SixSeven
Member
I've been wondering about this for a while ever since getting my 7II (my first rangefinder). I am a big fan of Lee's graduated neutral density filters, and use them probably close to 100% of the time when I shoot landscapes with my DSLR. Using them with a DSLR (a 5d II in this case) is the ideal setup, because you can sit back with live view and precisely place the grad line exactly how the horizon dictates.
As we all know, this is not the case with a rangefinder. There's obviously no TTL viewing so you don't know where the grad line even is. I've only done a small amount of shooting with the 7II compared to my 5D, and so far I've been lucky as far as getting the placement correct. Unfortunately, it's really just guess work. I do not like guess work. My basic technique is to put the filter I select into the holder off-camera, compose the shot, then throw the filter holder on, and look at the camera head on from the front and attempt to align the filter with the correct placement on the front element of the lens. Now imagine doing this in dim, fading light where every second counts. Nervousness and anxiety begin to build as you realize there's really no F'ing way you're sure about placement, especially with a hard grad, using slide film. With those conditions, the tiniest mistake means it's all a crapshoot.
But I'm not about to give up on my grads, nor am I about to get rid of the 7II. The problem is I love both, and want to use both together.
Enter the Lee RF75 system, which is not only smaller in size than the regular holder so it doesn't obstruct the viewfinder (quite as much), it has handy laser-etched guide lines on either side of the filter for common placement. IE, 1/8th of the way down, 1/4, 1/3, etc. Now technically, no matter the size of the front element, using these guide lines should make placement, especially of hard edged grads, much easier to approximate. Still not as good as live view, but I'd imagine much better than what I am used to doing. Look through the viewfinder, horizon is at the top third of the frame. Align the grad with the marking that corresponds to the top third of the lens, and bam.
Well, maybe. Here's the problem. The grad line isn't really dictated by the size of the front element. It's the aperture size, correct? When it comes down to it, light isn't just entering the front element, it's eventually passing through the tiny (when shooting landscapes anyway) aperture opening. So if you're using a lens with say a 2 or 3" front element, you're still trying to align the grad based on something MUCH smaller than that. At f22 on 6x7, much less than half an inch...which you're trying to look at through a piece of curved glass, again in fading light.
Another but. I attempted to verify this by using my 5d II and checking the grad line by changing apertures and using the DoF preview. I didn't see a difference at any aperture, from f22 to f1.4. Am I crazy? What's the right answer here? Is the grad line altered by the aperture or not?
Edit: Ok, I just tested this out with a plain white index card. Between f3.5, the maximum aperture of my 24mm lens, and f22, there is a definitive, measurable difference in positioning. Dammit. Then I began to think, "well if the difference is repeatable, I can compensate for it." Then I realized this would be different from lens to lens.
Suddenly that RZ67II looks really good.
As we all know, this is not the case with a rangefinder. There's obviously no TTL viewing so you don't know where the grad line even is. I've only done a small amount of shooting with the 7II compared to my 5D, and so far I've been lucky as far as getting the placement correct. Unfortunately, it's really just guess work. I do not like guess work. My basic technique is to put the filter I select into the holder off-camera, compose the shot, then throw the filter holder on, and look at the camera head on from the front and attempt to align the filter with the correct placement on the front element of the lens. Now imagine doing this in dim, fading light where every second counts. Nervousness and anxiety begin to build as you realize there's really no F'ing way you're sure about placement, especially with a hard grad, using slide film. With those conditions, the tiniest mistake means it's all a crapshoot.
But I'm not about to give up on my grads, nor am I about to get rid of the 7II. The problem is I love both, and want to use both together.
Enter the Lee RF75 system, which is not only smaller in size than the regular holder so it doesn't obstruct the viewfinder (quite as much), it has handy laser-etched guide lines on either side of the filter for common placement. IE, 1/8th of the way down, 1/4, 1/3, etc. Now technically, no matter the size of the front element, using these guide lines should make placement, especially of hard edged grads, much easier to approximate. Still not as good as live view, but I'd imagine much better than what I am used to doing. Look through the viewfinder, horizon is at the top third of the frame. Align the grad with the marking that corresponds to the top third of the lens, and bam.
Well, maybe. Here's the problem. The grad line isn't really dictated by the size of the front element. It's the aperture size, correct? When it comes down to it, light isn't just entering the front element, it's eventually passing through the tiny (when shooting landscapes anyway) aperture opening. So if you're using a lens with say a 2 or 3" front element, you're still trying to align the grad based on something MUCH smaller than that. At f22 on 6x7, much less than half an inch...which you're trying to look at through a piece of curved glass, again in fading light.
Another but. I attempted to verify this by using my 5d II and checking the grad line by changing apertures and using the DoF preview. I didn't see a difference at any aperture, from f22 to f1.4. Am I crazy? What's the right answer here? Is the grad line altered by the aperture or not?
Edit: Ok, I just tested this out with a plain white index card. Between f3.5, the maximum aperture of my 24mm lens, and f22, there is a definitive, measurable difference in positioning. Dammit. Then I began to think, "well if the difference is repeatable, I can compensate for it." Then I realized this would be different from lens to lens.
Suddenly that RZ67II looks really good.
Last edited:
