Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Maybe it's just a coincidence but the two I've bought recently have been very inacurate and it wasn't the camera's accessory shoe causing the problem as I initially suspected.
I bought a Voigtlander 75mm for the DP3M and got the genuine Sigma finder for the DP2M. I understand that parallax is a bit of a guess at closer distances but these things were both way out at infinity. The CV was incorrectly aligned horizontally but OK vertically while the Sigma was miles out vertically but the horizontal alignment was OK.
The CV required a fair bit of filing of the shoe plate to rotate it a couple of degrees then some packing to keep it in place. The Sigma was simpler in that the optical part is mounted with four screws so I was able to add some packing under the rear screws to get it where it was meant to be. Pretty shoddy stuff IMO!
I was prepared to blame the accessory shoes on the cameras until I mounted a Leitz variable finder ... it was almost 100% accurate in representing what the cameras were actually seeing. I understand and accept that framing with an accessory finder is a little vague but these things were a long, long way out!
I bought a Voigtlander 75mm for the DP3M and got the genuine Sigma finder for the DP2M. I understand that parallax is a bit of a guess at closer distances but these things were both way out at infinity. The CV was incorrectly aligned horizontally but OK vertically while the Sigma was miles out vertically but the horizontal alignment was OK.
The CV required a fair bit of filing of the shoe plate to rotate it a couple of degrees then some packing to keep it in place. The Sigma was simpler in that the optical part is mounted with four screws so I was able to add some packing under the rear screws to get it where it was meant to be. Pretty shoddy stuff IMO!
I was prepared to blame the accessory shoes on the cameras until I mounted a Leitz variable finder ... it was almost 100% accurate in representing what the cameras were actually seeing. I understand and accept that framing with an accessory finder is a little vague but these things were a long, long way out!
icebear
Veteran
Hi Keith,
I guess "you get what you pay for" applies also to finders
.
I guess "you get what you pay for" applies also to finders
.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Hi Keith,
I guess "you get what you pay for" applies also to finders
For sure ... and no real surprise that the Leitz one was spot on. If it wasn't such a monster on the camera I'd be tempted to use it all the time.
These things need to be fairly accurate because you're guessing where the focusing square is and it's nice to assume it's in the centre of the finder frame lines!
ferider
Veteran
It's a Q&A thing with the CV finders. I also had to rotate the VF mask of a CV 28mm metal finder once by a few degrees. Most of them are spot on though (I've gone through maybe a dozen, kept 28, 28/35, 35, 75 and 90). Next time buy two, and send one back
Roland.
peterm1
Veteran
Its a little hard with accessory finders as the accuracy can depend on which camera they were designed for. For example when I used an old Leitz accessory finder (one that was designed for Leica LTM cameras) on an M body the finder was out of alignment due to the extra height of the M body. This was particularly an issue closer up where parallax played a larger role. Although the finder had a vertical adjustment lever/ distance scale, it was not accurate on an M and I had to experiment and include a "fudge factor" when thus using it. So it may just be that the Voigtlander 75mm finder was not designed for the camera you were using it on.
But I certainly acknowledge that there can be design / build issues. I have an old 35mm Canon finder from the 1950s that I used a lot with my M3. Its metal mask for the 35mm field of view seemed to be rotated slightly by a couple of degrees. it had "tabs" that supposedly kept it aligned but somehow it was slightly off alignment. In other respects it was beautifully made and accurate.
I have also used a few generic finders supposedly with brightlines for wide angle, normal and tele lenses - These typically have no distance adjustment and are a real crapshoot to use, framing wise.
But I certainly acknowledge that there can be design / build issues. I have an old 35mm Canon finder from the 1950s that I used a lot with my M3. Its metal mask for the 35mm field of view seemed to be rotated slightly by a couple of degrees. it had "tabs" that supposedly kept it aligned but somehow it was slightly off alignment. In other respects it was beautifully made and accurate.
I have also used a few generic finders supposedly with brightlines for wide angle, normal and tele lenses - These typically have no distance adjustment and are a real crapshoot to use, framing wise.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's a Q&A thing with the CV finders. I also had to rotate the VF mask of a CV 28mm metal finder once by a few degrees. Most of them are spot on though (I've gone through maybe a dozen, kept 28, 28/35, 35, 75 and 90). Next time buy two, and send one back
Roland.
The CV 75mm was actually number two ... the first one I got had frame lines that were seriously tilted and I returned it for a replacement.
The Sigma one was the one that really surprised me because it's made for the specific camera by the manufacturer!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exactly. Zeiss are pretty good too. As are the old FSU "turret" finders. And ALL finders fit tighter and neater in my Leica accessory shoes than in other 35mm cameras I own.Hi Keith,
I guess "you get what you pay for" applies also to finders
Cheers,
R.
thegman
Veteran
I got an old Zeiss 30mm finder, and certainly the view through it is quite nice, and the build is superb. I must say I prefer the Voigtlander plastic ones though, crystal clear in my experience.
I do like the indestructibility of the Zeiss one though.