Laforet
Nowhere Man
Through an SLR, you see the real image projected on a groundglass screen showing the actural image being formed on the flim. On the other hand, a RF's viewfinder gives an aerial image.
The main difference, apart from brightness is that RF viewing is sharp across the scene, while SLRs show you the minimal depth of field at open aperture. This can be an advantage, however more often RF shooters find it problematic because:
1. With a slow wide-angle lens, not only you get a dim finder, but there will be too much depth of field even at open aperture, making precise focusing difficult. This is especially nasty with DSLR's full matte screens, all you see is a "sort of sharp" image while keep turning the focus back and forward because you fail to lock-on:bang: Due to the inherent nature of an SLR, any focusing aids e.g. split-image, Nikon green dot does not provide a reliable indication since there is a shorter base length for wide-angle lenses.
2. With a longer (50mm>), fast lens, the depth of field is too little in the finder at open aperture. Not only this makes it harder to judge the surroundings while you have focused accurately on your subject, but also in case you actually stop down for a photo, thing that you have not noticed while composing starts to show up. FOr how many times, a tree branch or distant pylon has grown over the head of my gorgeous model because it was renderd out of focus and neglected by my eyes
Certainly, you could lock up your mirror and use an external viewfinder, however in that case why use an SLR after all? Man created SLRs for their ablity to use long lenses and compose without parallax error, is it that hard to have the best of both worlds?
I did not discover the salvation with the intentions above, it is more of an elaboration from my exprience. When I was starting to do some serious macro(micro)photography, I was told to get the Nikon 6x magnifiying finder and a special macro screen type M. When I first used it, it was very different from what I used to think for SLR viewing. It is exceptioanlly bright, a true blessing with heavily extended lenses and my cheap microscopes. Apparently this is no rocket science, the ground-glass has been replaced by a clear piece of fresnel so there is minimal light loss at the screen. Since you see an aerial image like a RF, image is sharp regardless of the focal point. However, the way to focus is a bit bizzare with this combination: you adjust the diopter on the finder until you see a tiny crosshair clearly, now without refocusing your eyes, focus the lens till everything is equally sharp, to help juding the degree of sharp focus, it is recommended to slightly shake your head around and your eyes should not see any difference in sharpness( No mum, I am not on a high, just trying to take a photo of brussel sprouts)
As your photographic proficiency make you less susceptible to GAS attacks, I soon accquired this focusing screen fetish (Now complimented by recent, uncured lens hood fetish ), first I brought new and used screens with all sorts of strange grid lines and split image at all angles, followed by nikon H screens which has microprism covering the entire viewfinder ( the idea to use under low lights is cool but actually using it may cause sores in you eyes) , and finally G type screens which I am ultimately satisfied with.
Basically type G screen is a piece of clear fresnel lens, just like the M screen, so the aerial image is sharp all the time, no matter where have you focused at. To make life easier, they added a 12mm circle filled with microprism as a focusing indicator, which coincides with the metering range on most Nikon SLRs. Microprism in usage, has very similar characteristics to the rangefinder patch: When you see a well defined object it is in focus, or not. The microprism circle is also much larger in size to the RF patch, turns out to be twice as good.Not to mention the overall brightness is comparable to any Leica M, even with a modest f/2.8 lens.
With a type G screen fitted, most differences in viewfinder style is eliminated (what? brightlines? never heard of such a thing),and I can comfortably pack my M2 with F3 without worrying of getting used to any one of them when swapping bodies. In the end, it could have been better if the mirror could be made non-moving, an SLR without blackouts is always more than desirable.....:angel:
The main difference, apart from brightness is that RF viewing is sharp across the scene, while SLRs show you the minimal depth of field at open aperture. This can be an advantage, however more often RF shooters find it problematic because:
1. With a slow wide-angle lens, not only you get a dim finder, but there will be too much depth of field even at open aperture, making precise focusing difficult. This is especially nasty with DSLR's full matte screens, all you see is a "sort of sharp" image while keep turning the focus back and forward because you fail to lock-on:bang: Due to the inherent nature of an SLR, any focusing aids e.g. split-image, Nikon green dot does not provide a reliable indication since there is a shorter base length for wide-angle lenses.
2. With a longer (50mm>), fast lens, the depth of field is too little in the finder at open aperture. Not only this makes it harder to judge the surroundings while you have focused accurately on your subject, but also in case you actually stop down for a photo, thing that you have not noticed while composing starts to show up. FOr how many times, a tree branch or distant pylon has grown over the head of my gorgeous model because it was renderd out of focus and neglected by my eyes
Certainly, you could lock up your mirror and use an external viewfinder, however in that case why use an SLR after all? Man created SLRs for their ablity to use long lenses and compose without parallax error, is it that hard to have the best of both worlds?
I did not discover the salvation with the intentions above, it is more of an elaboration from my exprience. When I was starting to do some serious macro(micro)photography, I was told to get the Nikon 6x magnifiying finder and a special macro screen type M. When I first used it, it was very different from what I used to think for SLR viewing. It is exceptioanlly bright, a true blessing with heavily extended lenses and my cheap microscopes. Apparently this is no rocket science, the ground-glass has been replaced by a clear piece of fresnel so there is minimal light loss at the screen. Since you see an aerial image like a RF, image is sharp regardless of the focal point. However, the way to focus is a bit bizzare with this combination: you adjust the diopter on the finder until you see a tiny crosshair clearly, now without refocusing your eyes, focus the lens till everything is equally sharp, to help juding the degree of sharp focus, it is recommended to slightly shake your head around and your eyes should not see any difference in sharpness(
No mum, I am not on a high, just trying to take a photo of brussel sprouts)As your photographic proficiency make you less susceptible to GAS attacks, I soon accquired this focusing screen fetish (Now complimented by recent, uncured lens hood fetish
), first I brought new and used screens with all sorts of strange grid lines and split image at all angles, followed by nikon H screens which has microprism covering the entire viewfinder ( the idea to use under low lights is cool but actually using it may cause sores in you eyes) , and finally G type screens which I am ultimately satisfied with. Basically type G screen is a piece of clear fresnel lens, just like the M screen, so the aerial image is sharp all the time, no matter where have you focused at. To make life easier, they added a 12mm circle filled with microprism as a focusing indicator, which coincides with the metering range on most Nikon SLRs. Microprism in usage, has very similar characteristics to the rangefinder patch: When you see a well defined object it is in focus, or not. The microprism circle is also much larger in size to the RF patch, turns out to be twice as good.Not to mention the overall brightness is comparable to any Leica M, even with a modest f/2.8 lens.
With a type G screen fitted, most differences in viewfinder style is eliminated (what? brightlines?
never heard of such a thing),and I can comfortably pack my M2 with F3 without worrying of getting used to any one of them when swapping bodies. In the end, it could have been better if the mirror could be made non-moving, an SLR without blackouts is always more than desirable.....:angel:
S
Socke
Guest
Put an external viefinder on it.
amateriat
We're all light!
You've essentially answered a few questions yourself already in this post. An SLR is NOT a rangefinder. Period. You can work in a few things to make a given SLR kinda-sorta work like an SLR, but it takes a good deal of work for so little in the way of results.
- Barrett
- Barrett
pvdhaar
Peter
The cheapskate solution:
Yank the finder out of a single use camera. Most are 35mm-ish, which make an excellent starting point. Take a scalpel. Cut a very small rectangular piece out of frosted cellotape and stick it on the center to mimic the rf spot, then cut 4 very very narrow but long slices and stick them near the edges to mimic frame lines. You've just built a 50mm finder.. Take a piece of gaffer and tape the whole thing on top of the SLR.
Yank the finder out of a single use camera. Most are 35mm-ish, which make an excellent starting point. Take a scalpel. Cut a very small rectangular piece out of frosted cellotape and stick it on the center to mimic the rf spot, then cut 4 very very narrow but long slices and stick them near the edges to mimic frame lines. You've just built a 50mm finder.. Take a piece of gaffer and tape the whole thing on top of the SLR.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Some old SLR models -- Alpa is one name that comes to mind -- had optical finders (for normal lenses) in addition to reflex viewing.
rolleistef
Well-known
Well, the Alpa was a true RF camera with an extra reflex vf. That's the best you can find!
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Canon actually made a couple of SLR's with pellicle mirrors, no mirror blackout since it's stationary.
My old Contaflex's focusing screen is also pretty close to being either plain glass or a fresnel.
My old Contaflex's focusing screen is also pretty close to being either plain glass or a fresnel.
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
Olympus made some screens for the OM series that were clear field with either microprism in the center spot or split prism..
I forget which screen I have, but it only works right with telephoto lenses, anything wide makes the corners appear dark.
I forget which screen I have, but it only works right with telephoto lenses, anything wide makes the corners appear dark.
If similarity to RF viewing is the goal, then an external viewfinder is the way to do it. That makes an SLR most similar to an RF viewfinder. Locking up the mirror is a nice touch for even more versimilitude.
An SLR viewfinder, even with an aerial image, still displays only the field of view of the lens, nothing around the outside of the field, and colored or dimmed by any filters. Of course absent any parallax error either...
An SLR viewfinder, even with an aerial image, still displays only the field of view of the lens, nothing around the outside of the field, and colored or dimmed by any filters. Of course absent any parallax error either...
Laforet
Nowhere Man
Afterall, 28 or 35mm lens on a 0.72x body has minimal room outside the brightlines, so it makes little difference if I had to use an SLR, though I must admit 50mm is much nicer to use on RF....
rolleistef
Well-known
Quite an uncommon camera is the Focaflex, the only SLR ever made by a French brand (Foca), it had an upside down prism and mirror (the eye piece was on the bottom of the camera), hence a flat top design. it only had a split screen focusing which was very unconvenient, especially for close up focusing. Don't dream of such camera since they are nearly impossible to use!
rolleistef
Well-known
http://www.foca-collection.fr/focaflex.html here's the camera (in French)
principe azul
Ian
I like Nikon's H2 screen with its full-field shimmering microprisms.
As to split-image focusing on an SLR, focusing from 1m to infinity on an SLR moves the split image *much* less across the finder than it does on an RF. But since SLR users manage to focus with split images, I don't see the short-baselength Bessas being a particular problem.
Although I've always insisted on having SLRs with DOF preview, I never really use it. I got to know what f/5.6 at 2m with a 50mm would look like. And I didn't like zooms. So I was a natural for RFs.
I found I have no real use for reflex viewing. But Nikon made some really cool toys for the F3, and they're fun to play with.
As to split-image focusing on an SLR, focusing from 1m to infinity on an SLR moves the split image *much* less across the finder than it does on an RF. But since SLR users manage to focus with split images, I don't see the short-baselength Bessas being a particular problem.
Although I've always insisted on having SLRs with DOF preview, I never really use it. I got to know what f/5.6 at 2m with a 50mm would look like. And I didn't like zooms. So I was a natural for RFs.
I found I have no real use for reflex viewing. But Nikon made some really cool toys for the F3, and they're fun to play with.
dmr
Registered Abuser
clintock said:
Many years ago I went to school with this kid who had kind of a funky SLR, 35mm, older, fixed lens. It was the kind which did not return the mirror until you advanced the film.
Anyway, I distinctly remember this because it had a small split-image right dead center in of the SLR viewfinder. He got this about the same time I got my first rangefinder, but I am lost as to the brand he had. It was not one of the well known SLR brands.
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
rolleistef said:
There were a few other SLRs made by French manufacturers, like the Savoyflex series, with the 1958 Savoyflex I being the first SLR with instant return mirror, and the elusive Malik Reflex, designed in the early sixties with a revolutionary 35-75/2.8 zoom...
Cheers!
Abbazz
Last edited: