sjc
it will be shot on film
Let me first express some thanks and praise to the many members from whom I've learned so much by reading this forum. Guess I've lurked around here long enough. I have recently gotten back into shooting film, to a large degree because the passion and enthusiasm expressed by the members of this site are highly contagious, and also because after shooting mostly digital cameras for the past 6 years my skills and understanding have improved to the point of having the confidence to approach the medium of film photography in a serious way. That being said, I've still got a lot to learn and have some questions that I have not been able to find answers for searching the archives.
1) Is it possible that while the horizontal and vertical rangefinder alignment appear to be perfect, that the lens is in fact not correctly focused at the point at which one has aligned the split image?
Seems like in many of my exposures the lens is focused behind the subject. In my gallery if you look at the "hatboy" image, the boys face is slightly out of focus while the left shoulder of the woman to his right seems to be the point of sharpest focus. I'm certain that I had aligned the split image on the subject's face.
2) I'm regularly getting a strange hair-like mark at the bottom left of many frames. I believe this is visible in the "hatboy" image as well. Any ideas what this may be caused by?
3) How great is the danger of light leaks when changing lenses mid-roll? If you look at the bottom of the "no more lies" image there is some flare eminating from the sprocket holes. If changing the lens did not cause this, I wonder if it has to do with the lab who developed the film?
OK, that is more than enough for now. Thanks for taking a look!
1) Is it possible that while the horizontal and vertical rangefinder alignment appear to be perfect, that the lens is in fact not correctly focused at the point at which one has aligned the split image?
Seems like in many of my exposures the lens is focused behind the subject. In my gallery if you look at the "hatboy" image, the boys face is slightly out of focus while the left shoulder of the woman to his right seems to be the point of sharpest focus. I'm certain that I had aligned the split image on the subject's face.
2) I'm regularly getting a strange hair-like mark at the bottom left of many frames. I believe this is visible in the "hatboy" image as well. Any ideas what this may be caused by?
3) How great is the danger of light leaks when changing lenses mid-roll? If you look at the bottom of the "no more lies" image there is some flare eminating from the sprocket holes. If changing the lens did not cause this, I wonder if it has to do with the lab who developed the film?
OK, that is more than enough for now. Thanks for taking a look!
R
ray_g
Guest
Welcome.
Here's a link to sjc's gallery.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2272
Here's a link to sjc's gallery.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2272
R
ray_g
Guest
Nice photos! I am sure that others more knowledgeable than me will chime in soon, but here's what I can offer: Assuming that your rangefinder is correctly aligned (short distance and infinity) it is possible that your lens may have been opened in the past and not properly collimated. It is more evident in "hatboy" which I assume was shot at a wider aperture, compared to the others shot in brighter light, which were probably shot with greater dof.
Those certainly look like sprocket holes. I can't offer you much advise regarding the light leak question.
And oh, I am just as curious to see what others think about the mysterious line.
Those certainly look like sprocket holes. I can't offer you much advise regarding the light leak question.
And oh, I am just as curious to see what others think about the mysterious line.
R
ray_g
Guest
BTW, if the forum has influenced you in any way regarding the choice of your current rangefinders, then we've done a damn fine job 
sjc
it will be shot on film
Ray,
Thanks very much for posting the link. No doubt this forum was a big influence! The Canon's are still a great value when compared with the other options.....almost went with a Bessa body but one can can get a P with lens for less and from what I've heard around here it's better made to boot.
I suppose that technically both the Panasonic and Hexar are not true rangefinders but it was the Panasonic that led me to the others (via the Lieca digital forum and then over here to RFF).
Steven
Thanks very much for posting the link. No doubt this forum was a big influence! The Canon's are still a great value when compared with the other options.....almost went with a Bessa body but one can can get a P with lens for less and from what I've heard around here it's better made to boot.
I suppose that technically both the Panasonic and Hexar are not true rangefinders but it was the Panasonic that led me to the others (via the Lieca digital forum and then over here to RFF).
Steven
VictorM.
Well-known
Nice pictures. As for focusing errors, the rangefinder may be slightly off or your eye may be slightly off. Organize a test using your longest lens at its widest aperture. That little hair is probably a piece of lint or hair stuck in the film gate. Look for it through the back of the camera with the shutter open on 'B'. It should be on the right of the TOP edge of the film opening. Pick it out with tweezers. Those sprocket hole marks are a classic indication of poor agitation in the developer (too much up and down movement). The Canon P has a metal shutter and is not likely to leak light when lenses are taken off.
back alley
IMAGES
what victor said!
use a tripod and check for focussing errors.
likely that is lint/hair someting in there.
i've never had a light leak with the lens off.
and the sproket holes i think victor is also right, how are you processing your film?
small tank, hand agitation or using one of those spindle things with a patterson tank?
i'm curious as to what you think about your 35/3.2 lens? i assume it's the canon lens?
joe
use a tripod and check for focussing errors.
likely that is lint/hair someting in there.
i've never had a light leak with the lens off.
and the sproket holes i think victor is also right, how are you processing your film?
small tank, hand agitation or using one of those spindle things with a patterson tank?
i'm curious as to what you think about your 35/3.2 lens? i assume it's the canon lens?
joe
kabkos
Established
I would expect the focus is off due to the lens not being collimated properly or the lens flange was removed at one time and the shims were not placed back properly. I would say that about 1/2 of the lenses and about 1/3 of the camera bodies that I work on have collimation problems.
karl
karl
sjc
it will be shot on film
Victor, Joe , Karl,
Thanks for your input. Pretty sure I'll find that cursed hair after following the the procedure outlined. The developing issue means finding a better lab. Haven't developed a roll of B&W myself since I was an undergrad in art school in the mid-80's. Perhaps that will change this summer.
I will post more about the Canon 35/3.2 later as that is a whole can of worms in itself.
OK, one more question before a formal test. When you mount a lens on the P should it screw in until the red f-stop dot resides at 12 o'clock? I thought it was odd that of neither of my Canon lenses line up this way when fully tightened. Perhaps this would indicate that the problem is more likely a lens flange issue? If not, I think I know what to do to test the focus.
steven
Thanks for your input. Pretty sure I'll find that cursed hair after following the the procedure outlined. The developing issue means finding a better lab. Haven't developed a roll of B&W myself since I was an undergrad in art school in the mid-80's. Perhaps that will change this summer.
I will post more about the Canon 35/3.2 later as that is a whole can of worms in itself.
OK, one more question before a formal test. When you mount a lens on the P should it screw in until the red f-stop dot resides at 12 o'clock? I thought it was odd that of neither of my Canon lenses line up this way when fully tightened. Perhaps this would indicate that the problem is more likely a lens flange issue? If not, I think I know what to do to test the focus.
steven
back alley
IMAGES
facing the front of the camera all my lenses stop at about 2 o'clock.
looking forward to your story about that 35/3.2
joe
looking forward to your story about that 35/3.2
joe
ChrisN
Striving
sjc said:
I had this problem on my Mir (Zorki) after I reassembled it with the mounting flange 90 degrees around from where it should have been. If you are 90 (or 180) degrees out, and if the the P flange is symetrical with evenly-spaced screwholes, this might be the problem.
Chris
sjc
it will be shot on film
hey chris,
how did you determine the correct orientation for the flange when you rotated it??
how did you determine the correct orientation for the flange when you rotated it??
sjc
it will be shot on film
hey joe,
i got the 35/3.2 fortuitously from kevincameras. i live very close to his downtown LA location and had emailed him about buying some shootable lenses (as opposed to the collectable variety he posts on his site). I had already bought the P with a 50/2.8 which was advertised by the unscrupulous *bay seller as "extremely sharp". when i got the camera not only was the lens hazed/fungused, the counter was very sticky and would not reset properly. i had waited 2 weeks after contacting the seller with no reply so i set out to get some usable lenses. took the subway downtown and met kevin........... really helpful and enthusiastic guy! his suite was FULL of gear stacked up everywhere some in the process of being rehabbed etc. he showed me a bunch of stuff that he wouldn't normally post on his site but that was in perfectly fine shootable condition. he uses some of it for parts and apparently does a good business in making conversions for vintage lenses to mount on DSLRs. ended up getting a chrome 50/1.8 and the 35/3.2 for $275 cash out the door.
of course i realized later that i bought the only lens which is trending downwards in value according to the canon lens guide but i liked the small size (and price) and wanted to start getting used to the 35mm framelines. i have not shot with the lens exstensively (and will be testing it today or tommorow to determine the cause of my current focusing issue) but i figure for daylight shooting at f/8 it will make good enough pictures. also, the camera with this lens mounted is truly pocketable ( if you wear your levis' slightly loose with a belt as i am accustomed, it will comfortably fit in a back pocket). the "no more lies" photo in my gallery was shot with it at night with fuji neopan 1600 (probably f 5.6 @ 1/60th) and the neg scanned and sharpened pretty well. I will make some test prints and see how they turn out.
i got the 35/3.2 fortuitously from kevincameras. i live very close to his downtown LA location and had emailed him about buying some shootable lenses (as opposed to the collectable variety he posts on his site). I had already bought the P with a 50/2.8 which was advertised by the unscrupulous *bay seller as "extremely sharp". when i got the camera not only was the lens hazed/fungused, the counter was very sticky and would not reset properly. i had waited 2 weeks after contacting the seller with no reply so i set out to get some usable lenses. took the subway downtown and met kevin........... really helpful and enthusiastic guy! his suite was FULL of gear stacked up everywhere some in the process of being rehabbed etc. he showed me a bunch of stuff that he wouldn't normally post on his site but that was in perfectly fine shootable condition. he uses some of it for parts and apparently does a good business in making conversions for vintage lenses to mount on DSLRs. ended up getting a chrome 50/1.8 and the 35/3.2 for $275 cash out the door.
of course i realized later that i bought the only lens which is trending downwards in value according to the canon lens guide but i liked the small size (and price) and wanted to start getting used to the 35mm framelines. i have not shot with the lens exstensively (and will be testing it today or tommorow to determine the cause of my current focusing issue) but i figure for daylight shooting at f/8 it will make good enough pictures. also, the camera with this lens mounted is truly pocketable ( if you wear your levis' slightly loose with a belt as i am accustomed, it will comfortably fit in a back pocket). the "no more lies" photo in my gallery was shot with it at night with fuji neopan 1600 (probably f 5.6 @ 1/60th) and the neg scanned and sharpened pretty well. I will make some test prints and see how they turn out.
back alley
IMAGES
sjc,
thanks for the info.
i wish i was close to kevincameras also as he has some very nice stuff, a bit pricey though.
if i'm in need i just might email him to see if he has any users that i might be able to buy.
i'm interested in eventually getting all the canon 35's.
looking forward to more of your shots with that 35.
joe
thanks for the info.
i wish i was close to kevincameras also as he has some very nice stuff, a bit pricey though.
if i'm in need i just might email him to see if he has any users that i might be able to buy.
i'm interested in eventually getting all the canon 35's.
looking forward to more of your shots with that 35.
joe
ChrisN
Striving
sjc said:
Trial and error! There's only four options - had to get it right eventually!
No - actually I screwed the flange onto a lens, and marked the spot that aligned with the centre line-up mark on the lens. That has to go top centre.
VictorM.
Well-known
Living close to kevincameras would be, for me, living too close to the edge...
back alley
IMAGES
VictorM. said:
yes, but what a way to go....
joe
sjc
it will be shot on film
hello again,
finally finished a focus test per the instructions given above. it seems the 50/1.8 is not collimated correctly and that the camera is OK. all of the exposures were scanned the same (as much as i was able to keep them consistent...........i'm no Sean Reid but tried my best). also i removed the hair that was stuck in the film gate in the manner which was suggested above after the roll these tests were shot on was finished (fuji reala 100).
i have another 50/1.8 besides the culprit in this case which i had never used. got it from the unscrupulous *bay seller in exchange for a bogus 50/2.8 that came with the P. funny how this lens with oil on the blades, sticky aperature, and sludgy focus makes the best picture. (see last picture on right)
thanks to all for answering all of the questions. all issues are resolved!
picked up a shootable 50/1.4 in the meanwhile and will test it the same way on the first roll to see if it's OK.
what a great forum!
steven
finally finished a focus test per the instructions given above. it seems the 50/1.8 is not collimated correctly and that the camera is OK. all of the exposures were scanned the same (as much as i was able to keep them consistent...........i'm no Sean Reid but tried my best). also i removed the hair that was stuck in the film gate in the manner which was suggested above after the roll these tests were shot on was finished (fuji reala 100).
i have another 50/1.8 besides the culprit in this case which i had never used. got it from the unscrupulous *bay seller in exchange for a bogus 50/2.8 that came with the P. funny how this lens with oil on the blades, sticky aperature, and sludgy focus makes the best picture. (see last picture on right)
thanks to all for answering all of the questions. all issues are resolved!
picked up a shootable 50/1.4 in the meanwhile and will test it the same way on the first roll to see if it's OK.
what a great forum!
steven
Last edited:
sjc
it will be shot on film
btw- i should have mentioned that the camera was focused on the shaft of the candlestick below the center candle at the height of the wooden disks on either side..................
Last edited: