Krzys
Well-known
Keith has loaned me a fantastic 6x6 russian folder. I was using it today and since I've never really wrapped my head around parallax compensation at two angles (I have only compensated for finders above the lens, not above and to the left) I think I composed backwards.
Just to clarify...is this the correct understanding of taking lens to viewfinder fov.
^ Why can't they etch a mark or put in a frameline that shows the edge at minimum focusing distance. Without it I'll just keep over or under compensating until I see my rolls and get it right!
Just to clarify...is this the correct understanding of taking lens to viewfinder fov.
^ Why can't they etch a mark or put in a frameline that shows the edge at minimum focusing distance. Without it I'll just keep over or under compensating until I see my rolls and get it right!
Last edited:
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Yes. Assuming the VF is not compensating in any way on its own and is in fact parallel to the lens axis.
I've said this before: I don't trust any kind of built-in parallax compensation. Give me a well-adjusted (i.e. straight and parallel) VF instead. I have a brain of my own to compensate. I use the TLR technique (frame, move taking lens to where viewing lens was, shoot) or I aim "off" to begin with.
The dirty little secret is that, if your VF is parallel (check with ground glass and aimed at the moon, for example), you aim at a spot on your subject that's off by the same amount as the VF is in relation to the lens.
Say the VF is 1 inch high and 1 inch to the left. Always aim 1" high and to the left on your subject. Insignificant at infinity, more significant the closer you get and the longer your lens. But always the same amount on the subject.
I've said this before: I don't trust any kind of built-in parallax compensation. Give me a well-adjusted (i.e. straight and parallel) VF instead. I have a brain of my own to compensate. I use the TLR technique (frame, move taking lens to where viewing lens was, shoot) or I aim "off" to begin with.
The dirty little secret is that, if your VF is parallel (check with ground glass and aimed at the moon, for example), you aim at a spot on your subject that's off by the same amount as the VF is in relation to the lens.
Say the VF is 1 inch high and 1 inch to the left. Always aim 1" high and to the left on your subject. Insignificant at infinity, more significant the closer you get and the longer your lens. But always the same amount on the subject.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Just how much of the top and the left of the finder image will not be recorded on film should become clear after half a dozen photos. It should then be a simple matter to aim the camera upwards and to the left, naturally with a margin of safety.
Etched marks should be possible. Finders like the SBLOO have dashed or dotted lines to indicate field of view at near range.
Etched marks should be possible. Finders like the SBLOO have dashed or dotted lines to indicate field of view at near range.
oftheherd
Veteran
Next time try a Mamiya Universal or Super Press 23. BTW, those who have them, do the Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7 have moving paralax framelines?
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
Voigtlander's Bessa I has parallax correction via a dial actuated mask in the viewfinder for both 645 & 6x9. The mask roughly corrects the view for 5-8' and then for 8' to infinity.
Finder
Veteran
Mamiya 6 and 6MF have parallax correction. The Hexar AF compensates for parallax and magnification.
Krzys
Well-known
After a roll it turns out that this is the most accurate representation.
P C Headland
Well-known
The Certo Six, while not having a parallax corrected viewfinder, has a parallax correct lens!
shine
Member
Does Zeiss Super Ikonta BX post war 533/16 have parallax issue or corrected parallax?
Sorry, yet to develop my 1st roll from it. Still have some frame left.
Sorry, yet to develop my 1st roll from it. Still have some frame left.
oftheherd
Veteran
Hopefully someone will be able to answer for you. Usually you will find something that moves in a way to indicate parallax correction if it has it. Most of the old folders did not, but as you see from this post, some certainly did. Welta did it on some of their non-RF folders with a viewfinder that moved when you moved a slider forward.
If oneone can answer your question, please let us know when you do find out.
oftheherd
Veteran
BTW, you might want to look at these sites while you wait for someone to give you an answer:
http://www.cameraquest.com/zikontb.htm
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2951.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZICG/
http://www.cameraquest.com/zikontb.htm
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2951.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZICG/
graywolf
Well-known
Seems like some basic info on old time viewfinders might help folks.
First before the Nikon F came out no one even expected a viewfinder to be very accurate. If you needed very accurate framing you used a view camera with a ground glass back. And even some of them were not real precise because the film holders were not.
OK, the way they did it was like the OP's second post. Notice that the actual view is much smaller than the negative area. You adjusted by cropping when you made your print. Now I know that cropping became a no-no in the 1970, mostly to show that the photographer was rich enough to afford a Nikon F or F2. The other just pretended that what they got was what the wanted, but their camera actually showed about the area of a mounted slide (22mm x 34mm).
But with most larger format cameras cropping was the norm. Most view finders showed about 85-90% of frame, some times much less, and were not too precise in direction. And, that varied from camera to camera, even with the same brand and model, so about the only way you can determine just where to point the camera was by experience.
Notice that you still have to do it that way with older cameras, no one can tell you exactly what to expect, except the former owner of the camera if he actually used it much.
If your old camera has parallax adjustment all it does is bring the close up image closer to the center of the negative, the framing is still quite a bit smaller than actual negative image. So, the best advice is to tell you that cropping is your friend, and suggest that you frame rather loosely.
To put it another way, consider the viewfinder an aiming device rather than a framing device. That way you do not have to worry too much about not being able to see the edges of the view finder if you wear glasses like I do.
First before the Nikon F came out no one even expected a viewfinder to be very accurate. If you needed very accurate framing you used a view camera with a ground glass back. And even some of them were not real precise because the film holders were not.
OK, the way they did it was like the OP's second post. Notice that the actual view is much smaller than the negative area. You adjusted by cropping when you made your print. Now I know that cropping became a no-no in the 1970, mostly to show that the photographer was rich enough to afford a Nikon F or F2. The other just pretended that what they got was what the wanted, but their camera actually showed about the area of a mounted slide (22mm x 34mm).
But with most larger format cameras cropping was the norm. Most view finders showed about 85-90% of frame, some times much less, and were not too precise in direction. And, that varied from camera to camera, even with the same brand and model, so about the only way you can determine just where to point the camera was by experience.
Notice that you still have to do it that way with older cameras, no one can tell you exactly what to expect, except the former owner of the camera if he actually used it much.
If your old camera has parallax adjustment all it does is bring the close up image closer to the center of the negative, the framing is still quite a bit smaller than actual negative image. So, the best advice is to tell you that cropping is your friend, and suggest that you frame rather loosely.
To put it another way, consider the viewfinder an aiming device rather than a framing device. That way you do not have to worry too much about not being able to see the edges of the view finder if you wear glasses like I do.
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
The Hexar AF compensates for parallax and magnification.[/quote said:
t6un
Established
My experience with Iskra is so far that I need to compensate for parallax only in vertical direction. With Zorki I always assumed that the rangefinder spot stays in the center of the viewfinder, and positioned my eye according to that, then compensated for parallax. This is different with Iskra because it's rangefinder spot moves together with the moving image. (I think most people use the rangefinder spot as a reference for the viewfinder edges, simply because it is so much less blurry than the edges themselves in the primitive russian viewfinder.)
Pablito
coco frío
And yet it's terribly inaccurate. One of the reasons I sold the camera. Leica M's , even the late ones with notoriously bad frame lines, are better.