External viewfinders for Barnacks

[jcb4718]

I wear glasses so using a Barnak was a problem. I came up with a couple of solutions (see attachment). Firstly I bought a old (film) SLR dioptre (which are readily available on Ebay). The frame that clips on to the camera is plastic so I cut off the sides using a Stanley knife, leaving just a lip at the top. I removed the Leica eyepiece and substituted the dioptre, securing it with Blu Tak. You laugh, but it works! I also bought a couple of the Canon viewfinders mentioned above. In my first attempt, I removed the pin and secured it to a cut-and-filed strip of Aluminium. I used screws so I needed to tap some screw holes into the bottom of the viewfinder. The thickness of the Aluminium enabled it to be securely slipped into the hot shoe. I obtained some old dioptre lenses. They are round (18.5mm OD) and were designed to be housed in 'universal' (film) SLR clip on eyepieces. By fantastic chance these can be fitted into the front of the Canon eyepieces, you just have to unscrew the front, insert the lens and screw the front back. I adjusted the height of the viewfinder using washers as shim. I adjusted the view to be correct at about 10 feet. in my second attempt the 85mm viewfinder) I obtained an old (1950's) Voigtlander clip on accessory shoe, removed the clip on bit, and attached the shoe to another cut-and-file Aluminium strip. In this case I kept the pin. I bored a very shallow hole in the shoe (into which the pin 'fitted') to obtain the best (10 foot) parallax. The second arrangement is MUCH easier to assemble. The viewfinders were not identical although they looked identical: in the first case I needed a little Blu Tak to secure the dioptre; in the second case it only just fitted and no Blu Tak was needed. One advantage of using the Aluminium strip is that it places the viewfinder behind the rear of the camera and so there is more room for one's nose! I had to figure out a way to attach dioptre lenses to a viewfinder because they do not provide enough eye relief when I wear my glasses. The Leica viewfinder is good but I can see no easy way to attach a dioptre correction lens.

 

[dc5]

Canon pin viewfinders are simple to adjust to a set, say 10 foot distance. Just push up on the pin until the proper view is achieved, and slide a small piece of paper on each side of the pin.

 

[batterytypehah!]

the SBOOI finders are insanely expensive now, around $180 and higher.

Those are asking prices (minimum bid/buy it now). If you search completed auctions you'll see they don't sell for nearly that much. Between $80 to just over $100 in the last few weeks, and somebody recently snagged a SBOOI with ugly finish from Adorama for $20.50. Another one that looked better but had small scratches in the glass fetched $46.

 

[nikonosguy]

rosol sports finder -- it's an eye catcher -

get a finder if you use anything other than 50 --- i keep my 28 finder on my m8 and it is certainly eye candy

 

[B-9]

External finders really do make for a good look 😉

Im waiting for a dirt cheap VIOOH to fall in my hands, just to add the nostalgic factor on my III.

...then comes a case right? Maybe a SELSY?...even if my body is sync modified already...looks good right 🙂

 

[BillBingham2]

Oh good heavens! Not only did the Canon 7 not have a shoe with a parallax correction pin, it didn't have a shoe at all. If you wanted a shoe, you had to buy an accessory one and attach it to the camera. The 7S and 7SZ had shoes but no pin in them.

Spavinaw, so very sorry if I offended the Canon-deities, I was off by one or two. Seems it was the V or VI that had the built in correction.

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Yb9B

Here is a hard to find adapter if you decide you to go crazy.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=canon+finder+coupler&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004

I'm a Nikon-aholic so while I remember some of the way cool features of the Canon line (e.g. this adjustment thingy, the EF's shutter speed dial) I don't have the same sometimes useful information.

Again, sorry to offend.

B2 (;->

 

[Spavinaw]

BillBillingham2--You haven't offended anybody. I just didn't want someone else to get mixed up. I've been a Canon SLR and RF fan since the F-1 was introduced; however, before that I had a Nikkormat FTN and I love them to this day. In fact I also have a Nikon FM2N, It was a deal I couldn't refuse.

 

[traveler_101]

If you're at least a little bit handy, a very nice brightline finder can be made from the finder that's part of the Kaligar tele/wide set for Kodak Instamatics. They are easy to find on ebay and cheap (I see one for $5 buy it now).

It has a clamp for attaching to the Kodak camera, so you will need to make or scrounge a standard accessory foot. Aluminum bar, hacksaw, vise, file, elbow grease 😀

I use one on top of my IIIf and it is a nice, well-made unit, all metal and glass, that looks great on a Leica. A lot like a SBOOI, in fact, except the glass has a bronze tint. You can mask it to give a 50mm field of view but I didn't even bother. I use the "wide" square (Instamatic was a square format) for my left and right border and the "tele" square for top and bottom.

That's good work! Going further to "mask" it - do you mean literally using masking tape to shape the opening?

 

[Fadedsun]

Wow! I've started quite the discussion! Glad to see lots of information pouring in.

Ultimately, I think I want to have something that allows me to correct parallax as much as possible, because I still don't quite understand how my pictures will come out when looking through the built-in viewfinder, but maybe it's a matter of practice makes perfect? As I've never used a rangefinder until I got the IIIC. I've been told that having the external viewfinder above allows for a better idea of how the final result will look.

 

[FrankS]

Parallax error is simply a fact of life with RF cameras even when not using external finders. The only solution is with the through the lens viewing of an SLR design, or a view camera.

The good news is that it's not that big of a deal, especially at longer distances. In circumstances where it is critical, then a RF camera is not the best tool for the job.

 

[batterytypehah!]

That's good work! Going further to "mask" it - do you mean literally using masking tape to shape the opening?

Exactly. I would use black tape (electrical tape).

The optics are very easy to take apart so for better looks and durability, I'd actually make an internal mask.

Forgot to mention that a drill press is also good to have. Drilling holes in the foot to match the threaded holes of the finder calls for a little precision. I didn't do the greatest job with mine and I'm tempted to start over.

As for parallax error, personally I don't trust any compensating mechanism, particularly if it isn't automatic. Sooner or later you will forget to adjust the finder manually. I prefer to leave the finder at infinity and compensate by aiming high.

 

[traveler_101]

Exactly. I would use black tape (electrical tape).

The optics are very easy to take apart so for better looks and durability, I'd actually make an internal mask.

Forgot to mention that a drill press is also good to have. Drilling holes in the foot to match the threaded holes of the finder calls for a little precision. I didn't do the greatest job with mine and I'm tempted to start over.

As for parallax error, personally I don't trust any compensating mechanism, particularly if it isn't automatic. Sooner or later you will forget to adjust the finder manually. I prefer to leave the finder at infinity and compensate by aiming high.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have one of these with the foot already attached; bought it years ago for the Olympus E-P1, but never used it much. Part of the reason is that the frame lines are so faint they're hard to see. I had decided not to bother with an external viewfinder on my IIIf because I prefer a very small package. But you are right that viewfinder is so small it really doesn't detract much from portability, and much is gained by comparison with the tiny built-in finder. Besides the external finder looks cool. Now to see if i can actually mask it.

To the OP: don't worry too much about parallax and you'll be alright. It is more worrisome for portraiture, for example, but you will learn to compensate over time.

 

[oltimer]

Spavinaw, so very sorry if I offended the Canon-deities, I was off by one or two. Seems it was the V or VI that had the built in correction.

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Yb9B

Here is a hard to find adapter if you decide you to go crazy.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=canon+finder+coupler&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004

I'm a Nikon-aholic so while I remember some of the way cool features of the Canon line (e.g. this adjustment thingy, the EF's shutter speed dial) I don't have the same sometimes useful information.

Again, sorry to offend.

B2 (;->

The Automatic parallax correction is on the canon VT model.

 

[Pioneer]

Ya spend what you want.

If you want a real nice viewfinder, spend the money, they are nice.

If you don't have the money the ones from Israel work. Never claimed it was pretty.

I have never yet seen a significant difference between the FOV accuracy of the $25 Israel viewfinder vs the $325 Zeiss Ikon viewfinder.

Buy an SLR if you are looking for accuracy.

I put my money into the film. You can put it anywhere you want. 🙂

 

[traveler_101]

Ya spend what you want.

If you want a real nice viewfinder, spend the money, they are nice.

If you don't have the money the ones from Israel work. Never claimed it was pretty.

I have never yet seen a significant difference between the FOV accuracy of the $25 Israel viewfinder vs the $325 Zeiss Ikon viewfinder.

Buy an SLR if you are looking for accuracy.

I put my money into the film. You can put it anywhere you want. 🙂

Good advice. Personally I hate the idea of spending a lot of money on a viewfinder. I also really dislike viewfinders that don't fit the camera properly. The 15 and 25mm Voigtlander finders, for example, are very good but they block full view of the shutter speed dial on the IIIf.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Ya spend what you want.

If you want a real nice viewfinder, spend the money, they are nice.

If you don't have the money the ones from Israel work. Never claimed it was pretty.

I have never yet seen a significant difference between the FOV accuracy of the $25 Israel viewfinder vs the $325 Zeiss Ikon viewfinder.

Buy an SLR if you are looking for accuracy.

I put my money into the film. You can put it anywhere you want. 🙂

My point was that one can make a much better 50mm finder for considerably less money than that ebay guy is charging for his pieces of plastic.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Personally I hate the idea of spending a lot of money on a viewfinder.

A good VF is essential, particularly for those of us who wear glasses. I have cameras that are practically useless to me with their integrated finders, the FED-2 for example.

The IIIf finder is adequate but no better than those in much cheaper cameras of the time, say a Retina I. Plus a lens hood will partially block it. So even for 50mm lenses, an external finder makes a lot of sense.

 

[philipus]

I use a VIOOH with my Leica II (with the TUVOO attachment for my 2,8cm Hektor, which makes for a very cool-looking kit), but seeing Erik's image above with the VISOR makes me wonder which is the better finder in actual use - is there any difference?

Clearly the VISOR is the better looking finder though.

Br
Philip

 

[Erik van Straten]

seeing Erik's image above with the VISOR makes me wonder which is the better finder in actual use

The VISOR was designed by Barnack himself for the Leica I with interchangeable lenses; it shows framelines for 35mm, 50mm and 135mm lenses. It shows a mirror image and has no parallax-correction. Use on later cameras is a bit awkward because the position of the foot. On later cameras a VIDOM or VIOOH is more appropiate.

Erik.

 

[ForestCap]

I know of the SBOOI and I believe there's a Voigtlander 50mm external as well. Both are definitely pricey and the Voigtlander external seems more difficult to find compared to the SBOOI. I was searching on Ebay and found this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/50mm-Viewfi...034?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a4fb2a492

It seems like it's self made by some guy in Israel. Has anyone ever bought one? I'm curious how it would compare. It says "no optic viewfinder" but what does that mean it terms of an external viewfinder?

Don't buy it if money matters to you. It's a modified Holga fish eye finder. The seller masked the ultra wide part with black paint according to the "focal length" he needs. I've used some other viewfinders built in some mountain village workshops I bought in China, they are a bit better than the modified Holga but still far from being comfortable to use. And none of them has framelines, it's simply too advanced to make at home.
I wouldn't waste my money on such things anymore.

Today the cheapest Albada/reverse-Galileo ("bright line") finder are made by Olympus for their 17mm (34mm eq.) pancake lens. I saw people use them for Jupiter-12 on FED-2. Too bad they don't make finders for other focal lengths. No other companies make and sell such finders with a price lower than 100 USD.

A balanced choice between price (I bought mine for 15$ )and functionality is the tele-wide finder for Yashica Electro 35 GX's aux. lenses. The "tele" frameline is 51mm on it, with "wide" being 33mm. And don't buy the one for Yashica Electro 35, it's 38mm and 58mm.

eBay is a crazy place, you can see simple, small-viewed reverse-Galileo (no frame line) finder with an over 200$ price tag, just because it has "Steinheil" carved/printed on it.