Meters to Feet

farlymac

farlymac

PF McFarland
Local time
6:14 PM
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
7,657
So, after going through the trouble of cleaning out yet another Agfa, I didn't want to have to do much extra thinking while using it. The focus ring was marked in Meters, and though I can do a good estimation in my head in converting that to feet, I'd rather like to have a guide to make sure I was close.

So I broke out the label maker, and created a chart to put on the back of the camera. It's attached temporarily with painters tape so that it can be removed in between uses, and doesn't mess up the surface in case of future sale. Also closed up the 6x6 window on the door so I didn't get frame markings on the film.


Meters To Feet by br1078phot, on Flickr

PF
 
I have a 25 mm CV in meters only. I paced off various distances , measured them and put the results inside the lens cap.

You are still forced to take a measurement for say 5.6 feet.

One hint. Measure how high your eyes are, look down 45 degrees, and that is the same distance. A tile floor is good for learning.
 
If you can guess distance so well that you can pick out the difference between a meter and a yard by eye, you're a better man than I am.
 
I'd prepare for the inevitable change and learn metric instead :)

800px-Metric_system_adoption_map.png
 
Jockos said:
I'd prepare for the inevitable change and learn metric instead :)
Click to expand...

In maybe 1992 The New England Journal of Medicine, considered by many the world's premier medical journal, switched to SI (Système Internationale) units. It lasted some months, and then they switched back. That's over 20 years ago. I don't think the US either would or could adopt the metric system.
 
Anything European that was copied by the USA that required a conversion from Metric to Imperial either didn't work, or blew up. ;)


I'm reasonably accurate at guessing distances in meters. If I need to know the distance in feet I just multiply by 3. Works well enough for distances over 3 meters.
Or I just go Hyperfocal if I'm really lazy... :D
 
I have used both systems throughout my life (in the UK). Inches and feet seem to be a better scale around the house, e.g. carpentry. But I'm a physicist and its the completeness of the SI units that give it the edge in science. The complete system includes metres, kilograms, seconds, temperature (degrees kelvin, where zero means zero), current (amps), moles (quantity) and candela (visible energy). Even in the US, amps, moles and candelas are used, there's no alternative...but for estimating image distances in photography 3 feet = 1 metre is close enough for me.
 
George Bonanno said:
The metric system is insanely inaccurate for all practical purposes whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Yeah, why is the metric system (insanely) inaccurate? A distance is a distance, measured in inches or centimetres or whatever is absolutely not important.

I'd like to hear an elaboration too, George, please!
 
My newest Leica lens has feet and meters, in the same size font, one in white and one in yellow, but I notice that my ZM 25/2.8. also in black, has large white numbers for the distance scale in meters, and smaller dark red numbers for the feet. Interesting.....
 
jcb4718 said:
I have used both systems throughout my life (in the UK). Inches and feet seem to be a better scale around the house, e.g. carpentry. But I'm a physicist and its the completeness of the SI units that give it the edge in science. The complete system includes metres, kilograms, seconds, temperature (degrees kelvin, where zero means zero), current (amps), moles (quantity) and candela (visible energy). Even in the US, amps, moles and candelas are used, there's no alternative...but for estimating image distances in photography 3 feet = 1 metre is close enough for me.
Click to expand...

As an engineer, I do the same. Comfortable in either units. It's not that hard.
 
farlymac, nice looking camera! As far as I am concerned, any Solinar-lensed Agfa is worth sprucing up with whatever mods or aids it takes to make it more comfortable to use.

It occurs to me that if you wanted to be really slick about it you could cut out and adhere a new focus scale directly onto the focusing ring itself, rather than the look-up chart on the back. Aside from being able to set the focus directly in your preferred units without having to do a conversion, another advantage is that you could make the scale marks at whatever convenient intervals you liked (e.g., 3.5', 4', 5', 6'', 8' 10', 15', 30', inf), instead of the odd numbers. The main downside is that it would take some a bit of effort to work out exactly where to place your scale marks since the focus scale isn't linear. But it certainly can be done.

Hmmm... and then you could even market them on eBay for say, $5 each. :)
 
I was under the impression that the US went metric about 1975. I was surprised to hear that because we did it here comparatively painlessly at the same time but a decree that banned the importation of foot rulers for 5 years helped!:(

When I bought my '95 Camaro it was all metric - GM had decided to go with the decree thus confirming to me the story was true.

Printing scales isn't too hard - I was forced to make a new shutter speed scale for the Zorkii 4 as it was originally painted and was growing faint fast. All very fiddly but well worth the effort.
 
This is almost embarrassing , openly admitting this, But, To save my life I just couldn't understand why anyone would be metering off their feet ? Was I alone in this thought upon
viewing the heading of the post? Peter

ps: weren't those Camaros made in Canada?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom