djon
Well-known
Is there a way to kill one or more of the bright frames in the P finder?
The 35mm frame is a distraction in very bright light when I'm using a 50mm lens...
I'd like to have a 35mm P and a 50mm P.
The 100mm frame's no problem...
Ideas? Known solutions?
The 35mm frame is a distraction in very bright light when I'm using a 50mm lens...
I'd like to have a 35mm P and a 50mm P.
The 100mm frame's no problem...
Ideas? Known solutions?
back alley
IMAGES
they don't seem to bother me at all.
joe
joe
taffer
void
It would involve opening the finder I guess, I think it wouldn't be easy...
aizan
Veteran
i think you have to scrape off the framelines...touchy.
djon
Well-known
I've not opened the top to inspect the prism....
Do you think it's possible that a kodalith film mask (or black tape) could be used to kill the unnecessary frames?
I wouldn't complain at all about the P-frame for 35mm if I didn't wear glasses...Leica solved that nicely with the M2, but the $ leap is ridiculous, since I'd be shooting CV lenses or antique Leica either way
In fact, my 35 is a great little Summaron 3.5 ...hard to imagine anything sharper, stopped down a little...great contrast for scanning, too.
I'm glad for you if you can make use of the 35mm frame, but for glasses wearers it's very hard to use and its confusing in very bright light (that's the only time the whole thing can be seen with glasses).
Do you think it's possible that a kodalith film mask (or black tape) could be used to kill the unnecessary frames?
I wouldn't complain at all about the P-frame for 35mm if I didn't wear glasses...Leica solved that nicely with the M2, but the $ leap is ridiculous, since I'd be shooting CV lenses or antique Leica either way
In fact, my 35 is a great little Summaron 3.5 ...hard to imagine anything sharper, stopped down a little...great contrast for scanning, too. I'm glad for you if you can make use of the 35mm frame, but for glasses wearers it's very hard to use and its confusing in very bright light (that's the only time the whole thing can be seen with glasses).
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
The frames on the P are not projected, as they are on a 7 or Leica M. (If they were, blocking off the 35mm finder mask would work exactly as you describe, although it would be a touchy job.)
Instead, the P uses reflected framelines. If you hold the camera at reading distance and look into the eyepiece from the rear, you'll see that they are actually silver lines etched onto a flat glass plate just inside the eyepiece. This plate is somewhat delicate, and would take a very light touch to remove. Once removed, though, you could start thinking about what to do about the framelines.
Taping or masking over the 35mm lines on this plate (on the side away from the eyepiece -- that's where they reflect) would eliminate the 35mm frame, all right -- but at the expense of masking down the entire eyepiece, most likely making it more difficult to see through.
If you didn't mind the risk of ruining a perfectly good P with the experiment, I suppose you could eliminate the 35mm lines by scraping them off... or, better yet (IMO) you might be able to subdue them by carefully lining over them with a fine-point felt pen.
However, if you're going to go to the trouble of taking your P's finder apart, I think you might look for an alternative. It could be that the reason you find the 35mm frame "blinding" is that your camera's finder optics have hazed over a bit, smearing the 35mm frameline image and making it more of a distraction. A careful cleaning of all the outer optical surfaces might improve this enough that the 35mm frameline no longer would bother you.
Instead, the P uses reflected framelines. If you hold the camera at reading distance and look into the eyepiece from the rear, you'll see that they are actually silver lines etched onto a flat glass plate just inside the eyepiece. This plate is somewhat delicate, and would take a very light touch to remove. Once removed, though, you could start thinking about what to do about the framelines.
Taping or masking over the 35mm lines on this plate (on the side away from the eyepiece -- that's where they reflect) would eliminate the 35mm frame, all right -- but at the expense of masking down the entire eyepiece, most likely making it more difficult to see through.
If you didn't mind the risk of ruining a perfectly good P with the experiment, I suppose you could eliminate the 35mm lines by scraping them off... or, better yet (IMO) you might be able to subdue them by carefully lining over them with a fine-point felt pen.
However, if you're going to go to the trouble of taking your P's finder apart, I think you might look for an alternative. It could be that the reason you find the 35mm frame "blinding" is that your camera's finder optics have hazed over a bit, smearing the 35mm frameline image and making it more of a distraction. A careful cleaning of all the outer optical surfaces might improve this enough that the 35mm frameline no longer would bother you.
djon
Well-known
jlw...thanks for the education
As a glasses-wearer my main beef about the P is that I simply can't see the entire rectangle most of the time...it's obviously a lot better without glasses. And in extremely bright, glaring light the 35mm lines suddenly radiate like neon tubes, making it hard to view the 50mm framelines without distraction.
You may be right about "haze." That's commonlyattributed to the P.
I guess I'll just have to live with it! The P is spectacularly good with 50mm, perhaps not as good as the L1's tube finder with 35 because of this frameline issue...although the P certainly does focus more clearly than my L1 due to better image contrast.
As a glasses-wearer my main beef about the P is that I simply can't see the entire rectangle most of the time...it's obviously a lot better without glasses. And in extremely bright, glaring light the 35mm lines suddenly radiate like neon tubes, making it hard to view the 50mm framelines without distraction.
You may be right about "haze." That's commonlyattributed to the P.
I guess I'll just have to live with it! The P is spectacularly good with 50mm, perhaps not as good as the L1's tube finder with 35 because of this frameline issue...although the P certainly does focus more clearly than my L1 due to better image contrast.
S
Sputnick
Guest
jlw said:
Does that plate have any purpose other than to reflect the framelines? My P will be going for a CLA shortly and since I only ever use a 35 with it am wondering whether I could just have it removed at the same time.
Nick
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Nope, framelines are all it does. Note that if you have it removed, though, you'll be giving up not only exact framing but also parallax compensation (along with a big chunk of the camera's value if you ever decide to sell it.)
djon
Well-known
Interesting idea...I think the parallax correction is irrelevant in practice unless one is trying to emulate an F1 with this old rfdr. Do/must we really frame that tightly? Have we bought into that 70s "black border aesthetic , or is it maybe kosher to do like HCP and CROP?
And maybe it's easier and more accurate to guess the 35mm area than to use the lines...they're certainly useless in 35mm if one wears glasses.
Hmmm. Food for thought.
And maybe it's easier and more accurate to guess the 35mm area than to use the lines...they're certainly useless in 35mm if one wears glasses.
Hmmm. Food for thought.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Well, it's your camera and your philosophy that should rule. I'm no stickler for ultra-exact composition, but I like the assurance that "at least this much of the subject will be in the final frame" -- that way I feel I don't have to shoot quite as "loose" as I do when using a camera with no parallax comp at all. (Admittedly, it's much more of an issue when shooting with a longer lens than it is with a 35.)
I wear glasses and can see the 35 frame pretty well IF I keep both eyes open, relax, and let my peripheral vision do the work.
PS -- I admit that I'm a bit into that '70s black-border aesthetic. But I don't worry about a little extraneous space around the subject as long as it's fairly neutral (if it isn't, I crop it out.) I figure that the viewer's eye can find the subject in the picture space, just as my eye found it in the original space...
I wear glasses and can see the 35 frame pretty well IF I keep both eyes open, relax, and let my peripheral vision do the work.
PS -- I admit that I'm a bit into that '70s black-border aesthetic. But I don't worry about a little extraneous space around the subject as long as it's fairly neutral (if it isn't, I crop it out.) I figure that the viewer's eye can find the subject in the picture space, just as my eye found it in the original space...
djon
Well-known
I think I'll struggle with the viewfinder, as-is...maybe even I am capable of learning
If not you can always get a Canon 7. i can see the 35mm lines in mine, it is parallax corrrected, and only the framelines in use are visible in the finder. The 85mm/100mm lines are "shared". It basically handles like a Canon P, and adds a Selenium Meter. It is not as "P"retty, and thanks to Joe, often sells less for the Canon P.
back alley
IMAGES
i do what i can...
joe
joe
S
Sputnick
Guest
I can only just see the 35mm framelines and I don't wear glasses, but then I'm a left-eyed shooter so my eye is probably a bit further away from the viewfinder than you righties. I doubt I'd notice losing the parallax compensation. If it could be made reversible I might consider it but I'll more than likely soldier on as is.
Nick
Nick
djon
Well-known
Sputnik, you're right. If I wanted an M2 I'd have bought an M2 Maybe.
Maybe.