kuzano
Veteran
While I have both an XA and a couple of XA2's
While I have both an XA and a couple of XA2's
And while I understand that the lens on the XA is "supposed" to be a better lens than the XA2 models, I have come to the conclusion that the XA2 is a much better quick shooter than the XA.
I have a very good rangefinder patch on my XA... as bright as I have seen on many of the same camera. However, by the time I get the small images in the XA correctly coincided to each other, I could have pulled off three shots with the XA2 on zone focus.
The images are sharply focused with the XA2. The XA2 has another attribute that I actually like quite a bit. It has the slightest bit of vignette, keeping the eye from bleeding out of the corners of the image. This actually is plus points for many professional judged or juried photo competitions.
I have found this to be quite the same with other zone vs rangefinder cameras.
In fact, I have a Kiev that has a very sharp J8. The rangefinder is good. However, I often shoot using the distance scale on the lens. I find the results, more often than not, as acceptable as using the rangefinder, which is correctly calibrated. The benefit is the time saved on the focus process. My eyesight is excellent, so it's not a case of substituting zone focus for the rangefinder because of that.
The real shortfall of zone focus is judging distance, but have found that becoming accurate at three ranges is not that difficult. I am quite close on anything from 3 to 15 feet, 20-30 feet, and just shy of infinity for most lenses, which can be 40-50 feet and beyond. I worked on those distance and made zone (or distance scale) focus quite good and a time saver on the focus process.
In addition, with SLR camera's, unless I have a split image (horizontal or 45 degree) in the center of the focus screen, I often shoot via the distance scale.
Accurate distance scales and knowledgable use of the sunny 16 rule, makes photography very pleasing indeed, with almost any camera.
While I have both an XA and a couple of XA2's
And while I understand that the lens on the XA is "supposed" to be a better lens than the XA2 models, I have come to the conclusion that the XA2 is a much better quick shooter than the XA.
I have a very good rangefinder patch on my XA... as bright as I have seen on many of the same camera. However, by the time I get the small images in the XA correctly coincided to each other, I could have pulled off three shots with the XA2 on zone focus.
The images are sharply focused with the XA2. The XA2 has another attribute that I actually like quite a bit. It has the slightest bit of vignette, keeping the eye from bleeding out of the corners of the image. This actually is plus points for many professional judged or juried photo competitions.
I have found this to be quite the same with other zone vs rangefinder cameras.
In fact, I have a Kiev that has a very sharp J8. The rangefinder is good. However, I often shoot using the distance scale on the lens. I find the results, more often than not, as acceptable as using the rangefinder, which is correctly calibrated. The benefit is the time saved on the focus process. My eyesight is excellent, so it's not a case of substituting zone focus for the rangefinder because of that.
The real shortfall of zone focus is judging distance, but have found that becoming accurate at three ranges is not that difficult. I am quite close on anything from 3 to 15 feet, 20-30 feet, and just shy of infinity for most lenses, which can be 40-50 feet and beyond. I worked on those distance and made zone (or distance scale) focus quite good and a time saver on the focus process.
In addition, with SLR camera's, unless I have a split image (horizontal or 45 degree) in the center of the focus screen, I often shoot via the distance scale.
Accurate distance scales and knowledgable use of the sunny 16 rule, makes photography very pleasing indeed, with almost any camera.
kuzano
Veteran
Hmmm alternative to the Rollei???/
Hmmm alternative to the Rollei???/
I yearned for the diminutive rollei for some time, and then I came across the "head bartenders" review on the Petri Color 35. I got one. Only looked passively at the Rollei after that. I've had four or five of the Color 35's and even venture one Petri Color 35E Automatic. (Very BAD camera, the E). I currently have a nice fully operating Petri Color 35 and can echo the comments on Cameraquest. The Cameraquest review has all models of the Color covered and even offers a side by side comparison to the small Rollei.
I have owned the black model and the D model. Sold the D for $450 to a Seattle Petri fan.
Here is a link to Steves review on the Petri....
http://cameraquest.com/petri35.htm
Hmmm alternative to the Rollei???/
Interesting responses so far. The main reason I am asking is that I am in the process of getting a Rollei 35 so I can have a camera I can keep with me most of the time. That being said, the Rollei 35 seems to have a rather dedicated following and rather high prices compared to most fixed focus cameras.
Just curious, have there been any reasonably famous photographers who used a scale focus camera to take many of their best pictures.
--
Bill
I yearned for the diminutive rollei for some time, and then I came across the "head bartenders" review on the Petri Color 35. I got one. Only looked passively at the Rollei after that. I've had four or five of the Color 35's and even venture one Petri Color 35E Automatic. (Very BAD camera, the E). I currently have a nice fully operating Petri Color 35 and can echo the comments on Cameraquest. The Cameraquest review has all models of the Color covered and even offers a side by side comparison to the small Rollei.
I have owned the black model and the D model. Sold the D for $450 to a Seattle Petri fan.
Here is a link to Steves review on the Petri....
http://cameraquest.com/petri35.htm
v_roma
Well-known
Bill,
I think the premium that people put on the Rollei 35 is not due to the fact that it's zone focusing only but due to the compact size, great lens, and mechanical quality of the camera.
I think the premium that people put on the Rollei 35 is not due to the fact that it's zone focusing only but due to the compact size, great lens, and mechanical quality of the camera.
Interesting responses so far
Just curious, have there been any reasonably famous photographers who used a scale focus camera to take many of their best pictures.
--
Bill
mike rosenlof
Insufficient information
A huge number of street photos have been made using a Leica as a scale focus, pre-focused camera. 6 foot, 10 foot, infinity are all pretty easy to scale focus. The closer you get, the more a rangefinder, or an SLR get appealing.
MarylandBill
Established
That might be true of the Petri and I would love to try one, but I am going for the Rollei for several reasons.
1. Looking on Ebay, working Petri Color 35s seem to be demanding prices every bit as high as the Rollei.
2. I am getting mine from a member of rangefinderforum for what seems to be a good price.
3. I have long been, for some time, a fan of the Rollei 35 and Polypan F blog.
--
Bill
1. Looking on Ebay, working Petri Color 35s seem to be demanding prices every bit as high as the Rollei.
2. I am getting mine from a member of rangefinderforum for what seems to be a good price.
3. I have long been, for some time, a fan of the Rollei 35 and Polypan F blog.
--
Bill
oftheherd
Veteran
I began using a scale focus camera in the late 50s, a Welta Welti. I knew how to judge distance, so I did and got nice photos. But prefer, not really. I just learned how to do it and am confident enough to do so. I still like to carry the Welti sometimes just because it is so compact. But I am just as happy (normally more happy I guess) to use a rangefinder or an SLR if the mood strikes me, or if I prefer one for some reason.
The XA can be set to f/8 and a distance I don't recall just now, so that if the light is sufficient you should have a large portion of your photo in acceptable focus.
The XA can be set to f/8 and a distance I don't recall just now, so that if the light is sufficient you should have a large portion of your photo in acceptable focus.
it'sawhat?
Established
I find i much prefer my zone focus perkeo 1 to either of the 2 rangefinders I have. It's as much about the ergonomics of my gear than the focusing as such. To be honest I have gone back to slrs for most of what I do , I'm just more comfortable and quicker to get the shot with an slr.
kuzano
Veteran
Please don't be offended by my post...
Please don't be offended by my post...
I am not suggesting you forego the Rollei if you so desire, and yes, more and more people are finding the Petri Color 35 desirable and valuable. In fact there is currently a D model on eBay and it is prices SOOO right. As I said, I sold mine for $450 probably 7-8 years ago. Have not seen another on eBay since, although I do not follow the Color 35 continuously, as I have mine in the bag. However, I may pull the trigger on the D now available having seen this rare bird.
So, I am not saying the Color 35 is a better or worse camera than the Rollei and I respect personal choice. My personal choice is to opt for the underdog camera when I find them in good condition. In this case the Petri is a lesser known quantity.
I doubt if many of us ever use these small scale and rf focus cameras as a primary photography tool, and I also doubt whether any of us ever carry these camera's "All the Time" and justify the purchase on that.
So, no intent on my part to change your choice. I simply wanted to point out a reasonable alternative to the Rollei, and my choice, for what that is worth.
Enjoy your purchase, please.
Please don't be offended by my post...
I am not suggesting you forego the Rollei if you so desire, and yes, more and more people are finding the Petri Color 35 desirable and valuable. In fact there is currently a D model on eBay and it is prices SOOO right. As I said, I sold mine for $450 probably 7-8 years ago. Have not seen another on eBay since, although I do not follow the Color 35 continuously, as I have mine in the bag. However, I may pull the trigger on the D now available having seen this rare bird.
So, I am not saying the Color 35 is a better or worse camera than the Rollei and I respect personal choice. My personal choice is to opt for the underdog camera when I find them in good condition. In this case the Petri is a lesser known quantity.
I doubt if many of us ever use these small scale and rf focus cameras as a primary photography tool, and I also doubt whether any of us ever carry these camera's "All the Time" and justify the purchase on that.
So, no intent on my part to change your choice. I simply wanted to point out a reasonable alternative to the Rollei, and my choice, for what that is worth.
Enjoy your purchase, please.
NeeZee
Well-known
I prefer scale focus but only with 28mm and wider. the non-coupled skopar 25mm with the focus click stops has been my 'standard lens' for a few months now.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
There are of course other Petris too. But only one has an article praising it. I've enjoyed both of the "full sized" Petri RFs I owned.
dow
Member
Not to highjack the rollei v. petri discussion, but I really love my Voigtlander Vito II. I have had great luck with getting quick shots - the comment about "riding the focus" is dead-on. I'd neer thought of it that way but it really clarifies what I like about the vito, that and you can pick one up for less than $30 if you're patient. It has a nice 3.5 color scopar that can be quite sharp (I'm a bit devil may care about sharpness myself). I have the fully automatic version of the Petri 35, and I do miss the control of the better one, but that lens (the same on both cameras) has great color rendition. Both the vito and petri benefit from being small, and get reached for quite a bit leaving the house.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
To answer the original question: of course not, because you can always scale-focus an RF.
But after RFs, I like Alpa 12-series...
Cheers,
R.
But after RFs, I like Alpa 12-series...
Cheers,
R.
Orbiter
Established
I like the Olympus XA3 for low light situations, the zone focusing works well enough (I'm at an age where peering at a nearly-imaginary rangefinder patch can be difficult when lighting is poor) and it works with ASA 1600 film. Really a nice little camera.
nosmok
Established
I'm faster with scale focus but that advantage goes away for close-up and large aperture shots-- too many misses with the shallow DF!
or maybe just need more practice...
Having said that, I now remember that if you add low light to that mix, it's a wash again-- most of my rf windows are very hard to use in dim light.
nosmok
or maybe just need more practice...
Having said that, I now remember that if you add low light to that mix, it's a wash again-- most of my rf windows are very hard to use in dim light.
nosmok
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I used a Rollei 35S as much as my main camera for years, still have my favorite black one and use it still. Wonderful Zeiss lens, great controls ... No frills or fuss, just does he job right.
Of course RF and SLR cameras are more precise and consistent when you need to open up the lens or Orkney in close, but so what? With the Rollei 35, you get used to working at f/11 and setting either 2-3 or 6 m distance. I always have ASA 400 film in the camera.
Can't go dong with a Rollei 35S ...
Of course RF and SLR cameras are more precise and consistent when you need to open up the lens or Orkney in close, but so what? With the Rollei 35, you get used to working at f/11 and setting either 2-3 or 6 m distance. I always have ASA 400 film in the camera.
Can't go dong with a Rollei 35S ...
farlymac
PF McFarland
No.
But that doesn't mean I don't preset focus using scales.
But that doesn't mean I don't preset focus using scales.
btgc
Veteran
Probably you were meaning most fixed focal length cameras, as fixed focus cameras usually are simplest of ever made, often limited also to one or very few speed(-s) and/aperture settings. Set exposure, no need to focus - what a liberation!
Despite that I've enjoyed using Konica POP - fixed focus, 1/125th + 3 apertures (corresponding to different ISO values). And that thing even has glass lens
zuiko85
Veteran
Focusing by scale is one of a varied number of tools that can be learned and that can help you shoot surreptitiously if that is your goal.
MarylandBill
Established
Not surreptitiously... but at the same time my main goal at this point is to get good candid shots of the kids, and its amazing how lifting the camera up to eye level grabs their attention, so the less I have to do once it is up there (and thus the quicker I get the shot), the better the chance I get the picture I want.
--
Bill
--
Bill