35mm and 80mm lens. The nikonos underwater camera only has a viewfinder,
not a rangefinder or SLR reflex system, so this fast framing action
sportsfinder is great for use underwater while wearing a mask, or on the
surface. The Nikonos finder is cleverly setup so you have to align a
pointer with an eye viewing hole while minimizing the amount of plastic
seen of the viewfinder. Excess plastic shows mis-alignment, easily and
quickly adjusted to one side or the other to get a minimal cross-section.
Now what you see is pretty much what you get, without having to look or
squint through the tiny viewfinder. Fastest, easiest composing system I
know about, and cheap thanks to having no optics either!
Not all rangefinders are alike. Some have harder to use and view systems.
Even the "legends" like Leica may not be as good at accurate low light
focusing as some later design rangefinders which have much longer
baselines (up to twice the typical Leica dimensions) which are also
available at lower cost. So shop around and see which one works best
for you.
The rangefinder also needs to be checked for accurate alignment. Many
used rangefinders suffer from mis-alignments due to hard knocks, and may
deliver less than optimal results until realigned properly. This task is
one for the experts, with the right tools, and not a local camera store
clerk moonlighting in repairs IMHO.
Besides the benefits of easier focusing in low light conditions due to
high contrast overlapping images and focusing aids, rangefinders also
have a hidden benefit. They can often be shot, handheld if you must, at
one or even two stops slower than many bulkier 35mm SLRs. Again, this can
mean greater depth of field due to the rangefinder's inherent design
benefits.
I personally really, really like the standard Chimney Finder. You start
with a large chunk of ground glass with fresnel and a waist level finder.
Looking through the 2X or 3X (to 5X) magnifying lens on the standard
waist level finder is like looking through the 2x popup magnifier on a
35mm SLR - only more so. The ground glass is often 2 1/2 inches by 2 1/2
inches square, rather than the dimunitive screen of the 35mm SLR. Now you
magnify its apparent size by 100% (2X magnifier in WLF) and it is like
looking at a bright, uncluttered TV screen nearly 5 inches square!
But it gets better. Switch out the WLF for a 5X chimney finder. Now the
image looks like looking at a lighted transparency or slide of the scene
on a light table, but blown up 500% (to roughly 12 inches square). Wow!
The chimney finder also raises you head six or more inches above the WLF
position, which is more comfortable for many shooters. An eyecup helps
reduce side light on the chimney finder. Best of all, most such chimney
finders have variable diopter adjustments (from -3X to +5X) for folks
with vision problems correctible in this range. Just dial in the
correction factor you need; as your eyes age and the factor changes, you
just have to twist the dial a little more each year.
Besides the chimney finder and waist level finder, there are also prism
finders. I have a number of 45 and 90 degree prism finders, as well as
metering finders of various brands. I find the prism finders a bit dimmer
than the waist level finder or chimney finders, probably due to the light
losses in bouncing off those mirrored prism edges and absorption in the
glass? As with the chimney finders, you can get diopter eyepieces to put
in some prisms, while some prisms have a similar variable diopter setup.
Besides these medium format SLR aides, you will find sports finders and
even open frame finders in use on some SLRs and other medium format
cameras. For example, many older folder cameras feature an open wire or
popup frame for composing. Others use a bright viewfinder. There are
popular rangefinders such as the various Fuji rangefinders which are easy
to use too. Some panoramic cameras use a simple open wire frame aid,
while others use a large optical framing aid.
The oil can be any lightweight oil, such as Linseed oil, brushed on a coin sized area of the glass.
You could do the entire screen surface with oil, to
produce a brighter overall screen. But you might lose a bit of focusing ease from
the high contrast un-oiled ground glass surface. If you don't like the effect,
simply remove the oil by cleaning the glass (careful not to remove any grid marks etc.).
[Source: Oil Spot Focusing?,
Jan and Tom Levick, Modern Photography, June 1979 p. 119.]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Maxwell Screens
> Are these the same screens that are sold as "Beattie Intenscreens"
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Bill Maxwell makes his own screens and they are in no way
similar to the Beattie screens. Maxwell only sells direct.
Bob
Postscript - You can phone Bill at 404-244-0095
From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000
From: Todd & Sharon Peach tpeach@gte.net
Subject: [NIKON] RE: Focus
Shubroto Bhattacharjee writes:
"If your corrective glasses are set up to correct astigmatism as well as
(long/short) distance vision, turning the dioptre knob will not offer a
complete solution.
Remedy : get an eyepiece correction lens (any dioptre) to fit your
finder,
than get your opticians to make a corective lens for that eyepiece frame
after knocking out the original lens in that frame."
....
Subroto makes a good point, but I'm not sure his remedy is doable. The
point of astigmatic correction is that the lens has a bit of cylindrical
(not spherical) cross section. As such, it becomes position sensitive,
and must be mounted on the viewfinder in the correct orientation. How
do you do that with a standard screw in eyepiece? And if you are
successful in that, how to re-orient the corrective lens when you
switch to a vertical composition? I fear a total solution would require
a slip ring mount like a polarizer that the user can adjust. A fair
amount of trouble, but perhaps doable.
(From one who wears contact lenses with uncorrected astigmatism. There
have been advances in 'weighted' contacts that correct astigmatism and
maintain a constant orientation in one's eye; I have not investigated
them yet.)
- -Todd
- --
Todd & Sharon Peach
Seattle, Washington
tpeach@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/tpeach/NoPlaceLikeHome.htm
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000
From: Long Stewart Stewart.Long@bcm-ltd.co.uk
Subject: [NIKON] F5 dioptre correction
The F5 has an adjustment that is intended to compensate for
far- or near-sightedness. However, it does not compensate for
astigmatism, so if you have strong astigmatism, it might be useful
to have a corrective eyepiece custom made.
I have astigmatism (and generally rotten eyesight). The advantage of the F5
is that it has a high eyepoint finder which means I can see all the frame
easily with my glasses on (my F801 is also good in that respect).
Stewart
From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000
From: Rich Lahrson tripspud@wenet.net
Subject: Re: F3
bart mendelson wrote:
> I am considering the purchase of a used F3 hp. The FM2 I use doesn't give me > enough view with my glasses . A F100 I looked through does so I guess the > F3hp would do. The only problem they seem to have is failure of the > LCD-disolay. Anybody have any experience with older F3's and what it would > cost to have that fixed? Is this the only more recent camera that will fix > my viewing-problem? (not counting F4,F5 etc. way beyond my budget and I > don't like AF).
Greetings Bart!
Same problem here. I found a used Sportsfinder that fits both the F
and F2, it gives very easy viewing, slightly heavier, I've kept the plain
prism as well.
Here's an eBay item # 237330544, an F3 with the Sportsfinder, closing
tomorrow evening, with a picture. (I've no connection or interest).
Cheers,
Rich Lahrson
tripspud@wenet.net
From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000
From: Rick Housh rick@housh.nu
Subject: Re: F3
At 22:16 01/22/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>From: "bart mendelson" bart.mendelson@tebenet.nl > >From: Rick Housh rick@housh.nu > >Actually, most all the newer 35mm autofocus cameras have high eyepoint (HP) >finders, as does the manual focus N6000/F601M. I know my N6006/F601 has >one; also the N90, N70, N60 and N50. I think none have a viewing area >equivalent to 100% of the actual film frame like the F3, though, but then >neither does the F100. The Pronea 600i and Nikonos V also have high >eyepoint finders. > >- Rick Housh - >Thanks Rick but the N70 doesn't do the job for me. Cannot see he whole >frame without moving my eye two times. > >Bart
Yes, Bart. I know what you mean. I wear trifocals, and even with the
F3HP
the magnification of the middle section I need to use to focus on the
one-meter virtual distance of the screen effectively kills the high
eyepoint advantage for me. Then, if you also want the 100% view, even
with
high eyepoint finders only the top "pro" models, F3, F4, F5, will do that.
Of the other high eyepoint models the F100 is 96%, the F90, N70/F70 and
N6000/F601/F601M are about 92% and the F60 and F50 are 90%.
- Rick Housh -
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
Subject: Re: Screen Brightness, F,F2, F3, Beattie
I've not used any of his 35mm screens, but Bill Maxwell's screens for my
Rolleiflex TLRs are far better and brighter than any of the Beattie
Intenscreens I've tried. And they remain good focusing surfaces,
something which is not always the case with the Beatties or some of the
newer AF SLRs.
Bill Maxwell Maxwell Precision Optics Work: (404) 244-0095 Other: (770) 939-6644 P.O. Box 33146 Decatur, GA 30033-0146 USA
Godfrey
From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000
From: rlivers@irt.net (Ricky Livers)
Subject: re: Screen Brightness, F,F2, F3, Beattie
>I am amazed at how much brighter the view looks through some >of the newer cameras and wondering if some of that brightness >might be available on my F if I put in a later model screen.
....
I wondered the same thing, so I ordered a "B" screen for an F4,
then exchanged it into the F/F2 frame. Yes, it appeared brighter.
I mostly use eyelevel finders. If I were to put my Tn or FTn
finder on, I would have to make some sort of correction for the
brighter image since the meters are designed to work with the dimmer
screens. Using the Sunny-16 rule on a bright cloudless day, the
necessary adjustment could be accomplished by changing the ASA
setting until the rule is satisfied.
You have to use a 100% viewing screen. That means it has to be:
You have to use a 100% viewing screen. That means it has to be:
F, F2, F3, F4, F5, etc. Just take the frame apart and exchange
the fragile screen. I read where some folks alter the F3, F4, F5
frames to fit into their old F's and F2's. I should try that
some time.
Check with KEH, Charlotte Camera, or some of the other places
that specialize in used stuff to find another screen cheap. No
reason to spend a lot of money on an experiment...
Ricky Livers
Tidewater, Virginia
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999
From: roland roland@dnai.com
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Rollei] TLR Brighter Viewfinder
A few months ago in Canera Shopper, Mike Roskin indicated that a fresnel
screen was available from Edmund Scientific. Since my 2.8D suffered from
a dark viewfinder, I contacted Mike to find out about the screen.
He indicated that you just plop it into the viewfinder, grooves down, on
top of the present focusing screen.
I did so and was pleasantly surprised with the result. The brightness is
enhanced enough to make focusing in dim light and in bright sun a
successful experience.
The screen sells for $12.75 plus S&H; from Edmund Scientific 609 573-6250.
The stock number is H30389 and the size is 2-7/8 X 2-1/4.
I just reordered four in order to have them available in the future.
Roland Smith
[Editor's Note: A focusing aid such as a halogen light taped to your flash
or setup may be all you need to improve dim light focusing...?]
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999
From: SPYDERS@aol.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Prism finder brightness
Also, is it true that
the more recent versions are brighter than the older ones, and if so how
do
you tell the difference?
Although unrelated to your question, I thought I'd pass along a little
personal anecdote that happened to me recently.
I recently had to do a shoot in low light and I was having trouble
"getting a bead" on the subject to focus so I came up with a funny
solution. I borrowed a friend's "camping head light" which sort of looks
like what someone would wear when going into a cave. The light had a
"tilt" function, so I put the light on my head with the beam tilted "up"
so that when I looked down into the Hasselblad, the beam actually shone
forward. neat-o, now I could illuminate a spot brightly, focus, then move
my head and look at the subject which would shine the beam straight up.
Oh well, it was one of the silliest looking set-ups I've ever been in, but
it was too funny not to share.
--pat.
PS: I stole the idea from the new 35mm cameras that sometimes emit a light
to aid in focusing. A highly focused beam of light might be a nifty thing
to add to a tripod head (aligned with the lens) so that one could beam a
subject with add'l light (briefly to focus) if needed. oh well. what's
next, laser aiming and rangefinding. hehehe.
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999
From: csocolow csocolow@microserve.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Prism finder brightness
.....
A trick another photographer showed me when trying to optimize view
camera movements for maximum depth-of-field in a dark interior is to
take a couple AA Mini-Maglights and remove the protective screw-on
cover. This leaves just the bare bulb emitting a point light source. You
then place one light where you want near focus and one where you want
far focus and stop down and adjust focus and/or front/rear boards until
you get your desired results. This certainly can work as a single light
source at subject plane.
--
Carl Socolow
http://members.tripod.com/SocPhoto/
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999
From: SPYDERS@aol.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Re: Prism finder brightness
Thanks for the tip Carl! Mini-Maglites are great, now I have a reason to
expect (another) one in the Christmas Stocking ;-)
And I thought we had it bad... for those LF folks, trying to pre-view
through a lens at f45+ must be agonizing...
--pat.
...
From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000
From: "Sam Barbour" sam.barbour@clear.net.nz
Subject: Re: diopter correction eyepiece
On 31 Jan 00, at 13:45, marc.mccloud@hs.utc.com wrote:
> I'm sure I need an eyepiece to correct my aging vision. I had made a > visit to the Nikon web site where they advised a visit to my local > photo store to make the correct selection. Unfortunately the local > shops don't carry the range of selections necessary and I will need to > special order. Anyone have any guidance?
I had exactly the same problem with my FE2 and prefer to use the
camera without having to put on spectacles each time. However I
found difficulty focussing without them. As the correction eyepiece
locally is not a stock item and can only be ordered after an eye test
to establish the correction factor the whole exercise looked like
being quite expensive.
The solution was to purchase a pair of cheap (about $US4) reading
glasses which gave clear vision at about one metre and from them
machine a lens to fit in the camera eye piece mount thus replacing
the existing standard glass which is retained by a wire circlip.
As the reading glass lens are plastic the new lens was simple to
machine on a lathe to fit.
Now I have a perfectly clear view for composing and focussing
without spectacles.
Sam Barbour
Auckland New Zealand
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/barbour/
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com
To: afn51901@afn.org, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: bright screens
Marie,
If you work in dark rooms, like reception halls, you might get an Acute
Matte. Myself, I have plain one that I like for table shots, etc. For
outdoor work, I often use a Britescreen, which has a shade more contrast.
Peter
From NikonMF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000
From: KTXD37A@aol.com
Subject: Re: diopter correction eyepiece
Well, here's my way. I picked the pair of cheap reading glasses that I can
put on and see the finder information most clearly, then bought the
diopter for it. For instance, I use +1.0 for computer work. It also
sharpened things nicely in my FTN finder. So I got the 1.0 from KEH (just
lucky they had it.) I works like a champ. There is some diopter (about 1.0
in my N90s) so I don't need anything there....yet.
Good luck.
Ben Harper
Lexington, KY
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000
From: "Waid, Jerry F" jerry.f.waid@lmco.com
Subject: [Rollei] Bright screens
OK ,I know that there has been lot of info on this subject as I
just went through the archives, But ....
Can I have a summery.
From what I have read I find the following "bright" focusing
screens available:
1) Ones from Bill Maxwell
2) Ones from Fleenor
3) Beattie screens
4) Brightscreen (Tennessee?)
Is there any others worthy to add to the list?
Is my list above correct?
Were can the screens listed on items 3 and 4 be found?
Any other info I need to make my discussion?
I am looking to replace the original screen from a late model 2.8F
Rolleiflex and I do not want split screen.
Thanks again
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" peterk@lucent.com
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Bright screens
Harry uses Maxwell Screens. Beattie does not install, nor does
brightscreen. While it may not make much of a difference in a T or F,
earlier models need to be recollimated as their is a difference in the
thickness of the new plastic vs. original glass focusing screen.
Peter K
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000
From: Thomas Schmidt gdearle@sjm.infi.net
Subject: Re: focusing screen for macro
FE2 screens are 1/2 stop brighter than FE(1) screens. Since this affects
the meter reading a -1/2 esposure compensation is needed when using an FE2
screen on an FE(1) camera.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000
From: Phil Stiles pjs@worldpath.net
Subject: [Rollei] Brighter Screens
I have three Rolleis: Rolleicord V, 3.5F Planar, 2.8F Xenotar.
The 'cord had an incredibly dim, plain ground glass. When I replaced it
with a Hi-Lux screen from Maxwell Precision Optics, the difference was
amazing. It really opened up the view, and made the camera much more
useful. Maxwell provided shims to maintain the height of the focussing
screen, so focus alignment with the taking lens was not effected. A
jewelers screwdriver is required, to take off the hood assembly.
I bought a Hi-Lux screen for one of my F's, and the difference is
much less profound. Putting the cameras side by side, you can barely tell
which one has the brighter screen; however, it is the Maxwell. Corners are
the better part of the difference, a little brighter and sharper with the
Maxwell. I've swapped screens between cameras, for a second look, just to
eliminate any difference between viewing lenses: the 2.8/75mm on the 3.5F
and the 2.8/80mm on the 2.8F. But I don't think the difference in the
center of the screen is as much as 1/3 stop. Without a direct A vs. B
comparison, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.
So I've installed the Maxwell screen on my 2.8, because that's the
camera I use in low light levels. And I haven't bothered to get a Maxwell
screen for the 3.5F. If you just want a screen without the split image in
the center, Maxwell does make a quality product.
A few years ago, I put a Beattie "intensiscreen" into my Nikon
FM2n. It wasn't much brighter, but I preferred the plain center of the
model I chose.
Of course, all surfaces of your viewing lens should be clean, your
mirror bright and dust free, as well as the screen itself.
I've heard Maxwell is doing such a big business with his loupes
and screens, that he's going out of the repair business. He loves to
chat, and is quite informative. (770-939-6644)
Regards, Rolleinauts,
Phil Stiles
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: radiojon@means.net
Subject: Re: Rangefinder vs TLR - Help
> For my jump into medium format, I'm torn between the TLR and > rangefinder routes. > > I was thinking of an reasonably priced TLR or a Koni Omega > rangefinder. > > Are there pros and cons? Is the rangefinder capable of sharp, > accurate focusing? Any opinions, especially from those who have used > both methods, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. > > Jim
I lot depends on your eyes and whether you wear glasses. I like a Rollei
TLR because I can look down and see the whole image, which I cannot do
with some cameras due to the "stand off" distance of glasses. Most
Rolleis have a clever sports finder that lets you looks at a magnyfied
portion of the image for focusing and a plain non-optical viewer for
action.
John
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000
From: Bruce Wilson brucewilson@mail.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: finder
Marie,
I use both (52096 magnifying hood and PM5 prism).
Prism is heavy but its image has a natural orientation and is best for me
with moving subjects. As a disadvantage, the prism's image does not cover
the entire focusing screen (or film area).
The chimney is almost weightless and allows you to see the entire focusing
screen -- indispensable for critical full-frame still shots. Most models
have adjustable eyesight correction. The image is oriented just like the
standard folding focusing hood but the optics are much better. The
chimney is great on the light table to view 6x6 transparencies.
Bruce
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000
From: Hal argyll@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Help choosing Manual SLR
Gene Windell, (ewindell@psci.net), was kind enough to say...
> 6. VIEWFINDER DISPLAY: > > The focusing screen of the FE2 is brighter and has more contrast than > the K1000, making it quicker to focus in dim light. The FE2 has more > eye relief than the K1000, making it easier for a person wearing eye > glasses to see the whole screen. > > 7. USER INTERCHANGEABLE FOCUSING SCREENS: The K1000 comes with a > microprism focusing screen, or a split-image with the SE version. > Thse screens can only by changed by a repairman. Both partially black > out with slow lenses. The FE2 has 3 different types of focusing > screens which can be installed by the user. The standard screen has a > horizontal split image surrounded by a microprism collar. One of the > others is a plain matte screen with a clear center spot. This is > useful in macro photography or when using slow lenses, because there > is no microprism/split image to black out at small apertures. The 3rd > screen has the clear center spot also, but has grid lines etched on > it. The grid lines are useful with wide angle lenses and in > archetectural photography. The etched grid lines indicate the degree > to which the vertical lines in the scene will be keystoned when the > camera and film plane are tilted. > > Because the FE2's focusing screens are removable, it is possible to > make and lay on a cropping mask of colored, transparent polyester. > This is used for defining the dimensions of a 4X5 and 8X10 print, and > how much of the negative will be cropped off. This is useful in > professional portraiture, wedding photography, youth sports teams and > such. It allows you to frame a composition in the viewfinder that > matches the print sizes you are going to sell. Otherwise, you may > compose a group photo that has people cropped out by the lab when an > 8X10 print is made.
My only add-on to this excellent review is the following:
Because the focusing screen is interchangeable, there's at least one
third party manufacturer of screens: Beattie, with their
Intenscreen. Beattie's screens come with or without grid; and with
matte, horizontal split-screen, and diagonal split-screen aids; for
a total of six variants.
The main selling point of the Intenscreen, though, is the use of a
fresnel lens to make the viewfinder image *much* brighter.
Beattie also makes these screens for other makes and models that
have interchangeable screen capability.
More info at: http://www.intenscreen.com
-- Hal
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999
From: "Anthony" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Aperture of Human Eye
....
> This may be a dumb question, but what would > the aperture of the human eye be???
A very good question, and not a very easy one to answer in a satisfactory
way.
Strictly speaking, the eye is roughly the equivalent of a 25-mm, f/3 lens.
The retina (film) is 25 mm away from the lens nodal point (eyeballs vary
little in size from one individual to another). The pupil formed by the
iris ranges between 2 and 8 mm in diameter. So you get 25-mm and f/3.
The smallest aperture is f/13. However, there are so many differences
between the eye and a camera that comparison is really very difficult and
largely academic. For example, the retina is the equivalent of film, but
given its size, plus the ability of the eyes to move, the net effect is of
an extremely wide angle lens, wider than a fisheye at least in the
horizontal axis. But that's not the way it actually looks to us.
Date: 30 Dec 1999
From: pauls0627@aol.com (Pauls0627)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Aperture of Human Eye
>It would take much, too much text to answer your question here.
Actually, his question - "What is the aperture of the human eye" is fairly
straightforward. I am assuming when he says "aperture" he means f-ratio,
and not just the diameter of the opening. The f-ratio is defined as the
ration of the focal length and the diameter of the lens (iris) opening.
For the case of the human eye, the focal length is about 25mm. I imagine
there is some variability from person to person, but for any individual,
the focal length is fixed.The diameter of the iris opening is, of course
variable. For most people the maximum opening is around 7mm. So the
*maximum* aperture of the human eye is about 25/7 = 3.6. Taking into
account variability from person to person, I would guess it ranges from
about 3 to 4. I'm not sure what the smallest opening of the iris is, but
that would determine the minimum f ratio of the eye.
Paul
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
From: "Anthony" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Aperture of Human Eye
The focal length is 25 mm, the aperture range is from f/3 to f/13,
approximately. This is pretty much where direct comparisons end, however.
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000
From: Grant Goodes ggoodes@ramtex.dk
Subject: H2 Focusing Screen is Great!
Well, at long last I received my H2 focusing screen in the mail
(ordered it to a friend's house in the US to avoid outrageous overseas
shipping, and had him mail it to me). I must say, I'm impressed.
All of you who raved about this screen were right. The only thing
that's confusing with these Hx and Gx screens is choosing the right
one for your lens collection. Generally, the H1/G1 are for ultra
wide-angles, and the H2/G2 for most all other non-telephoto lenses
(below 300mm). However, my 92/93 Nikon catalog lists "slight
vignetting possible" for my 24/2 with the H2 (though all my other
lenses get an "excellent") and recommends the H1 instead. I finally
decided that I'd risk the H2, especially when I found them new at the
excellent price of $US 20 at this location:
http://www.profotonyc.com/nikon.htm
Anyways, the vignetting is very subtle, if at all noticeable, so
I'm happy enough. Why would the 24/2 have vignetting on the H2
(NOT with the G2) while the 24/2.8 is fine? The length of the
lens, and the angle at which the light rays leave the lens is
identical for both lenses. As I understand it, the differences
between the Hx/Gx screens are in the pitch of the micro-prism
sides, and they are optimised for a certain range of focal lengths.
That max. aperture should matter surprises me!
I look forward to trying out my Noct Nikkor and 25/2 with this
screen in my typical available darkness shooting environment.
Now if I can only find an AS-7 at a decent price, I'll have my
dream F3/T setup more-or-less complete (well, dreaming, I'd have
an OP 10/5.6 fisheye, but thats not very likely, is it..).
grant..
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999
From: "Jim Williams" jlw@nospam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Isn't buying a used manual camera a bad idea?
>> I find it a good deal easier to focus my Elan manually than it >was to focus my F1 or F1N with a lens over 100mm mounted. There is no >split screen or other clutter gone to black in there. The screen IS >brighter - I switched to autofocus because I couldn't focus my cameras >any more, and now I use it in manual focus as much as I do auto. I >recommend a corrective eyepiece if you have a fairly simple >perscription, but I don't, so I've never been able to use one.
Geez, sometimes I think I could put a post on this newsgroup such as "Air
is a good thing to breathe" or "My favorite color is blue"... and somebody
would come back with an argument!
Oh, well... certainly a plain, uncluttered AF-camera screen may be
*easier* to focus in the sense that there are fewer distractions. But in
terms of focusing *accurately* -- well, that's another thing. Focusing
accurately with a plain screen certainly is easier with a long lens,
because there's more image magnification and less DOF, so the image
"snaps" in and out of focus more decisively. And with shorter lenses, if
you mostly shoot at small apertures and/or make small prints, minor
focusing errors don't matter.
But -- while you may be the exception -- a lot of people who try to
manually focus their AF cameras when using high-speed lenses at wide
apertures, slow zoom lenses, or wide-angle lenses may run into problems. I
mention this because often people don't realize they're having trouble
*focusing* -- after all, the image LOOKS as if it's in focus in the
viewfinder. It's when they critically view the picture that they realize
something went wrong... and if they don't realize the potential focusing
difficulties, they may be inclined to say, "My lens is no good" or "The
lab screwed up my printing."
From Nikon MF mailing list;
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000
From: Harvey Gryttenholm mrgrytt@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: F --> F4 Screen Evolution
Sover,
That's the combination I prefer too. I wish I would have tried them
out many years ago.
When I know I'll be shooting in low light I use the H2. Other than
that, the "R" stays in the camera. A split-image range finder seems to
work a lot better when you can see more than half of it.
Harvey
> For my F2s/F3s I use R & H2 screens for general use.
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999
From: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: vision fixes Re: Medium Format Auto Focusing
Hi Jim,
Know what you mean, recently lost my second parent and realized I'm not
getting younger either, shouldn't wait until I'm 70's to do stuff...
Start with your eye doctor or an optometrist. They should be able to
tell you what your specific problem(s) is/are - astigmatism, diopter
correction, brightness levels, etc. - and perhaps some of the options.
Diopter changes with age are easiest, cheapy $15-25 glass diopter (range
is -7 to +7 in some systems, others custom ground); my hasselblad chimney
finder has a rotating diopter adjustment range; a few 35mm SLRs also have
this feature.
The right screen can help too, for example, a split image screen may be
easier to focus for some types of vision problems. Many 35mm SLR systems
have such interchangeable screens, as do most med fmt SLR systems.
Hasselblads are an example of system cameras that are able to take
interchangeable backs, lenses, and viewfinders. I have both 6x6 and 6x4.5
backs; personally, I rarely promote the 16 exp. backs,as you can always
cut down 6x6 to 6x4.5, but not the reverse, and having multiple film
types (slide/print, color/black-white, fast/slow) means carrying a few
backs for 6x6 to get full flexibility, would need even more to have same
flexibility with 6x4.5 as well. But that's a choice you can make; the
basic 500cm series hassy is pretty small and light with the waist level
finder or chimney finder. The newer blads get lots of fancy features,
aimed at pros more than the rest of us IMHO ;-) Lenses get pricey really
fast, and be sure to be insured for overseas!
Another option is a pop-down magnifier to make it easier to focus too..
Even something as simple as a eyecup to block side glare can help a lot
on some viewfinders.
Non-SLRs are another option, the mamiya rangefinders are very popular as
being bright and easy to focus, and there are other viewfinder cameras
out there too in mf and 35mm too. These are very bright and easy to see.
In short, there is good reason to check out a local pro dealer and look
at some of the available solutions - both in 35mm and medium format.
In any case, start with the eye doctor and his/her recommendations, then
try out possible solutions at a local camera dealer to see what works.
hope this helps - bobm
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
From: Dan Bereskin bereskin@home.com
Subject: Re: Beattie screens brighter?
I spoke with a Beattie representative at a PhotoPlus show last year (if I
remember correctly, the Beattie business had recently been taken over
(Saunders?). He said that the Hasselblad Accumatte screen is the industry
standard that no other manufacturer can match, including Beattie. The
cost of gearing up to make Accumatte screens is prohibitive for small
manufacturers. That said, Beattie screens are fine for a lot of people,
at lower cost. I can't remember what he said about the brightness
differential-1/2 stop comes to mind. His argument really was with
BrightScreen, who he claimed made false claims-according to him, there is
no significant difference in brightness between the Beattie and
BrightScreen screens. Needless to say, I was impressed by this guy.
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000
From: Rodrigo Gimenez rge@adinet.com.uy
Subject: Action finders differences
I would like to know why the action viewfinders for the Nikon F, F2, and
F3 are smaller and very different than the ones on the Nikon F4 and F5.
Eye relief is the same, 2.5in (6cm).
Rodrigo Gimenez
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000
From: Lars Holst Hansen LHHansen@zi.ku.dk
Subject: Re: Action finders differences
Hi Rodrigo!
Rodrigo Gimenez wrote:
> I would like to know why the action viewfinders for the Nikon F, F2, and F3 > are smaller and very different than the ones on the Nikon F4 and F5. > Eye relief is the same, 2.5in (6cm).
Could it be since the DA-20 (for F4) and DA-30 (for F5) both have
meters?
Best regards,
Lars
[Ed. note: a caution to test out your fresnel before buying for
focusing..]
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000
From: Roland Schregle schregle@ise.fhg.de
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Focusing screen for a Rollei TLR
Craig Stewart wrote:
> I've got the stock screen with the > Rollei accessory frensel lens. I find that for critical focus I do better > without the frensel in. However, as someone once put it, it is bovine > focusing, i.e. dark as the inside of a cow. How do these new screens, like > the Bettie Intenscreen work? Is it essentially a ground glass plate with > an integrated frensel lens?
I hate the fresnels. They're bright but mushy. I find the good old
stock glass screen better by a mile.
--
Roland Schregle
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems
Date: 31 Mar 2000
From: wiltw@aol.com (Wilt W)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Intens Screen vs Bright Screen?
You can brighten the image noticeably with a product such as the Bright
Screen.
I tried one, and found that the image brightened without detrimental
effect to the speed or accuracy of focus. (That's why you see a
difference between the general ground glass area of a screen vs. the
microprism/split image area...brighter ground glass area is less precise
in the accuracy, slowing you down if you want to be careful in the focus.)
I decided NOT to buy, though, because the additional screen brightnesss
causes a need to compensate the metering prism so that it reads the
exposure properly. For wedding shooting with more than one film, that was
an opportunity for error (in switching films rapidly during high pressure
shooting situations) that I didn't want to risk.
--Wilt
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000
From: Rodrigo Gimenez rge@adinet.com.uy
Subject: Re: H2 Focusing Screen is Great!
>From: Grant Goodes ggoodes@ramtex.dk > >Well, at long last I received my H2 focusing screen in the mail
I would like to read comparisons of standard focusing screens like
type B with this screen. Please tell us when you have something
about it. Results will be different depending on lens and light used.
It is interesting to know how it performs with bright light too (again,
it depends on the lens used, especially lens speed).
At http://photo.net/photo/nikon/nikon-f3.html there are positive
comments about the H4 focusing screen for macro with the 200mm micro
with two teleconverters and diopters, up to 3x magnification.
A very nice website for Nikon F3 focusing screens, with drawings is:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/screens/index.htm
(long URL, copy-paste if it breaks)
This page is from Leonard Foo, that says he is using a H2 screen on his
F3T.
Another sites for focusing screens are:
http://www.cameraquest.com/nfscreen.htm (Nikon F and F2)
http://euro-photo.net/cgi-bin/epn/info/equip_reviews/f3_f4_screens.asp
(Nikon F3 and F4)
According to the following websites, Hx isn't exactly equivalent to Gx:
http://www.mir.com.my/~michaeliu/neoff2/neoff2shared/ff2screens.html
http://www.csonline.net/unklbil/screens.htm
G1 for fisheye, G2 for wideangles, G3 for 50f/1.2 and 300f/2.8, G4 for 300f/2.8,
but
H1 for most f/2.8 lenses <=200mm, H2 for most f/5.6 or faster lenses <=200mm, H3 for most f/4 or faster lenses >200mm, H4 for most f/5.6 or faster lenses >200mm
Does anybody know why this difference?
Rodrigo Gimenez
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999
From: "W Scott Elliot" selliot@direct.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Angle finders
Today I was at a camera shop and spotted a used Minolta angle finder. I
asked the proprietor if he could find one for my Canon. He said it was no
problem, the Minolta angle finder will fit any Canon that accepts a Canon
angle finder B (most current Canons except the Elan II and A2 which
require an adapter.) I was skeptical so he demonstrated on a Canon in his
shop. I bought it and brought it home. It fits exactly and gives a full
field of view.
Since when to Canon and Minolta make attachments that are compatible with
each others camera? The clerk said it was also fit most Pentaxes. This
does not seem like the expected behaviour of camera manufacturers. There
must be a mistake some where.
The clerk was a little put off. He uses Nikon equipment and has two
separate angle finders because they are not interchangeable between
models. He has a third camera that does not accept either finder, but he
can remove the prism and look directly at the focusing screen. At least
Nikon knows how to make their customers spend money.
I look forward for a chance to use my angle finder for close to the ground
wild flower and insect photography. Hopefully I won't be crawling on my
belly and planting my face in the mud as much.
Scott
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000
From: geoff/camera tech info@cameratech.com
To: bronica@topica.com
Subject: Re: [BRONICA] Prism compensation for Brightscreen ?
The after market focus screens can have a different transmission of light
than the stock ones that come with the camera. This is most true in 35mm.
Since the in camera meters do read the light off this screen it will or
can effect accuracy of the meter reading. This can be compensated for if
the camera has a plus minus exposure compensation setting. Otherwise the
meter has to be recalibrated.
As to after market screens for medium format, my perception of them has
been the same as yours. All the ones I have seen have no apparent
difference in performance than the stock screens. I even saw a batch from
one company that had etched the ground surface on the wrong side. Throws
the focus way out.
No Bronica has made no changes or improvements in their screens. Bronica
is now the foster child in Tamron industries line up. They have bigger
fish to fry, so don't expect any brilliant or enlightened new Bronica
products anytime in the near future. Least of all brighter screens.
.....
>I've been shooting a Bronica SQ-Ai for a while, but I've always used >manual prisms with a Beattie Intenscreen. The new Bronica rebate >finally motivated me to buy another body and (3rd) back for backup. >The upside is the free SQ-i AE prism as one of the choices. Seems >that I read somewhere once that using a BrightScreen requires >exposure compensation with a metered prism ? Can anyone confirm >this? I still plan to do most of my metering with a hand held >meter, but in a pinch, the metering functions would be nice if >they're accurate. > > >By the way, I'm amazed at how little difference I see between >the screen that came with the new body and the Intenscreen. I >wonder if Bronica has improved the stock screens recently ? >Best Regards, > >Tim Schooler > >Classic Photography >http://www.classicphoto.net
Best regards,
geoff/camera tech
2308 Taraval St. S.F.,CA 94116 USA
UNDERWATER PHOTO/VIDEO SALES-REPAIRS-RENTALS
BRONICA REPAIRS & SERVICE
(415)242-1700 Fax (415)242-1719
email: info@cameratech.com web site: http://www.cameratech.com
[Ed. note: a handy trick!..]
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999
From: Mark Walberg Walberg@simmons.swmed.edu
Subject: Re: Focusing screens types C and M
The cross hair on the C screen (don't know about the M, but I think it is
similar) is on clear (not ground) glass. This is used for parallax
focusing. This will work better with the high mag finder or the DG2 type
magnifier, but I think it would work with the regular finders, too - just
not as well.
Parallax focusing works like this: Recall that what ever is in focus
on the film is also in focus on the screen. If a subject is in focus on
the screen, then it will remain stationary relative to the cross hair when
you move your point of view. You move your point of view by moving your
head side to side. If, however, the image is a bit out of focus at the
screen plane, when you move your head side to side the image will move
relative to the cross hair. You can get very accurate focus this way. It
is most useful with macro of subjects without nice high contrast lines
that would make it otherwise easy to focus.
-Mark Walberg
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999
From: Mark Walberg Walberg@simmons.swmed.edu
Subject: Re: D screen
The D screen is just a ground glass. It is a small version of looking at
the ground glass of your 4x5 without any fresnel lens. If you've done
that, you'll be familiar with the dark corners. The wider the lens, the
darker the corners. So, the D isn't great for those wide lenses. It is,
however very good with the longer lenses. It is very definitely not as
bright as the screens with the fresnels. But, you can get more accurate
focus with a D screen. For many uses, very accurate focus isn't so
important. But, when it is, the D is helpful. The reason for this is
that
the image is being focused on a very thin plane of the groung glass
surface. When you start adding a fresnel or prisms, or if you make the
screen surface coarser, then the focusing plane on the screen becomes
thicker. That alone makes it harder to get the focus just right. The D
won't be your favorite if you're doing low light candids or concerts, etc
(but then again, maybe you should be using a rangefinder for that anyway
-
personal opinion only ;< ) )
However, if you are doing pictures with limited depth of field where the
placement of the plane of focus is important, you just might like it -
unless you are using wideangle lenses. Once you get used to it, it is
actually easier to focus in spite of its being darker.
-Mark Walberg
Rodrigo Gimenez asked about the D screen:
>I suppossed that the types C and D aren't for maximum brightness, since >they are the only screens that don't have a fresnel lens (mate screens). > >Are they brighter than type B focusing screen (mate/fresnel screen)?.....
[Ed. note: a modeling light velcro'd to the top of your strobe or lights,
using a halogen bulb light, provides a nice bright light to focus
with..]
From Bronica Mailing LIst:
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999
From: "Alan E. Weaver" alansusan@gbso.net
To: bronica@iList.net
Subject: [BRONICA] Focusing in Low Light
What is the best way to focus in low-light situations (i.e., wedding
candids when the lights are turned down low for the bride and groom dance,
etc.). I recently saw a pro that had a built-in model light on his flash.
He turned it on to focus, and then It shut off automatically when the
flash was fired. Baring the purchase of a new flash with a modeling light,
I have been looking for a stand-alone modeling light, but the best thing
that I have come up with is a stand-alone video light which runs on its
own rechargeable battery. It is about 20 watts. The only drawback, it
doesn't shut off when you release the shutter and fire the flash. It
would seem like somebody would be able to use the same technology that
fires slave flashes (light sensor) to turn off a modeling light.
Your thoughts and suggestions are welcomed.
Alan W.
From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999
From: kenweissblum@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: [NIKON] re:correction eyepiece
Have you checked to see if you need one with the camera, don't adssume
because you need glasses that you will need correction with your Nikon.
I am near and far sighted (comes with age). With my F-2, I can see clear
without any adapter. The reason is that the virtual image on the Nikon
is about a meter away not the distance to the actual viewfinder. That
distance is between my near and far sightedness. I'm not sure of the
distance for the N-90, but if that can be found out from calling NIkon.
But in general, nearsightedness uses a + correction. But if you go to an
optician, make sure he gives you a correction for the virtual image
distance, not just for reading.
Ken Weissblum
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] flare or leakage
I was just shooting some stuff in my studio this afternoon and took
some time to look at my RTS III. When the mirror is up and the
shutter open, you can not see any part of the frame which holds the
focusing screen or any part of the screen. The mirror completely
blocks it off. As I was thinking this it hit me. Of course there
is no way for light from the viewfinder to strike the film. I have
a gadget made by Hama that I use rarely when I am shooting copies of
flat pages. It is an illuminator which screws into the eyepiece of
the RTS III (and other Contax cameras which accept the same round
eyepieces). It projects a very bright light throught the viewfinder
and out the lens onto the page you are copying. You know you are in
focus when the image of the focusing aids on the focusing screen is
projected sharply onto what you are copying. It is much easier than
squinting through the eyepiece when the camera is on a copying stand.
You don't have to turn it off to shoot the photos, just if you want
to use the in-camera meter. I've copied many pages with it without
any problems, so there is definitely no light leak from the viewfinder
to the film. This little light is BRIGHT, believe me.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Eye glass happening.
In an SLR you are focusing your eye on the focusing screen, not on a
distant subject. The apparent distance to the focusing screen varies
from camera to camera. If you are using a camera without eyesight
compensation in the viewfinder and you can not see the focusing screen
sharply (best to try without a lens on the camera), then you will need
a supplementary eyesight lens. Take your camera to your eye doctor
and look through the diopter set these doctors have until you find the
one that gives you sharpest focus, and then order that strength for
your camera.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Focusing
- ----------
>From: muchan muchan@promikra.si >To: contax@photo.cis.to >Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Focusing >Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2000, 6:43 AM > >But what I heard, is that these screen for "easy" focussing is >darker in finder, and to make the finder brighter, this "easiness" >of focussing must be sacrificed.
There is a trade-off of brightness vs. contrast. The brightest
screens have the lowest contrast, and many find them unusually
hard to focus. As an example, with Hasselblad's brightest screen
installed I can not focus their camera at all.
>Another tip, was, when allowed, you use laser beam (lasar-pen?) >for presentation or slide show as a focus aid. For example, when >you're shooting a bird on a tree branch in the low light situation, >while you're aiming her with tripod, you light her up with laser beam, >and focus with the contrast of red light. you turn off the beam and >take the photo. (I don't know if this laser harms the bird or not...)
Brightscreen company was selling one of these which fit into the
camera's flash shoe and had a little switch which fit on top of
the camera's shutter release button. It projected a very bright
red star onto the subject to make focusing easier. The caution
is that this sort of system can cause eye damage so you must never
point it into the subject's eye.
Bob
From: carbon_dragon@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000
Subject: Old Cameras and Scratched Glasses
Any of us who use older cameras are aware that a
lot of them have metal eyepieces with the potential
to scratch eyeglasses (Contax IIA for example). It
has been suggested to me to use rubber washers fixed
to the camera viewfinders to prevent this, but is
this the best solution, and if not, what is?
Assuming we go with the rubber washer idea, what kind
of cement could be used which could be peeled away
afterward without harming the cameras or their value?
By the way, I am both farsighted and astigmatic, so
diopters aren't enough for me even when the camera
provides them.
Thanks in advance!
From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: FS: Large lot of mostly Minolta MF items
>I've finally decided that I'm tired of those slightly-out-of-focus >prints, and my Optometrist doesn't paint a hopeful future, so I'm sadly >and reluctantly selling off my well-built, sturdy manual focus Minolta >stuff so I can buy some more plasticky, lightweight Canon EOS stuff.
[...]
If your problem is age-related inability to re-focus
your eyes, I've found a solution that has worked well
for me not only for being able to see the camera VF
sharply, but for being able to see sharply at all
distances from infinity to well under a foot: my
camera-eye main glasses lens is optimized for 1 meter;
the other main eye glasses lens is optimized for
infinity (the difference in correction is not great
enough to lose binocular vision except at first at
night); the non-camera eye bifocal (25-28mm flat-top,
set a little lower than usual) is set to pick up
sharp vision where the camera eye main lens leaves
off; the camera eye bifocal lens picks up sharp
focus where the non-camera eye bifocal leaves off.
Avoid "lineless" bifocals if you care about
wide-angle sharp vision, or easy use of a camera
viewfinder...
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
Hey, check out www.visitithaca.com too...!
[Ed.note: regarding chimney magnifiers in medium format (TLR/SLR)]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000
From: calciua@hn.va.nec.com
Subject: TLR Chimney finder WTB (was Re: [Rollei] TLR magnifying hood)
I never thought they were of any use, but I got one for my Pentacon 6
set-up ( I have an extensive array of P-6 stuff) and liked the operation.
Also, although I started wearing glasses some 3-4 years ago, my
prescription is weak enough that the limited magnification is acceptable.
So, if anybody has one, I want it. Call, email or write with price and
condition.
Andrei D. Calciu
From Rollei Mailing LIst;
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000
From: IMRE KARAFIATH kossuth@gte.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Bright screen for Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar?
I purchased a Beattie screen for my 2.8 E3.
I was startled by how much brighter it was. I'm
fairly certain that the screen I removed was the
original. The only disadvantage is that you have to
center your eye over the screen. If you look at the
screen from an angle it will be much darker. The
original didn't exhibit this property.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000
From: Evan J Dong evanjoe685@juno.com
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 500c - viewing screens
Frank,
Haselblad in NJ will install the Acutte-Matte screen for you for $50.
Also you can check out Brad Sherman at Precision Camera Repair in NJ,
ansd also Chris Filonovich of CF Repair in NJ. Both Brad and Chris used
to work for Hasselblad at one time and both worked for Gil Ghittelman as
his Hasselblad repairman. Chris still works for Gil Ghittelman. ALso
John Kovics of HIulton COmand Exposure in NH.
I had Chris install the Acutte-Matte in my 500C.
Evan
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Contax or Hasselblad?
Bill Maxwell has explained this to me several times. Basically the
brighter the screen the lower the contrast, and the human eye perceives
contrast as sharpness. I have a Beattie screen here right now that they
sent me for testing. It's for the Rollei 6000 series. It is definitely
much brighter than the older screen in my 6006, but I probably could not
focus it easily if it didn't have a big diagonal split image rangefinder
in the middle. BTW, I normally use a Maxwell screen in that camera in
place of the original Rollei screen, and have no trouble focusing that.
The real secret to brighter viewfinders is in the coatings on the
mirror(s) and prism faces. But this is not an aftermarket thing.
Bob
> From: "wei zhang" milklover2@hotmail.com > Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to > Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 > To: contax@photo.cis.to > Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Contax or Hasselblad? > > Me too. Remember the Rollei 3.5F I got from my Exakta, it has a Beattie > screen on it. I have had very hard time to get the image infocus. It's too > bright! Even I try to use the maganifier on the camera... I'm sure if I > stop down the lens, everything will be infocus, but that's not what it > suppose to be.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: todd todd_belcher@telus.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Product Info (Penta B Okular)
Jerry,
The Penta B eyepiece has two pieces of glass as opposed to the regular
eyepiece's single element. The Penta B, of course allows for a high
eyepoint type view of the image formed in the pentaprism, ie the image
appears slightly smaller for the same distance the eye is away from the
eyepiece when compared to the regular eyepiece, and includes more of the
Pentaprism's inner environs around the image.
todd
=============
Okaaay, but again, what is the difference between the eyepieces
themselves?
Besides what the catolog says about being suitable for use while wearing
glasses.
Jerry
[Ed. note: 2X magnifier for hasselblad prisms - note B&H; discount price -
ouch!]
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000
From: InfinityDT@aol.com
Subject: Prism View Magnifier F/S
Hasselblad View Magnifier for PM5-PME3-PME5-PME51-PM90 prism finders in
mint-condition (no box).
(2x Magnifier w. built-in adjustable diopter correction, use for critical
focus. Attaches around eyepiece and flips away on hinge for regular
viewing.)
I sold my PM5 and don't need the magnifier now. B&H; price = US$242+
shipping, my price =US$125 including shipping in the lower 48 states.
VISA/MC ok. Please contact me off-list.
Thanks.
[Ed. note: presumably sold by the time you see this, for info only!]
From hasselblad Mailing list:
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000
From: InfinityDT@aol.com
Subject: Re: hasselblad V1 #987
JBelen@aol.com
writes:
I currently own a 503CW and a few CF lenses. As a bifocal wearer, i
find
focusing accurately somewhat difficult.
I am thinking of swtiching to the Contax 645 system. Are the Zeiss (for
the Contax system) lenses of the same quality as they are for the Hassy?
Thanks,
Jack
I assume since you're contemplating the 645 that you shoot eye-level. If
so, get a PM45 prism for the CW. Mine was about $650 from Cayman Camera,
a lot cheaper than trading your whole system for the Contax. The PM45 (or
PME45 or PME90) have infinitely adjustable diopters in the eyepieces,
which are high-eyepoint for glasses-wearers. You just aim the camera at a
uniformly bright subject like a wall, with the lens set so it's out of
focus, look through the top (distance Rx) of your bifocals and turn the
eyepiece until the crosshairs on the screen are sharp, then lock the
eyepiece in place. Works great. The split-image/microprism screen is also
a help especially with shorter lenses. Cost me about $165 from the same
source.
But if you just plain *want* a Contax 645, that's another story. Judging
by the 35mm lenses, the Contax-Zeiss lenses are undoubtedly superb.
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] My 5th S2b weekend report
Cats have "night eyes". Where we have a retina filled with blood vessels,
thus the common redeye effect in photos, cats have a retina with tiny
blood vessels and backed by a greenish reflective layer. I can't recall
the name for this special layer at the moment, but its purpose is to
reflect the light back through the retina again which is like doubling the
sensitivity. However, this process scatters light (just as halation does
in film) and so such an eye can not resolve very fine detail. They see
motion exceptionallly well, and shapes, but not the fine details. There
is no way, for example, that a cat could ever learn to read!!
Also, since their eyes are designed for the night, they don't see very
well in the day. Whether they can see any colors or just shades of gray
is still a subject that there is disagreement on.
Bob
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000
From: Bill Maloney bills188@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Nikkormat and F2 Eyepiece Fun
Hansen, Ed, & Mike,
Thanks for your advice. I got the eyepeice for the FM2/FE2/FA
yesterday and it's just ducky on the F2. I really like the
rubber coated rim. The Nikon part number is 2925 if anyone is
interested. I initially wanted to buy from a local store as I
wanted to try it on first and give them the business. After
stopping at 2 and calling 2 others I found one that had it in
stock. My guide was the B&H; website which had it for $16.95,
retail was $22.something. I didn't mind paying retail if I
could be sure it fit. The local place that had it wanted almost
$30. And an HN2 lens hood for my 28 3.5 was $29, but only
$14.95 at B&H.; As I said, I don't mind paying a little more for
the service, but I felt I was getting gouged so I went ahead and
ordered both from B&H.; They arrived in 2 days. Now I have to
remember to put a little paint on the threads so it stays put.
Bill Maloney
Wayne, NJ USA
--- "Hansen, Lars Holst" LHHansen@zi.ku.dk wrote:
> Hi, > > An eyepiece for the FM/FE/FM2/FE2/FA family has the same > thread and an > additional rubber coated rim (only the "neutral" =plane glass > eyepiece!) and > is very gentle to glasses. I have fitted one of these to my > Nikkormat FTN. > They should be available from any well assorted Nikon dealer. > > > Best regards, > -- > Lars Holst Hansen - LHHansen@zi.ku.dk > http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/NikonRepair > > Bill Maloney writes: > > ...Can anyone recommend a source for the F2 Eyepiece > > that's not an arm and a leg?
[Ed. note: be sure to check, as sometimes the bright screens may be harder
to focus (less grainy contrast) for some folks...]
From ROllei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000
From: John Hicks jbh@magicnet.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] HELP! New 6008i Lens Woes
Another thing; the Rollei Hi-D screen can sometimes be _more difficult_
to focus on than the standard Rollei screen....as is the Hasselblad
Acute-Matte and other similar types of screens.
John Hicks
jbh@magicnet.net
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000
From: Mitch Winkle mwinkle@jonatas.com
To: medium-format@egroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] Brightening your own viewfinder screen
Hey everyone.
I have seen articles and posts on photo.net, in the LF section, about
making adjustments to the ground glass to make it more friendly to focus
with. One in particular was carefully wiping on a layer of silicone spray
(on the ground side) which is reported to increase light transmission.
Has anyone tried this with a MF viewscreen? Curious to see if it would
work. The old Yashicamat, even with a new mirror, is kind of dark in some
cases with a f/3.2 viewing lens.
Mitch Winkle
mwinkle@jonatas.com
AC4IY
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Another new subscriber and another question
jerryleh@pacbell.net wrote:
> Ross > > OKAAAAAY, now a question: > > How many of you out there who have a prism finder, actually > USE it?? > > I have two of them, but after using them for a time or two, have > found that the WLF is more convenient. A 45 degree finder > would be nice though. I do use one of those with my H'blad. > Jerry
A 45 is much handier than a 90 in my experience but after spending all
that money I'm back to waist level finders for their light wight,
compactness and efficiency. When i go back to a prism i find myself glued
into the eyepiece too much and I miss the overall picture. With a folding
I have my camera at my chest. Against it.
mark rabiner
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000
From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad and Macro Photography.
UCS308 ucs308@pillarbox.com wrote
> My basic issues were usability, and may be I just have to get used to it. > But in short. The vignette frustrated me. Focusing was very difficult, the > split screen does not really work with the bellows in place. Stopping down > the lens was also frustrating. The size is an issue and essentially puts you > inside for your photographs, and then DOF is very shallow.. the 120 will > stop down to F32, the 135 to F45. > > What do other people do for close-up shots. Flowers, bugs, textures, where > 1:1 is important and > 1:1 nice.
It may be easier to focus with the "chimney" viewfinder instead of the
standard WLF (better magnification and less ambient light), and certainly
easier than with any prism finder, as prisms lose .5 - 1 stop due to the
fact that the light must be reflected three times with a pentaprism: once
with the mirror and twice inside the prism, but only once - with the
mirror - with a "chimney" finder.
Michael
[Ed. note: Mr. Erwin Puts is a noted photobook author and lens tester and
Leicaphile...]
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] RF accuracy
I have been on holiday for a week, so I could not respond on a timely
base.
The resolving power of the eye is measured in angular degrees and is
dependent on the absolute distance of the cones. This absolute measure is
being affected by a number of factors, like age, ambient light, contrast,
fatigue and the visual form of the object under investigation. That is why
resolution tests are so notoriously unreliable. As most people cannot
handle angles and degrees, the resolving power of the eye is often defined
in relation to a fixed distance, mostly 25cm. But the resolving power
differs greatly between the form of the object, ranging from 5 seconds of
arc for a stereoscopic vision and 5 minutes of arc for the distinction of
letters, like an 'E'or an 'F'. For photographic purposes the point source
distinction is used and for RF accuracy the vernier acuity. Both differ by
a factor of 6.
When discussing resolution of the eye, most students use an
average of 2 minutes of arc. Translating this to the ability to
distinguish between lines of a certain width is difficult and here we see
figures of 3 lines per mm to 20 lines per mm. Most students and optical
designers settle for an average. In my calculations, (see website) I have
used both the average numbers and the acuity numbers, giving an average
and an optimum figure. It is obvious that any enlargement will improve the
eye's ability to distinguish between objects, as such an enlargement will
improve on the angular measure. That is why an SLR focussing screen wins
hands down when a focal length of more than 100mm is used.
There is nothing wrong with the standard calculations of accuracy of the
rangefinder base. And the accuracy will improve when the enlargement
factor is increased. If you would use a magnifier eyepiece of factor 2 on
a M6, you will get a more accurate rangefinder spot. Note the old
attachment to the 135mm Elmarit. This just enlarged the viewfinder
magnification and thus the effective rangefinder base.
The Effective Base Length is a good measure of the rangefinder accuracy.
How much accuracy we need, is a different story. See age, fatigue, ambient
light, contrast, etc. Most RF figures are based on the average figures
(see above), BUT also on the expected amount of enlargement, on the
defocus blur and on the depth of field calculations, that use a figure of
0.03mm as a baseline.
Using the vernier acuity as a base, the .58 finder will focus the Noctilux
to any required level of accuracy, given the DoF calculations and the
normal eye and normal ambient light levels. Of course, when in very dim
light, low contrast, loss of a night's sleep and full of adrenaline when
taking pictures of objects that excite the photographer, some loss of
accuracy may be expected. And the 0.85 is easier to focus, if not more
accurate.
Erwin
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000
From: Evan J Dong evanjoe685@juno.com
Subject: Re: 500c focusing screen
Simon,
Like what Peter told you, any good technican can replace the original
screen in the 500C for you. The fee is $50, but some technicans will only
use the Acutte-Matte screen as the replacement screen. Hasselblad USA
will do for you and only with the Acutte-Matte screen. I had it done on
my 500C when I sent it in for an overhaul. I use the split image grid
Acutte-Matte screen in it. The screen replacement requires an adjustment
(probably shims) the body for maximum sharpness. You can also use either
the newer Beattie screens, Maxwell screens, and also the BrightScreen.
Any one of these screens are definitely a BIG IMPROVEMENT over the
original screen.
Evan
...
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: Nathan Wajsman wajsman@webshuttle.ch
Subject: [Rollei] Maxwell bright screen
Yesterday I picked up my Rolleiflex (3.5 Xenotar) with the Maxwell
Bright Screen installed. The installation cost about $40, the screen
itself $104. I took off the lens cap...opened the focusing hood...and it
was an absolute revelation! The image on the focusing screen is at least
3 stops brighter than it was before. This improved brightness extends
into the corners, and is not affected by the angle at which I look at
it. It is simply the best Rolleiflex accessory I could have ever bought.
The screen I got has the same grid as the original, but other varieties
(plain, or with a split-image focusing ad in the center) are available.
I heartily recommend Bill Maxwell's products. He is low-tech in his
interface to the world (you have to call or write, no web site or even
e-mail), but the products are well worth it. Contact details are:
Maxwell Precision Optics PO Box 33146 Decatur, GA 30033-0146 tel. (404) 244-0095
In addition to the screen, I also bought his excellent 6x7 loupe for
$275. Not cheap, but it is perfect for my Rollei negatives, and it is
the only one I found that enlarges 4x.
Nathan
--
Nathan Wajsman
Herrliberg (ZH), Switzerland
e-mail: wajsman@webshuttle.ch
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000
From: Fred Greenspan greenspan@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Maxwell bright screen
Shannon,
I don't know if this helps. My 2.8E2 Planar (removable hood) is on it's
way back from a Bill Maxwell CLA with a new brilliant matte screen, and
the understanding that I can swap back and forth with my old screen pretty
easily whenever I want the split screen center focus of my old screen. Of
course, he does sell a brighter screen with the center split screen, but I
chose the plain screen without the center distraction for my new Maxwell
Screen. Hopefully, I'll never wish to switch back to the old screen once I
see the new one.
HTH-Fred
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Maxwell bright screen
If your camera has the flip-up frame for user interchangeable screens
you can just slip out the old one and slip in the new one. So long as
the camera is not out of adjustment this is all you need to do. Be
sure, though, to get the new screen in the right way around. When I
was repairing Rolleis it was not that unusual to get cameras in for
repair when all that was really wrong was that the focusing screen was
in upside-down!
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000
From: Nathan Wajsman wajsman@webshuttle.ch
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Maxwell bright screen
This is precisely the thing that amazed me the most when I saw my 3.5E
with the Maxwell screen. I have no experience with other Rolleis or other
aftermarket screens, but I was expecting that the improved brightness
would be primarily in the center (based on stuff I had read about the
Beattie screens). But the Maxwell screen I got (brilliant matte with grid
but no focusing aid) is evenly bright corner-to-corner.
Nathan
...
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000
From: Fred Greenspan greenspan@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei]Maxwell Screens - Another believer!
My 2.8E2 came back today with it's new Maxwell brilliant matte screen. The
difference is outstanding! I set it up side by side with my 2.8E with old
screen, and 2.8GX with bright modern screen. No contest! The Maxwell
screen is brighter all the way out to the edges with much finer-less
grainy image and much easier to focus than either of the other two.
Although the difference is not as great with the GX, as with the older E
screen, I am still considering getting one for the GX as the
difference/improvement is significant. I will give myself some time to
evaluate the new screen fully before ordering one for the GX, but it looks
good (pun intended)! Also, Mr. Maxwell seems to have done a nice job doing
a full CLA on the E2. Regards!-Fred
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000
From: Fred Greenspan greenspan@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei]Maxwell Screens - Another believer!
Yes it's in that price range. Maxwell offers more than one type of screen.
The brilliant matte one with grid, but without central focusing aid is a
little over $100. The ones with central focusing aids (split screen, micro
grid, etc) are about $130 I think. But best to call and ask Bill Maxwell
himself.
HTH!-Fred
From Medium Format Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000
From: Mitch Winkle mwinkle@jonatas.com
Reply to: medium-format@egroups.com
Subject: [medium-format] Loupes
Folks,
Many of you I know wear glasses as I do, so this type of loupe may be
interesting to you.
I haven't tried it, but the price, eye relief and large coverage peaked my
interest.
http://www.edmundoptics.com/IOD/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=1813
Mitch Winkle
mwinkle@jonatas.com
AC4IY
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Sub-par viewfinder in the RTS II?
> From: Dogbreath hopi@pro-ns.net > Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 > To: contax@photo.cis.to > Subject: [CONTAX] Sub-par viewfinder in the RTS II? > > Could a positive diopter (if there are there such things) possibly be of help?
Yes there are positive diopter lenses. I use a +0.5 diopter myself for
maximum sharpness of the focusing screen.
> It would seem that the most minor of corrections would be required. Is > there such a thing as a, say, +.25 diopter?
You can have such lenses custom made. Take your camera to an eye doctor's
office. They have sets of diopter lenses in a wide range of values and
you can sit down with the set and hold them against the eyepiece one at a
time until you find the perfect one. This is how I determined that I
needed a +0.5 value for maximum sharpness. Camera companies usually offer
only half diopter values, and some only in full diopter values. Contax
loaned me a +0.5 for the Aria when I was testing that camera, so they have
them in half diopter values at least for the Aria.
Bob
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com
Subject: Re: Acute-Matte D
Jim,
The Acute-Matte D is a little brighter and is also the current offering.
One of my favorite aspects of the Acute Matte D is the two identification
notches in the frame. Screen identification is otherwise difficult,
unless one has several known screens for comparison and/or training in
this area.
Peter
Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
From: BLADHASS@aol.com
Subject: Re: How to ID the D [accu-matte screens]
Jim
From Kiev88 Mailing List:
In reply to Kelvin
I put a Hasselblad Brightscreen in my 88. I had to disassemble the
Hasselblad and the 88 screens. Then I put the Hasselblad guts in the 88
screen frame as the 'blad frame is a fraction of a mm too big to fit in
the 88 body. What you must be careful of is the focus. Mine was slightly
off with the new 'blad screen. There are 4 tiny screws under the screen
to raise or lower it. I checked the focus at infinity with a ground glass
back and a loupe to make sure Iwas at infinity with the film plane. Then
I used the 10x loupe on the view screen with the lens at infinity and
raised or lowered (I can't remember which) the screen until it was spot
on. Then put thhe 4 hold down screws back in and voila.... 2 stops
brighter!! I hope this helps.
Toby Fitch
From Rollei Mailing List:
I have a Beattie right now that they sent me for evaluation. It's a tad
brighter than the newest Rollei bright screen and some might like it
better.
I've had one of Bill Maxwell's screens in my 6006 for years and love it.
I haven't tried Jim Lakey's (Brightscreen) screen in my Rolleis, but he
sent me one for Hasselblad a while ago and it was really nice. Jim used
to work for Beattie and originated their focusing screens. He decided at
some point that he wanted to control his ideas, so he left Beattie and
started his own company, Brightscreen. He's a nice fellow and I usually
find time to chat with him at the photo trade shows.
BTW, Beattie screens are now manufactured and sold by a company called
Fresnel Optics in Rochester, NY, no longer by Beattie in Nashville. John
Taddeo, who was with Saunders for a long time, is their sales manager
these days. Another nice person.
Bob
From Leica Mailing List;
Bob Gibson wrote:
The first thing most people do when getting an R camera is to change the
factory supplied split image ground glass to a plain ground glass thus
eliminating the split doodad, which is always disrupting your view of the
scene you are about to photograph. You can focus anywhere on a plain GG.
And you know what you focus on will be sharp, because it looks sharp. The
split image in the middle of many GG screens simply disrupt quick and
efficient use of an R cmaera. It is NOT a rangefinder like in an M camera.
There are two plain GG screens available, one entirely plain and the other
with a few vertical and horizontal lines on it. The latter is what I use
as it helps in keeping horizons and buildings straight. Ted likes the
completely plain GG screen. In either case, your use of your R8 will be
enhanced as you will be able to focus on anything visible on the GG
without moving the camera. And your scene composition will be better
because you see only the scene displayed on the plain GG rather than the
scene with a bunch of circles and splits in the middle.
This is the humble viewpoint of myself, Ted, and everybody else that I
know that has an R4 - R8 camera. Yours and unknown others can, of course,
have a different viewpoint. But your question would have never come up if
you were using a plain GG screen as when it's in focus on the plain GG,
it's in focus on the film.
Jim
From Contax Mailing List;
There could be something to that. One major effect of most so-called
psychedelic substances is a hightened visual sense of crystal clarity
and intensified colors.
Just as an aside, I had the lens in my right eye replaced with an
artificial implant three years ago due to a cataract. The increased
sharpness and particularly the increased color sensitivity were
astonishing. I think we all go through a dulling down of our senses as we
age, and this restored my vision in that eye to the way I remember seeing
things as a child. Now if they could just do the same for my hearing,
sense of taste, etc., I'd happily become a cyborg.
Bob
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001
Giphart, Martin wrote:
It is quite possible that the previous owner of your 501 took out the
Acute matte and put in an old style screen.
On the other hand, i found focussing easier using the old style screen
than using the Acute Mattes, but only when there was plenty of light. I
find it sometimes difficult to see focus change on an Acute Matte when i
slightly turn the focussing ring, I believe it's a problem inherent in the
type of screen (it's not just a matted surface, but has microscopic
lenses, and these lenses, in conjunction with the, adapting, lenses in our
eyes, allow us to see things sharp that aren't really in the plane of
focus. We're not looking at diffuse light, originating at the matte
surface of a screen, but are practically looking through the screen), and
one of the reasons they were updated from Acute Matte to Acute Matte D.
But still... Most acurate focussing is achieved using a split image
rangefinder. But they are only convenient to use when using f/4 or faster
lenses.
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Welcome to the world of Hasselblad!
1. The Acute Matte D screens have two 'half-moon' cutouts on one inner
edge of the screen frame. The non 'D' Acute Matte do not have these two
cutouts. If you have the non 'D' Acute Matte, it would be difficult to
judge if you are not familiar with Hasselblad screens. Those who are can
easily tell the difference.
2. It doesn't matter how you orient the focusing screen, but you HAVE to
place the screen in the camera so that the 'sharp edges' of the screen
face the mirror -- or that the shining side of the screen faces UP.
3. and 4. I would definitely say that using a prism finder aids in
focusing! I prefer a 45 degree finder. You can get a NC2 prism pretty
inexpensively (it's their first model). The new PM45 is very good as it
has a diopter adjustment that you can set to accommodate your vision and
the high-eyepoint of this finder means that you won't need to remove your
eyeglasses before using it (if you wear glasses).
5. Hasselblad screens DO NOT GO BAD with time or with use! It is possible
that the type you have may not have any focusing aids (e.g., split-image
or microprism).
For your camera, might I suggest contacting Bill Maxwell at 404-244-0095.
He manufactures a FANTASTIC line of Hasselblad screens. These are as
bright as Hasselblad's AcuteMatte but there are differences!
He can made a screen that optimizes for a particular lens aperture, like
for f/8.0 which his has made for me for use when I am doing macro work
with bellows. Hasselblad doesn't provide this service. He also has screens
with a center microprism spot that greatly helps in focusing. Hasselblad
doesn't make this type of screen in the Acute Matte line. He also has one
that has a split-image and a donut of microprism that surrounds the
split-image. He also has a straight split-image in the center. Talk to him
and tell him I said to call. Bill is a wonderful guy and he also repairs
Hasselblad cameras and lenses. He has done his for two of my 500s.
He will educate you in the science of focusing screens . . . make sure you
have the time . . . he REALLY gets 'excited' when he talks about his
screens and magnifiers!!!!
Best of all, his screens are 2/3 the cost of screens from Hasselblad.
Hope I have helped, Martin,
Tsun Tam
...
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Dear Members,
Sometime ago I speculated in upgrading my non-HP Nikons to some sort of HP
(well better coverage at least) by simply adding one of Ikelite's Super
Eye Magnifiers (see
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000qTX ; the Super
Eye Magnifier is an optical accessory that helps in wieving when the
camera is inside an underwater casing).
With the upcoming FM3A having what seems to be a (non-HP) finder similar
to the FM2 (and the rest of that gang), I want to give it shot once more.
Unfortunately Ikelite have stopped producing the Super Eyes for the non-HP
finder threads (arg..)! - but perhaps I can find something secondhand - or
modify the threads of the once still available.
Do any of you NikonMF'ers have the Super Eye for a non-HP finder? and what
is it like without the UW house?
Best regards,
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
you wrote:
High eyepoint finders are not a panacea for all viewing conundrums. Mount
an F3 on a tripod and aim it at a fixed target. View first through an HP
finder and then through the standard one. The HP gives you greater eye
relief, which means your face can be further from the camera and still
take in the entire viewing area, but with the standard finder, the image
will be larger. If you don't NEED HP, you may not want it.
From: "ULF SJ+GREN" ulf.sjogren@mbox310.swipnet.se
Just for your information I can tell that I had my 500C screen changed
for a - Bronica screen. That was done by a authorized Hasselblad repair
shop just outside Gothenburg. It was they who suggested it as the Bronica
screen is so much cheaper (here about 30% of a acumatte H - screen) and
not by far that bad as this differece suggests. But not quite as good as
the original.
They - and I - thought that a new screen was to much to mount in that old
house. It works perfectly but I use that camera as a spare body - and
sometimes when I want to have two cameras with different lenses ready for
action.
Ulf
"Gabe" egabe@earthlink.net skrev
From Leica Topica Mailing List;
joseph hayes wrote:
It is, as a good lens lab can make a diopter lens, to your own
prescription, that will fit the camera eyepiece diopter holder.
Then, when looking through the camera it is like having your glasses on.
Jim
From Nikon Mailing List:
Hi folks.
I recently acquired a mint F2 Action Finder, which I used on an F2
for the first time this weekend.
It's a bulky beast compared with any of the standard DP meter heads,
but is certainly bright, easy to focus, and offers considerable eye
relief compared with the conventional prisms, which I can see would
be a boon if I wore glasses.
Questions:
1) What applications did Nikon actually intend the AF for?
Best
Alex
From Rollei Mailing List;
I second the Maxwell HiLux screen It made my recently purchased 3.5 F
view finder about three stops brighter it is like a brand new camera!
They come in different flavors I purchased the square grid with split
image center focusing directly from Maxwell in Georgia. The 3.5 F is a
self-install (Im not sure about the MX-EVS) grid line side towards the
mirror.
Rob Lilley
From Contax Mailing List;
Due to the fact that there is a chemical reaction which causes a retained
image for a very short period of time I've heard that the human eye has
an "equivalent shutter speed" of 1/60 second.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List:
it's called visual retention and is why most people do not see a flicker
when watching a movie or TV, which is really a rapid succession of still
images.
Fred Picker did a lot of testing of running water, shooting with different
focal lengths and different shutter speeds, and reached the conclusion
that water looks most natural when photographed at the reciprocal of the
focal length. So with a 50mm lens shooting at about 1/60 would look most
natural. With a 250mm lens the magic number is 1/250, and so on.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List;
I just purchased a Hi Lux focusing screen from Bill about three weeks ago.
He (in an hour discourse about life in general and the screen in specific)
told me it was a "self-install" item - easy to do. It came in the mail
and I installed it myself in less than 5 minutes on my 3.5 F. No focusing
problems and no big deal. Ah, but what a difference a bright screen
makes!!!
Rob Lilley
From Rollei Mailing List:
On a similar line of thought, here's an observation I've recently made.
Lately I've been using a couple Voigtlander Vito and Vitomatic models that
have lifesize finders, encouraging me to use the cameras with both eyes
open. The view is very comfortable and I see a field frame suspended in a
much larger overall scene, much as I did when I used a Voigtlander Kontur
finder. What I find shocking, though, is how narrow the field a view is
with the 50mm lens, relative to what the eye normally takes in. Suddenly
the 'normal' lens seems much more like a telephoto.
By the way, I concur with David assessment of the Vito's Color-Skopar.
While mine are the faster 2.8's, they have a very appealing balance of
sharpness, contrast and warmth.
Cheers,
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001
Vick Ko vick.ko@sympatico.ca wrote:
http://www.intenscreen.com/ (Beattie)
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/ (Accu-Matte)
http://www.brightscreen.com/flash.html (Brightscreen)
Maxwell Precision Optics, Decatur, Georgia, 404-244-0095 (Maxwell)
Chris Ellinger
From Leica Topica List:
The plain GG screens I bought "from Leica" for my R4-R7 series cameras,
say "Brightscreen" on the box. It was always advertised in the literature
back then that Leica screens were Brightscreens.
Jim
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
This is one of those gadgets, but it has limited range and I don't
know how well it would work outdoors. I believe it needs a pretty good
hard target to bounce (reflect) it's signal off.
Cassandra kangatoo@worldnet.att.net wrote:
From ROllei Mailing List;
Bob Shell at bob@bobshell.com wrote:
I just ordered a screen for my 6008i (yet to arrive), and on the phone
Bill went through a long and interesting explanation of the differences
between his screens and the HiD. True, his is not brighter... by design.
There are other design parameters that, he claims, makes a screen easier
to focus.
I wish I had been taking notes, and I probably will get some of this
slightly wrong. There's quite a science behind it, and after he finishes
his explanations, you're amazed that anyone can make them to begin with.
The one thing that did stick in my mind is this. He said that other
hi-brightness screens go for a high contrast look in the matte area to
make the mage look really snappy and good to the eye... like you're
viewing a transparency on a light table. He said that the matte area is
really a field of small prisms (not just ground plastic), and that in the
screens with the contrast pumped up, the matte areas maintains higher than
normal contrast even when the image is slightly out of focus. This fools
the eye into not realizing that the subject is slightly out of focus.
Contrast is one of the two visual cues for judging focus. The other one is
that points become circles of confusion. He believes that excessive screen
contrast undermines the eye's ability to judge focus.
I loved the even and bright illumination of my HiD screen, but I decided
to use one of Rollei's lesser screens because I found them easier to
focus. Even though the image wasn't as bright, and the fresnel circles in
the matte area were coarse and obvious. Then I decided to go for a Maxwell
screen to regain brightness and focusability.
I suspect that Bill's explanation about screen contrast accounted for why
I had a hard time focusing with the HiD screen.
Also, Bill's screens are about $100 less than a HiD screen. I'd definitely
recommend talking to him before springing for a HiD screen.
Doug
--
From Rollei Mailing List;
you wrote:
The Hi-D is very impressively brighter and still contrasty. Since it can
be difficult to find Rollei products to look at, try to play around with a
Hasselblad that has an Acute-Matte D screen in it; the Rollei screen is
pretty much the same.
Nope. Beattie and Brightscreens tend to pass so much aerial image it's
like trying to focus on a windowpane. Bill Maxwell's screens have a good
reputation but I've never used one.
John Hicks
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Colin Howarth wrote:
Don't throw away the 500C. Get a used Acute-Matte off eBay or
elsewhere. You'll have to have a tech install it and adjust it for
proper focus as you would have to with any screen installation in a
500C.
A friend of mine installed one in his 500C, and compared to the
split-image screen on my 500C, subjectively, it looks about 2 stops
brighter AND is much sharper, making focusing a breeze.
As far as the Brightscreen, I compared, side-by-side, to a standard
'Blad screen and an Acute-Matte. IMO, the Brightscreen was as bright
as the Acute-Matte, but the image on the Acute-Matte was "clearer" and
sharper. Both blew the standard screen away.
--
From Rollei Mailing List:
I cannot comment on the Maxwell screen. As for screen brightness vs
ability to focus my finding has been that a plain ground glass is the
easiest to focus, while the brighter screens using microprisms etc. offer
brighntess at the expense of focussing precision. I would recommend you
look for some type of brightscreen which offers a true ground glass centre
spot. This should allow easy focus.
Richard
From Rollei Mailing LIst:
I'm waiting to receive my 2.8F back from Mr. Fleenor, complete with a new
Maxwell screen. From what I hear it should do the trick. You should also
try to get the right diopter for the magnifier in the hood, matched to
your eye glass script. . Marflex has them. Arthur
From Rollei Mailing List:
I learned the same just over four years ago. My right eye, my camera eye,
had developed a cataract. My doctor said it was a juvenile cateract and
that's the only time that word has been applied to me in a lot of years!
Anyway, as mentioned in my reply to Richard I was obliged to switch to my
left eye for focusing until the right eye was bad enough for my insurance
to pay for it, just over a year.
The surgery itself is nothing. You are fully conscious and the procedure
takes about ten minutes. No pain, but when the numbing drugs wear off you
feel like you have sand in your eye for a while. You can see out of the
eye immediately, although it may be a little fuzzy at first.
Now, when you are getting ready for the surgery you have a lot of
decisions to make. The lens implants come in UV and non-UV absorbing
versions. I chose the UV absorbing on my doctor's advice, since it offers
protection against UV damage to your retina. Because the new lens will
not focus once implanted (they are working on ones that will, but they are
not available yet) you must decide where you want your "bionic eye" to be
focused. If you have been nearsighted all your life and are used to it,
you may decide you want to stay that way. After a lot of thinking I
decided to have my right eye set for distance vision, effectively setting
focus at infinity. So for normal things I don't need any correction on
that side and only need glasses for reading.
I'm getting my left eye done in the near future and will probably have its
focus set for reading distance so I'll be able to read without glasses.
Around here the total cost of the operation is about $ 8,000. If you have
insurance that may not matter to you. If you don't you may want to
investigate having the surgery done in Canada where it costs a fraction of
what it costs here.
Bob
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
you wrote:
Among your choices:
Buy a custom-made screen. Any of the three after-market screen
makers will build you one if you have the cash.
Have a repair shop etch one for you. I know several individuals
who had screens etched very nicely by Armato's Service (in Queens, NY).
Etch one yourself. All you need is an Exacto knife, a straight
edge, steady hands, and the willingness to "eat" your mistakes.
Mark one with a fine point permanent marker pen.
Mark a piece of clear acetate the same size as your screen and
lay
the acetate on top of the screen.
From Rollei Mailing List:
you wrote:
Presbyopia (means literally "old eyes") is my problem. I am somewhat near
sighted but have little or no astigmatism, and with glasses have better
than average vision (20/10 in good light). However, my eyes are completely
fixed focus. Since I sometimes wear contact lenses I've wound up with two
dioptric correctors for some cameras. My Nikon F is normally set so the
image appears to be at about a meter. I can't focus on that with or
without glasses, so I have one corrector for infinity (when I am wearing
contacts) and another for my uncorrected right eye. My Rolleis are set for
use without glasses (since I can't focus on the ground glass with glasses
on) but I will eventually get a second set of finder lenses for them. The
problem is as someone else stated, being able to figure out which I need.
d
I got the right lenses for the Nikon because a local camera shop had a
sample kit. I have an Exakta VX (needs new shutter curtains). The finder
is focused so that the image is at infinity. I must use this thing with
glasses or contacts. When I got it I thought it was soft, not so, I just
wasn't focusing it well.
I hate presbyopia and its the one thing there really is not satisfactory
solution for. I've tried trifocals, but find I fall over my feet and they
make it hard to drive so I gave up on them and wear plain glasses.
Fortunately, my nearsigtedness is at a good reading distance so I can read
or use the computer without glasses.
----
From Camera Makers Mailing List;
Some time ago there was a question about making ground glass. Well having
been in the lapidary business I thought maybe I should try making a ground
glass since I already have all the different size grits and polishing
compounds. My first try was with aluminum oxide,about 1200 grit size, and
the results were really good. The surface of the home made ground glass
was actually as fine or finer than that of a Beattie 4x5 screen. I'm going
try some tin oxide next which is about 15,000 grit. This may be two fine
but we won't know unless we try.
Ron
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
The way I found that works best is to have a larger piece of glass on the
bottom and the glass you want for the ground glass on top keep the glass
fairly wet with just a sprinkling of what ever compound you're using and
just start working the top piece of glass in random orbits and straight
lines.
Ron
From Rollei Mailing List;
I just installed the plain matte one with the lines in my
Rolleicord V last night. Worth every penny. I *love* it
so far. I'm testing with a roll of Tri-X in it today. The
focus should be unchaninged since I installed the shims
which he claimed that are 0.01 in and make up for the
thickness difference between the old ground glass and the
new plastic matte screen.
From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Tom...
There are several types of external viewfinders, though some units
incorporate one or more different design aspects [the new Leica 21, 24,
28 multifinder is an example of this]. The three types I have
experience with are the following; prime, zoom and turret [more than one
focal length represented in one unit].
- Leica/Leitz finders are excellent, but can be *very* pricey,
especially if they are anywhere near mint quality and catch the eye of a
collector. I have the 50mm and 135mm brightline viewfinders, as well as
one of the Leitz turret finders [35, 50, 85, 90 & 135]; all have metal
mounts with glass elements and are susceptible to cracking with sharp
shocks. The brightlines can be very expensive, while the turrets [there
are several models] are much less so. I purchased all of mine via eBay
and was actually able to pay less than the going rate on all of them,
though the turret finder required a CLA and has a very small chip in the
glass. I no longer use the turret finder, as it is somewhat dimmer than
the brightline finders and much bulkier.
- Voigtlander finders are also excellent, but relatively affordable
[certainly more so than the Leica finders]. I have the 25mm viewfinder
and 35mm brightline viewfinder; both are plastic mounts with glass
elements, and are very resistant to shocks [I had the 35 get caught on a
strap and fall onto concrete without any damage whatsoever]. Both have
optics that are comparable to the Leica viewfinders. I purchased the 25
from Joseph Yao in Hong Kong [*very* good price] and the 35 from B&H;
[regular price].
- Tewe and Nikon offer zoom viewfinders [35mm to 135mm twist zoom in
one unit]. I've played with both brands and prefer the Nikon, as the
Nikon optics appear much better than the Tewe. The Nikon finder is much
pricier than the Tewe, but I think it is worth it. Both are metal and
glass construction, and are available on eBay.
There are other designs and makers, but I do not have any hands-on
experience with them. I have heard good things about the Zorki, Zeiss,
and other turret finders; perhaps others on the list can contribute
their experiences.
/Mitch Zeissler
...
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001
"0nceinalifetime" 0nceinalifetime@excite.com wrote
I would buy a Beattie Intenscreen from B&H; for $135 and send it and your
camera to Brad Sherman (bladfixer@aol.com) who will properly install it
for $40. This is the route I took and I've been very happy.
-Mike
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Hi Sover,
In addition to the difficulty of evaluating sharpness in a dim, low
magnification finder (small and dim compared to a large, well lit print),
the focusing screen affects the apparent depth of field. When you look
into a standard SLR, you see a magnified image of the ground glass (yeah,
I know, it's really plastic). You can't focus on anything that is not
sharp on the screen. Notice that through the clear glass of the split
image, you can't judge depth of field: it's all sharp (and bright, if you
can get your eye centered).
Some old SLR's - the Contaflex comes to mind - had clear glass screens, no
ground glass at all. You used the focusing aid to focus and the entire
field was sharp and bright, really like a rangefinder camera.
Photography through microscopes and telescopes is commonly done using a
clear screen with a cross hair. You focus your vision on the cross hair
and then you can focus the lens.
Focusing screens come in different degrees of roughness, not just clear or
ground. Smoother screens are brighter but harder to focus (and depth of
focus appears greater). Rougher screens are dimmer but snappier to focus
and portray depth of field more realistically. Of course there are
optical tricks used in modern screens to get a brighter image that still
focuses well, but these are the basics.
....
From Rollei Mailing List;
I've just ordered a screen from friendly (and talkative) Bill Maxwell for
my MX-EVS Type 1. The cost was $115.00 for a matte screen with grid
lines.
This is a DIY installation kit from:
Craig Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001
Bill will tell you that he has to walk a tightrope between brightness and
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Intenscreen vs. Maxwell for 6008 pro
Marc Attinasi at marc@attinasi.org wrote:
>>
>> Why use Maxwell? His are the best.
>>
> OK, _why_ are his the best? brightest? prettiest?
Brightest isn't necessarily best. Your eye needs contrast to focus with
and often really bright screens have too little contrast for ease of
focus. I've talked to Bill about this many times over the years I've
known him (at length!!), and basically it is a balancing act to get the
maximum brightness while still retaining good contrast.
The brightest screen ever was in the original Leicaflex, but you could only
focus on a much dimmer central frosted area.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002
From: Matthew Phillips mlphilli@hsc.vcu.edu
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Those Maxwell Screens
There is an issue with using brightscreens with large format cameras that
often gets overlooked. These super bright fresnels are designed for maximum
brightness on the lens axis, but as soon as you start using significant
camera movements, there can be some radical vignetting of whats visible on
the screen. In particular screens that are designed for use with normal
focal length lenses have problems with wide angles. If you order a screen
from Maxwell, he'll first ask you which focal length you work with most,
and send you a screen for that range. If you're working from a variety of
lenses, you may find yourself needing more than one fresnel.
>Does anyone have a Maxwell screen for large format cameras? How thich are
>those screens? I'm thinking of replacing the screen in my Bergheil. The
>present one is very dark.
>
>/Patric
From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format Focus Screens
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002
Matt Clara wrote:
> I find the focus screen that came with my RB67 to be quite dark and
> difficult to use at waist level. What's the brightest screen I could buy
> to replace it with, and would it be worth purchasing it, or are they all
> pretty much dark?
>
IMHO upgrading a screen is a VERY good investment. I've used a couple of
different ones and it was worth every penny. First one I did was a maxwell
screen in a rolleicord V and it made a HUGE difference in brightness and
ease of focusing. The other one I did was a 'blad accumat-D screen in a
kiev-60. I got this screen for a good price ($150) which was half what the
whole camera kit cost new but again was well worth it. The increase in
contrast and brightness makes using it much easier and enjoyable.
--
Stephe
from kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001
From: kelvin kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Re: Praktisix / Pentacon 6 ground glass replacements
Some people have had luck with installing Hassy Accumatte screens,
Rollei screens and even Bronica SQ screens, which are brighter. But
all these will require recalibaration.
Hartblei sells some multicoated screens which may not be a bad
alternative at US$15+ each.
From: jcohlsen@aol.com (JCOhlsen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 20 Apr 2002
Subject: Re: Focus aid (cheap) for manual focus MF SLR cameras
Has no one heard of a sonic measuring tape? Sold sometimes at Sears. Basically
a Polaroid Sonar autofocus cell stuck to a digital readout. Point and press,
then read distance.
JC.
[Ed. note: this is possibly dangerous due to use of lasers and eyeballs, but something
similar also works with light (as in Kalart focuspot accessory) - great in dim light...]
From: Shawn Hedvat 1stins@gte.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Laser Rangefinder for Crown Graphics
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002
Hi All,
I just did a little experiment which I want to share and ask for your
feed back. As those of you who've used a Crown Graphics know it is
rather annoying that one has to frame the shot first and then look
through the range finder to set the distance, meanwhile your subject
might have moved etc.. etc..
So in a bright moment of aha I put my little $5 laser pointer on the eye
piece of the range finder and I noticed TWO small laser dots
projected on the opposite wall. As I turned the focusing knob one dot
moved over the other at the moment of perfect focus. So the general
idea is this : A device can be constructed so that one does not need to
look through the range finder any more. Just compose your shot via
viewfinder turn the focusing knob until the two dots super impose, then
turn the laser off and shoot. Now here are my questions:
1-Where can I find a laser with the following specification:
The suitable laser must be eye safe for the subject.
It must fit the Crown Graphic range finder with the eye piece removed -
Approximately 10 mm diameter- No more than two inches & hopefully around
one inch long.& can be fastened securely to the range finder.
It must have non momentary switch. Once turned on it must remain on
until turned off.
2- Any suggestions for a mechanism that would automatically turn off the
laser just before exposure? Can something be done via flash synch?
[Ed. note: no guarantees, possible utility? probably a version of above tricks? ;-)]
From: "Graphic" graphic99@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Focus aid (cheap) for manual focus MF and 35mm cameras
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002
Is it just me or are MF SLR's a lot more pesky to focus in the near-dark
than 35mm? Am I the only one working with MF's in murky hotel ballrooms and
foyers or at 9:30pm in a beautiful (if you have a cat's vision) rose garden
outdoor setting?
I've previously offered for sale 2x's magnifiers which work well in your
better lit coal mines and also laser viewfinder attachments that are
superb..... but some prospective purchasers worried about the "danger" of
low powered lasers even tho they attend seminars with wacky lecturers waving
around more powerful laser "pointers" and also blithely look into
supermarket laser scanners. Anyway.........
For those folks that like a more elegant, if a little primitive way of
focusing in near or total darkness, I am now offering a solution that
doesn't involve having your subjects burn their fingers while holding
matches for you to to focus on.
And also better than a handheld match or pocket flashlight which gives you
only a pin-point of light to focus on, you can now focus on a 5-inch long
"super bright" bar of light that easily "splits" in two when out of focus
with your split-image rangefinder focusing screen.
And cheap.... $ 6.00 each includes a complete set of batteries (easily
replaceable when they wear out) and shipping in the U.S.
At that rate, you can afford a spare in case your focus target puts one in
his pocket and you forget to collect it from him after taking that
sharp-as-a-tack group shot that you would have worried about until the
16x20's (and even the 5x5 proofs) were back from the lab.
Send a check or m.o. for $ 6.00 for the 1st one and $ 5.50 extra for each
additional aid in the same order.
Wayne Catalano
P.O. Box 96
Chalmette LA 70044
graphic99@mindspring.com
From: dbaker9128@aol.com (DBaker9128)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 12 Apr 2002
Subject: Re: Eyecup for Prism/Finder
B&H; has flat eyecups for Hasselblad prisms for eyeglass wearers (Mfr# 85424 G>
B&H;# HAECQ: $6.00) or oval types (Mfr# 85416 G> B&H;# HAEC: $13.00).
Buy a couple, they come off as you know.
Doug from Tumwater
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] Looking for waist-level finder
> I am curious as to why you (and anyone who cares to chime in here)
> prefer a waist level finder.
Makes the camera lighter, I can get a better composition being
lower...allows for easier holding, and for slower shutter speeds as I can
put the back up against my chest, which is far more stable.
Austin
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002
From: Christopher Williams LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Looking for waist-level finder
I know I guy here in New Orleans that uses his Hasselblad's without a finder
at all. And he's been doing it for years with great results.
Chris Williams
New Orleans
From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy Acute-matte focus screen hack to a Kowa Super66 or a Kiev 60
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002
Graphic wrote:
> I've read that a do-it-yourself type can install a Hassy Acute-Matte
> screen (does it make a difference about which hassy camera model) to a
> Kiev 60.
>
> I'd like to have a focus screen # 42215 (split image plus microprism donut
> surround).
>
> Does anyone have info on where to find directions/cautions?
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/screen.html
I installed a plain (central cross hairs) acutemat-d screen in my k-60 and
it was a MAJOR improvement. Why the split image? With a bright screen it's
SO much easier to focus, focus aides are just irritating. The -D models are
the latest, brightest-highest contrast and the most expencive. Another
option I'm going to try on my second body is a maxwell optics screen. I put
one of these in an old rolleicord V and again the difference was amazing.
The stock kiev screen "appears" to be fairly bright but it's just the
central focus aides that are bright, the ground glass part is so dim it's
almost useless for focusing. Like I said I think with a bright screen, you
won't need or want focusing aides.
--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/
From: evanjoe610@aol.com (Evanjoe610)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 23 Apr 2002
Subject: Re: Hassy Acute-matte focus screen hack to a Kowa Super66 or a Kiev 60
Wayne,
The split image screen will not work that greatly when long lens are mounted.
Part of the split range portion will darken due to the fact you are trying to
focus accurately.
As Stephe mentioned, getting the plain matte screen will be sufficient enough
for all of your lenses. I have my Hasselblad Acute-Matte screen WITHOUT the
split image. I use the simple cross hair screen, as this screen is bright and
has what it takes to focus accurately and faster. CONTRAST.
This information that I giving you is based on my experience. After spending a
wad ofg money on my split image Acute-matte screen, I wasn't too happy to have
my split image screen darken up on me when in use.
Try the simplest Acute-matte screen and ALSO have you eyes checked out to see
if you need a diopter. If you do, both the diopter and cross hair Acute-matte
screen will do wonders for your fast and accurate focusing.
Evan Dong
[Ed. note: thanks to David Grabowski for sharing this tip on things to check...]
From: nimages@capecod.net (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.help
Subject: Re: Focusing on Mamiya 645 Super
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001
"Don" dburke(NOSPAM)@bph.org wrote:
>> >I'm wondering if the focusing screen might be out of adjustment. I've
>never
>> >worked with these so have no idea if adjustments are possible or how to
>> >remove and work with the screens if they are.
>> >
>> >If anyone has some advice or suggestions I would be greatly appreciative
>of
>> >the help.
>>
>> Check to make sure your screen isn't in upside down. My RB drove me
>> crazy for this same problem , then I realized one day that the glass
>> was under and the freznel on top, I was ready to send it in for a
>> rebuild.
>>
>> David Grabowksi
>David, this isn't covered in the user's manual. How to I check this?
>
>(BTW, it appears the problem was because of the mirror. See my other post
>for details.)
>
>Don
Pretty much as I described ( for future use now I guess), the glass,
the smooth real glass should be on top, it's what you view into. The
fresnel goes under and is plastic , is what makes up the kind of
screen you have, but it belongs under the glass.
In my case, I've shot medium format for lots of years, it was a bone
headed mistake to miss but I wasn't alone, the repair guy I took it to
didn't notice it either , though he found the element separation in my
90 mm. lens, kind of thought it was that causing my problem. I traded
off the lens and gained a 180 along the way where the problem became
all the more noticable ( naturally), basically blew a shoot over all
this but fortunately had the TLR along too , so salvaged the session
with barely enough good images from the TLR to get by.
The whole thing was an ugly mess till I was packing the body up to
send out for repair, and compared it to its fill in body while
disassembling what was staying with me and I found the glass reversed.
I kicked myself in the butt but with a big grin, cause I knew it was
over , I found the problem.
Anyway , shoots great now !
David Grabowski
From: "G. Fenstermacher" gfen@DELETE.rcn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focus aid (cheap) for manual focus MF SLR cameras
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002
"Mike" mkirwan@nospampacbell.net wrote
> It is just a light source projected through the rangefinder. Produces
> two beams. With a coupled rangefinder you adjust the focus control
> until the two beams become one and voila you are focussed.
What powers the Focuspot then? I thought I remember reading it would be
powered from batteries in the flash?
> I have used a laser pointer and projec the light through the top. This
> worked great for near dark pictures I took with my graphic.
Unfortuantly, my Kalart is currently inoperable, even if I bother to make
the focusspot work. I need to learn how to match the RF to the lens
assembly, then find the neccessary cam for it.
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002
From: mkirwan@nospampacbell.net (Mike)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focus aid (cheap) for manual focus MF SLR cameras
You can get the details for adjusting your rangefinder at
http://www.graflex.org/GHQ/V2I3/kalart-adjustment-problems.html
and here is a link for making a cam;
http://www.graflex.org/articles/cave.html
and here is one last link about the focus scope
http://www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/kalart-focuscope.html
Mike
From: kevin_i@my-deja.com (kevin_i)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focusing screen triple play: Hassy toKiev to Kowa or????
Date: 30 Apr 2002
Hi, Wayne.
The AcuteMatte D screens made for Hasselblad by Minolta are indeed
VERY nice. I have one in my Kiev 88CM and it is a big improvement
over the standard Kiev screen. Unfortunately, they are also very
expensive...
One alternative that *may* work is to take a Bronica SQ screen and
grind it down to fit whatever camera you need it for (they're plastic,
so it's pretty easy). A friend cut a Bronica screen down to fit in a
Kiev ground glass back and so I assume it can be done to replace the
in-camera focusing screen as well.
The Bronica SQ screens aren't as bright as the AcuteMatte D screens
(they seem roughly as bright as the standard Kiev screen... i.e.
one-stop dimmer than the AcuteMatte D as read by my Sekonic incident
meter in a rough test)... but they are pretty nice, and MUCH cheaper.
Their Fresnel screen is cut finely enough that the lines aren't
visible, and they are pretty uniformly bright out to the edges. They
are also available in several styles including: split image
rangefinder, microprism, split image/micro prism, and matte center.
Depending on the cost of these screens in your area and how willing
you are in trying to position it correctly to achieve proper focus
alignment, it may be a possible alternative. I've been keeping it in
mind for the next time I want to swap a focusing screen. =)
-Kevin
"Graphic" graphic99@mindspring.com wrote
> Hi Robert,
>
> The reason that I preferred getting the Hassy screen (which seems to list
> new in the neighborhood of $ 250 if purchased new, from what I gather) is
> that it has the reputation (especially the newer "D" versions) of being the
> best focusing screen for 6x6cm cameras.
>
> Is that an overstatement ....and I'd be just as happy with the Maxwell
> screen? I haven't heard anything about this product, but would be willing
> to check it out, especially if it has a split-image rangefinder (a
> microprism collar would also be a plus).
>
> If necessary, I can live with the Kiev's screen and split-image rangefinder,
> but the Kowa's plain GG looks very dim to my eye.
>
> hanks,
>
> Wayne C.
> graphic99@mindspring.com
>
> "Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote
> >
> > see Kowa 6 SLR list (http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lists.html for lists..)
> >
> > you might try Ross Xerkes, IIRC, he has a maxwell bright screen for
> > Kowa SLRS, costs $100 with exchange, see screen listings at kowa pg:
> > http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/kowapg.html - check with Mr. Xerkes etc.
> > (see link at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/repairsites.html)
> >
> > in most cases, the screens can be cut to size or ground to fit and
> > positioned at the required exact image plane, and should work; this isn't
> > rocket science ;-) Given that retail on a bright screen is so close to
> > $100, my guess is this isn't a big time/labor task, based on Xerkes low
> > price for the conversion.
> >
> > You can also check with the individual screen makers (4); some will do a
> > custom install for a fee, including checking camera alignment etc. see
> > related notes at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/vision.html on contacts,
> > addresses etc.
> >
> > hth bobm
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002
From: Gene Johnson genej2@cox.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RB screen in a Rolleiflex
Ugh. My secret is out. I've been doing this for a while. Getting the
focus right is a little tricky on this one for some reason. But you're
right, don't do it his way. The viewer has to be shimmed. Curiously, the
thickness of the shim has not appeared to be the the exact difference in
thickness between the groundglass and the new screen. I've had to check
them and adjust. The only downside is that the fresnel side ends up on top.
Have too keep it clean. A nice soft brush, like sable works nicely and the
screen should stay nice for years. Also, I do not recommend the
score-and-break method. Use either a very fine (32tpi) hacksaw blade, one
of the very fine tooth japanese flushcut saws, or best is the X-acto saw.
Be very careful not to scratch anything. The Mamiya screen is very nice
though. Very bright, and sharp. Since today is not friday I can say no
more.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Siu Fai"
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002
From: Jerry Lehrer jerryleh@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RB screen in a Rolleiflex
SF
Please realize that the Mamiya as well as the Pentax 67 screens
have the matte (focusing) surface on one side and the fresnel
side on the other. Rollei screens have both on the same (down)
side.
Your suggestion, if followed, would really mess things up.
Jerry Lehrer
(... see above)
From rollei mailing list;
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002
From: Gene Johnson genej2@cox.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RB screen in a Rolleiflex
The reason is that Rollei screens put the matte on the bottom. The neat
part is that the fresnel is also on the bottom since they combine the
fresnel and matte into one surface. Thar leaves a shiny clear surface on
top. Mamiya puts the matte on one side and the fresnel on the other, then
covers it all with a sheet of glass. This has advantages and disadvantages
for us. I think separating the two makes a better screen. Nicer to look at
than a Rolleiclear. Brighter and sharper with much finer fresnel rings. The
theoretical disadvantage is that the rings are exposed on top. Like I said,
If you're careful, no problem, and you have a very nice screen for much less
money than a Beattie or a Maxwell. I've done it on three Rolleis with really
nice results. I have a feeling I'm going to have a much harder time finding
screens now.
Gene
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: spicaofla@yahoo.com (spica)
[1] Re: Viewfinder for 6x9 folding camera
Date: Thu May 16 2002
you can attach a russian made BLIK range finder($20)
on the flash socket and get a distance reading
....
From: brown_nj@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens and screen for architecture?
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002
You can brighten up your existing screen by applying a microcrystaline
wax to the ground side. If you keep the wax to the perimeter you can
avoid a central hot spot. If you don't like the effect you can remove
the wax with a solvent. I've got the better part of a can so get in
touch if you want to try it. Nacio Brown
From: "Michael Kadillak" m.kadillak@attbi.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How good are Beattie screens for 5x4
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002
Spent a lot of money for a Beattie screen and compared it to a standard
Linhof fresnel screen that came with a 4x5 back already installed. I found
that the much less expensive Linhof fresnel worked better for me. They both
have their own "personality" under the loup.
I am talking about the $130 Linhof fresnel that goes on the back of the
ground glass in about 30 seconds and not the Linhof super screen that goes
under the ground glass because it can warp. Sometimes the simple solutions
are the best.
Good Luck
"Wayne Stubbs" w.stubbs@legend.co.uk wrote ...
> I recentley purchased a Wisner technical field. Although i love the
> camera the standard viewing screen leaves a lot to be desired. I
> mainly photograph churhes and cathedrals here in England which are
> very dimley lit at the best of times.
>
> I use a 90mm f5.6 a 75mm f8 and a 65mm f8.
>
> Would a Beattie screen offer a big improvement with these lenses ?
From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How good are Beattie screens for 5x4
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002
...(quotes above post)
I do not know about Beattie screens, but I did put a Fresnel onto my
Wisner T.F. (not the one Wisner offers) and it is a big improvement
when the lens was used ON AXIS, but it was worse useless as I moved my
90mm lens off axis. I do not know if Beattie screens are free from
this problem or not. I know Ron Wisner supplies a Fresnel that is easy
to put on and take off without tools so you can take it off when using
a wide angle lens off axis. I never bothered to get one.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Subject: Re: How good are Beattie screens for 5x4
From: Bob bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002
Jean-David Beyer at jdbeyer@exit109.com wrote
> Linhof super screen that goes
>> under the ground glass
You can't put a Super Screen underneath the ground glass. This would result
in 2 image forming surfaces. One on the Super Screen and one above it on the
ground glass.
You can put the CM Grid Overlay glass on top of the Super Screen to protect
the Super Screen against scratches. It has nothing to do with bowing.
To reduce the possibility of bowing users place match sticks under the sides
of the screen, along the long edges, to provide support to the sides and try
to keep the camera away from high heat - like in the car trunk in summer.
HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: The Subject of 5x7's
From: "Felix J. (Studio 143)" Estudio143@aol.com
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002
Hello Bob.
What an excellent idea.
That yellow magic marker suggestion sounds like what I'm looking for.
Thanks, again.
--
Felix J.
Ft Worth, TX
rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>
> try cutting a piece of thin plastic (from college report covers) to fit
> under prism on screen, scribe with desired format and layout (e.g., 5x7
> vert or horiz.). You can also use magic marker (yellow) to "highlight"
> where edges will be but still see thru the yellow highlight color to
> screen...
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002
From: Ken Martin kmartin@ventur.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] How much difference in brightness on Acute-Matte D : 42217
KW:
I experienced the same problem. I changed mine out to the Acute-Matte
D P/N 42217 and there is a distinct and noticeable improvement. I am
not sure if there is a one stop improvement, but based on my observation
it would appear to be a reasonable statement.
Ken
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: [HUG] How much difference in brightness on Acute-Matte D : 42217
okw3188 wrote:
> Currently, I'm using the older type of focusing screen, not sure about
> the part number, but it has grid lines and a microprism in the center.
>
> I found it difficult to focus under dim light using my 50CT* and 150CT*
> lenses. Although this problem is not too bad on the 80CF. I would like
> to find out if this problem can be solve or at least improve when the
> screen is changed to the Acute Matte 42217, with a split-image
> rangefinder in the center. As I was told that the Acute-Matte is at
> least 1 stop brighter than the older focusing screen.
It's not just that the Acute Matte screens are brighter than the original
screens (though it helps).
The original screens have a very coarse matt surface and ditto Fresnel lens,
both of which make it (relatively) difficult to focus exactly, especially in
dim light. The Acute Matte's Fresnel lens is (nearly) invisible, and the
ground glass matt surface was replaced by a much finer surface made up of
tiny lens like elements. That, not being brighter, to me is the real
improvement brought to us by the Acute Matte screens.
And to answer your question: yes, i think your problem can be solved by
changing the screen to an Acute Matte screen.
I'm not sure about the split image rangefinder though (maybe because i never
liked the things, sitting right in the middle of the screen). Yet they may
be still be all right when using an f/4 lens and a prism finder.
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002
From: "Joe B." joe-b@clara.co.uk
Subject: [Rollei] Focusing screen options
I've just got a 50mm/f4 Distagon for my SL66, and I find that with the
microprism spot screen it is hard to very hard to focus in low light.The
microprism spot screen has been ok with the 80 and the 150, but with the 50 it
really isn't suitable- I find myself see-sawing backwards and forwards trying
to decide at what point the image is sharp. I think I need to buy a new screen.
Normally I tend to go for screens with the split image wedge in the centre
because in really low light it is the only way I am sure I am in focus. I
could try to find a Rollei screen of this type, or I could try a Maxwell
screen. I wonder if anyone has any particular recommendations for a screen for
low light as well as normal photography to use with this lens, and also to use
with the 80 and 150/4? I'm wondering if there is a Rollei screen that would
suit the purpose here well enough.
Joe B.
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002
From: Jim Hemenway jim@hemenway.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Focusing screen options
Joe:
I find the split screen best, got one in each of my Rolleis. And, it's
just the ticket when using the 40mm in the 6008.
--
Jim - http://www.hemenway.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002
From: John Hicks jhicks31@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Focusing screen options
you wrote:
>I've just got a 50mm/f4 Distagon
I recommend either Bill Maxwell's screens or Rollei's Hi-D screen; both
are very bright and contrasty. If all you want is a split-image and don't
want to spend the big bucks for either of those screens, Rollei's ordinary
split-image screen works fine.
John Hicks
jhicks31@bellsouth.net
From: dkfletcher@aol.com (DKFletcher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 25 May 2002
Subject: Re: Super Angulon f/8 vs 5.6?
I have a wide camera made from a 65mm f/8 in a focusing mount and I love it. I
shoot everything at f/22 and its wonderful.
If its real dark I use a laser pointer to project a pattern on something in my
scene and with a lupe I focus on the laser.
Works great!
Good luck!
Dirk
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002
From: Patrick Bartek bartek@intermind.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] How much difference in brightness on Acute-Matte D : 42217
okw3188 wrote:
> Currently, I'm using the older type of focusing screen, not sure
> about the part number, but it has grid lines and a microprism in the
> center.
>
> I found it difficult to focus under dim light using my 50CT* and
> 150CT* lenses. Although this problem is not too bad on the 80CF. I
> would like to find out if this problem can be solve or at least
> improve when the screen is changed to the Acute Matte 42217, with a
> split-image rangefinder in the center. As I was told that the
> Acute-Matte is at least 1 stop brighter than the older focusing
> screen.
The difference is like between night and day. My prime lens is a 60
f5.6 and with the standard split-image screen (on one 500C), it's hard
to focus even in daylight, but with an Acute-matte (on the other 500C),
even in dim light, the lens pops into focus easily. You'll be very
happy, bordering on ecstatic, with an Acute-matte.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002
From: Jerry Lehrer jerryleh@postoffice.pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Maxwell and other screens
Doug
The Beattie screens also have the Fresnel on the upper surface.
The removable hood Rolleis have the screen indexing (seated)
on its lower surface. The non-removable hood Rolleis have
the screen indexing on the upper surface, so if the new screen is thicker
than the original glass screen, the hood has to be shimmed by the
difference in thickness. The shims go between the hood and the
body of the camera.
Jerry Lehrer
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Maxwell and other screens
you wrote:
>Doug
>
>The Beattie screens also have the Fresnel on the upper surface.
>
>The removable hood Rolleis have the screen indexing (seated)
>on its lower surface. The non-removable hood Rolleis have
>the screen indexing on the upper surface, so if the new screen is thicker
>than the original glass screen, the hood has to be shimmed by the
>difference in thickness. The shims go between the hood and the
>body of the camera.
>
>Jerry Lehrer
No shimming is required. The finder lens is adjusted to compensate for
any difference in path length due to a thickness difference.
When the Fresnel field lens is a separate part it should ideally be
placed on the lens side of the ground glass with the ridges touching the
ground surface of the glass. This is to minimise internal reflections.
Where it is molded or ground onto the smooth side of the ground glass, it
should be on the viewing side to avoid changing the optical path length.
There are no internal refections, so that's not a problem.
A few cameras have used full condenser field lenses rather than Fresnels.
The finder in the Exakta camera is an example. The advantage of the Fresnel
lens is its small thickness and light weight. Fresnels are also easy to
mass produce by molding.
>> > Maxwell screens are supposed to be the brightest, but I am wary of
>> > any screens that have the Fresnel element on the upper surface.
>>
>> Do the Beatties and recent Rolleis have the fresnel on top as well?
>>
>> Also, Bill Maxwell insists that Rolleis without the removable hood require
>> collimating after his screens are installed -- this is why he prefers to
>> install them himself. Do the other aftermarket
>>
>>
>> Douglas Cooper
>> http://www.dysmedia.com
>>
>> screens also require this? Always struck me as odd that the later Rolleis
>> *wouldn't* need collimating, as presumably the Maxwell screen sits in the
>> same relation to the lens as it does on the earlier models (i.e. where the
>> old screen fits).
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Maxwell and other screens
you wrote:
>Richard
>
>Whoa there, Richard, I don't think that the average Rollei tinkered
>would want to mess with screwing the viewing lens in or out. I know
>that I would not. Shimming is so much easier. Burleigh Brooks and
>Ponder and Best (Rollei distributors) did just that. Of course I always
>check the focus with a plate back with ground glass. Rollei is mounted
>on a Rolleifix and a tripod. 10x Zeiss magnifier verifies the new
>position of the screen.
>
>Fortunately, the plastic screens, like the Rolleiclear, are always
>thicker than the original glass screens. [My patented negative shims
>are not available for civilian use :-)]
>
>When the Fresnel is molded on the top surface, it becomes vulnerable
>to scratches and cannot be kept adequately clean in place. That is
>precisely why Mamiya puts a plain glass panel on top of the Fresnel.
>
>Jerry Lehrer
>
>Richard Knoppow wrote:
Maybe we are at cross purposes, I was thinking of TLR cameras. SLR's will
require shiming or other adjustment of the screen.
The viewing lens adjustment for a TLR is simple but requires removal of
the cover plate. There is a lock screw for the finder lens.
For a non-removable hood shimming is impossible since the reference
suface for the screen is its upper surface. If the screen is too thick
shiming it will only make things worse.
A flat plate inserted in the optical path will extend the length of the
path by an amount equal to its thickness times the inverse of the ratio of
its index of refraction to air. For glass this is approximately 1.5 so a
glass plate extends the path by about one third its thickness. Less for
plastic which has a lower index than glass. This is in addition to whatever
_physical_ displacment the plate has. Simply moving the combination toward
the lens by the physical thickness of the plate may not correct the focus
completely because it does not take into account the slight increase in
path length caused by the optical properties of the plate. The plate in
this case being the Fresnel lens.
Checking the finder co-incidence with the taking lens and adjusting it if
necessary should be routine in servicing a TLR.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Jerry Lehrer jerryleh@postoffice.pacbell.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Maxwell and other screens
Richard
I hate to say it (he lied), but you are totally wrong. Just think it through
as an engineer. The reference surface is the same (upper) but with a
thicker (plastic) screen, the "ground glass" surface becomes CLOSER
to the viewing lens, so the hood is shimmed by an amount equal to
the difference in thickness, to bring the focusing surface to the original
position.
I hardly believe that the average Rollei tinkered would want to take off
the front leather and cover plate to turn that screw.
I can send you a set of sketches showing the problem and the solution.
Jerry Lehrer
...(quoting above post)
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Maxwell and other screens
...
Actually you are right. I was somehow thinking of a Fresnel _under_ the
ground glass.
I suppose you can make an all-around shim so that there isn't a gap where
the hood fits against the camera body.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: focusing screen
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002
I presume from prior emails you mean Maxwell Precision Optics focusing screens.
It depends upon the specific camera, of course. The screen I ordered for
Hasselblad 500CM was $175. As reference, a new Hasselblad screen is
typically about $230-260.
Bill will quote you what the RB67 screen will cost when you call him.
Godfrey
Matt Clara wrote:
> How much do these screens typically run (money wise)?
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002
From: Phil Stiles stiles@metrocast.net
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleicord fun
Daniel Ridings wrote:
> All this discussion about focusing ... "anyway you can". That must be about
> the darkest screen I've ever looked through. In the manual Rollei mentions
> "the extremely bright screen" ... maybe in 1957, but boy is it a chore to
> get the thing focused now. I'll probably try and pick up a new screen ...
> though I don't know how easy that will be from Sweden.
I got a complete "kit" from Maxwell. Included were a bright screen, and
two strips of dymo tape (the plastic embossed labeling tape). The waist
level finder is detached with the four screws, the screen is exchanged,
then the waistlevel finder is replaced using the tape as shims, to space
out the finder just the right amount to compensate for the thinness of
the new screen. It's not a hard job if you have some jeweler's
screwdrivers.
The difference is astounding! It really opens up the view, and makes
this a very different camera. By the way, at f/8, using fine grain film
and a tripod, this camera produces amazing results as well.
When I bought the kit a few years ago, I recall it was about $125.
On a price/performance basis, the Rolleicord V is king!
Regards,
Phil Stiles NH USA
From: "Graphic" graphic99@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: focus problem
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
I've developed an eye-piece mounted laser for use on my Kowa Super66 and my
Ukranian Kiev60 systems that is fool-proof and decisive in the fading light
of evening...you simply pop it onto the eyepiece, focus the beam until it's
tight on something in the subject plane (not recommended to focus on the
eyes, although the laser is the same or weaker than the ones in grocery
scanners).
Contact me offline if you'd like me to custom make one for the Hassy ELM.
Wayne C.
graphic99@mindspring.com
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002
From: Klgan klgan@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Auto Focus or Focus Confirmation
How about senior photographer with weaker eye sight.
Don't you think the electronic focus confirmation
indicator could be helpful to them.
I see some senior commercial photographer moving to
other MF camera with AF for this very reason. Instead
judging the sharpness by the sharpess image they can
see with their eye, a focus indicator can be helpfull
when you need get things done fast.
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002
From: Lawrence Smith lsmith@lwsphoto.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Auto Focus or Focus Confirmation
"Anthony Atkielski" anthony@atkielski.com wrote:
> If the senior photographer can see the little focus indicator, he can focus
> manually. A simple magnifier or diopter correction on the viewfinder should
> be all he needs, and it costs a lot less than AF.
I have a Contax 645 that is autofocus. I almost never use it. I do use the
focus indicator all the time however. My eyes get fooled after a long day
sometimes. Even with the diopter. The focus indicator lets me know MUCH
more quickly than I can tell with my comparatively young 41 year old eyes.
I would use an indicator if one was available. A focus is unnecessary for
the things I use my 503 for...
Lawrence
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@lwsphoto.com
[Ed. note: these are probably similar to the designs by Nikon, Spiratone etc. for 35mm SLR
eyepieces; the optics should be the same, so try an experiment with one to see if the eye
relief available (limited) works for you?...]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002
From: Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Auto Focus or Focus Confirmation
in feb 1999 shortly after hearing that hasselblad offered a fold-away prism
eyepeice magnifier, i ordered one from B&H.; cost at the time was $242.
if offers a very high magnification of the center portion of the image,
and folds away for full-frame viewing; in that mode, you don't know it's
there.
-rei
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002
From: Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Auto Focus or Focus Confirmation
it screws into the prism eyepeice and adds an addition 2x magnification
to the center portion of the screen.
go to "www.hasselbladusa.com" and search for "view magnifier"
go to the last link:
"Products / Medium Format System / Accessories / Viewfinders / View Magnifiers"
which will take you to a page which will show you a picture and information.
i've had the nikon equivalent on my F3's for 15 years. and i recently got
the leica equivalent (non-hinged) for my m6's.
-rei
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei 6008AF
Doug Brightwell at doug@dougbrightwell.com wrote:
> How exactly does the confirmation work? What do you see in the display? Or
> is it an audible confirmation?
The 6008AF has an LCD display instead of the LED display used in previous
6000 series cameras. It is lighted from behind and gives black indicators
on a pale yellowish colored background. It was very visible in a brightly
lighted convention center. The focus confirmation shows up as a black
circular dot, as with most focus confirmation symbols on AF cameras. The
dot blinks when the lens is not in focus and becomes solid when focus is
reached. It seemed very sensitive in the prototype I handled. For my
purposes this would be more useful than autofocus. The closest analogy
would be using the Contax RX.
Bob
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
From: Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] eyesight
a couple of years ago, hasselblad came out with a swing-away magnifier for
their prisms. it offers a greatly-magnified view of the center portion
of the screen. it also offers a diopter adjustment.
my eyes are none too good, and i find this setup every helpful.
-rei
> Here is another difficulty that I am having and can only blame it on my age
(55). In the last 5 - 6 years my eyesight has deteriorated substantially with
regards to focusing. I presently use the 3X top level viewer and find that I
still need to use my glasses for critical focusing. I shoot a lot of weddings
and on into the evening (as the natural light fades) I am experiencing extreme
difficulties with sharpness. How have others handled this problem, please don't
suggest hand held powerful loupes as these are unusable in the hustle and
bustle of a wedding. Help!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graham Hill
>
> (BC, Canada)
--
Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com
Ridgewood, New Jersey
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
From: Anthony Atkielski anthony@atkielski.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] eyesight
John writes:
> I recognize there are times that focus may be more
> critical, but, in general, why not hyperfocal?
Hyperfocal is a poor substitute for critical focus. Only one distance can
be focused correctly by a lens, and everything in front of and behind that
is blurred. While this blurring may not be obvious for nearby distances and
with small enlargements, it can become distressingly obvious with only
slight enlargement, or a slight change in viewing distance.
Hyperfocal focusing is a much-overrated compromise between not focusing at
all and focusing precisely on the subject. I don't consider it appropriate
for any situation in which there is a clear central subject at a specific
distance that can receive critical focus. It's never a substitute for an
inability to focus precisely. The only time I use it is for scenes in which
there are multiple elements of interest at many different distances from the
lens, such that there is no way to focus on all of them at once--in that
case, the hyperfocal distance (or any distance that includes all the
elements within DOF as much as possible) is the only practical compromise.
You certainly wouldn't want to use hyperfocal for wedding pictures.
Inevitably a lot of people would come out blurry, particularly in group
shots.
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 05 Jul 2002
Subject: Dr. Francke on groundglass focusing sharpness.
Dr. Francke on groundglass focusing sharpness
It was at a Photokina meeting in the 70's. I went to Cologne with Bert Keppler
and the Modern staff to cover the event. One evening we all met for dinner with
a guest of honor. It was the famous Dr Francke of Francke and Heidecke fame,
the Rollei people. It was a great opportunity and I was looking for something I
could use in my column. The discussion started pleasantly enough. Just general
conversation. I commented on how sharp my Rollei was. Dr. Francke shook his
head and said. "It could be sharper". Taken aback by this strange response I
said, "What do you mean sir? How sharper?" He said. " Ground glass focusing is
a non precision procedure". The room fell into silence. We couldn't believe our
ears. "Non precision" I asked. "How? What do you mean?" He said, " When you
focus on a ground glass you are focusing by memory, Visual memory. In order to
get the sharpest image you must focus until you think it is sharp, then you
must go further to see if it gets sharper. Let's suppose it gets softer
instead. Now you must remember what it looked like at its sharpest and go back
to that as you remember it. Your location of the sharpest point is a matter of
your memory. That is not a precision process. The Leica and Contax with their
long base rangefinders allowing you to register images exactly are far more
precise. I wish we could solve that problem in terms of ground glass focusing"
We were stunned. Dr. Francke was actually sharing with us what he considered
shortcomings in his camera design. But his logic was undeniable. We couldn't
even argue the point. He was of course absolutely correct. When we returned to
New York I wrote the incident up for my column and it was published in Modern
Photography. Not as Photokina coverage, but as a separate interview. I got what
I came to Cologne to get. A good story. I bring it up now to share with all
those in this NG. It is something to think about.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Date: 5 Jul 2002
From: "Joe Schimpanzi" JoeSchimpanzi@Monkeybusiness.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Dr. Francke on groundglass focusing sharpness.
...(quoting above post)
And Rollei has now answered this problem with the first 6X6 MF camera that
has Autofocus _AND_ Focus Assist. The Rollei 6008 AF. The Focus Assist is
the most important feature and allows me to use non-AF lenses on a camera
and still use the electronic focusing system. Only I get to be the motor
for the lens and move the focusing ring until the indicators in the LCD
panel tell me I'm in focus. I guess this is another way Rollei has outpaced
Hassleblad.
Jim P.
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 05 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: Dr. Francke on groundglass focusing sharpness.
>What about the split prism in the ground-glass screen? That works on the
>same principle as a Leica rangefinder, and does not require memory. Just
>line things up and they are in focus.
>
>
Well yes. Sort of. That split image on the ground glass accuracy depends on the
apertureof the lens at the time of focusing. Look at it this way. The accuracy
of a rangefinder on a Leica is dependant on the length of the base plus
magnification.. The "base" of the split image on the groundglass screen is a
function of F stop. The greater the F stop the larger the equivalent base. The
problem is that these screens are not working on a very large base compared to
a Leica. But you are right, it is an aid that is really helpful.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002
From: jhicks31@bellsouth.net (John Hicks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Dr. Francke on groundglass focusing sharpness.
artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>. The "base" of the split image on the groundglass screen is a
>function of F stop.
This is usually deliberately compromised so that the split wedges
don't black out (actually see the inside of the lens barrel), so the
slope of the wedges is often set so that it's acceptable for an f5.6
lens...or it's as if you're focusing at f5.6...no matter that the
actual lens aperture may be much wider. This was because many, many
people would grouse without understanding the problem when using a
slow lens.
Various camera makers tried to deal with this by providing different
focusing screens; for example, if your slowest lens was f2.8 you could
buy a split-image screen that would work ok with that, providing
better accuracy, but would black out at f4. A variant was the
microprism screens usable only with lenses of a certain speed or
faster.
Nikon introduced a different approach in the N2000; the split wedge
was a stairstep configuration, providing a steep slope for fast lenses
and a flatter slope so that the wedge wouldn't black out with slow
lenses. It would even work with the f8 mirror lens. Apparently no one
cared; it wasn't used in any other camera or available as an accessory
screen.
One may presume, perhaps wrongly, that the original Rollei
split-image TLR screen was designed to match the aperture of the
viewing lens. The later Rollei SLR screens that can be put into the
Rollei TLRs obviously aren't; they're designed to work to at least
f5.6, so some focusing accuracy is being sacrificed when these screens
are used.
Most likely vernier accuracy makes them all much better than
focusing on the groundglass, but otoh some careful testing may reveal
that the camera isn't being focused to the same point every time.
---
John Hicks
From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Dr. Francke on groundglass focusing sharpness.
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002
Rollei has answered this problem in the sixties or seventies, with the
"Rolleimeter" attachment for it's TLR's. (which gives the TLR a
leica-style distance meter) Didn't dr. Francke tell you about this
accessory?
example with picture:
http://cgi.ebay.nl/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=1364616203
It looks like it should have been around, at the time when you were at
the Photokina...
;-)
Lourens
From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 05 Jul 2002
Subject: Re: Dr. Francke on groundglass focusing sharpness.
...(quoting above post)
Yes. I used it. It never worked and was a Rube Goldberg pile of junk. And Dr
Francke knew it. Nobody bought it. it was a jokeand Rollei stopped making it
due to lack of interest..Or did you think it was pretty good?
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Rollei SLR focus screen size?
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002
I'm getting together a group order for some of Bill Maxwells focus screens
(he is giving us a deal on some "seconds") and had someone with a rollei
SLR interested in joining in but I'm not sure if the sizes I am offering
will fit. The sizes are 55.8mm (halfway between a K-60's 55.6mm and a
K-88/blad size of 56mm so it will fit all of these) and 51.0mm for a
pentacon-6. I'd guess that it's ~ the 55.8mm size like a blad? If anyone
knows, please let me know. TIA
--
Stacey
From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Subject: FS: Maxwell focus screens $75 shipped
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002
I'm working a deal with Bill Maxwell on some "seconds" of his awsome focus
screens. He has 23 of these that have a small imperfection that can only be
seen looking at the surface of the screen at an angle with the light just
right. He said you'll NEVER see this after it is installed in the camera
and are using it.
Anyone not familiar with these can do a google search and see many people
consider this the best "high end" screen on the market. I have had one in
my rolleicord V for 6+ years and the difference is unbelievable. It's now
super bright even in dim indoor lighting all the way into the corners with
the f3.5 viewing lens. Much brighter than a minolta auto cord without the
fresnel lines and as bright (with the f3.5 lens) as a 'blad accute mat-d
screen used with an f2.8 lens on my kiev!
These are going to be available only in a plain ground finish with grid
lines version in === 4 SIZES ONLY ====.
Early rollei TLR (non removable finder)
Later rollei TLR (removable finder)
pentacon-6 (51.0mm)
kiev-60 / kiev-88 / blad etc (~55.8mm)
The last size is .2mm larger than the factory K-60 screen (which
will still fit fine) and is .2mm smaller than the factory K-88 / blad
screen which shouldn't be a problem either.
The best news is: These will be avalible for $75 shipped which is less than
half the normal price Bill sells these for. This is a one time deal through
me, I'm not making anything off of this, just trying to get a volume
discount as I need 6 of these myself. Also part of the deal is these are
the only sizes avalible but being plasic can be sanded down to fit other
models if needed. I'm planning on using one of the rollei sized ones in my
nikon lensed tower reflex. These may fit rollei SLR's, Kowa etc you'll
have to measure yours to see.
E-mail me at help@atlantaracing.com (see my feedback at ebay with this user
name), at stephe_k@bellsouth.net or fotocord@yahoo.com to reserve yours.
16 have already been spoken for and I don't expect the others to last long
at this price. Hope some of you take advantage of this and I know anyone
who buys one will be as amazed as I was with this focusing screen.
--
Stacey
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:55:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rei Shinozuka
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002
From: Photo101nj@aol.com
Subject: Re: [HUG] Focusing screens: any experiences with Beattie?
You can buy the Hasselblad Acute Matte D screen #42204 for $99.00. Go to the
Hasselblad USA web site under products, clearance corner. You order through
any Hasselblad dealer. This is a great deal and you know what your getting.
Good Luck
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [HUG] Re: Focusing screens: any experiences with Beattie?
you wrote:
>I'm considering getting another focusing screen, but the price of original
>HB screens was a little higher than I expected. Does anybody have
>experiences with Beattie screens?
I own three Bronica ETRS bodies. One has either an Intenscreen or a
Brightscreen (can't recall which) and the other two have original equip. I
can't tell the difference. IMHO the Hassy screens are THE BEST. If they
made them for my Bronicas & I was still shooting full time that's what I'd buy.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] PME (45 deg)
Daniel Lee wrote:
>Well I'd hope you would be using the WLF when shooting from the hip...unless
>your shooting a ceiling while holding it right up to your eye! What I want
>to see is someone using a PF while shooting from the hip!
Chimneys work quite well from the hip... No different than the magnifier on
the WLF.
Jim
[Ed. note: a reminder that many "dim" cameras are actually more dirty than dim ;-)]
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
From: Doug nomathjobs@yahoo.com
Subject: [Russiancamera] Cleaning the VF glass in Z4: what a difference!
Hi all,
I just received a Zorki 4 whose viewfinder was essentially unusable. It was
like looking through brown water.
Assuming I had a desilvering problem, and thus assuming I could do no harm,
I pull the top cover to have a look. First observation: there's a lotta
glass surfaces in there. Second observation: they were a bit dirty.
So several Q-tips and drops of lens cleaning fluid later (plus a few
realignments to bent glass holders), the VF is terrific! Bright beyond
expectation, so much so that the RF is useable despite a dim secondary
image. So much so that I'm going to repeat this one all my Z4 and Z4K bodies.
Question 1 : Would anyone be interested in some closeup pictures with
annotations as to which surfaces I cleaned and the results?
Question 2: If so, should they go here or in the Camera Fix forum?
I hesitated to just post away because I'm unsure if there's any interest
(maybe I'm the only person who likes taking these things apart?) and because
I don't want to clog the inappropriate forum.
doug
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002
From: Jeffery Smith jsmith45@bellsouth.net
Subject: RE: eyeglass protection
Get eyeglass protectors from Stephen Gandy. Don't fit on Canon RFs but
do fit on FED and Leica RFs
Jeffery
> Dave Saalsaa wrote:
>
> > I need a protector for my M3s and M4-Ps so I don't keep scratching the
> > hell
> > out of my eyeglasses! Any other suggestions?
>
> Suggestion 1: Get Scratch protective coating for your glasses. (Works
> for
> me)
>
> Suggestion 2: Have an M6 eyepiece put in the next time you do a CLA.
> (ItYs rubber).
>
> Either would be cheaper than LASIX surgery (someone elseYs suggestion).
>
>
> Mike Quinn
From: "Christopher Berry" christoforos@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Focussing at night
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002
I have a cobra flash for my Nikon which has two LED focus finders for dark
conditions. These essentially project 2 red lines in the focus field which
allow the camera to focus. Most larger flash units have this and it means
that you can pretty much focus without looking through the lens.
cb
From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Bill Maxwells screens
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002
Just an unsolicited plug for Bills screens. I've used one for years in a
rolleicord V and loved it. I've used an accutemat-d blad screen in one of
my kiev-60's and it's a nice screen but got a few of Bills to use in my
other kievs and pentacon-6's and am once again blown away with how good his
screens are. The corners are much brighter than the blad -d screen and has
better contrast which makes it even easier to focus than this already good
acutemat-d screen was. Any one thinking of a screen upgrade in any camera
should seriously consider one of his.
--
Stacey
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002
From: David Meiland david@meiland.com
Subject: [HUG] Re: prism focusing
If you're shooting without your glasses on, I recommend a diopter lens for
the viewfinder. I have a -2 on mine and it makes it possible to actually
use the thing. It's difficult and painful with glasses, and impossible
without. You can pick them up on eBay periodically, or buy them directly
from Hasselblad, for about $50 IIRC. A quick call to your optician and
they'll tell you the strength you need.
DM
>I suspect that the answer to this question is new glasses. Today, I made
>my first attempt at harassing my family by taking some portraits. I had
>a Metz 50MZ5 flash with a 120 and 1.4XE with a PME45 on a 503CW on a
>tripod. I had great difficulty focussing on skin tones in fairly soft
>light. I would have preferred to use the WLF but what do I do with the
>adaptor that sits on the flash shoe?
>Is there a piece of equipment that I am missing, or is it just a matter
>of practice? If it's equipment I'm saved, keeping my family subdued
>while I practise could be a lot harder.
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
From: Jeff Grant jeff.grant@pobox.com
Subject: RE: [HUG] Starter kit
Not a bit! The prism makes it darker. The WLF is as good as it gets for
brightness.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: David Gerhardt [mailto:davidgerhardt@mindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2002
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Starter kit
"Daniel Lee" Daniel@DKLImages.com wrote:
> How many people DO NOT use a 45 deg prism finder?
> D
One, here. Used only the WLF on my 500c/m; ditto on the 203fe.
(however... Recently had trouble focusing in dim light... Does the prism
help any? )
--
David Gerhardt
davidgerhardt@mindspring.com
From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: Help: Focusing with zoom (eye position)
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002
"Alexandre Vovan" alex@vovan.com wrote:
>I currently trying out a Tamron SP 60-300mm zoom lenses to go with my Nikon
>F, and I'm having a hard time position my eye in front of the viewfinder
>(normal prism - not the photomic) to see clearly through the focusing
>circle.
>
>It seems to me that with these lenses, the top half of the focusing circle
>gets dark very easily, depending on the horizontal position of my eye in
>front of the viewfinder - it makes it hard to focus precisely. Is that
>normal behavior for a zoom lenses? Could it be because the Nikon F
>viewfinder is not quite compatible with the newer Tamron lenses? I have an
>old, fixed 85mm Nikkor that is not at all sensitive to this - the focusing
>circle is always totally clear and transparent.
>
>Also, if that's normal behavior, is there a way to make this focusing circle
>darkening less sensitive to my eye position? Or to make it not happen
>altogether?
The split image SLR "focus aid" (I dislike them...) is
optimized for particular lens speeds (and possibly FLs
too) - go outside of that range, and unless your eye is
centered in the VF, half will go dark. Best is to
use the "ground-glass" area outside the split-image
circle, though you may need eye correction to see that
area sharply (look for the article on 4-way glasses,
on my web page, listed under "I babble", if you use
or need eyeglasses...).
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
[Ed. note: possibly handy tip for older photographers with changing eyesight?]
From: Babar de Saint Cyr babardesaintcyr@wanadoo.fr
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fuji GW690 diopter eyepiece
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002
John Eyles a Tcrit :
>
> I would like to change the viewfinder on my Fuji GW690
> to accomodate my far-sighted/presbyopic eyes.
>
> First question - I want a +1 or +2 diopter, if I need
> reading glasses, but I can see distant objects just fine
> unaided, right ?
>
> Second - which ones fit the GW690 ? Searches show ones only
> for the 680 cameras. B&H;'s webpage have a cryptic comment that
> "This camera will accept viewfinder eyepiece correction diopters
> from Nikon's FM series", but B&H; shows one line that fits FM10 and
> another that fits FM2. From the photo, the FM10 looks wrong, so
> I'm hoping the FM2 one is what I want (i.e. Nikon Catalog # 2932,
> B&H; Catalog # NIDP1FM2).
>
> Does anyone know for sure ?
I have a Nikon FM2, a Nikon FM10 and a FUJI GL690 :)
Fuji GL690 and Nikon FM2 have circular compatible eye-piece.
Nikon FM10 has rectangular eye-piece.
Take a look at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/apple2/fuji690.htm.
You will see a GL690 with a Nikon DR3 right-angle finder.
This DR3 mounts on FM2, FA, etc...
Babar
From: RDKirk rdkirk@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focusing ... and older eyes
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002
rshepard@appl-ecosys.com says...
> When I use the waist-level finder on my Bronica S2A, I flip up the
> magnifier to focus, but use my regular reading glasses (+1.25 diopter) for
> composition (if I use them at all). However, ...
>
> Last weekend I put the 90-degree view on because I had to raise the tripod
> to not include a stone wall in the shots and I couldn't see down on the
> normal viewer. Well, I was really surprised to discover that I couldn't
> focus! After returning home, it occurred to me that the focal distance is
> only a couple of inches -- if that -- to the ground glass plate, and while
> my distance vision is OK, I need the weak reading glasses to see things at
> the normal reading distance of ~18 inches. So, I decided, my over-40 eyes
> need stronger magnification to focus with this viewer.
>
> Has anyone here encountered the same problem? I've not seen this
> phenomenon when using my fiancee's 35 mm SLR. Apparently the plane of focus
> for eyes is farther away from my eyeball.
I can't say about the Bronica, but all the eyelevel finders I've used
had eyepieces that put the virtual image about 30 inches away from the
eye.
--
RDKirk
From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Focusing ... and older eyes
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002
I rather doubt your eyes are worse than mine. Whenever I get an eye exam for
new glasses the optometrist whistles "the worst astigmatism we've ever
seen." And I'm almost sixty years old and have to wear tri-focals.
If you really like the finder and the diopter doesn't work for you (I'd be
surprised), then an optometrist can have one made. I was pleasantly
surprised by how interested mine was in doing such a thing. Seems that a lot
of them are keen on good camera equipment and making it work for me.
Best of luck.
From: "Steve Grimes" skgrimes@skgrimes.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Megapixels vs Medium Format question
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002
Most Japanese cameras have a default -1 diopter built in to them and that is
the "normal" condition. Young eyes can easily overcome the -1. So, as a
practical matter an ordinary presbyop can try a plus one diopter if his
normal vision at infinity requires no correction. Alternately, you can try
drug store spectacles until you find one that works. Then order plus one
more than the drug store spec to both correct for the -1 and accomodate and
further correction you may find useful.
The main thing to remember is that the viewfinder simulates infinity and has
nothing to do with the viewing distance of the subject being photographed.
--
S.K. GRIMES
For more info-- http://www.skgrimes.com
"John Eyles" jge@cs.unc.edu wrote
>
> Since we're talking optometrics, I have a conundrum. I realized
> I'm probably not focusing my Fuji range-finder very accurately,
> because I'm so presbyopic myself. Fortunately it takes Nikon
> diopters (the FM2/FE2 size), but I can't figure out which to
> get. An eye doctor measured me and said I need something between
> +1 and +2 for my reading glasses, but said WHICH I need depends
> upon how far I sit from my computer screen etc.
>
> So which should I get for my camera diopter ? I suppose it depends
> on where the un-dioptered viewfinder puts the virtual image. I guess
> I COULD buy several (at $17 a pop) and try to return the unused ones
> (or save til my eyes get even worse). But given how hard it's been
> to get B&H; to credit for returned merch ... (ok, they claim they're
> just busy).
>
> Thoughts ?
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Megapixels vs Medium Format question
"Steve Grimes" skgrimes@skgrimes.com a Tcrit
> The main thing to remember is that the viewfinder
> simulates infinity and has nothing to do with the
> viewing distance of the subject being photographed.
Most viewfinders place their virtual image at 1 or 2 metres. A -1 diopter
viewfinder places the virtual image one metre away--in other words, when you
look through the viewfinder, your eyes must focus at a distance of one metre
to see the viewfinder screen clearly. This is a common distance because
many people in both the farsighted and nearsighted categories can see
reasonably well at this distance, and it's an easy distance to focus at for
people with normal vision under the usual conditions of squinting through a
viewfinder.
From: Rich Shepard rshepard@appl-ecosys.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Diopter value selection
Date: 1 Oct 2002
Marvin Born wrote:
> I was recently able to purchase a Hasselblad HC-1 viewfinder at a
> great price. However, I wear reading glasses with a value of
> 2.00, and understand there is a "diopter" that I can purchase
> to place in the rubber eye cup that will allow use without
> wearing glasses.
>
> Does anyone know how to select the correct value of diopter for a
> reading glasses value of 2.00?
Marvin,
I am going through a similar search. I bought a 90-degree prism finder for
my Bronica S2A and it came with no diopter adjustment and no rubber left
around the eye cup. I've done a lot of searching. Apparently, Bronica didn't
make any glass for this model and no one I've contacted -- with one
exception -- knows of any solution.
The exception is local (to me, in the Portland, OR area). There's a
retired photographic/optical engineer living here who has started a fine
art photography group which I attend. I called him for recommendations and
he said that his optical bench is almost complete and he has various
strength glass left over from projects for optical manufacturers. I'll go
over to his place Thursday evening.
I used to wear 1.25 diopter reading glasses; with my new contact lenses
I'm using more powerful ones. I'll pass on the information about the power I
need to see clearly through the eye-level finder after we try various
options.
Rich
From: "ADOLPHIUS ST. CLAIR" nermal1@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Diopter value selection
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002
I solved the problem like this a few years ago. I had an old
prescription lens cut to fit the holder. It solved all the problems:
corrected for my astigmatism and also had the right - diopter.
You can likely cut an "old" plastic lens to fit yourself. If the
lens is glass some opticians can do the job for you.
Marvin Born wrote:
> I was recently able to purchase a Hasselblad HC-1 viewfinder at a
> great price. However, I wear reading glasses with a value of
> 2.00, and understand there is a "diopter" that I can purchase
> to place in the rubber eye cup that will allow use without
> wearing glasses.
>
> Does anyone know how to select the correct value of diopter for a
> reading glasses value of 2.00?
>
> Anyone have one for sale? I use the HC-1 with a 500EL/M.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> Marvin
From nikon MF Mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Koskentola Jaakko jaakko.koskentola@bof.fi
Subject: Magnifying finder
Hello,
If you are considering a magnifying finder, you could first try to emulate
it with a loupe. A regular Nikon loupe will fit at least the F4, with some
filing and grinding. Of course you will have to paint the transparent sides
black, but you will get a huge magnification of the focus screen. It is a
lot cheaper as well... The image will be the right side up but a mirror
image otherwise. This will take some getting used to, but it's surprising
how quickly one adapts to it.
... jaakko koskentola
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002
From: lindsay melwin lindsaymelwin@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Age: RF vs SLR
I also have the eyesight problem common to many of us as we grow wiser
with age.
A couple of comments if I may. Many of the older Russian RF's were made
with a built-in diopter adjustment - tune the rangefinder optics to your
eyesight. I regularly shoot with a Zorki 3M which has this feature. It
is of couse possible to buy a prescription diopter adjusting lens for
the viewfinder or most precision SLR's and, or course Leicas.
Cameras with groundglass focussing screens can be dealt with in a
different way. My solution was to have a set of eyeglases made which
permit me to focus about four inches in front of my nose. Handy on my
Rolleiflex and essential under the darkcloth of a view camera. This can
be an inexpensive course of action. If you use an old pair of eyeglass
frames (as I did) or get the cheapest, plastic, non-designer frames
offered by most opticians, the cost of such glasses can be $30-40. Less
convenient than not needing them at all but wear them around your neck
on one of those keeper cords and be plesed that you can use your camera.
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] focusing screen jollies
After a longish wait, my Maxwell Bright Matte Grid focusing screen
finally arrived the other day. And after a few days of simply not
having the time, I finally installed it this evening. My my ... I'm
soooo glad I spent the bux and got it. It's so much nicer to focus with
than either the AcuteMatte with split image rangefinder or microprism
helpers. The image just snaps into sharp focus, and you can see clearly
corner to corner.
I suppose the split image rangefinder screen would be useful with a
wider angle lens, but this will do me very nicely with the 80mm and my
future 150-180mm. :-)
Godfrey
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002
From: Austin Franklin darkroom@ix.netcom.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] focusing screen jollies
Bill was great sending me a screen for my Rollei. Fast as lightning...if he
has the screen you want in stock. He makes them in batches, and if you want
some esoteric screen, or he's out, you just have to wait.
Austin
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 22:08:21 -0800
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002
From: Karl Wolz wolzphoto@worldnet.att.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: RE: [HUG]
My old 500C was driving me nuts; especially when using the 60/5.6. I
found a used 500CM with a plain w/ grid Acute-Mat screen for $325.
I'm happy, too.
Karl Wolz
from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002
From: Dante Stella dante@umich.edu
Subject: Re: [RF List] "Texas" Leica eyepiece
By the way, the same FA eyepieces fit the GA645 series, too.
L Lambert wrote:
> I'm missing the rear diopter eyepiece for a Fuji GW690 III. The manual
> says
> that a -1 (minus 1) diopter is the "normal" one.
>
> Fuji replacements seem difficult to find.
>
> I'm told that a Nikon FM2/FE2 diopter will fit.
>
> Are the Nikon diopters normally -1 also?
> I don't see any -1s online, can anyone confirm that the normal Nikon
> eyepiece
> is a -1?
>
> Thanks,
> Larry
From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002
From: "Bill Lawlor" wvl@infinex.com
Subject: Re: 1 X viewfinder
Ken wrote:
My long-time dream was to have a Leica M body with a 1x magnification
viewfinder.
Ken, I have a $50 solution to the challenge. It is an original German
Voigtlander Vitessa accessory viewfinder for the fixed 50mm on that camera.
It is a most unusual item. The finder is not transparent! It requires use
with both eyes open and the finder projects a 50 mm view frame onto the
retina of one eye. The scene is observed with the other eye and the two
images are mixed by your brain! After getting used to it you see just a
frame imposed on the scene. I kept it after swapping a Vitessa because it is
a good solution to the small viewfinders on the screw mount leicas and
clones.
It won't replace my M 3.
Bill Lawlor
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002
From: John Pendley jpendley@alltel.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] Tewe Finder
Hi Doug,
I have a TEWE 35-200. They are fairly common, while the 28-135(?) is just
the opposite. In my sporadic search, lasting about a year, I've yet to see
one. My finder is very nice, about what you'd expect from German
production. It is a zoom finder and masked, not bright line. I don't know
how common this is, but the back (end you look through) is the part that
zooms. Manual parallax correction for 3, 6, and 15m, plus infinity. Clear
view; small eyepiece: I wear glasses, which I need for close work like
setting aperture, shutter speed, etc., and have to take them off for
anything wider than about 75mm. Lots of focal length choices between 50
and 200. Someone here has pointed out that having a 200mm setting on the
thing is not the most practical idea for RF cameras. The other one would
be much more desirable, I think. Apparently, everybody else thinks so too,
because I can't find one. Probably, fewer of them were made. Failing
that, I'd recommend sticking the 35-200 on something like a IIIf and
forgetting it. That's where mine lives, and I love it. The glasses thing
is a nuisance, but maybe you aren't as blind as I am for close work.
John
you wrote:
>Does anyone here use one of the Tewe multi-focal-length finders? I take it
>they come in various flavors -- the one I see advertised most is a 35-200mm
>model. How do they compare to the Russian turret finders? And does anyone
>have one they might want to trade for something?
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] Tewe Finder
you wrote:
>Does anyone here use one of the Tewe multi-focal-length finders? I take it
>they come in various flavors -- the one I see advertised most is a 35-200mm
>model. How do they compare to the Russian turret finders? And does anyone
>have one they might want to trade for something?
>
I have a 35-200 TEWE and a 28-135 unmarked VF almost certainly made by
TEWE. Both are quite useful, but the Russian finder or its Zeiss original
are brighter and clearer.
I use the TEWE finder with my 2X Ukrainian Teleconverter and a 2/8.5cm CZJ
Sonnar T, the package producing a 4/170 combination which is utile even
with that dinkly RF base on my Leica IIIc.
Marc
msmall@infi.net
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev 88 TTl Prism with a Mamiya 330f?
Date: 10 Dec 2002
fknapik@mail.nysed.gov (F.T.Knapik) wrote:
>Hello. I am considering the purchase of a metered Kiev 88 prism from
>Baier Fototechnik for my Mamiya 330f. Does anyone have any experience
>with this rig?
I can coment on the quality of their adapters. I bought a kiev-60 to
pentacon 6 prism adapter and it was a very nicely made piece. Also I
can't coment on the K-88 prism but the newer K-60 prisms are very
bright compared to the older techology prisms made by other people
(I've looked through the older rolleis and the pentacons and they are
very dim compared to these) and the meter is accurate and easy to use.
Stacey
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: AW: [HUG] 500CM floating focus?
That I don't know either. His impression was that a lot of technicians
are unaware of the issue and thus many cameras become inconsistent in
their focusing quality for reasons that people don't understand ... "I
just had a CLA done and I'm still not getting good negatives..." etc.
The tech I was talking to was Bill Maxwell, btw, the guy who makes the
focusing screen I use. He's generally very savvy about such things.
Godfrey
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002
From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: TLR: missing focusing magnifier!`
TWW wrote:
> Vincent Becker pasdepubbecker.vincent@wanadoo.fr wrote
>>TWW wrote:
>>
>>>Greetings,
>>>I recently acquired a Ricoh Auto 66 in rather fine condition other
>>>than the lack of a focusing magnifier. Can anybody offer a source to
>>>get a replacement or how to create one?
>>
>>I don't know how you could get a replacement, but if you want to do it
>>yourself any low-power magnifying lens shoud do it. They're available
>>for cheap. Try different ones to find the most appropriate. The hardest
>>part will be to make the flipping lens-holder, but with a little care
>>you should be able to do it.
>
>
> Vincent,
> Thanks for the response. Interestingly, the flip holder is there and
> in working order. So, all I need to do is locate a magnifier. I am
> new to the MF so I wasn't sure if there are any particulars I should
> be concerned about.
>
> Tom
If the flip holder is still there, your only problem is locating a
magnifier of the right size and right degree of magnification. But that
could be something of a problem. You can find a variety of simple
magnifiers of different sizes at Edmond Scientific. Unfortunately, a
magnifier of a specific magnification will only work at one distance
from what you are viewing. I checked both my Rollei and my Mamiya C3.
For the Rollei, the magnifying lens had a focal length approximately 90
mm and was about 70 mm from the gg. For the Mamiya, the figures were
more like 80 mm fl and 65 mm from gg. If you could get your eye right
up against the magnifier, in principle the working distance and focal
length would be the same, but there has to be a correction for the
distance between the lens and the eye. If you have some magnifiers
around with specified strength (2X 3X 4X, etc.) you can try them to see
if you can see the gg clearly at the position of the holder. Then you
just have to order that strength in the right diameter. Probably it
will be about 3 X. You could also look in the Edmond catalogue
(www.scientificsonline.com) to see if they have a magnifier with the
right lens to subject distance, or if you call they may be able to tell
you what the distance is.
If you wear glasses, you might find Edmond's clip on 2.8 X Economy
monocular would work.
Probably you are better off just getting a magnifier that works for you,
about 3 X, and figuring out some way to prop it at the right distance
above the gg. For example, you could rig something up out of sheet
aluminum which fits over the hood at the right distance and glue the
lens to it with epoxy.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Viewfinder magnification and frame coverage
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002
stephen.edgar1@ntlworld.com (Stephen Edgar) wrote:
>I recently re-discovered my 'old' Olympus OM2 SLR, and I was amazed
>at how 'big' and 'bright' the image was in the viewfinder. A real
>contrast (excuse the pun!) to the viewfinder on my Minolta Dynax 5.
>Which modern SLR cameras have the the highest viewfinder magnification
>and provides the greatest frame coverage?
Viewfinder characteristics I value (in order) are sharpness
(including both edge/corner sharpness), image contrast,
framing accuracy (including not just percentage of coverage,
but centering and rotation), freedom from linear distortion,
freedom from distracting elements (overlayed info, "focus
aids", patterning, etc.), brightness, isolation from ambient
light and reflections, magnification, and ease of viewing
with glasses... The only camera that satisfies all of the
above is the Nikon F3 with the "low-eyepoint" viewfinder,
though all of the Nikon "F" series (including the F100 [and
I like the finder of the 8008, also]), have excellent
viewfinders - though all look quite different from the
Olympus OM finders...;-)
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Viewfinder magnification and frame coverage
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002
1) Brightness and contrast are the main goals, especially for low light
shooting and/or using DOF preview.
2) Full view of what is in the viewfinder, including the meter and
whatever mode/status information is available
3) 100% view of the frame
4) built in diopter adjustment (I hate shooting with glasses)
5) A good focusing screen
Minolta Maxxum 9 is great in all respects above, except sometimes I need
to shift slightly to see everything in the lower status display and the
exposure meter. The focusing screen on the 9 is very good for focus
accuracy, but the standard screen lacks reference points. A 1/6 grid
would be really nice. I'm tempted to buy a replacement and attempt
adding my own grid. The viewfinder mag is 0.73x, but I don't see this
as a plus or minus as the 100% view is more important to me.
Cheers,
Alan
Stephen Edgar wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> I recently re-discovered my 'old' Olympus OM2 SLR, and I was amazed
> at how 'big' and 'bright' the image was in the viewfinder. A real
> contrast (excuse the pun!) to the viewfinder on my Minolta Dynax 5.
> Which modern SLR cameras have the the highest viewfinder magnification
> and provides the greatest frame coverage?
> Any information would be appreciated
> Regards
> Stephen Edgar
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003
From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Venting some disappointment
Charles Pezeshki wrote:
> Hmm, Robert raises two interesting points-- which leads to:
>
> 1. Are you focusing with a loupe? It's much harder to get sharp pictures
> if you do not focus with a loupe.
Every large format photographer should do some experiments seeing how
consistently (s)he focuses: both without a loupe and with a loupe.
You do that by repeatedly focusing on the some subject with fine detail
and in each case note the position on the rail. Depth of focus
considerations alone suggest there is going to be considerable
variation. At f/5.6, viewed from normal close distance of 10 inches,
the variation could be as much as 2 mm. This has nothing to do with how
skilled you are because you can never see where the exact plane of focus
is, and depth of focus gives you an estimate of the range over which
details will look equally in focus. Even with a loupe there will be a
variation of a few tenths of a mm.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Autofocus Observations
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003
...
>Anyone else have the same experience with AF? How and when do you use AF?
>All of the time? Most of the time? Rarely?
Welcome to the wonderful world of AF (and AE...;-).
Manual still works better, and MF is still generally
faster and more accurate *if* your camera has sharp
VF optics (many do not), and *if* you can sharply see
at the VF screen effective focus distance (see
www.ferrario.com/ruether/articles.html#glasses for
a good glasses solution that can work for many for
both general seeing, and for 35mm camera focusing - wait
until the long page fully loads, and it will then "pop"
to the article...). A few years ago I developed a problem
with large, soft eye "floaters" which made me (kicking
and screaming) buy AF bodies and start acquiring those
icky, floppy plastic AF "lenses"... - but fortunately,
Nikon's first really good AF bodies had just appeared
(the F100 and F5). Previously, I had watched with
amusement as every new body from the 2020 forward was
introduced, and people announced that "finally, this
time Nikon has it right" only to find that none did
much better with AF than the lowly original 2020.
All could focus fairly well about 50% of the time,
missing slightly the rest of the time - and the
"electronic focus" was a bad joke, showing "correct
focus" over an amazingly wide range, with focus
"clearly" incorrect over most of the range... Now
I scale-focus (beyond 3' or so) the 20mm and shorter
lenses, and use AF with 24mm and longer lenses, and
this works well enough 95% of the time with the F100...
(BTW, AF accuracy depends on both the quality of the
camera design, and also the quality of the AF adjustment
on the particular body you use - testing for "centering"
of the AF within the DOF range is a useful thing to
do when buying an AF body...)
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Autofocus Observations
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003
...
I've never found these AF indicators very accurate - they
show "OK" when the focus is far from correct... BTW, if
the eye problem is one of age-related inability to focus
over a wide range of distances, there is a very good
glasses solution that works well for optimizing both
camera VF seeing, and also general seeing - this has
worked well for me for many years. It is described at:
www.ferrario.com/ruether/articles.html#glasses (let the
page fully load, and it will snap to the correct article).
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002
From: "Bill Salati" subversive10@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] Age: RF vs SLR
Another factor is the eye's difficulty in focusing on closer objects as our
age progresses. With a rangefinder you are viewing an aerial image. In an
SLR your viewing the image on a focusing screen. The screen's apparent
distance from the eye varies with different finder types and manufacturers.
In some SLRs the apparent image is nearer and more difficult for the aging
eye to focus on.
At age forty eight, I still see well without glasses but I am favoring my RF
over my SLRs for focusing wide angle lenses.
Bill
>From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
>To: rflist@topica.com
>Subject: Re: [RF List] Age: RF vs SLR
>Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
>
> Bruce Feist wrote:
> >Why is age more of a problem with SLRs than the other types? I'm
>intrigued.
>
>Simple: with SLR's you must focus on an image increasingly fuzzy as you
>get older. With an RF, however, there is always a sraight line on which to
>"make the split" to bring lines together.
>
>Marc
>
>msmall@infi.net
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002
From: Dante Stella dante@umich.edu
Subject: RE: [RF List] Age: RF vs SLR
Nick:
The interesting thing is that SLR finders, especially the pre-AF ones, can
be brighter than life once the lens hits f/1.4 or faster. F/2 is
equivalent to the light the human eye sees. Assuming that there is a
1-stop loss in the finder system (that would actually be huge), it should
be easier to focus SLRs in low light with f/1.4 lenses and faster. I just
bought a Nikon FA and was blown away by how bright the finder was against
an autofocus SLR finder.
Dante
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: bill maxwell
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003
"jean strinckx" jean.strinckx@pandora.be wrote:
>Hi,
>Does anyone have any experience with a Bill Maxwell focusing screen for
>Mamiya RB 67 and what is the result?
Never used one in a RB but I have them in:
4 K-60's
2 pentacon 6's
1 rolleicord
1 minoltacord
1 tower reflex with nikon optics
Think I like them?!
One of my kiev 60's has an accute mat-d and I think the Maxwell
screens are better. Higher contrast and easier to focus. Also are
brighter when using DOF preview on cameras that have that feature.
Stacey
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: dancke@onzine.no
Subject: Re: Acute-Matte vs. Acute-Matte D?
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003
"Max Perl" max_perl@post11.tele.dk said:
>Is an Acute-Matte D brigther than an Acute-Matte screen?
>And if it is......which screen is the PME-51 calibrated for?
>I am using a Acute-Matte in my 500C/M and also a PME-51.
>When I check with my Gossen lunasix F the PME-51 measure
>about 1/2-1 EV less than the Lunasix F. I have now compensated the PME-51
>by setting a higher ISO value. But if the Acute-Matte D is brighter it
>could be nice to get one.
>Max
The diffrence between the old focusing screens and Acu Matte was 2/3 stop.
I dont think the difference between AcuMatte and AcuMatte D amounts to
anything much. ( I have read somewhere that Acvu Matte D has somwhat more
dispersion, making focusing a little easier. I frequently misfocus using
the AcuMatte.) --
dancke@online.no
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Acute-Matte vs. Acute-Matte D?
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003
dancke@onzine.no wrote:
>Hm, this is intresting. Where can you get these maxwell-screens and do they come ready to
>drop in the Hasselblad or do they have to be custom fitted ?
>
>John Dancke,
>Egersund - Norway
They come ready fitted and are chosen in a focal length as to your
intended use. i.e. if you prefer long or short lenses or for use with
macro work, the type of prism WLF etc. Here was a post I found using
a google search with his contact info in the US.
I would highly recommend a screen from Bill Maxwell at Maxwell Precision Optics.
I have two large format screens he custom fitted to my needs and camera and they
are truly amazing. I understand he also does screens for Hasselblads and medium
format cameras. His prices are reasonable. Bill Maxwell (404)
244-0095.
Stacey
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Acute-Matte vs. Acute-Matte D?
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003
...
>The diffrence between the old focusing screens and Acu Matte was 2/3 stop.
>I dont think the difference between AcuMatte and AcuMatte D amounts to
>anything much. ( I have read somewhere that Acvu Matte D has somwhat more
>dispersion, making focusing a little easier. I frequently misfocus using
>the AcuMatte.) --
I think the D had more contrast which makes focusing easier. Some
bright screens ar brighter but are next to imposible to focus
accurately. It's hard to beat Maxwell focus screens for being bright
AND easy to focus. I've tried both the -D and the maxwell and the
maxwell wins hands down.
Stacey
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003
From: "David S. Odess" hblad1@attbi.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Can I replace the eyecup on the PME5?
Tristan,
The rubber eyecup that is on the prism (the one you don't like) is an accessory
for people who do not wear eye glasses. You can remove it, and replace it with
the "flat" rubber eye cup. The part number is 414429. I have this part in
stock, and the price is $11.50.
David S. Odess
Factory trained Hasselblad technician
28 South Main Street #104
Randolph, MA 02368
(781) 963-1166
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003
From: Peter Rosenthal petroffski@mac.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Newbie w/problems with Acute-Matte D w/grid & split
Steve Baker wrote:
> No eyeglasses for me anymore ... I had Lasik surgery 4 months ago and my
> distance vision is now very good. I do need reading glasses but I would
> not use those for photography. I'm disappointed that the focusing ring
> has little (if any) detectable difference in what I view through the
> WLF. It is almost as if the focusing ring is not working. I wonder if
> this is a possibility (although I just had Peter Rosenthal look over the
> entire camera and get a fresh CLA)? And I'm not making a complaint
> toward Peter because he did a great job with the CLA. I'm still just
> perplexed that the view through the WLF is the same no matter what I do
> with the focusing ring. If I do the same with my F100, the view goes
> from very blurry to *just right*. Why doesn't this happen with MF
> cameras (or, in particular, with the 500cm)?
Steve-
Without going into it ad nauseum, this can be a problem with the bright
screens. Many (probably 1 in 8) have me remove the bright screen to be
replaced with the old dark one. There just isn't the "snap" of the
older screens. People like the brightness, no doubt, but the "on focus"
just isn't there. Especially with slower, wide-angle lenses. A 150 or
so won't have this problem. It's very annoying. A gentleman came in and
had me install a very expensive Beattie into an 8x10 and came in three
days later for me to remove it. He couldn't tell if it was in focus or
not. Dang!...
Peter
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779 5263
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: Newbie w/problems with Acute-Matte D w/grid & split
you wrote:
>Without going into it ad nauseum, this can be a problem with the bright
>screens. Many (probably 1 in 8) have me remove the bright screen to be
>replaced with the old dark one. There just isn't the "snap" of the
>older screens. People like the brightness, no doubt, but the "on focus"
>just isn't there.
Most aftermarket brighter screens achieve the increased brightness by
sacrificing contrast which in unfortunate since the human eye relies on
contrast to confirm focus. That said, this has rarely been a complaint with
the Acute matte screens, although it is periodically with the Intenscreens
and Brightscreens.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003
From: Stephen Gandy LeicaNikon@earthlink.net
Subject: Making the most of your RF Patch
most rangefinder cameras have a central (usually round) RF image with
very indistinctly defined edges. bringing the RF images together
focuses the lens. roughly 95% of all camera rangefinders use this type
of RF image focusing patch
Some rangefinders, such as the Leica M's and the Cosina Voigtlander
Bessa R, R2, R2S, and R2C, use a well defined rectangular RF image patch
with sharply defined edges.
This 2nd type of RF is more expensive to make and requires greater
precision, which is the reason not all RF cameras use it. The Leica M3
was the first 35 RF to use this type of RF image, so far as I know.
The interesting thing about this type of RF image, is that the strongly
defined top and bottom edges allow the shooter to focus by the SPLIT
IMAGE (by comparing the interior of the RF patch to the edges), instead
of only the COINCIDENT method of bringing the two images together --
which is the only choice you have with the other RF patch type.
WHY use split image? According to an article by Modern Photography,
when testing the Minolta CLE in 1980 if I recall correctly, Modern
estimated that the human eye was able to focus the split image RF up to
five times more accurately than the coincident RF.
obviously split image RF will not work with all subjects, but when it
will, and you are using a RF which that capability, your focusing may
not only be faster, but more accurate.
Stephen
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003
From: Stephen Gandy LeicaNikon@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] Making the most of your RF Patch
the Modern Photography reference in the Minolta CLE test in June 1981 is very
brief -- just a "five fold" increase in accuracy
more details are in the November 1973 test of the Leica CL, which says "it's
a well known optical fact of life that a split-image rangefinder of a given
base length can be focused with about five times the precision of a
superimposed image type (due to the discrimination characteristics of the
human eye)."
no further details are given.
it stuck in my mind because to me its important, and I have not seen that
info elsewhere.
Stephen
Dante Stella wrote:
> Stephen:
>
> Could you tell me what month that was in 1980?
>
> I am interested in seeing what Modern's assumptions, methods and actual
> conclusions were.
>
> I am particularly interested in what they mean by "accuracy"
> (especially within the context of a 35mm CoC) and how Modern concluded
> that the human eye is better at point-distance discrimination than it
> is at contrast comparisons (this second point seems to be counter to
> what I understand about human visual perception).
>
> Thanks
> Dante
>
> Stephen Gandy wrote:
>
> >
> > most rangefinder cameras have a central (usually round) RF image with
> > very indistinctly defined edges. bringing the RF images together
> > focuses the lens. roughly 95% of all camera rangefinders use this type
> > of RF image focusing patch
> >
> > Some rangefinders, such as the Leica M's and the Cosina Voigtlander
> > Bessa R, R2, R2S, and R2C, use a well defined rectangular RF image
> > patch
> > with sharply defined edges.\ >
> > This 2nd type of RF is more expensive to make and requires greater
> > precision, which is the reason not all RF cameras use it. The Leica M3
> > was the first 35 RF to use this type of RF image, so far as I know.
> >
> > The interesting thing about this type of RF image, is that the strongly
> > defined top and bottom edges allow the shooter to focus by the SPLIT
> > IMAGE (by comparing the interior of the RF patch to the edges), instead
> > of only the COINCIDENT method of bringing the two images together --
> > which is the only choice you have with the other RF patch type.
> >
> > WHY use split image? According to an article by Modern Photography,
> > when testing the Minolta CLE in 1980 if I recall correctly, Modern
> > estimated that the human eye was able to focus the split image RF up to
> > five times more accurately than the coincident RF.
> >
> > obviously split image RF will not work with all subjects, but when it
> > will, and you are using a RF which that capability, your focusing may
> > not only be faster, but more accurate.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> Dante Stella
> http://www.dantestella.com
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003
From: "Pat Perez" patdperez@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] Making the most of your RF Patch
I believe the reason for the improved performance of split image focusing is
called the 'vernier' effect. In senescence, it is easier to discriminate the
change in edge characteristics to a finer degree than one could resolve
without the two pieces joining together. Put another way, although our sense
of touch can't discriminate something .01", it can notice a change of that
size when compared to a perfectly flat surface.
Pat
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren@bayarea.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] screens ...
Jim and I had lunch on Friday. I dragged along my 500CM with the
Maxwell screen and he his 203 with the Acutte Matte to compare them
side by side. I think we both agreed that they are very close in
quality, but the Maxwell screen is a hair contrastier. I tried it with
Jim's 40mm lens mounted on my camera as well (I only have an 80/2.8 at
present for the 500CM): it proves easy to focus even a super-wide angle
with no focusing aids using the Maxwell screen, a hair easier than with
the Acute Matte D for my eyes.
Now, if I can get Bill Maxwell to craft one up and fit it to the SWC903
GG back, I'll be all set.
Godfrey
From: Henry Posner [henryp@bhphotovideo.com]
Sent: Thu 3/13/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: H1 Vs Contax
you wrote:
> > I regard a bright view finder as something of the most important asset
> > when being able to photograph sharp pictures.
>
>I absolutely agree. I've always bought an aftermarket screen if there was a
>brighter (as in better) one available.
Unfortunately brighter often does NOT mean better. The human eye relies on
contrast to determine sharpness and too many aftermarket screens achieve
greater brightness specifically by sacrificing contrast, rendering the
finder image brighter but nothing resembling "better."
-- -
regards,
Henry Posner
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
From: Alan Browne alan.browne@videotron.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Color vision - 1 of 7 of you is colorblind - TEST
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003
It gets tougher as you go. Will make a difference to your phtography.
http://www.snarkfish.net/media/flash/vision_test.swf
Cheers,
Alan
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Focus Mysteries :)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003
Leonard Evens wrote:
> I've done a lot of experimentation with what happens when I focus wide
> open, and I haven't noticed that, but I will give it a try, perhaps
> today or tomorrow if I can get some sunlight. If it does happen, I
> wonder what the mechanism could be. In my case, the image is on a
> Maxwell screen and the lines are on the glass cover. So there could be
> a very slight parallax effect, although I don't see why it should be
> affected by whether or not the image is in focus.
What John is describing is well-known parallax focussing technique.
The image of the lens should be put in the same plane as the film will be,
n'est ce pas? ;-)
And to determine where that will be, we put a ground- or clear glass surface
behind the lens, with reference marks on the one side that is at exactly the
same distance from the lens as the film will be.
Once the image (an object in itself, i.e. something that is located in
space) of that part of the scene we want to be in focus, it is in the same
plane as the reference marks, and moving our eyes laterally will not be able
to change perspective and separate the two. Should the two not be in the
same plane, they will appear to move relative to one another when the eye is
moved laterally, just like any other two things situated at different
distances to the eye.
This is the only way to focus when using clear glass screens, often used in
photomacro- and photomicrography.
Very useful too when using dim lenses.
From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 30 Mar 2003
Subject: Re: Soft photos with TLRs
I have been amazed at the number of 6x6cm SLRs and 6x6cm TLRs
which I have examined where the viewing screen was givng an out of focus image
compared to what the film aperture was receiving.
6x6cm SLRs usually require the viewing screen to be moved critically up or
down. 6x6cm TLRs usually require the viewing lens to be refocused
to the point where it gives a crisp/sharp image at infinity when the
taking lens is doing that on the film.
6x6cm TLRs can usually require adjustment of the focusing knob (if that is the
design of the camera) as well as the viewfinder lens.
The more complex TLR designs with geared lenses or lever focusing
(Autocord, Reflekta, Ricoh) can be more difficult to adjust.
I once examined about 30 Seagull TLR cameras from a distributor
and most had the viewing screen image out of focus with with
the film image. I took the best of these cameras and mine is still slightly out
of alignment - waiting for some spare time to align it and test the camera.
I still advise TLR users to get a good classic Rolleiflex - they are the best.
- Sam Sherman
[Ed. note: a useful tip on brighter TLR screens ;-)]
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003
To: Russiancamera-user russiancamera-user@mail.beststuff.com
From: nicha kapetanikolas@hotmail.com
Subject: [Russiancamera] how a Lubitel can be useful
Well, maybe you think Lubitel is a cheap bakelite camera but, I just got my
hands on one last weekend in a flea market, and i bought if for almost
nothing. This is how this broken plastic camera became useful:
1; the mirror was used to revitalise my 1934 Art Deco Rolleicord who
suffered from de-silvering mirror and now is perfect again (and one of the
most beautiful cameras that I have seen).
2: It is the only TLR that I have seen that has a frensel lens. Having used
mainly Rolleis, the Lubitel is a very pleasant surprise, since it is at
least 100% more bright to look through. Remove the frensel lens and throw it
on the focusing screen of your old Rollei and you will see a 50% brighter
image in the area covered by the lens. A very nice solution , especially
since the bright rollei TLR screens are very expensive and the Rolleigrid
accessory impossible to find.
The Lubitel, even a broken one, might be useful , after all.
Nikos
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aerial Focusing
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003
GP wrote:
> > So you focus on your mark with your loupe, then focus on the aerial image at
> > the same time, is that right? Just trying to visualize this process.
>
> Assuming the ground surface of the GG faces the lens in your camera and
> assuming you will be removing your GG and installing a piece of clear glass:
> make a pencil mark on the clear piece of glass, install this glass with the
> mark facing th elens, rest the loupe on the side that faces you, focus the
> loupe on the pencil mark, now your loupe is focused and ready to be used to
> focus on the aerial image, you can erase the mark if you want.
Better not.
The easiest, and acurate way to focus on the aerial image is to use the
parallax technique. If focus and mark are in the same plane, they will not
move in respect to each other when the eye is moved laterally. When the
image of the subject and the mark are not in the same plane, they will.
Erasing the mark would mean relying on your eye not accomodating when using
the loupe. It will, though, focussing a bit in front of and/or behind the
plane the loupe is supposed to render sharp. Not quite as accurate.
From: "GP" gp@gp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aerial Focusing
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003
"David Nebenzahl" nobody@but.us.chickens wrote
> GP spake thus:
> So you focus on your mark with your loupe, then focus on the aerial image at
> the same time, is that right? Just trying to visualize this process.
Assuming the ground surface of the GG faces the lens in your camera and
assuming you will be removing your GG and installing a piece of clear glass:
make a pencil mark on the clear piece of glass, install this glass with the
mark facing th elens, rest the loupe on the side that faces you, focus the
loupe on the pencil mark, now your loupe is focused and ready to be used to
focus on the aerial image, you can erase the mark if you want.
Guillermo
From: "GP" gp@gp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aerial Focusing
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003
...
> This sounds intriguing; but I thought that in order to focus on the aerial
> image, you have to be at the focal plane (for instance, in the example you
> gave of focusing an enlarger, one focuses on the image plane at the
surface of
> the paper).
Exactly. In this case the "surface of the paper" is the side of the glass
where the ground surface would be.
>Wouldn't you need to compensate for the thickness of the glass in
> this case?
You first have to focus your loupe magnifier on the "surface of the paper"
(figuratively speaking) by making a mark with a pencil, non-permanent
marker, etc. The glass, BTW, is only needed to make it easy to position the
loupe focusing point on the film plane, if you were able to position it on
the imaginary film plane w/o the use of the glass, you wouldn't need the
glass at all.
Give it a try, you'll be surpriced how much easier it is to focus on the
aerial image, you'll be seeing exactly what the film would see.
Guillermo
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Ground glass..replacements are COARSE!
Date: 1 May 2003
Jim Waggener jimw@visi.net wrote:
>I thought I may brighten the image with new GG...wrong!
>The old glass on my Kodak Master View is *much* finer than the new. Focusing
>is measurably easier with the old glass. Another waste of money buying a new
>one.
The old glass was probably acid-etched; the new glass is probably actually
real ground glass. Acid-etched glass should not be too hard to find, or
you could consider one of the various types of "bright screens" that are
around (I am pretty happy with the Beattie Intenscreen on my Wisner).
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aerial Focusing
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003
"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote
> GP wrote:
>
> > > So you focus on your mark with your loupe, then focus on the aerial image at
> > > the same time, is that right? Just trying to visualize this process.
> >
> > Assuming the ground surface of the GG faces the lens in your camera and
> > assuming you will be removing your GG and installing a piece of clear glass:
> > make a pencil mark on the clear piece of glass, install this glass with the
> > mark facing th elens, rest the loupe on the side that faces you, focus the
> > loupe on the pencil mark, now your loupe is focused and ready to be used to
> > focus on the aerial image, you can erase the mark if you want.
>
> Better not.
> The easiest, and acurate way to focus on the aerial image is to use the
> parallax technique. If focus and mark are in the same plane, they will not
> move in respect to each other when the eye is moved laterally. When the
> image of the subject and the mark are not in the same plane, they will.
>
> Erasing the mark would mean relying on your eye not accomodating when using
> the loupe. It will, though, focussing a bit in front of and/or behind the
> plane the loupe is supposed to render sharp. Not quite as accurate.
You need the mark to indicate where to look for the
parallax. Its the reference target for the system when using
aerial image focussing. The method is to make a clear spot
on the ground glass with a little removable grease or with a
drop of Canada Balsam for a more permanent spot (but still
removable with solvent). Make a pencil at the center of the
spot. This is both to set the focus of the eye and also to
give a mark for adjusting for zero movement of the image
when you move your head. This is a _very_ accurate method of
focussing.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Austin Franklin [darkroom@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Mon 6/2/2003
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad AcuteMatte D screens for $39...
If you go to:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com
click on "products", then "products" then "Clearance Corner", on the bottom
there is a link for "Acute-Matte D Screen"...click it, and you'll find the
42204 AcuteMatte D screen for $39. I bought one, and it's perfect. They
said they have plenty...
So, if you don't have an AcuteMatte, there's no excuse now to not get one,
as the price is certainly right ;-)
Regards,
Austin
From: xtol7@yahoo.com (Barry S.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Screens
Date: 8 May 2003
Chris-- Your acute-matte screen is not ruined--you just got a bit of
water between the ground glass and fresnel halves of the screen. If
you carefully remove the two halves from the metal frame--did I
mention carefully--you can separate the two pieces, rinse them in
distilled water, let them dry overnight, and replace them in the
frame. Be sure to remember the correct orienation of all the pieces.
Barry S.
> I replaced the screen on my 500cm with an Acute-matte screen - however when
> taking a photograph in the rain a drop or two fell on the screen and somehow
> a little moisture got on the underside of the screen consequently ruining
> it. This doesn't happen with the old glass screens.
>
> I'm wondering if any of the 3rd party bright screens available don't have
> this problem?
>
> - Chris
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Aerial Focusing
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003
"J Stafford" john@stafford.net wrote
> Not aerial photography.
>
> Off the GG subject, and back to focusing again. Many posts ago we brought
> up the technique of moving one's lupe a couple millimeters to see if the
> GG image shifted which indicates out-of-focus. (Thanks to Ralf, I think,
> for naming this effect and technique.)
> Now: can one use aerial focusing instead of the GG? If one can, then how?
> Or is aerial focusing not accurate regardless?
Aerial image focussing is quite accurate. For ground glass
you need a relatively clear area and a focusing target. The
target is simply a pencil mark on the image (ground) side of
the glass. The clear area can be a small spot of Vaseline
or, for a more permanent spot, a bit of Canada Balsam. Focus
your magnifier on the pencil mark and adjust the focus. For
very precise focus move the magnifier (and your eye of
course) from side to side. When in exact focus the image
will not move with relation to the reference mark. The
familiar split-prism focusser found on many 35mm SLR cameras
works on the same principle.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: Rich Shepard rshepard@salmo.appl-ecosys.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Considering Bronica S2A or EC Model
Date: 29 Apr 2003
Norman Worth wrote:
> For someone with glasses, the prism viewfinder is not good. It is dim,
> and you can't see the entire field.
He-he-he! I forgot about that. I wear contact lenses and the first time I
put the prism finder on so I could shoot over a stone wall I couldn't see
_anything_ in focus. That's because I cannot foxus that close without
reading glasses, but then I cannot see through the opening.
But, I got lucky. One of the members of the local fine art photography
group is a retired optical designer and a photographer of long standing. He
also has a great collection of lenses of various sizes and powers. So, one
Saturday afternoon I drove over there and by trial-and-error we found a lens
of the proper magnification -- for me, not for him -- that was only a
millimeter too small in diameter. My friend put a piece of acrylic rod in
his lathe and turned a retaining collar for the lens. Now I can focus on the
view screen just fine and the finder is really handy when I need to have the
camera up high to clear an obstruction in front of me.
Rich
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: GG cut corners?
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003
"Jim Waggener" jimw@visi.net wrote
> On a second note, I replaced the GG on my 4x5 with a new one.
> Inspite of cleaning the old one the new GG is measurably brighter.
Snipping.....
The grain of the glass can make a difference. Coarse GG
tends to have an exagerated hot spot in line with the lens
and to look dim overall. A finer grain diffuses the light
more and can look brighter overall although it is actually
dimmer at the center.
Some very old cameras came with rather coarse glass.
Cameras made from perhaps 1940 or a bit earlier are likely
to have fine grain glass, although my Agfa 5x7 view camera
has rather coarse glass in it.
Fine grain round glass is available at reasonable cost
and is not difficult to make. As Jim discovered, it can make
a significant difference.
Ground glass which has become coated with greasy dirt can
look very dim. The cure is washing it in dishwashing
detergent and water.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003
From: "Roger Provins" roger@provins.org.uk
Subject: Re: Corrective eyepieces
For several years I have bought cheap "reading" glasses from markets for a
pound or two (in the UK) and cut from the plastic lenses a piece to exactly
fit into the eyepiece of the camera. Depending on the type camera these can
usually be made a "snap" fit and will stay securely in place yet be easily
removable. Rectangular ones are easily and quickly made with a fine saw and
a miniature file. Circular ones are a little more demanding. I've fitted
these to most of my small collection of early SLRs and rangefinders. In the
few cases where it has not been possible to fit the correction lens within
the eyepiece I've found or made up a short tube to fit over the eyepiece
surround and fitted my lens in that.
Roger
From: Graham Patterson g.a.patterson@removethis.btinternet.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: pre-visualizing focal lengths without a lens...
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003
You already have the framing tool in the sports finder on the
camera which can handle everything from 65mm on up. You could add
a clear 'mask' with all the framing lines you need. The
dimensions are at
http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/mfaq/m_faq.html under
the waist-level finder section.
Even if the idea of detaching the finder does not appeal, the
dimensions are right for making a viewer.
With experience you soon learn the coverage and distance equation
for each lens.
Graham
From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003
From: "mank_s" mank_s@yahoo.com
Subject: Hassy Screen really better?
Folks!
Recently Mike took my ailing Salyut for an upgrade to Kiev.
It came back in excellent condition .. Cloth shutter and MLU with
new focus screen (same as 88cm).
I also own another 88 body with Hassy Acute Matte D Screen ($39 sale
item from Hasselblad!).
After compraing both the screens .. I was shocked to find that Salyut
screen was as good (or may be a bit brighter in outer area?) than
Hassy's!
Something I really didn't expect .. infact I was planning to change
Salyut screen with Hassy. Now I won't!
New screen is very easy to focus using the split image as well as
the area near the split prism. This outer rim is well designed with
cross hatches and you can easily see the image going in and out of
focus.
I checked specially in low light condition and for macro shots (to
check focus accuracy).
Hassy screen is useful where the split prism comes in the way (tele
f5.6 lenses, macro)
.. but thats draw back of all central prism screens.
Actually .. it would be great if screens can be changed as easily as
backs! this way you can use the screen that suits best to the
situation. Does any camera allow that?
Thanks
- Mandar
From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Another new expensive techie-toy suggestion!
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003
"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl wrote:
> Lunaray wrote:
> > I just had a brilliant idea! What about a device that you can screw into
> > your viewfinder that will convert & send the viewfinder image to a LCD, cool
> > huh? I'm thinking that it would be on a short cable (viewfinder attachment
> > on one end and the display at the other end) so you could hold the display
> > in your hand. Whad'ya think gang, we could use another $500+ toy couldn't
> > we? :-)
>
> These things have been "invented", and rejected, a long time ago (think the
> early days of consumer video) already.
> Apparently, if we indeed "could use" another toy, this one isn't it.
Exactly; Rollei had the "V-finder" available for a while, which could
switch the image between an eyepiece and a videocamera. It was also
available with Hasselblad-mount. it has been discontinued, and is now a
collector's item because it's so rare.
picture: (bottom of page)
http://www.sl66.com/slx/acc_finders.htm
;-)
Lourens
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003
From: Kevin Kalsbeek krkk@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] FED-2 accessory finders
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Hi Ian,
> You've got me questioning my sanity. I'm travelling light and have only my
> FED-2(e) along on this trip, so I'm not able to repeat the experiment. I
> pretty distinctly remember trying my 35mm and 85mm dedicated finders, plus
> turret finder on my two earlier FED-2's, a (b) and a (c)variant
> respectively. Both fixed finders are of standard Rostov origin, one from
> 1969 and the other from 1975 according to their little factory "tickets".
> Same story with turret finder (a KMZ, if I remember correctly).
That's ok, you are not the only one questioning sanity- I am too. I do
not recall hearing any complaints such as this, though i think there
were some with the fixed finders. As I say, I use the KMZ turret
finders- I have several, and they work well with my glasses, so...B^)
> The finders slide into the shoes ok, but they come up against the top plate.
> They hit the proverbial brick wall. I remember thinking that I should try to
> find an old Rowi cold-to-hot shoe adapter to give me the extra height
> required.
The Rowi adapter will solve the problem, but may make the parallax
problems worse. As I recall, mine adapter is quite high, and may not be
a Rowi- frankly I cannot remember.
> I did a very crude test just now using some folded paper to establish the
> gap between the bottom of the 35mm finder and the top plate of my 2(e) and
> then comparing that thickness to the height of the riser under the shoe.
> This test was inconclusive - too close to call (folding paper is an inexact
> science).
yeah, paper isn't wonderful. It may be that you have an odd variant that
most of us have not run across. It is possible that one of their draw
dies was screwed up and they did catch it soon enough, and some got out??
> I certainly don't doubt what you're telling me, but I can't imagine how I
> would have come to this conclusion except by trying it out myself. I went
> back to Jim Blazik's site and re-read what he has to say about the shoe
> riser. I'll trust fzorki not to sue me for re-printing without his permission:
>
> "... Why the change? That depends on who you ask and the configuration and
> design of certain of the accessories that might be used. Raising a flash
> unit by a matter of a few milimeters may make little practical difference in
> its function, but raising certain of the accessory finders --either the
> multi-finder or a dedicated 35mm or 85mm (etc.) finder-- does indeed make a
> difference."
>
> found here: http://www.geocities.com/fzorkis/fed2_11.html
Yes, Jim is referring to the step formed into the top plate to raise the
shoe.
> But what difference does it make? Parallax error? I eyeball the riser at
> about 2mm, not more. That's much less than the difference in viewfinder/lens
> distance between a FED-2 and a FED 5. Yet I'm sure that parallax error of
> that magnitude is not a serious issue for most general photography.
Yes, parallax error, but there is SOOO much difference in shoe height
from the lens centerline that the finders have to be tested to a given
camera. The most problem will occur at minimum focus distance, which I
rarely use.
>
> I hope some other FED devotees will read this, and report back their
> findings. As I said Kevin, I don't doubt you for a minute, but this is a
> real puzzle for me. Like as not I'll end up eating my hat :(
Like I say, you just may have a 'weird' one. I did a test with 3 turret
finders on a lot of cameras, and can e-mail you the test result document
if you like.
As it stands, both of us are puzzled!! B^)
FWIW, when using the accessory finders, I do not frame tightly, as it is
easy to have problem with cutting something you want to keep off. I
frame a bit 'loosely' and have no problems. I just correct thing when I
make a print. Some people insist on framing tightly, but I think this is
unwise.
The test document mentioned has the test method used, explained, and
contains approximate corrections for a given height of shoe.
Best wishes,
Kevin
From: "David Ruether" rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Identifying AF or AI-S Nikkors ...
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004
"Christopher Loffredo" Speleo_karstNeuter_Spammers@yahoo.com
> Matt Clara wrote:
> > I've had them for 4 years now and only just this year bought a camera that
> > autofocus' worth a damn (F100). Even with the f100, when focus needs to be
> > achieved quickly, I don't mess around with autofocus as you can't trust it
> > to focus on exactly what you want it to.
> So what the **** is the point of autofocus????
Good question!!! ;-)
If it were not for the loss of sharp vision in the center
of my "camera" eye, I would not ever use it - a good
matte viewing screen in a camera with good VF optics
is both easier and faster to use than AF most of the time,
and, I think, generally more accurate - and it does not
force "center of view" focus (yuh, you can switch AF
focus to *specific* alternative points in the field in some
cameras, but this is not a fast, intuitive operation the
way off-center MF focus can be), which introduces
rotational errors in focus with short FL lenses when the
focus point and framing-placement of that point are different.
Fortunately the reasonably-good-at-acceptably-fast-AF
F100 arrived in time for me - the earlier versions of AF were
inadequate. I think the buying public is sold a lot of features
in photo gear that are unnecessary or even disadvantageous
(compact VF systems have linear distortion and soft edges,
light weight gear makes steady shooting harder, incremental
exposure-control shifts makes exact exposure control
impossible, etc.), but that is the nature of marketing...;-)
Newer is not necessarily better, though!
--
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From kiev88 mailing list:
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004
From: Stephe Thayer kievgurl@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Re: Hasselblad screens in kievs
> How much does a Maxwell screen cost?
Depends on the screen. Also he sometimes has
"seconds" which from my experience with them (I bought
about 2 dozen a few months ago for kievforum members),
the defects can't be seen once they are installed in a
camera and these seconds cost me about $80 a piece.
Stephe
From: "Peter St"cklein" ps_nospam@onlinehome.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zoom viewfinder for 6 X 7
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004
"Alan Hogg" alan.hogg@waikato.ac.nz schrieb ...
> Hi there,
>
> I use a Mamiya 7, with various lenses ranging from 50mm to 150 mm.
>
> Does anyone know of a zoom rangefinder that might cover these focal
> lengths for 6 X 7?
>
> It would be very handy for landscape work.
Linhof builds zoom finders for 4x5" in the range 75mm to 360mm
(http://www.linhof.de/english/index.html --> Cameras --> Master Technika
classic --> part no. 001447 or on top of the camera at
http://www.linhof.de/english/images/kameras/big/MASTER-TECHNIKA_big.jpg).
There are older versions some with 90mm to 360mm and versions for
6x9cm/6x7cm Super Technikas. The finder is adapted to other formats by
stuck-on masks. They fit on the Technika hot shoe (maybe on other cameras?).
For your purpose it would be better to use the original form factor 4:5 and
to override the original scale. (75 * (2 3/4 divided by 5) gives roughly
41mm and 360 * 0.55 = 200)
The disadvantages, the parallax compensation is build for the higher
position on Technikas and the tremendous price.
regards peter
From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: homebrew AF confirmation for non-AF kits? Re: AF mf camera
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004
Neil Gould wrote:
>
> Recently, Bob Monaghan rmonagha@engr.smu.edu posted:
> >
> > according to one source, the AF module splits light at two angles
> > onto two contrast sensors which go to a comparator. As you bring the
> > image into focus by manually focusing the lens, the differences
> > become smaller until they are minimal and you get an in-focus
> > indication. You could go to an LED set to detect the null point of
> > "in-focus", or use a small analog meter or whatever you prefer ;-)
> > Depending on the sensor size and design, you could mount it at/under
> > the ground glass screen or prism and supply power and wiring to the
> > indicator setup. They did something like this to the pentax ME-F. The
> > trick is going to be getting info on the AF sensor and a repair parts
> > source for it ;-)
> >
> This project would present some interesting challenges, anyway. I can
> imagine a finder with a hinged, angled sensor platform that would move in
> a similar way to the eye-level sports finder on Rollei TLRs.
>
> It would probably be cheaper to buy an AF camera than try to make this
> work right, but what fun would that be? ;-)
>
> Neil
How about an accessory rangefinder?
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/finders.html
http://www.erikfiss.com/foto/cams/voigtrf/e.html
Maybe the easiest way to get one would be to rip it off an old Polaroid
pack camera, but then the scale would have to be calibrated somehow.
-- Lassi
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004
From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Focusing your camera
Robert Feinman wrote:
> Perhaps, a dumb question, but how do you focus your view
> camera?
> I use about a 3x loupe hanging on a string around
> my neck. I need one hand to hold the loupe to the groundglass,
> one hand to keep the dark cloth from slipping, one hand to
> move the focus knob and one hand to turn the lock before
> everything shifts.
> I've also tried a clipon magnifier used by watchmakers.
> This eliminates holding the loupe, but as I move my head
> the groundglass goes out of focus.
>
I use the focus spread method described at
www.largeformatphotography.info. I focus on the nearest point I want in
focus, note the position of the standard, focus on the furthest point,
and do the same. I then set the standard halfway in between, look at
the image on the gg and make adjustments if I feel they are appropriate.
I got myself some +5 diopter glasses which allow me to get within seven
inches of the gg. When focusing on near and far point, I try to err if
possible in opposite directions, so when setting the standard in the
middle, the errors cancel. I sometimes focus several times and notice
how much variation there is in the position of the standard, and choose
an average position. (This is aided by the scale I put on my focusing
knob which magnifies movements along the rail. See my essay at
www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/dof_essay.pdf)
The glasses provide only about 2 X magnification, but that usually
suffices for typical scenes in which I want quite a lot of DOF, and
getting the exact plane of focus just right is not critical. If I need
to focus more critically than that, I use a 3.6 X loupe (occasionally a
7 X loupe), and I have essentially all the same problems you have.
Usually I use a dark T-shirt as a dark cloth which hangs on the rear
standard at the neck, and I don't have to hold that once my head is
inside it. When I use a genuine dark cloth, I hold it in place with
velcro I attached to it. I focus as best I can with one hand holding
the loupe and the other the focusing knob, tighten down and check to see
if the focus held. If not I adjust it. A few iterations of this may be
necessary.
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004
From: Jim Williams jimwilliams1@cox.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] RF tech question
marcus wrote:
> How come most rangefinders have the fuzzy edged RF
> spot compared to Leica and Cosina which have the super
> bright straight edged spot? Is it a much more complex
> accomplishment or what?
Yes, it's much more complex. The recipe:
-- For a basic rangefinder optical system (no viewfinder) all you need
is a fixed, diagonal semitransparent mirror (aka beamsplitter) and a
pivoted fully reflecting mirror (or prism.)
-- For a basic viewfinder (of the usual 'inverted telescope' type) all
you need is a negative lens at the front, to 'minify' the view so it
corresponds with the angle of view of the lens, and a positive lens at
the back to help focus your eye on the image from the negative lens.
(If you didn't mind the camera being 10 or 12 inches thick, you could
dispense with the positive lens entirely, and just have a peep sight to
line up your eye correctly behind the negative lens.)
-- To combine these, all you have to do is stick the beamsplitter
between the negative and positive lenses. Then, to make the rangefinder
image and the viewfinder image focus in your eye at the same distance,
you add another negative lens of the same power somewhere between the
beamsplitter and the rangefinder image. (Sometimes it's in front of the
rangefinder mirror, sometimes it sits crossways in the middle of the
light path -- doesn't matter as long as the viewfinder image and the
rangefinder image have the same total diopter.)
Now you've got the traditional "fuzzy spot" range/viewfinder. The edges
of the RF spot are fuzzy because the edges of the RF window are much
closer to your eye than the apparent distance of the actual viewfinder
and rangefinder images -- so, your eye can't focus on both the edges of
the spot and the actual image at the same time. That's not aesthetic,
but it does make it possible to design a very effective
range/viewfinder without a lot of parts and delicate adjustments.
Now, though, think what happens if you want the viewfinder image, the
rangefinder image, AND the rangefinder patch edge all to come to focus
at the same distance to your eye. Now you've got to have the negative
lens at the front, as before; the positive lens at the back, for the
eyepiece; the extra negative lens to bring the rangefinder image to the
same focus; PLUS a mask for the rangefinder image, to define the sharp
edge, and an additional lens with a hole in it, so it focuses the mask
image WITHOUT affecting the focus of the rangefinder image passing
through it. Again, the trick is to make all the total diopters add up
-- but now you've got to balance three numbers (viewfinder image,
rangefinder image, rangefinder mask) instead of just two.
Add in a parallax-compensated projected frameline, and now you've got a
FOURTH thing to focus, so now you need an extra mirror (to reflect the
framelines into the viewfinder path) and an extra lens (to bring them
to the same plane of focus as everything else.) For an even higher
degree-of-difficulty rating, add a meter readout into the mix!
Of course there are lots of variations on these themes. For example,
Canon's switchable-magnification finders put the whole rangefinder
optic system, including the beamsplitter, in FRONT of the negative lens
for the viewfinder; they pulled off this trick by using a beamsplitter
that was semitransparent only in the middle, for the rangefinder spot,
and clear around the edges. Doing it this way let them switch
viewfinder magnifications (via a rotating optical box) without having
to switch rangefinder magnifications at the same time -- since the
rangefinder was out front, it didn't care what was happening behind it.
But if you look at the basic problem -- bringing objects at different
distances to the SAME focus in your eye -- you can see that the more
things you're trying to focus, the more lenses you need and the
trickier it is to design the system. That's one reason high-end RFs are
more expensive than SLRs with the same mechanical specs!
From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Replacing focusing screen Flexaret VI
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003
Winfried Buechsenschuetz wrote:
> stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote
>
>> Measure the old one and get Bill Maxwell to make one for it? Might be the
>> same size as a rollei TLR?
> Very probably not, since most of the older TLRs just look similar to a
> Rolleiflex, but the internals are different. The only camera I have
> heard of which have exactly the same focus screen mount as the
> Rolleiflex are the Yashica TLRs.
My tower TLR was the exact same size as my rolleicord and so is a
minoltacord..
--
Stacey
From: stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Brightscreen comments?
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003
R.W. Behan wrote:
>>
> Yes, Stacey, I'd like some details, too.
Well for one thing, he will make the screen to the focal length that matches
your uses. Like mostly wide lenses with a WLF or tele lenses with a prism.
Everyone else makes one screen, what is it optimized for? It's anyones
guess as the people selling them know nothing about focus screen design. He
will also make it with a split image, micro prism or whatever focus aide
combo you want or nothing but grid lines etc. Also the frenel lens etching
process he uses is invisible in use unlike most of the others where the
circular lines are very obvious, espcially if used with a magnifier.
> I checked on the Maxwell, and
> found the chap who makes them to be slow and distracted, often taking
> months to get a job done.
If you're in a big hurry, buy the inferiour product. I've had normal type
and sizes of screen shipped quickly, special orders do take some time. Are
you speaking from personal experience from buying his products?
> Given that, is the Brightscreen good ENOUGH,
The factory screen is "good ENOUGH". :-)
I've used "brightsreens", 'blad acutemat-D, rollei's newest, beattie etc and
none are even close to the performance of a Maxwell. Most get SUPER dim
when used in DOF preview mode (darker than a piece of ground glass would be
stopped down) and also get weird dark splotches across the screen when used
with short lenses and a WLF. The others while bright have MUCH lower
contrast and are MUCH harder to focus with than even a stock screen. The
only screen I've used that is even close in performance are the latest
acutemat-D screens made by minolta for hassleblad, which seem to be
optimised for use with a prism and longer lenses.
I'd be more interested in getting the best I can find as 6 months from now
you'll still be fighting with a crap screen you got shipped to you in a
couple of days...
Bill knows everything there is to know about focus screens and be ready if
you call as he WILL explain it all to you even if you aren't interested
;-)
--
Stacey
From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What's Your Focusing Technique???????
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003
"Dr. Slick" radio913@aol.com wrote ...
> Hey folks,
>
> The seller for my Crown Graphic said that one should
> focus at the largest aperture, or narrowest DOF, and then
> set the aperture to where you need it for the shot.
>
> This makes perfect sense, as stopping down will only
> increase DOF, so you might as well use the pickiest aperture.
>
> But as i was taking shots at f22 tonight, i was focusing
> at f22, and not f4.7, all while using an 8x loupe on the fresnel.
> This was more difficult, or course, and i really need the hood then,
> but i thought that at least once or twice when i opened up the
> aperture to see if the optimum focusing points were the same for f4.7
> as it was for f22, they seemed to be a bit off. Then i did it a few
> more times, and they seemed very close.
>
> Is it possible some strange combination of coma and diffraction
> effects might make the best focal points for the two aperture sizes
> different?
>
> Or am i being paranoid, and the correct way is focusing at the
> largest aperture, and then stopping down, using a loupe?
>
> Thanks for your time.
> Slick
There is an effect known as "focus-shift" when a lens has
excessive zonal spherical aberration. This causes the visual
focus to seem to move toward the lens as it is stopped down.
Some lenses, notably Dagors and releated meniscus types,
have considerable zonal spherical, but other lenses can be
well corrected for it. If the lens on your camera is a Kodak
Ektar it will have virtually no zonal. The only other common
lens for Graphics of this speed is the Schneider Xenar,
which should also be free of zonal. Good correction for
zonal spherical aberration is a necessity for lenses on
rangefinder cameras.
However, there are some other effects which may be causing
the focus shift. Most people focus for maximum image
contrast. Where a lens has any kind of spherical aberration
it will tend to make this point change when stopping down
because the spherical is reduced by stoppign down. If you
focus for the smallest dot size the focus may stay the same.
This is a visual effect and different people look for
different things when focusing on a ground glass.
In general, focus should be checked at the working
aperture but for the sort of Tessar type lenses used on
press cameras focus shift should not be a problem.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
[Ed. note: thanks to John for providing this info on unusual viewfinder variations...]
From: John Russo [jvr66@pacific.net.au]
Sent: Mon 5/24/2004
To: Monaghan, Robert
Subject: Unusual Vewfinder Shapes and Angle Finders
Dear Robert,
I enjoy reading your pages, which are quite frankly magnificent, and jam packed with all sorts of information. I am a 35mm SLR
user who started about a year and a half ago. I enjoy my photography despite some problems with my eyes. Because of my eye
situation I wanted try an angle finder.
My camera is a Ricoh KR 5 Super 2. I managed to track down a Ricoh angle finder, only to find that it does not fit.
I was puzzled about this. I found some pictures on the internet of other super 2 viewfinder on the back of the camera. There was it seems
a production variation with super 2 with regards to the viewfinder. I have checked across town here a number of older manual ricoh
cameras, being familiar myself with the various ricoh models that were produced. I found no variation like mine except in another
super 2 (with obviously the same variation).
The angle finder that I have is an original xr ricoh angle finder, which fitted all other ricohs except my super 2 and the other super 2 like
mine that I found in a store. I have found on the internet other super 2 that are standard (i.e. exactly the same) with the rest of the ricoh
manual cameras and would fit the original ricoh xr angle finder.
It was quite a lot of time around town to check this out. There is no mention of the change anywhere on the internet that
I can find (I have extensive net info about ricohs).
Why they made this change I don't know. Maybe they just simply ran out during some production run of what they
regularly used, and asked some other supplier to fill the gap.
The strange thing is, as far as I can tell from all my research, the variation is not a minolta, nikon, pentax, regular ricoh,
fujica or contax/yashica type viewfinder shape. I will have to modify my xr angle finder if I want to use it with my
existing super 2, or find the 'regular' super 2 which it fits. So whose it is, or whether it's nobody's, I don't know
(I would love to know).
What I did discover is that there seems to be a main standard shape such that a minolta, pentax, olympus angle finder in the store
all fitted the older ricohs in the secondhand store. This shape viewfinder on the back of many cameras has a thick lip that is straight
and boxy looking.
The shape on my 'version' super 2 is rectangular, with skinny top and bottom lip, and sides that are curved on the outer side only
of the verticals of the lip (i.e. the inside verticals of the lip are straight).
The only cameras that I have seen with the same viewfinder on the back of the camera is an older manual slr Petri and on a Cosina.
However it is not consistent with other cameras by these brands. It further seems that no petri or cosina angle finders are 'around',
if any were ever made to fit this type of viewfinder shape.
My options are to buy another body with the matching viewfinder shape to the angle finder that I have (which is not what I want to do),
or, as has been suggested to me by a techie, modify the foot on the angle finder to fit my camera. Of course the downside being that I
can only use it with my camera or any other camera that might 'happen' to have that type angle finder.
It will obviously help if I were to send you a pic of the viewfinder to show you what I'm talking about. If you are able to help,
I will send pic to you. I have seen many angle finders out there with all sorts of adapters and notations, such as for example,
Canon type 'C' etc. but there is know way of know whether it fits without buying or seeing them in secondhand stores and
trying them (if they have them!).
Do you know the shape of viewfinder that I am talking about? Do you know who made it and what angle finder would fit it?
Any help appreciated. If not, I understand, as it seems like that you are a busy person with your web pages. Thanks for the fantastic
pages and the work that you have put into them.
Regards, John (in Australia)
From: bobjames27@aol.com (Bob G)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 09 Jul 2004
Subject: Re: Chimney finder for Mamiya RB
>I already have a WLF and the backward image isn't a problem... I'm just
>wondering if there are significant differencies between a standard WLF and a
>chimney finder, at least on a Mamiya RB...
The main difference is that the chimney finder will not let any extraneous
light fall on the groundglass and therefore the view is pristine: a bright,
full color image surrounded by blackness, very stimulating, at least to me.
Also, the chimney finder may offer greater magnification than the standard
waist level finder - I'm not sure what the specs are for the Mamiya RB67.
And, lastly, the chimney finder has an adjustable eyepiece that lets you set
the diopter correction for your particular eyes.
Bob G
From Koni Omega Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Reese
From: JAlmon1054@aol.com
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003
To: koml@koni-omega.org
Subject: [KOML] focusing a koni
Hi Steve...One little trick I learned in trying to focus, especially in low
light. I carry a flashlight with me and if focusing is difficult, put the
lighted flashlight in the scene and focus on the light. Works every time...Jack
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Questions Abound Maxwell Screens
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004
Mike wrote:
>> Maxwell makes "regular" and "wide angle" fresnels.
>
> That's kind of what I was afraid of. If it's necessary to use a wide angle
> Maxwell with a wide angle lens, and another Maxwell with other lenses,
> then I'm not intererested. I just don't want to have to carry around and
> fiddle with two different viewing screens when I know there are
> alternatives that don't require that.
If you use a "wide screen" with longer lenses, it just isn't as bright as a
"long screen" with long lenses. The other way around (using wide lenses on
a long screen) can cause problems, hot spots etc.
> That's interesting. I had the standard Ebony screen on my Ebony (never
> bought the wide angle) and one of my complaints about it was that it
> didn't seem to "pop" into focus very well in comparison to a standard
> ground glass or a BosScreen. If the Maxwell is worse than the Ebony in
> that respect then I think you've answered my questions, thanks.
I found the opposite, it seems to "pop" into focus much better than any
screen I've ever used. The only way you're really going to know it to try
one.
--
Stacey
From: sahamley@netscape.net (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Questions Abound Maxwell Screens
Date: 16 Jun 2004
"Mike" red@ridiinghood.net wrote
> I've used BosScreens on several cameras and liked them, I've used Fresnel
> screens on several cameras and haven't liked them. My principal problems
> with Fresnels have been the difficulty of focusing because of the "grain"
> you see with a loupe and the "bright circle in a dark field" effect when
> using short focal length lenses. However, I keep reading raves about the
> Maxwell screen (which I understand is a Fresnel) and since I'm getting ready
> to replace the Beattie screen in a 4x5 camera I recently purchased I thought
> I'd ask users of that screen: has Maxwell eliminated the "grain" or lines
> seen with other Fresnel screens when focusing with a loupe (i.e. can you
> focus as easily with a Maxwell as you can with a plain ground glass or a
> BosScreen)? Can you use a short focal length lens (say 80mm or shorter) and
> see the entire image on the screen without having to move your head around
> (i.e. does the Maxwell screen eliminate the "bright circle in a dark field"
> effect found with other Fresnels when using a wide angle lens)?
Mike,
Maxwell makes "regular" and "wide angle" fresnels. You can see some
grain or lines, but they are both finer than standard fresnels or
glasses. The Maxwell is also brighter than most standard screens and
glasses.
However, I went back to my standard Ebony screens on my 4x5; I also
have an Ebony wide angle screen mounted in a spare groundglass frame.
My problem with the Maxwell was that while it is everything he says,
finer and brighter, it doesn't "pop" into focus as well as the darker,
grainier Ebony screen, escpecially in low light situations.
Personally, I don't care about the appearance of the GG image; I want
the best focusing aid I can get.
Steve
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [ramarren@bayarea.net]
Sent: Thu 9/11/2003
To: classic35mmcompacts@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: New member - aging eyesight and focusing question
Martin,
Basically, most viewfinders are set up optically, by default, to allow
one's eye to settle on a comfortable focus range, about 18-23 inches I
believe, presuming normal vision, which is pretty similar to the
average viewing distance for most people's computer screen. So if you
are comfortable with your vision and whatever corrective aids you wear
(glasses or contacts) when using the computer, you should be fine for
most viewfinders. The notion of adding corrective eyepieces to camera
viewfinders is an effort to allow use of the camera without the need
for you to wear glasses. This is important for some cameras because of
the inadequacy of their viewfinder optics to handle your eyesight with
respect to eye position (because of glasses, for instance) and for
others because some types of viewfinders require a finer adjustment of
focus to be successful. For instance: in an SLR viewfinder where you
are betting on your ability to determine the precise focus point by
evaluating sharpness.
The best test of whether a viewfinder is properly focussed for your eye
is to simply look through it and see whether the aerial image it
presents is sharp and clear. If it is not, you need a corrective lens
to use it. In a rangefinder viewfinder, I always look at the edges of
the frame or the illuminated framing device (if it has one) to see if
it looks sharp. If so, the image should appear clear. In an SLR
viewfinder, I find the most useful way to evaluate my ability to see
the focusing screen clearly is to look at the focusing aids dividing
lines, like the split image or microprism vs the matte fresnel section,
or perhaps the grid lines if it has them. Once I can see them sharply,
then I know that I'll be able to focus the lens image as well.
Most of these old "classic 35mm compacts" do not take correction
lenses, and most of them do not have any adjustability there ... You
just have to work with what they've got. Some of the better cameras,
like your Oly OM-1, can take corrective lenses, you just have to hunt
down who might have the one you need if you need one.
I recall the Oly OM-1 had a very high magnification screen for its day,
requiring a relatively tight eye position to see the entire screen when
wearing glasses. Modern Leica M rangefinders are the same way .. the
standard .72x optical viewfinder is almost impossible for me to get my
eye close enough to the eye piece with glasses on so as to see the
entire 28mm field of view. My favorites from older cameras are the
Nikon F3hp, which has a prism finder specifically designed to provide a
higher eyepoint. I can see the entire focusing screen at a glance with
them.
Don't fret excessively about this. The viewfinder in a rangefinder
camera is mostly there for approximate framing purposes, as long as you
can see the rangefinder image coincidence clearly enough that's fine.
Godfrey
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003
From: Bob Fowler crazybob2525@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Illuminated magnifiers
...
I also find that the non-illuminated headband
magnifiers works very well for long sessions in studio
with large format cameras. As a bi-focal wearer, I
find that my "normal" glasses are a pain in the butt
when working on the groundglass and that a headband
magnifier is perfect.
=====
Bob Fowler
crazybob2525@yahoo.com
The D screens have two notches on the metal frame.
Peter
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000
From: toby toby@eclipse.net
Subject: Re: Digest Number 250
> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000
> From: "Kelvin" kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
>Subject: Kiev 88 focus
>
>I remember sometime back someone writing about the fact that the screens in
>many Kiev 88 have a different
>focus for the plain part, the collar part and the split-prism. I didn't
>manage to follow that thread to the end.
>
>Can anyone advise which of the three is the correct implement to focus with
>and which is completely out / inaccurate?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Does anyone have ideas how to brighten the screen or replace it?
NJ/USA
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 6006 screen/prism questions
> From: Denton Taylor denton@asan.com
> Reply-To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] 6006 screen/prism questions
>
> Brightscreen makes a replacement screen you might like. Try
> http://www.brightscreen.com/enter.html. Beattie may also make one; not sure.
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: [Leica] Re: Vario-Elmar 80-200 focus problem
>When I set the focus ring on infinity and object 1km away is out of
>alignment in the split image on my R8.
>I need to shift the focus ring back to almost the 15m mark for the split
>image to indicate correct focus. If I rely on the split image for focusing
>all images are sharp so its not a real bit problem just a bit annoying.
>I have two other lenses a Elmarit-R 19mm and the standard Summicron-R 50mm,
>neither of these lenses show this problem.
>I would appreciate some feed back from other owners if this is common to
>their lenses or do I have a problem lens.
>regards
>Bob
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT: Whew, it's over!
> From: Denton Taylor denton@asan.com
> Reply-To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000
> To: contax@photo.cis.to
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT: Whew, it's over!
>
>
> Yeah, in fact the reason we like Zeiss lenses is to recapture that extra
> color sensation we used to get when high on whatever!
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Problems with focussing
> [...]
> In use I find it very difficult to focus. Even the use of the built-in loupe
> doesn't make focussing easier.
> I thought the 501C already had an acumatte-screen which in itself would
> enable easier focussing. The brochure I have of the camera confirms this. I
> have used a medium format camera before with a comparable viewingscreen
> (Mamiya C330 F proff.) with which I had no focussing-problems at all. And my
> eyes are not so bad ..... when I have my contactlenses in!
> [...]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001
From: Tsun Tam tsuntam@bellatlantic.net
Subject: Re: Focussing is a problem
> Therefore I'd like to ask you a few questions:
> 1 - How do you recognise if the screen is acute-matte or not?
> 2 - What is the correct position of the screen (acute-matte or other) in the
> body?
> 3 - Does it help to use a reflexfinder instead of the standard one?
> 4 - What reflexfinder do you recommend combined with a 501C?
> 5 - Is it possible that the screen is not good anymore or have my eyes
> detoriated rapidly in the past few weeks?
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" LHHansen@zi.ku.dk
Subject: Experience with Ikelite's Super Eye Magnifier seeked
--
Lars Holst Hansen - LHHansen@zi.ku.dk
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonRepair
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Re: New Nikon releases
> I just wish it featured a high-eyepoint finder (judging from
>appearances, it doesn't...).
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001
Subject: SV: 500C Focusing Screen Dillema
> Hello there. I'm very thankful I've found this newsgroup. I have an old
> 500c that I bought second hand and I've loved. My problem is with the
> somewhat scratchy focusing screen. I'm in Southern California and I called
> the Leica/Hasselblad repair shop and by the time he got done explaining what
> Ineeded it sounded like it was cheaper to go out and find another body for
> the 500c. Does anyone have an opinion on this? I've seen bodies out there
> from anywhere from 350.00-650.00. Or can anyone recommend a Hasselblad
> repair shop where they will actually replace only the focussing screen at a
> reasonable cost?
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Sincerely,
> Gabe
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: RE: 35mm frame lines & the .85 M6
>I wear glasses as well and have taken to using a diopiter on my M6
>(.72). Started using diopiter with my Pentax kit, which as a built in
>one. When I shoot, I flip my glasses up and my eye is right into the
>viewfinder. Why isn't that an option for some of you other eye glass
>wearers?
>
>Joe Hayes
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001
From: Alex Hurst corkflor@iol.ie
Subject: Uses for the Action Finder
2) Does anyone else out there use one, and in what situations?
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Robert Lilley lilley@eclipse.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] New Rollei User
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Film & Eyes: comparable?
> From: "Alan NAYLOR" alan.naylor@skynet.be
> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Film & Eyes: comparable?
>
> Sorry, but you can't do that comparison. The eye responds to the light
> intensity: Film responds, not just to light intensity, but to the product of
> light intensity and time. ISO numbers strictly apply only to film, or maybe
> can be applied to other things (CCD arrays perhaps) that respond in a
> similar way.
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Film & Eyes: comparable?
> From: muchan muchan@promikra.si
> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Film & Eyes: comparable?
>
> That makes sense, maybe, that when we shoot moving water, 1/60 second
> exposure looks the most natural, that the water captured on film looks
> almost like seen with my eyes... (I don't know they are my eyes that
> is seeing, or they are my brains that is seeing... capturing speed or
> processing speed or combination of both is near 1/60 second? )
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Robert Lilley lilley@eclipse.net
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Maxwell Screen Questions?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001
From: Matthew Phillips mlphilli@hsc.vcu.edu
Subject: [Rollei] Re: horizontal vision, Voigtlander
M.Phillips
>As a zoologist I would argue that broadfield stereoscopic vision is our
>natural way of "looking at things". That's why true panoramic shots are so
>pleasing to our eyes. To me the "normal" 24 x 36 mm (or 6 x 4.5 cm) ratio
>always seems to leave something out on the sides that I remember from when
>I took the picture.
>
>Jan
From: Chris Ellinger ellinger@umich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Can someone send me the web site for Beattie and Accute Matte
> Can someone send me the web site for Beattie, as well as the site for
> the manufacturers of Accute Matte screens?
Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: Re: Beattie Intenscreen or Maxwell Brightscreen?????
From: Kenneth F. Musella kmusella@yahoo.com
[1] Re: Best Kept MF secrets
Date: Fri Mar 23 2001
>One of the largest shocks I have had lately was getting back a roll I had
>loaded into an old Isolette I had lying around. Not on the same level as the
>rollei or the Yashica, but, dang, they are very, very good! I have to get
>the hang of scale focussing, though.
>Isn't there some kind of gadget you can get at the hardware store that
>bounces a signal and tells you how far away you are? since the Isolette and
>the rollei were free.....
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001
From: Doug Brightwell doug@dougbrightwell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 6003 screen
> I have the HiD screen in my 6008i, and would rate it about equal in
> brightness to the Maxwell. Bill will tell you he can't improve on this
> one.
Doug Brightwell
doug@dougbrightwell.com
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001
From: John Hicks jbh@magicnet.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 6003 screen
>My question is how much brighter is the impressively expensive HiD screen?
>Is a Beattie a better bet?
jbh@magicnet.net
Date: 11 Apr 2001
From: Patrick Bartek bartek@pdai.com
Subject: Re: New screen for 500C
> I'm thinking of replacing the original screen on my 500C. The
> options appear to be:
>
> Brightscreen (ProScreen D)
> Hasselblad (Acute Matte D)
> Throwing the 500C away and buying a 500 CM :-)
>
> I'm tending towards the Brightscreen, but someone (a Hassleblad dealer)
> said there would be a problem with accurate focussing due to the
> Prosceen having the wrong thickness. Or something like that.
>
> Any comments?
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@pdai.com
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001
From: Richard Urmonas rurmonas@senet.com.au
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Trouble focussing
> Is there a possibility that changing the screen to a Maxwell might
restore my
> ability to focus? The problem is not brightness, since the F screen
is even
> brighter than the MX_-EVS, which focusses well enough for me.
Richard Urmonas
rurmonas@senet.com.au
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001
From: ARTHURWG@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Trouble focussing
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Trouble focussing
> From: ShadCat11@aol.com
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001
> Subject: Re: Re: [Rollei] Trouble focussing
>
> I followed the advise on optometric consultation and learned that the source
> of my problem is cataracts. They are occuring in both eyes, but are enough
> advanced in my right (focussing) eye to interfere with my ability to focus
> properly. The effect was subtle enough so that I did not suspect this
> possibility. My left eye still sees sharply enough so that I was unaware of
> any problems until my negs started to wander from sharply focussed to not so.
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Re: Brightscreen vs. hasselblad acute matte
>What would you do if you needed to have your hasselblad screen divided
>into thirds then?
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Trouble focussing
>Allen Zak wrote:
>>Although correctable for most purposes, my (near-sighted) eyes are having
>>increased difficulty in focussing my 3.5F, equipped with standard screen.
>>For reasons unknown, I have much less difficulty achieving good focus on an
>>MX-EVS on ground glass with Rolleigrid fresnel atop. The F has what appears
>>to be a micro prism screen which I consistently front focus. In its last
>>tuneup, Dr. Fleenor pronounced the focussing system accurate and my wife has
>>no trouble getting things sharp.with it.
>>
>>Is there a possibility that changing the screen to a Maxwell might restore my
>>ability to focus? The problem is not brightness, since the F screen is even
>>brighter than the MX_-EVS, which focusses well enough for me.
>>
>>Opinions on this matter now solicited, please.
>>
>>Allen Zak
>
>Not knowing your age, the most common problem is presbyopia, something that
>eventually gets to us all. This is the hardening of the lens on your eye
>which causes the need for reading glasses or bifocals/trifocals. The most
>common solution is a dioptric correction that allows your eye to focus
>sharply on the focusing screen. The difference afterward with focusing
>speed and accuracy is dramatic.
>
>-- John
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: "Ron Baker" rbaker3@kscable.com
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001
Subject: [Cameramakers] Making ground glass
www.ronbakerphotography.com
From Camera Makers Mailing List;
From: "Ron Baker" rbaker3@kscable.com
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Making ground glass
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001
From: Philippe Tempel ptempel@globix.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Maxwell screens rock
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001
From: "Zeissler, Mitch" mzeissle@gcipoa.gannett.com
Subject: RE: [RF List] viewfinders
From: "M. P. Brennan" mpbrennan@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: just got 500 C, where do I start?
> First, I need a new focusing screen for it. They seem to have been
> discontinued? Mind you this is the C, not the CM. Where could I find one?
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: "Michael L. Pipkin, M.D." mlpipkin@flash.net
Subject: RE: Digest Number 1131
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: Craig Roberts croberts@zoomtel.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] How do I obtain a Maxwell screen?
Bill Maxwell,
Maxwell Precision Optics,
P.O. Box 33146,
Decatur, GA 30033-0146
Boston
From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] another convert to Maxwell screens
> From: Newhouse230@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: [Rollei] another convert to Maxwell screens
>
> The one negative in my mind is that the image does not "jump" into focus
> quite the way I am used to. It is so incredibly bright that, if you are
> careless, the brilliance can be mistaken for sharpness.
contrast. Increase one and you lose some of the other, and our eyes tend
to use contrast to focus. I use one of his screens in my 6006 and always
confirm focus with the split image just to be sure.
Bob
From: "Lawrence Ober" leo@jove.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] bright screens
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001
The Maxwell screen should brighten things up by about three stops. It is a
dramatic improvement. I installed one in my MX-EVS. The flip up magnifier
is necessary for screen focusing, in most instances, unless you have superb
eyesight. Even then, you would want the magnifier for critical focusing.
For candid work I assume you might need to use zone focusing. You would
still have the advantage of the large waist-level screen. Maxwell does
have screens available with central focusing aids but I still think the
preceding statements would apply. Bill Maxwell advised me that several
people told him the focusing aids worked best with the eye-level prism
finder. I have owned an M4 Leica in the past and the
rangefinder/viewfinder is a whole other animal. They are great for quick
street shots. I find the major advantages of my Rollei is the 6cm negative
and "ground glass" composition . Almost all my current photography is
portraiture and landscapes. However, there are some on this list who do
very successful street photography and photojournalism with their
Rolleiflex's.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leslie E. England" engl6914@iamerica.net>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 3:22 AM
Subject: [Rollei] bright screens
> I recently obtained an Old Standard Rolleiflex and have used it several
> times. I use normally a Leica M2, and I'm struck by how dim the
> focusing screen is on the Rollei. I find the Rollei focusing slower
> than the M2 (because of the dimness of the screen and having to use the
> magnifier), and it's harder to watch facial expressions through the
> viewfinder and work the shutter when the right one appears.
> It must get better than this. I read about the Rollei as being good
> for street and candid photography. At first blush it seems an advantage
> to be able to snap without having the camera up at your eye. How much
> do these Maxwell and Beattie bright screens help things? Are these
> screens made for the Old Standard? Do I need to buy the new G model
> Rollei (Expression), or is its screen just as dim?
> Unless I get better accustomed to the screen I may just use the
> camera for landscapes.
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Lee England
> Natchez, Miss.
>
From: ShadCat11@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001
Subject: Re: Re: [Rollei] bright screens
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
you wrote:
> It must get better than this. I read about the Rollei as being good
> for street and candid photography. At first blush it seems an advantage
> to be able to snap without having the camera up at your eye. How much
> do these Maxwell and Beattie bright screens help things? Are these
> screens made for the Old Standard?>>
Lately I have discovered a brighter viewing screen makes a huge difference.
I use an MX-EVS with a Rolleigrid fresnel screen atop the ground glass. I
also use a 3.5F fitted with the later Rollei screen. It is noticeably
brighter than the MX-EVS setup and easier to view, although both are
acceptable under most conditions.
After reading many posts on this newsgroups pertaining to screen brightness
enhancement, I went to the local photo boutique to experience same. There
were no Maxwell or Beatty screens nor Rolleis so equipped available at the
time, but there was a Hasselblad with an Accumat screen, similar to Maxwell
et al.
Compared to each of my Rolleis, the increase in brightness was a revelation.
Under low light, in particular, I could see details and textures difficult to
discern with the others. I can't say focus was more positive, but the image
was much easier to see and evaluate. IMHO, the replacement screen definitely
enhanced the viewing experience. So, on the basis of @ 1 hour comparison
viewing in the shop and around the block, I (who seldom buys) am sold.
Maxwell screens, according to posts recommending them, are offered in
versions to fit all Rollei models. If you don't opt for this, a Rolleigrid
would help matters noticeably. I have read that Edmund Scientific sells a
similar fresnel screen that would work, although I haven't researched this
myself.
Allen Zak
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001
From: Siu Fai siufai@dds.nl>
Subject: RE: [Rollei] bright screens
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> -----Original Message-----
> Maxwell does
> have screens available with central focusing aids but I still think the
> preceding statements would apply. Bill Maxwell advised me that several
> people told him the focusing aids worked best with the eye-level prism
> finder.
You can focus quite easily with the focusing aid without the prism. Just do
this with one eye closed and move the camera until you can see both parts of
the split prism is clear. IMHO, the problem with the split prism you need to
have your eye precisely on top of the prism and you cannot achieve this by
looking at the screen with both eyes. That's also the reason why it works at
all time when using the eye-level prism.
For me, the split prism focusing aid works great. So now I prefer this over
the Rolleiclear, even if this means that the screen is not as bright as it
can be.
Siu Fai
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] bright screens
Leslie E. England wrote:
>I recently obtained an Old Standard Rolleiflex and have used it several
>times. I use normally a Leica M2, and I'm struck by how dim the
>focusing screen is on the Rollei.
Your problem almost certainly arises NOT from a "dim screen" but from a
desilvered mirror. After almost seventy years, the mirror has probably
lost all or most of its silvering.
Easily fixed: remove the mirror and send it to one of the places which
advertises in SKY & TELESCOPE for exactly this service.
Marc
msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] bright screens
you wrote:
>I pulled out my jewelers screwdriver to examine my 2.8D screen and was
>startled to see the mirror was perfect. I can't imagine how the screen
>became so dirty and scratched. I've only looked at 45 or 50 Rollei screens
>of various models and eras, and might be persuaded as to some theory
>involving the quick-release screens, but I can't figure out the scuffs and
>scratches on those non-removable screens.
>
>Was dragging a rollei screen behind your baaad motor scooter Vespa a popular
>activity back in the sixties? Enlighten me, because a camera store filled
>with 4 20-and 30-somethings couldn't understand how the inventory of 6
>rolleiflexes and -cords with nonremovable (screw) hoods were so scratched.
>
>-Robin
>
Some of these mirrors are pretty soft. All it takes is one cleaning with a
grit filled cloth to do up the mirror.
You can get a clue as to the mirror condition by looking through the
finder lens. If its flaky looking it needs to be recoated. I've had some
disagreement with Marc about what later Rollei mirrors are coated with but
there is no doubt those up to probably 1950 are silvered. Silvered first
surface mirrors are very vulnerable to oxidation so they are coated with
laquer. The laquer can become yellowed but it can also flake off after a
time. When that happens the silver underneath blackens from oxidation.
Modern first surface mirrors are usually aluminized. The aluminum coating
is not quite as efficient an reflector for visible light as _fresh_ silver
but it is very resistant to oxidation. The reflectance can be improved by a
coating something like a lens coating. Chemically pure Aluminum develops a
coating of oxide one molecule deep over the surface, which prevents further
oxidation unless its damaged.
Mirrors of either kind should be blown off and cleaned by dragging a lens
tissue dampened with lens cleaner across the surface once. The tissue is
not pressed against the mirror, just dragged across it. Toss it after one
use. This is also a good way to clean dusty lenses.
Again, first surface mirror surfaces, regardless of coating, are very
delicate.
>Marc James Small wrote:
>
>>Leslie E. England wrote:
>> >I recently obtained an Old Standard Rolleiflex and have used it several
>> >times. I use normally a Leica M2, and I'm struck by how dim the
>> >focusing screen is on the Rollei.
>>
>> Your problem almost certainly arises NOT from a "dim screen" but from a
>> desilvered mirror. After almost seventy years, the mirror has probably
>> lost all or most of its silvering.
>>
>> Easily fixed: remove the mirror and send it to one of the places which
>> advertises in SKY & TELESCOPE for exactly this service.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> msmall@roanoke.infi.net
>
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
From: ladagency@aol.com (Ladagency)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 23 Oct 2001
Subject: Re: Best autofocus 645?
Actually, it is recently discovered that farsightedness (loss of ability to
close focus) is due to the matrix around the lens, not the muscle itself. The
spongy mass becomes stiff, thus interfering with the muscle's action. There is
a laser fix in the works where holes will be burned into the stiff mass so it
regains its elasticity. I suddenly lost my close focus (12" now) at 47. I am
getting bifocals soon.
From: Patrick Bartek bartek@intermind.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Beattie Intenscreen vs Acute-Matte D screens
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001
Dr. Rob wrote:
> I have to replace the current screens in my 500C and 500C/M with ones
> that have a split image rangefinder and are brighter, do to failing
> eye site.
>
> The Beattie sells for $184 (500C) and $210 (500C/M) from their
> website while the Hasselblad sells for over $300.
>
> Which one would you buy?
At a photo convention, I was able to compare, side by side,
AcuteMattes, Interscreens, and Britescreens to my standard split-image
screen through the same lens -- my old, but used the most, 60 f5.6
Distagon.
The apparent brightness of all the special screens was the same --
about 1.5 to 2 stops brighter than my split-image; however, the image
in the AcuteMatte was less "grainy" and "smoother" with fine detail
more readily visible, and thus easier to focus.
This evalution is, of course, purely subjective, but I decided to go
with the AcuteMatte, anyway. I'm just going to buy them used off eBay
or whatever. You can save 50% or so that way.
--
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Matthew Phillips mlphilli@hsc.vcu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Prisms
Arthur,
I may be one of the contrary few that uses my Rolleis primarily as an
eyelevel camera. Yes, the prism makes the camera top heavy and the adds
significantly to the weight I shoulder, but its a trade-off I'm usually
willing to make. I frequently shoot architectural subjects and am a real
stickler for level horizons and upright verticals; while I can get these
with a waistlevel finder, I find it much easier going at eyelevel. A few
points of experience that I'll relate:
A) Look out for separation between the prism and the condenser lens in
these prisms. It seems to be a common affliction with these large chunks of
glass. Another is dented housings. Appartently the metal stamping are
fairly lightweight.
B) If you wear glasses, you might want to try to find a Penta B ocular for
the Rollei prism. It replaces the standard eyepeice, and lengthens the
eye-relief, making it easy to see the entire screen while wearing specs.
C) Shortly after acquiring my first Rollei prism, I began noticing black
flecks littering my focus screen. It turned out that the foam pads between
the prism and its housing had deteriorated. Its a simple matter to remove
the prism from its housing to replace the pads (I used some foam packing
sheets, cut to size), but you need to be careful not to pull the silvering
off the prism if the pads have become adhered to the glass.
D) Flipping the camera with prism upside down is a great way to get about a
foot of extra height in shooting level, very handy when shooting over
crowds, or down from ledges.
Recently I picked up a Nippon Kogaku Porroflex for Rollei. I picked it up
as a relatively inexpensive and light-weight alternative to the prisms for
travel and hiking. Nikon manufactured these in the early '60's for both
Rollei and Mamiya. If you come across one, you can tell which camera it
fits by checking the engraving at the back: it'll have either a small R or
M next to the NK logo. The Porroflex uses mirrors instead of a glass prism,
so I'd guess it weighs less than half what my prisms do. The trade-off is
the Porroflex is somewhat larger, while its view is about 40% smaller and
about a stop less bright than the Rollei prism. Since one side overhangs
the lefthand side of the camera, the camera hangs from its neckstrap at an
angle. The finder optics seem to be focussed near infinity, so I find I
have to wear my glasses to see critical focus. The upside, reduced weight
aside, is that these housings seem much less delicate and dent prone than
the Rolleiprism and the selling price is generally less than half what a
pentaprism sells for. I paid about $250 each for my 2 prisms, but snagged
the Porroflex for a bargain $35 with case (the seller didn't know what it
fit). More typically, I see Porroflex finders selling between $60 - 110.
Regards,
M.Phillips
>I'm wondering how many of you use the Rollei prisim on your TLRs. Seems to
>work very well, although kinda top heavy. And BTW, will any of the newer,
>lighter prisims from the SLRs work on the TLRs? Arthur
>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Beattie screens [and "Bill"]
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> From: Dave Huffman huff@teleport.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Beattie screens [and "Bill"]
>
> Ah, Bob, nothing like shop talk, insider talk. Let's see, we have two guys
> who make add-on screens for Rollei TLR's -- one is named "Bill". Hmm, which
> one?
> Huff
Sorry, Bill Maxwell has been discussed so often here I thought by now
everyone knew his name. Beattie screens are not made by a guy, but by a
company in Rochester, NY, called Fresnel Optics. Then there is
Brightscreen, made by a good ol' boy in Tennessee named Jim Lakey. Jim
invented the whole thing when he worked for Beattie years ago. His screens
are good, too.
Bob
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: Kiev vs hasselblad prisms
From: Peter Rosenthal petroffski@mac.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net>
As it turns out, the subject of focus can fill volumes, and volumes have
been written. I guess a little more can't hurt. I'll try to keep it short.
Just the fact that you ask your first question about whether magnifying
hoods can make focusing easier by enlarging the image gives me pause. If
focusing is difficult for you, in-focus film may indeed be elusive. This is
why there is such a large industry for bright screens, different hoods,
diopter lenses and more. My own experience is that 50% or so people with
focusing problems have no problems with their equipment, Hassy or other.
Diopter adjustments are tops with bright screens next but oddly enough many
need split screens as bright screens don't "snap" into focus for them. But
yes, in answer to your question, the magnifying hood will give you a very
slightly larger VF image which should help slightly in giving you a more
accurate focus. Keep in mind tho, your 45=B0 prism magnifys also.
A simple but useful test you can perform is the "infinity" test. It's simply
a matter of pointing your camera at something of high contrast and
preferably fine detail at infinity or at least 1000 yards or so with your
150 lens. Unless your body and lens have compensating errors (the lens 5%
short of focus and your body 5% long of focus) what you see in the
viewfinder MAY tell you if you have a camera related focus problem. It will
not tell you what kind of problem you have tho. Could be the lens or the
body. The point is, if you see a problem, you have a problem. Infinity, of
course, should focus at infinity. If there seem to be no errors at this
point, you then need to shoot some film (at the same subject with the lens
set at it's infinity stop) to see if "what you see is what you get." If
there are focus errors on your film, your camera and lenses need to go to
the shop. Good repair shops have autocollimators that allow them to view the
image on the film as well as devices that measure mirror angle, back focus
distance and other potential problem areas. A good tripod, cable release
and mirror lock-up will take some pesky variables out of the loop for you. A
darkish day will help also as you can learn a lot more with the lens set
closer to it's maximum aperture during your film test. (less depth of field)
If you've chosen your subject well, you may be able to see your problem.
The focusing screen should never be unevenly illuminated no matter what VF
you use. I'll defer to others that have more experience with Kiev equipment
as to whether it's normal or not.
-
Peter Rosenthal
PR Camera Repair
111 E. Aspen #1
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928 779-5263
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kalart Focuspot for Rolleiflex
you wrote:
>Did any of you fellows see this on eBay? It is described as "a rare
>Kalart Focuspot attachment for the Rollei Automatic reflex TLR
>camera.". It must be some automatic or manual focus gadget. I never
>heard of it.
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=1264350501
>
>This fellow put 14 items for sale today .. mostly Rollei stuff,
>including Carl Zeiss Jena Duonar Lens.
>
>Roger
>Whitewater, WI
>
>PS Anyone familiar with the Graflex 22 TLR? I just acquired one. I
>know it won't replace my 2.8 F that I sold!
This is the first one I've ever seen. It truely is a focuspot for a
Rollei. The original Focuspot was an attachment for Kalart side mounted
rangefinders as used on Speed Graphics. It has a small lamp and a lens
which projects the light through the rangefinder (many models of RF were
made to take it). I guess this thing is meant to be used with the sports
finder in dim light. Maybe worth the price as a collector's item.
The Graflex 22 is the old Ciroflex under another name. Graflex bought out
the Ciroflex company, whatever it was called at that time (went through a
lot of changes). The also had an inexpensive 35mm camera which Graflex sold
under its own name.
The Ciroflex was a relatively inexpensive TLR featuring Wollensak lenses
and shutters. It has a simple red-window film winding system, absolutely
nothing automatic.
There was a choice of lenses and shutters at various prices. The lenses
were so-so. Wollensak shutters are rugged and reliable.
My first camera, other than a box camera, was a Ciroflex, bought used at
a place on Western Ave. Mine was one of the earlier ones built in Detroit,
my long ago home town. Ciroflex's were built in at least two other places
at various times.
It took decent pictures and I was glad to have it. After my parents
figured out I was really serious about photography I was able to promote a
Rolleicord IV, brand new but just discontinued, so discounted. I remember
how it smelled when the box was opened. I had that camera for many years
until a burglar got it. I have another now and still think it is one of the
cleanest and easiest to use cameras ever. However, the Ciro has a special
place in my heart.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Is this a Rollei-made focusing device?
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Looks like an old Mamiya chimney finder to me. I've seen those grafted onto
other cameras before. If you want to hassle with adapting it you could
probably pick up the Kiev one pretty cheap. It's an exact copy of the older
Hasselblad one, and also makes a good loupe for viewing 6 X 6 transparencies
and negatives.
Bob
> From: Jim Hemenway jim@hemenway.com>
> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: [Rollei] Is this a Rollei-made focusing device?
>
>
> I'd love to have one of these for my Vb. Does anyone have any information?
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=1277780522
> --
>
> Jim
>
> You only live once, and usually not even then - Michael O'Donoghue
>
> http://www.hemenway.com
From: "W. Catalano" graphic99@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: SLR laser rangefinder precise focus unit retro-fit to any SLR camera
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001
I can retro-fit any SLR with a miniature laser focusing device that allows
*extremely precise* focusing in any situation where a laser beam can be
seen.
Dim focusing screens and wideangle lens (it works with all other lenses as
well) are no longer a problem to focus.
Simply attach the unit to the eyepiece, activate the laser switch, and aim
at an object in the subject's plane, even a plain wall (The most up-to-date
AF system that needs contrast detail or vertical or horizontal lines to
focus will fail the plain wall test). Just turn the lens' focus ring until
the laser's beam is formed into a tight spot. If you pre-framed, release
the laser switch and immediately shoot. If you haven't pre-framed, pop off
the laser, frame and shoot.
For ordering info, send camera brand and model name as well as details about
whether it has a circular or rectangular eyepiece. E-mail to
graphic99@mindspring.com
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
From: "Henry F. Fisher IV" fisher@atlanta.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001
Subject: [camera-fix] Digest Number 214 - eyepiece padding
Greetings List.
I solved the problem for the eyepiece of a Leica M3 in the following
manner. From Radio Shack I had purchased some little black adhesive
bumpers/feet that came about 20 to a sheet. When the bumpers are peeled
away from the sheet, a thin black sheet of adhesive backed material with
holes remains. Those holes are a suitable diameter for the viewfinder
opening on my M3 (12.3mm). I trimmed a piece of the material with some
small curved scissors to make a "donut" of the correct outside diameter
(17mm). This I pressed to the metal ring which had previously scratched my
glasses, after cleaning it first with a Q-tip and alcohol. It works. But
the material does not let the glasses slip around once contact is made.
Regards, Henry in Atlanta
you wrote:
>From: kelvin kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg>
>Subject: Re: Fed 5 etc viewfinder fix sought. - eyepiece padding
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001
From: "fednick1941" michaelschub@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fed 5 etc viewfinder fix sought.
There is a black tape sold to repair automobile mufflers that stays
put. I have successfully trimmed it and cut an opening with a hole
punch and applied it to the eyepiece of a Zorki 3 with good results.
Expect to use it on other Russian lens destroyers.
Regards,
Michael Schub
--- In russiancamera@y..., "thenewscaramouche2001"
thenewscaramouche2001@y...> wrote:
> Hi,
> The metal viewfinder of these cameras can scratch eyeglasses. Does
> anyone know a simple fix?
----------
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001
From: "Kelvin Lee" kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Fed 5 etc viewfinder fix sought. - eyepiece padding
I buy a sheet of adhesive backed foam from the local computer shop
for US$1 per sheet (not sure what it's actually intended for). The foam
is about 2-3mm thick. Think it would stick nicely round a viewfinder and
still be soft.
Alternatively, you can probably use the sheet of adhesive backed foam
microtools sells for mirror bumpers (the strip that the mirror flips up
to).
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz w-buechsenschuetz@gmx.de
Subject: RE: Rangefinder
I don't know whether these items are very current in US. But many german
manufacturers made 'add-on' rangefinders for rangefinderless cameras in
the 50s and 60s. One well-known one is the 'Watameter'. They are
available as used items (of course) around USD 10-15 in Germany, I
recently bought a severely worn and misadjusted one for four bucks.
Winfried
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001
From: Rolohar@aol.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] Rangefinder
Rangefinders for photographic use were very common in the 40's and 50's when
many cameras did not have rangefinders.
One of the most popular of these devices was made by Kalart. There were many
Japanese imitations of this product that were imported after the war,
Spiratone, Accura and other importers sold these devices.
Unlike rangefinders used today by archery or fire arms shooters or golfers,
these photographic rangefinders would provide range readings from 3 ft to
infinity.
The Kalart device gained fame because it was often attached to the side of
the old Speed Graphic cameras used by the press in the old days.
It seems to me that some of these devices should still be around and
available at camera swap meets and shows or certainly on Ebay.
Roland F. Harriston
From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001
From: ARTHURWG@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Medium format camera for a Leica user?
I do much of my best work with the Mamiya 6; BTW, it is much easier to
focus than any Leica RF. Arthur
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001
From: "fednick1941" michaelschub@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Fed 5 etc viewfinder fix sought.
There is a black tape sold to repair automobile mufflers that stays
put. I have successfully trimmed it and cut an opening with a hole
punch and applied it to the eyepiece of a Zorki 3 with good results.
Expect to use it on other Russian lens destroyers.
Regards,
Michael Schub
--- In russiancamera@y..., "thenewscaramouche2001"
thenewscaramouche2001@y... wrote:
> Hi,
> The metal viewfinder of these cameras can scratch eyeglasses. Does
> anyone know a simple fix?
From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001
From: "Kelvin Lee" kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
Subject: Fed 5 etc viewfinder fix sought. - eyepiece padding
I buy a sheet of adhesive backed foam from the local computer shop
for US$1 per sheet (not sure what it's actually intended for). The foam
is about 2-3mm thick. Think it would stick nicely round a viewfinder and
still be soft.
Alternatively, you can probably use the sheet of adhesive backed foam
microtools sells for mirror bumpers (the strip that the mirror flips up
to).