analogpics
Well-known
Wow, good to know Dwig! Hmmm, maybe i'll talk to her about it next time i go in then. I mean, the test rolls i shot on the x700 and 139Q came out almost 100% in focus, but the other cameras i shot with were either ok, or not so much with the canon a1 and pentax me super hehe.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Microprism focusing with the camera on a tripod works fine.
What doesn't work on a tripod is electronic image stabilization.
WJJ3
Well-known
As a very happy X-500 owner, I agree these cameras (X-500/700) offer a wonderful viewing and focusing experience. The only SLR I own that is better is my P645n: I don't own many SLRs but it's hard to imagine nicer manual focusing than the ol' Pentax.
159MM is my favorite Contax. Small and light like the 139Q (actually takes the same winder), but no problematic disintegrating leatherette.
Also, 1/4000 and LED indicator for aperture. Prefer the Nikon focusing screens with the invisible etch lines, the Contax etch lines are more visible. But still a great viewfinder, I'm being picky. I'll post when I get the K3 screen, I've read that it's brighter and the split prism doesn't black out with slower lenses.
analogpics
Well-known
So i got my hands on an f2 with the h2 screen, and it's pretty great so far! I like the uncluttered view, and having the microprism across the whole area is amazing. Guess we'll see how the test roll turns out! The camera feels super robust, i see why it was the choice for many photojournalists back in the day
WJJ3: You prefer the 645n? I liked how bright the viewfinder was, but i really struggled nailing focus with it hehe.
splitimageview: I may just have to try a 159mm out. Though it seems like they're pretty hard to find.
WJJ3: You prefer the 645n? I liked how bright the viewfinder was, but i really struggled nailing focus with it hehe.
splitimageview: I may just have to try a 159mm out. Though it seems like they're pretty hard to find.
analoged
Well-known
Sounds like a Leicaflex
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Certainly worthy of exploration if I keep my F2AS. Nikon always had such a good range of screens.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I think the Minolta VF is the best of the lot by a small but noticeable margin. That's based on 3 or 4 I've had over the years and someone asking the same question a long time ago and me looking at all of them.
Having said that I'll add that the user does the focusing not the camera and we (humans) vary a lot. And our eyes go downhill as we get older (sigh) and some people insist they don't need glasses...
Regards, David
Having said that I'll add that the user does the focusing not the camera and we (humans) vary a lot. And our eyes go downhill as we get older (sigh) and some people insist they don't need glasses...
Regards, David
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
The other thing to note in the debate about dark vs light screens. You can always stick an ND filter on your lens or wear sunglasses if screens are too bright in bright light. There is no option to make a dark screen lighter in poor light.
Just did another look through the VFs of the Pentax LX, Olympus OM2n, Leicaflex SL2, Minolta XD7 (yes it is acute matte), Nikon FM2n and Leica R8. All are bright with fast lenses, but the R8 and the SL2 are brighter with my f4 Elmar than the others are with f2.8 lenses, and the Minolta is a lot darker still with the f3.5 35-70 zoom.
So if you want manual, use fast lenses. If you want to use slow lenses, do what Ko.Fe said. The eye focus AF on the EOS is awesome!
Just did another look through the VFs of the Pentax LX, Olympus OM2n, Leicaflex SL2, Minolta XD7 (yes it is acute matte), Nikon FM2n and Leica R8. All are bright with fast lenses, but the R8 and the SL2 are brighter with my f4 Elmar than the others are with f2.8 lenses, and the Minolta is a lot darker still with the f3.5 35-70 zoom.
So if you want manual, use fast lenses. If you want to use slow lenses, do what Ko.Fe said. The eye focus AF on the EOS is awesome!
WJJ3
Well-known
It’s probably not a fair comparison because of lens speed, focal length differences, different features on the focusing screen etc. so I kinda opened a can of worms with this one. They are both fantastic for manual focusing. The X-500 definitely has something special...
dtcls100
Well-known
The OM focusing screen with the diagonal split image surrounded by a microprism circle is the 1-14. Of the 1-series focusing screens, this is one of my favorites (along with the 1-2 microprism spot screen which does not black out easily).
oftheherd
Veteran
159MM is my favorite Contax. Small and light like the 139Q (actually takes the same winder), but no problematic disintegrating leatherette.
I'll post when I get the K3 screen, I've read that it's brighter and the split prism doesn't black out with slower lenses.
The only Contax 159 I ever saw had been rode hard and put up wet. But from that I thought perhaps it wasn't as well built. From some of the comments in this thread I may have been wrong.
However, my former Contax 139Q and my current Contax 167mt were/are welll built with easy to use focusing screens. They might even have had a very slight edge over my Fujica ST 901. But by the time I got the 139Q my 901 had several thousands of exposures in diverse places and conditions, and I wasn't sure that was a fair comparison.
Interesting. My first SLR was a Yashica TL Super. I got to a point where I liked to take photos in dark day rooms. My flash had an auto use but to many flash photos with bulbs convinced me to go manual. Focusing was indeed difficult. However, I learned to go a little beyond and back to confirm focus. I was not easy but I learned to do it.
If there was sufficient light for other photos, the micro-prism with its central spot (not spot focus) worked, but actually, I often preferred the whole screen. The screen on that old camera was snappier than one might have expected and often easier to use than the spot/collar.
Dwig
Well-known
The big issue with the "brighter" screens is that they achieve their brightness at the expense of focusing precision. They are great for viewing but not for focusing. With the brighter screens you need to rely on the central split prism or micro-prism array for focusing.
analogpics
Well-known
Alright, so my first roll with the F2 was....mediocre as far as accurately focused shots haha. Curious why my rolls from the x700 are so much better(?) In my head i was thinking this H2 screen was the end all. I will say, i love this large and completely clear viewfinder. I'm really enjoying using the camera so far so hoping roll 2 turns out better
CMur12
Veteran
This is a popular generalization that is not always true.
I just compared focusing indoors in fairly low light with a Minolta SR-T 102 and 50mm f1.4 lens and a Minolta X-570 with 50mm f1.7 lens. The X-570 has the Acute Matte screen. Focusing with the matte part of the screen, the X-570 with slower lens had at least equal contrast and was significantly brighter, which made it easier to focus.
Again, Hasselblad found this technology compelling enough to license it from Minolta. There may well be a reason that the OP is doing so well focusing an X-700 with said Acute Matte screen.
- Murray
skucera
Well-known
I don't know if I'm going to crank anyone the wrong way, but the easiest SLR's to focus, for me, have always been the auto-focus SLR's. My old EOS 650 was perhaps the one I liked most, especially with ultrasonic lenses. I also bought an Olympus IS-3 a few years ago, and it has been really fun and very easy to focus.
I know, everyone here is focusing on manual focusing with split prisms and ground-glass focusing screens, and they all require perfect vision through the viewfinder to work correctly. If you have eye glasses or an astigmatism they can result in missed shots because of being slightly out of focus. I wish I had perfect vision, but I don't. I've always had very correctable vision, until I got old enough to require bifocals or progressive lenses, and now all those visual focusing aids are difficult to use on an SLR. Auto-focus works well for me, and rangefinders still work well for me too. Perhaps it can work well for you too....
Scott
I know, everyone here is focusing on manual focusing with split prisms and ground-glass focusing screens, and they all require perfect vision through the viewfinder to work correctly. If you have eye glasses or an astigmatism they can result in missed shots because of being slightly out of focus. I wish I had perfect vision, but I don't. I've always had very correctable vision, until I got old enough to require bifocals or progressive lenses, and now all those visual focusing aids are difficult to use on an SLR. Auto-focus works well for me, and rangefinders still work well for me too. Perhaps it can work well for you too....
Scott
analogpics
Well-known
Yeah my x700 and x570 are so far the most accurate manual focusing cameras i own! But, i've also seen some of my cameras like the om4t that have brilliantly bright viewfinders that are very difficult to achieve accurate focus with. Guess the x700 is just a unicorn
analogpics
Well-known
I mean, yeah lol, you don't have to focus them. I love my canon 1v for work (for digital the canon eos r is ridiculously good with the eye detect af), but just don't enjoy using them for personal or day to day stuff compared to a nice mechanical film camera (or tbh a small point and shoot). Just personal preference i guess.
I've always been a rangefinder over SLR guy, but been on a weird manual SLR kick lately! I have so many of them laying around i figured now's a good time to dust them all off and see which i like the most. Plus i prefer them for anything telephoto (I hate that tiny rectangle for composing on rangefinders in the 90-135mm range)
CMur12
Veteran
Yeah my x700 and x570 are so far the most accurate manual focusing cameras i own! But, i've also seen some of my cameras like the om4t that have brilliantly bright viewfinders that are very difficult to achieve accurate focus with. Guess the x700 is just a unicorn
You observed that the X-700 didn't seem well made, but it and the X-570/500 are actually quite robust. I'm aware of professional photographers, such as John Isaac who traveled the world for the UN, who documented everything from war to obscure cultures with these cameras.
My X-570s don't have the "solid feel" of my all-metal, mechanical SR-Ts, but they just work so damn well. They do have metal where it counts most, from the film rails, through the mirror box, to the lens mount. Additionally, the lens mount of the X-700 and the X-570 is made of lubricant-impregnated stainless steel, so that frequent lens changes would result in less wear. These cameras were designed and built for serious use.
- Murray
analogpics
Well-known
Even between the x570 and x700, the shutter speed dial and film advance both feels noticeably cheaper in the x570. Almost kind of hollow? I do prefer the manual mode in the x570 however.
Didnt know that about them, will have to see how much abuse they can take hehe. Thanks Murray!