How do (did) you focus slow zooms on an MF SLR?

Dante_Stella

Dante_Stella

Rex canum cattorumque
Local time
9:16 PM
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
1,862
Serious question. The higher-end cameras (Nikon F and Canon F-1 series, for example) have interchangeable screens, some of which have focusing aids optimized to small aperture lenses. But for most 1970s-1980s SLRs with fixed screens am I the only person who finds it frustrating that the microprisms never "clear" and that the split-image becomes super-dependent on eye position?

Dante
 
Same as above, but don't go wide. Focus at about 50mm, then either in or out. For me even with primes it is hard to micro prism focus that are long or wide. Pentax made a 90s SLR that the screen can be changed: LX (I think, but it still is high $). Also, find where aperture is the widest f2.8 rather than f4.0.
 
Its an exercise thing to get used to dim viewfinders. But it works.
The other way is scale-focus. Slower lenses that produce dimmer viewfinder
images are mostly not so critical when it comes to depth of field.
 
For the pro Nikons they made screens with prism angles matching slower and longer lenses. But most people back then did not bother to swap screens to match the lens, and went with iterative focusing on the matte field of the standard screen.
 
When I finally got a camera with interchangeable focusing screens (Olympus OM-4), I installed a screen that had the split at a diagonal which really worked for me. I still miss the old OM-4 cameras for the spot metering system it had.
 
Dante,

The work-around on slow zooms when not having an appropriate microprism or split image screen (i.e. one optimized for smaller apertures) was to focus with the matte screen and recompose. Still frustrating, but it allows focusing.

Giorgio
 
pagpow said:
Dante,

The work-around on slow zooms when not having an appropriate microprism or split image screen (i.e. one optimized for smaller apertures) was to focus with the matte screen and recompose. Still frustrating, but it allows focusing.

Giorgio
Click to expand...

Thanks - I never really thought of that as an accurate focusing surface with a fresnel, but I'll try it!

Dante
 
Dante_Stella said:
Thanks - I never really thought of that as an accurate focusing surface with a fresnel, but I'll try it!
Click to expand...

I've run into quite a few old-school photographers that preferred plain-matte screens, claiming that their three-step "too far, too close, hit the focus in the middle" method did not work that well with prism screens, them being too inconsistent when using a different aperture or focal length.
 
Even a lowly Practika MTL3 had a split screen prism with a ring of micro prisms (those were the least useful) around it. Never had troubles with that. You focus on an edge, recompose and done. Same with setting exposure, you point it a bit towards what you find important, set the needle, adjusted to taste and shot. Worked fine, even with Kodachrome. And the split getting darker is mostly how you hold you eye to the viewfinder, wiggle a bit and find the right position.

I never manage it with a matte screen.
 
I would grip the lens with one hand while holding the lens release button in.
Remove the zoom and replace it with a prime. Then focus and take

Slightly OT
All these years later, mirrorless cameras have put new life into slow lenses.
I feel like I've just discovered a lens I have had for 20+ years.
The Zeiss Contax.f4/40-80mm. It was always too dark with an slr especially at 40mm.
It's a nice lens onvthe Sony a7.
 
Dante, I didn't. I never was able to focus these lenses on DSLRs. For me, these lenses were DOA for these bodies.

Now days, mirrorless is a different thing. 10x Focus mag does the trick. And, focus peaking helps a lot too.
 
Dante_Stella said:
Serious question. The higher-end cameras (Nikon F and Canon F-1 series, for example) have interchangeable screens, some of which have focusing aids optimized to small aperture lenses. But for most 1970s-1980s SLRs with fixed screens am I the only person who finds it frustrating that the microprisms never "clear" and that the split-image becomes super-dependent on eye position?

Dante
Click to expand...

"With care and deliberation."

If the micro prisms aren't clearing and the split images go dark, you use the fine ground-glass field around them for focusing.

On my Nikon F, FE2, and FM2, I simply fit the E screen and focused all lenses the same way: no microprisms, no split image, just a beautiful fine ground glass focusing surface and a rectilinear grid. That's all you need.

G
 
Royal pain. Buy faster lenses.

Sometimes used matt area outside central microprism on my SPOTMATICs.

B screen on the Nikon F2`s I now have, full matt on Leica R bodys. Visoflex , the real ones, focus well anywhere. Electronic ones are garbage.

And speaking of garbage, mirrorless including every Leica , have a refresh rate way too slow and the screen looks like a movie from 1920`s where the image jumps instead of moving slow and smooth.

Mirrorless does not impress me one bit. It is a fad that deserves to die.
 
Ronald M said:
Royal pain. Buy faster lenses.

Sometimes used matt area outside central microprism on my SPOTMATICs.

B screen on the Nikon F2`s I now have, full matt on Leica R bodys. Visoflex , the real ones, focus well anywhere. Electronic ones are garbage.

And speaking of garbage, mirrorless including every Leica , have a refresh rate way too slow and the screen looks like a movie from 1920`s where the image jumps instead of moving slow and smooth.

Mirrorless does not impress me one bit. It is a fad that deserves to die.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your comments are a troll snark that deserves to die instead.

G
 
The split prism blacking out on slow zooms bothered me for a long time (and like others, I resorted to using the matte part of the screen to focus on the few zooms I had that weren't AF). But one day, quite by accident, I discovered that if I moved my eye around a little bit in the viewfinder, shazam, the blacked out split prism would go clear. It was a little tricky, but it happened. I also discovered that nearly every time I had already pre focused the lens using the matte part of the screen, the split prism showed that I had missed the focus. Maybe not by enough to make any difference, but it was indeed a little off.

This is regarding film SLRs, which usually (or so I hear) have much better and brighter focus screens than DSLRs. The only DSLR I ever owned, briefly, was a Nikon D50, and it certainly had a darker and squintier viewfinder than my N8008s, which was like looking through a large picture window with lots of eye relief..

And let's not forget focus confirmation lights. Some of my Nikon film cameras had nifty little green lights in the corner of the viewfinders to tell you when you had correct focus.
 
Which specific "1970s-1980s SLRs with fixed screens" are you talking about. A little more info might give a more exact answer.... Slow lens and split microprisms don't work well together as others have said. I, personally have a difficult time with split screens and prefer the matte screen and yes they can be hard to focus quickly.
 
Dante_Stella said:
Serious question. The higher-end cameras (Nikon F and Canon F-1 series, for example) have interchangeable screens, some of which have focusing aids optimized to small aperture lenses. But for most 1970s-1980s SLRs with fixed screens am I the only person who finds it frustrating that the microprisms never "clear" and that the split-image becomes super-dependent on eye position?

Dante
Click to expand...
I also run into that on my Bronica with 2x converter on the 80mm lens. Ordinarily, the waist level finder allows a lot of freedom when looking at the split image on the screen. But with the 2x resulting in an effective f5.6 aperture, I really need to center the eye. Of course, with the flip-up magnifier that's almost a given, but when shooting from waist level, it is a bit of a bother..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom