ElrodCod
Established
Damn, they had a nice thing going & now they ruined it! Too bad!
Huck Finn
Well-known
With all of the talk about using the outer edges of the viewfinder for wide angle lenses, it occurred to me that parallax compensation is lost when such a techniaue is used. Not much of a problem for landscape or other shots taken from a distance, but a potential problem for tight framing or close-up shots - especially when trying to fit a group in the frame. Any thoughts?
JohnL
Very confused
Huck Finn said:
Absolutely! But for "normal" shots, no big deal.
John
You are absolutely right about the loss of parallax correction, Huck! In fact it seems to me I said something about that recently as a disadvantage of that technique. Maybe that was in a different thread...
I have tried the full-viewfinder method with Bronica RF645 and its 45mm lens (the widest frame is for the 65mm), cutting off nearby body parts. Quite annoying! I've been trying to learn not to do that, since I hope with some strict discipline it should be possible to manually compensate for that as the shot is framed. Hard though, in the heat of the moment.
This is like trying to cope with missing 28mm framelines when the only lines are for 40mm (76 vs 56 degree field). From my experience, I would not count on this being satisfactory for close-in subjects other than just occasionally.
But, agreeing here with Huck, 40mm and 35mm fields of view are not far different; 57 vs 63 degrees. So, instead of using the full viewfinder as a frame for a 35mm lens on the R3A, it might be reasonable to just concentrate on the outer edge+ of the 40mm framelines and follow its auto-parallex correction.
Same with using 28mm framelines for a 25mm lens, where the angles are close at 75 and 82 degrees. I've used a generous view of the 28mm frame with the Minolta CLE, and it worked ok for the 25. I only got the 28mm too due to nervousness about guessing focus close-in and wide-open.
I have tried the full-viewfinder method with Bronica RF645 and its 45mm lens (the widest frame is for the 65mm), cutting off nearby body parts. Quite annoying! I've been trying to learn not to do that, since I hope with some strict discipline it should be possible to manually compensate for that as the shot is framed. Hard though, in the heat of the moment.
This is like trying to cope with missing 28mm framelines when the only lines are for 40mm (76 vs 56 degree field). From my experience, I would not count on this being satisfactory for close-in subjects other than just occasionally.
But, agreeing here with Huck, 40mm and 35mm fields of view are not far different; 57 vs 63 degrees. So, instead of using the full viewfinder as a frame for a 35mm lens on the R3A, it might be reasonable to just concentrate on the outer edge+ of the 40mm framelines and follow its auto-parallex correction.
Same with using 28mm framelines for a 25mm lens, where the angles are close at 75 and 82 degrees. I've used a generous view of the 28mm frame with the Minolta CLE, and it worked ok for the 25. I only got the 28mm too due to nervousness about guessing focus close-in and wide-open.