DIY Framelines on Kiev

[AOI Photo]

So, a Thouht.
I'm deeply in love with my Kiev; however, I find I am mostly using the Jupiter 11 135mm lens. It is often a real pain to switch between focusing and composing. Could one simply make a small piece of plastic the size of the viewfinder with 135mm framelines (and probably 85mm as well.. why not)? Seems like this could be a usefull thing. Any reason why it wouldn't work? And what percentage of the 50mm frame would I want withen the 135mm framelines?

 

[payasam]

Stick with the turret finder. Image size is the main thing, and you also get parallax correction. The eye-pieces are only a couple of inches apart and you soon get used to switching.

 

[Stu W]

Contax makes an optical device that clips on the camera body and gives you the framelines.
http://www.ritzcam.com/catalog/images/ZCxmsk.jpg

 

[pvdhaar]

I think payasam's advice is really sound.

Ever since the Hexar RF went, I've been using an RF with separate viewfinder/rangefinder (Bessa-T). It only took a couple of days to get used to.

From my days with the Hexar RF, I remember how difficult it was to frame the 90 with the built in viewfinder. The framelines were sooo small!. I can't imagine the 135 on the Kiev being more comfortable. Besides, I think the tolerances for accurately masking 135 lines is so small that it's impractical to DIY this.

 

[payasam]

Pvdhaar, the 135 frame in an M3 finder is a case in point: accurate enough but far too small. Hardly a coincidence that the Zeiss turret finder, of which the Soviet/KMZ ones are copies, was much better liked than the Leitz VIDOM, VIOOH and Imarect, in which the mask changed size while image size remained the same. There were also zoom finders, mostly Japanese, which made rather more sense. Easily the best option, but also the least convenient if you use several lenses, is separate bright-line finders for each focal length. For the Retina, Kodak made a two-length (35 and 80?) finder. Stu, I must look up the link you give. Beer to be had there?
[EDIT] Sorry, Peter, didn't notice your name. May I ask if OOMPA-LOOMPA is a Leitz product code of which only you know?

 

[pvdhaar]

Sorry, Peter, didn't notice your name. May I ask if OOMPA-LOOMPA is a Leitz product code of which only you know?

Don't tell me you've tried to look up the code on the Leica FAQ 😉

It's a name from Roald Dahl's book (and more recently movie) "Charly and the Chocolate factory".

 

[VinceC]

The link StuW showed is for a mask that fits the postwar Contax IIA, so it might not fit the Kiev family.

HERE'S A LINK SHOWING THE PRE-WAR MASK that fits a Kiev. The pictures show a Contax III with a light meter. The mask for the II, without a lightmeter, is a bit less dramatic. I've got one. Needless to say, it alters the lines of the camera body. Also has no parallax correction. It has a cool little lever that lets you switch between 85 and 135 by means of folding away or unfolding a mask for the 135.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Well looking at those devices, I'll bet they are rare and expensive:

Auto-Up devices that fit in the accessory shoe and position in from of the finder go for cheap. Look for one, replace the glass with some flat glass with the framelines marked. My "walz" auto-up for the Nikon RF was ~$15.

 

[Paul T.]

You can build your own DIY version quie easily (though of course those contax ones have built-in magnification, and I've seen the IIa version going for not too much). It's on Rick Olseon's site:

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-26.html

 

[brians]

Hahaha Oompa-loompa!! :d

 

[VinceC]

>>Well looking at those devices, I'll bet they are rare and expensive<<

Rare but not really expensive. The masks for the Contax II seem to be obtainable for about $25. You can find them if you do a Google search on: "Zeiss Ikon" 543/7 -- which is the model number engraved on it.

The prewar masks that fit a Kiev don't have finder magnification. It's essentially a box-shaped mask that slides on the front of the camera.

 

[payasam]

Ignorance will be the death of me. I've read a fair bit of Roald Dahl, but none of his stuff for kids. Paul, the Peter who is presumably tied to you in a web of robbery spoke early on of tolerances. You'll need deadly accurate cutting, machining, etching and so on if you're to get something that doesn't just give you a vague idea of what's to come on film. Not impossible, of course -- I've seen fine things that people have made -- but very difficult. Mainly a matter of scale.

 

[AOI Photo]

Ignorance will be the death of me. I've read a fair bit of Roald Dahl, but none of his stuff for kids. Paul, the Peter who is presumably tied to you in a web of robbery spoke early on of tolerances. You'll need deadly accurate cutting, machining, etching and so on if you're to get something that doesn't just give you a vague idea of what's to come on film. Not impossible, of course -- I've seen fine things that people have made -- but very difficult. Mainly a matter of scale.

Yeah that's more or less the conclusion I've reached so I'll try and buy the real thing.


Oh and Roald Dahl is a genius. If you like his stuff for Aults youv'e gotta try some of his kids work. The Twits is a particulaly entertaining one to start with, that or George's Marvellous Medicine

 

[payasam]

There's two reasons not to abandon the DIY route. First, the finders built into and made for RF cameras aren't that accurate anyway, even the Leica M kind (it's another matter that some SLRs' finders too are pretty inaccurate). Second, if you cut a 2:3 aperture in a piece of sheet metal (other opaque and rigid materials may not be so good), there are ways to get it right. Up-down and left-right adjustment can be accomplished with screws of fine thread. How far from the built-in finder this thing is to be can be tested and varied either by padding (sort of shimming) or by whatever you devise to hold it in place. With a 135, parallax at near distances will be a royal pain in the whatsit. If you use the two-axis screws I wrote about, I wonder if you'll get the time to actually take any pictures. There is an easy way out. If you get the mask right for, say, 15 feet, you can simply do what is done with the finders of screw Leicas and numbers of other RF cameras: discount some of the top and some of the left, and also leave a little margin for error. After a roll or two you should know where you stand.

I shall consult the little monsters who call me "Gramps" about the work of Roald Dahl. Thanks for the titles.

 

[AOI Photo]

There is an easy way out. If you get the mask right for, say, 15 feet, you can simply do what is done with the finders of screw Leicas and numbers of other RF cameras: discount some of the top and some of the left, and also leave a little margin for error. After a roll or two you should know where you stand.

I shall consult the little monsters who call me "Gramps" about the work of Roald Dahl. Thanks for the titles.

Yeah, I think I'll give it a shot. While I look for the zeiss finder. Thanks.