Re: 67 versus 35 tradeoffs (was Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image)
Bolo wrote: Fast glass is also a problem in 67. U, begging yer indulgence ... f4 at 400mm, 600mm 800mm cannot realisticly be considered as slow glass, large expensive fer sure, tho !8^D Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 67 versus 35 tradeoffs (was Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image)
Bolo, Well put. One thing to always consider is whether the shots that you couldn't/didn't capture with the 67 - would they really be that good on 35mm. For me what happens is that I think of the end result. 67 negs are so much better that I find myself wanting to shoot with it rather than 35mm. As you have said, there are cases where 35 is really the way to go, I just work hard to make 67 the choice as much as possible. Bruce Wednesday, May 01, 2002, 11:29:44 AM, you wrote: [ Bolo mentions that he is using 35mm on his trip ] B Bruce Dayton wrote: I have always found the plain matte better for focusing even on 35mm. But I'll go one step further than you, now with the 67II, I'm pretty much ignoring my 35mm gear altogether. It is now used when I want a snapshot or really fast focus or some such. B I was thinking hard of taking the 67 with me, but it came down to B selection of lenses. I don't have the choice of glass available B in 67 that I do in 35mm. A macro lens, extension tubes, a shift B lens, nor a really long lens or a really wide lens. I was planning B on using most of that glass, so the 67 didn't make the cut, as much B as I wanted to take it. B The 67 has some other lens considerations too -- for example, using B long glass. I often shoot (w/ 35mm) 400mm, (200 + 2x) and think B about a dedicated 300 or 400 to get out to 600 or 800. And/or a B faster 200 to make the 400 more usable. 67 Lenses of comparable field B of view are big, heavy, and even more expensive than the 35mm gear. B Fast glass is also a problem in 67. Admittedly the increase in negative B size can make up for the larger grain size of a faster emulsion B somewhat. However, sometimes you just run out of light for what you want B to do. B There are also some styles, subjects or events that the 67 doesn't work B well with. Shutter speed considerations and motor drive availability B are on example which can make the difference in some venues. Another B factor is the availability of additional exposures per roll so you B can change film less. Car races are one example; Candids in a fluid B situation are another. And of course, if you want to experiment B with a subject and try many different things, 35mm allows you to do B it with a more reasonable cost. You spend less time changing film, B and more time experimenting. B Of course there are many subjects which the 67 is suited for, or which B there is no downside to. And, I have to admit, I do enjoy shooting B with it. I load up the 67ii for things (usually slower paced) which B I think it will be good for. I drag the 35mm around for when I want B to do a variety of things, or will be in a fast-changing situation. B I've tried the 67 in some moderate-paced scenarios, and have missed B photographs that I wish I hadn't. At the same time, I've found B the occasional slower paced time in those faster moving scenarios, B and was able to use the 67ii to good advantage in those moments. B At least, that is how it works out for me at the moment. B Bolo -- Josef T. Burger B - B This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, B go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to B visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 67 versus 35 tradeoffs (was Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image)
Bill Casselberry wrote: Bolo wrote: Fast glass is also a problem in 67. U, begging yer indulgence ... f4 at 400mm, 600mm 800mm cannot realisticly be considered as slow glass, large expensive fer sure, tho I wrote that poorly; thanks for pointing it out! You are right; the longer (actually all) 67 glass is quite reasonable speed-wise. I really have no complaint in that regards. Particularily, I think that the 1000mm reflex lens is the cat's meow. Outer bayonet mount ... but it doesn't matter since there is no aperture coupling anyway! Built-in filters. Built in ND filters seperate from the color filters. f/8 versus the f/11 or f/13 commonly found in 35mm reflex lenses. Too bad someone (pentax preferably) doesn't make a 35mm reflex lens like that! Speed-wise I was refering more to the shorter lenses. A 1.x normal or short tele would be nice to have when it is darker. However, perhaps the DOF on such glass would be so short as to be unusable. That is soemthing I didn't consider in my previous thoughts. I just realized that most of my slow shutter speeds have been due to DOF issues, which a faster lens won't do anything for. Thanks Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
Thursday, April 25, 2002, 6:30:07 PM, Cotty wrote: My little Leica CL (a rangefinder) obviously has split image and couldn't do without that ;-) Really, Cotty? Not a coincident-image (superimposing) rangefinder, like all other RF cameras I'm aware of? C Oh yeah, well, you know what I mean - I mean, I knew what I meant, I C mean, oh Hell. Forget it! C I don't need to see through viefinders to see double images! C Best, C Cotty Actually, Cotty, you were right! The Leicas (and the Minolta CL) use split-image rangefinder! In addition to coincident image RF, the edges of which are a clear cut, so you can focus AT THE EDGE of it. It was found by tests that this arrangement of both split-image and coincident can improve focus accuracy by 50%... Frantisek - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
On Friday, April 26, 2002, at 02:09 PM, Bolo wrote: [ It's pretty cool BTW -- with the 67ii finder and lenses you can literally see the focus walk across a cluttered ground and see just one particular line of it in focus at a time ]. Yeah, I love the way things just 'snap' into focus. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
Ha! I assume you're refering to the Nikon F4. If so you should really take a look through a sub $500 AF camera viewfinder. They may be ok for framing, but not too great for focusing. From: Bolo [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as AF screens go, the only one I can judge is the matte in my F4. That thing is so bright that I don't find myself wishing for a focus aide at all. And, if I do, I can use the (closer, on-target, farther) AF indicator as a rangefinder. I assume that most AF viewfinders are equally as bright and usable. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
Up until 1998, every SLR I had ever used had a split image focusing screen. Then, I got a Pentax 67. At first I was disoriented with the 67, and was concerned about being able to focus. For a time I considered buying a different screen for it. Then I stopped thinking about it, and just USED the camera, and I found that it was not an issue at all, and now I am so used to it that I don't think I actually pay attention to the split image in my 35mm bodies any more. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
[EMAIL PROTECTED] asks: Do any of you prefer the Split Image over the other finders ? What cameras do you use that have the split image finders if any ? I've been considering a second SLR body to go with the K1000 that may have this feature. It depends on what you want to use the camera for. I've got a body (Ricoh) with a diagonal split-image surrounded by a microprism, a body with a microprism only (K-1000) and one with a matte screen (PZ-1p). For macro shots, the matte screen can't be beat. DOF is so small, and subjects go out of focus so fast, that getting accurate (manual) focus with it is pretty easy. The split image usually goes black under the same magnifications, and the microprism pixelates the images to the point that they are both worse than ineffective for focus -- they prevent assessing focus in that part of the image. I find that having such an invisibility hole in the center of my macro images to be a major handicap. On the other hand, for scenics, portraits and just general all-around use, the split focusing body is my choice for manual focus. With both the matte screen and microprism-only one, I've aleays had to guess at focus. With the split image I just have to align the edges across the split, and that is easy. I'd actually expect that the microprism would be easier than the matte screen, but it doesn't work that way for me (probably because my brain processes images in a slightly offbeat way that stresses the importance of edges). hope that helps, patbob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
My little Leica CL (a rangefinder) obviously has split image and couldn't do without that ;-) Really, Cotty? Not a coincident-image (superimposing) rangefinder, like all other RF cameras I'm aware of? Oh yeah, well, you know what I mean - I mean, I knew what I meant, I mean, oh Hell. Forget it! I don't need to see through viefinders to see double images! Best, Cotty ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
I prefer the split image finder in many instances, but it really depends on the lens and the speed of the lens. With slower lenses the finder sometimes blacks out. However, the finders with a microprism grid around them are especially useful. The LX and the MX offer the option of changing focusing screens, so the screen can almost always be changed to better match the lens being used and the situation and subject. I'm looking for an M6. Please contact me off list with the details. Thanks! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Everyone, Back after a nice break in NYC :) I've been recently trying out (i.e. I bought one but now I'm going to sell it) a Leica M6 and I've grown to thinking: as a current K1000 owner I never gave much thought about split image finders but after using the Leica and my little Canonet I've thought more about the SLR Split Image finders. Do any of you prefer the Split Image over the other finders ? What cameras do you use that have the split image finders if any ? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Split Image Or Not Split Image
With SLRs, how effective (accurate) split image finders are depends on the focal length and aperture of the lens you are using. You'll find them pretty much useless at extremes, long tele or ultra wide. That's why cameras like the LX allow you to change focussing screens so that you can use the optimum type for the lens in use at the time. With rangefinder cameras, it's a bit different, the rangefinder can be much more accurate than any split image screen in an SLR. Furthermore, it retains its accuracy with all of the lenses that can be used directly on the camera, and is totally independent of focal length and aperture. Len --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Split Image Or Not Split Image Hi Everyone, Back after a nice break in NYC :) I've been recently trying out (i.e. I bought one but now I'm going to sell it) a Leica M6 and I've grown to thinking: as a current K1000 owner I never gave much thought about split image finders but after using the Leica and my little Canonet I've thought more about the SLR Split Image finders. Do any of you prefer the Split Image over the other finders ? What cameras do you use that have the split image finders if any ? I've been considering a second SLR body to go with the K1000 that may have this feature. All responses appreciated Cheers, Dave - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
After flirting with several rangefinders, which use coincident-image RFs, my preferences are as follows, in descending order: 1. Any-brightness finder + 45-degree diagonally split image, a la Ricoh or special versions of the Pentax ME Super SE (and a K1000 SE?) 2. bright finder + 90-degree split image 3. bright finder (like an SE-60), no RF. 4. 90-degree split iamge with a not-so-bright finder (Super Program. 5. Not-so-bright finder, no RF (KX). 6. coincident-image RF, like Leica or Yashica, no matter how bright. Too darn slow, and frustrating when focusing on a cluttered background (like a heavily leaved tree). [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Split Image Or Not Split Image
Len wrote: With rangefinder cameras, it's a bit different, the rangefinder can be much more accurate than any split image screen in an SLR. Furthermore, it retains its accuracy with all of the lenses that can be used directly on the camera, and is totally independent of focal length and aperture. Len, It's been shown that, on average, coincident-image rangefinders are more precise than split-image rangefinders at focal lengths up to about 85mm. Longer than that, the SLR's split image is more precise. I think I've read this twice: once on the Web and once in a column on rangefinders by a now-deceased columnist of the old Modern Photography or Popular Photography--Nathan Rothchild, or some such name. [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
Shel, You must be speaking about the Voigtlander Bessa-R. The wacky Voigtlander Bessa-T has a dedicated rangefinder with a 58mm baseline according to the CameraQuest website (http://www.cameraquest.com/VCBessaT.htm). --Mark -Shel wrote- The Voightlander, OTOH, had a much shorter effective base length, and for this reason the camera is acknowledged to be almost useless for focusing long, fast lenses, even though such lenses will fit on the camera body. For example, Voigtlander makes a 75mm/2.5 and a 90mm/3.5, which are the fastest lenses made in those focal lengths as opposed to the much faster Leica lenses. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
Yes ... I should have been more clear, but that just emphasizes the point I was trying to make. For an interesting chart about rangefinder EBL, here's the page: http://cameraquest.com/leica.htm A few of the figures are off by a millimeter or three, but the point about rangefinder focusing is well made here. Mark Erickson wrote: Shel, You must be speaking about the Voigtlander Bessa-R. The wacky Voigtlander Bessa-T has a dedicated rangefinder with a 58mm baseline according to the CameraQuest website (http://www.cameraquest.com/VCBessaT.htm). -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
david wrote: Do any of you prefer the Split Image over the other finders ? What cameras do you use that have the split image finders if any ? I've been considering a second SLR body to go with the K1000 that may have this feature. I like them - especially w/ open aperture metering bodies. They tend to be difficult w/ lenses slower than f5.6, as one half blacks out. As to 2nd SLR's - I have a ProgramPlus an MESuper which I feel are more than I need to have around anymore. Both in fine shape. I'm aiming towards thinning down to the 6x7 and Spotmatic F w/ the Minolta AutoMeter IIIF, w/ the Super Program/Winder for situations where its automation TTL flash are obviously an operational value. May be a Winder available (works w/ both) as well, as I have two of them. Feel free to contact me off-list if interested in these. ... also a simple Yaschica A 6x6 TLR if anyone is game for an inexpensive entry into medium format. Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
Do any of you prefer the Split Image over the other finders ? What cameras do you use that have the split image finders if any ? I personally hate split image finders and I have removed them from 2 MX and an LX and replaced them with matt plus central microprism. Having said that, my little Leica CL (a rangefinder) obviously has split image and couldn't do without that ;-) Funny world. Cotty ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
I for one, like the split image viewfinders in my Chinon body cameras (CP-5 and 6). Old age and failing eyesight make it a no brainer for me. Hate the flat viewfinders on my PZ-20 and -70 bodies except when using AFagain a concession to poor eyesight. Nothing is perfect for every situation and with all equipment, so it is really personal preference. Jerry in Houston Do any of you prefer the Split Image over the other finders ? What cameras do you use that have the split image finders if any ? I personally hate split image finders and I have removed them from 2 MX and an LX and replaced them with matt plus central microprism. Having said that, my little Leica CL (a rangefinder) obviously has split image and couldn't do without that ;-) Funny world. Cotty - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
In a message dated 4/24/2002 12:06:21 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: as a current K1000 owner I never gave much thought about split image finders but after using the Leica and my little Canonet I've thought more about the SLR Split Image finders. Do any of you prefer the Split Image over the other finders ? What cameras do you use that have the split image finders if any ? I wonder if the reason I prefer the split image feature is that I started on rangefinder cameras before moving to SLRs. Currently -- the LX and the PZ-1 (third-party one in the latter). Previously -- Sears KSX Super, Pentax ME Super, Super Program, Program Plus, P30t. The LX or the ME Super might be your best choices, depending on your budget. ERNR My photographs hang on the virtual walls at http://members.aol.com/ernreed - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
Cotty wrote: I personally hate split image finders and I have removed them from 2 MX an LX and replaced them with matte/central microprism. See! You are an obvious candidate for a 6x7, as that's what it has as standard screen - You'll learn to accept the much larger viewed image as well, I'd imagine - you *are* quite resourceful, as we all know. ... you *know* it's inevitable, just a matter of time!!8^D Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
Humm...? Maybe you are trying too hard. The trick is to always start from one end, or the other (I focus from infinity), and turn the focus until the image goes crisp. STOP. Take your photo. Move the focus back to infinity. and you are ready for the next shot. The mechanical play in an optical rangefinder is enough that being fiddlely is pointless. Rocking the rangefinder back and forth just moves it from one end of the slack to the other. You can do that over and over and never get the focus any closer than the way I described. I think this tendency to fiddle with the focus is why many people who are not really familiar with optical range finders think they are slow, while people who use them a lot claim they are very fast. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:33 PM Subject: Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image After flirting with several rangefinders, which use coincident-image RFs, my preferences are as follows, in descending order: 6. coincident-image RF, like Leica or Yashica, no matter how bright. Too darn slow, and frustrating when focusing on a cluttered background (like a heavily leaved tree). - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
Bill D. Casselberry wrote, about split-image RFs: I like them - especially w/ open aperture metering bodies. They tend to be difficult w/ lenses slower than f5.6, as one half blacks out. Have others discovered, as I have, that you can often eliminate the blackout by opening your eyes REAL WIDE? Try it; it works! Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
Cotty wrote: My little Leica CL (a rangefinder) obviously has split image and couldn't do without that ;-) Really, Cotty? Not a coincident-image (superimposing) rangefinder, like all other RF cameras I'm aware of? If so, was this feature preserved on the Minolta CLE? What other rangefinder cameras use a split-image rangefinder? Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
In a message dated 4/24/2002 1:06:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've been considering a second SLR body to go with the K1000 that may have this feature. Hi Dave... Camera Repair Service in Pittsburg will do a split-screen conversion AND C-L-A on your current K-1000 for $50.00 I just had one of mine done and I'm very impressed with the service..the body was back in my hands within a week and its never been smoother and quieter since it was born. I took a chance on these guys thru an e-Bay auction for Split-Screen Conversion because I wasn't using the camera anyway due to shutter speeds sounding offnow its perfect. Regards, Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image
I like the split image finder in my 6x7, but I don't have any really wide or really long glass. The widest is a 55, the longest a 300. On my LX, I use the 60 series grid screen. I don't remember exactly what number it is, but it is one of the most adaptable in terms of working well with long and short lenses. And I like the grid for alignment help. Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 4/24/2002 12:06:21 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: as a current K1000 owner I never gave much thought about split image finders but after using the Leica and my little Canonet I've thought more about the SLR Split Image finders. Do any of you prefer the Split Image over the other finders ? What cameras do you use that have the split image finders if any ? I wonder if the reason I prefer the split image feature is that I started on rangefinder cameras before moving to SLRs. Currently -- the LX and the PZ-1 (third-party one in the latter). Previously -- Sears KSX Super, Pentax ME Super, Super Program, Program Plus, P30t. The LX or the ME Super might be your best choices, depending on your budget. ERNR My photographs hang on the virtual walls at http://members.aol.com/ernreed - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
