Nikon F3HP now focuses like a Leicaflex SL

T

Tejasican

Well-known
Local time
6:52 AM
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
203
I recently added a DK-17M to my F3HP to see if it would improve my ability to focus the thing (it does) and the viewfinder is now very similar in magnification and ease of focus to the Leicaflex SL I have. With an F4 screen it is at least equal to if not a tiny bit brighter than the SL.

I had not seen anyone discuss this but have noticed several people who also had trouble with focusing the F3. Trying this may add a few years to your ability to keep using the body.
 
Isn't that rather a convoluted way to achieve a magnification similar to the regular (i.e. non-HP) DE-2 finder?
 
The DK-17M gives more magnification than the DE-2. I have the DE-2 as well and have the same problem as I do on the HP finder.

My photos were always "just" off on the F3 with the higher magnification of the OM's and the Leicaflex the focus was dead on - so I took this step to even them out. I have seen several people comment here and other places about having trouble with focus with some moving to autofocus some to cameras like the Leica R so I thought I would contribute my experience for that particular body. I am "far-sighted" also, so a "near-sighted" person's experience will vary.

As an aside, I am currently in process weighing all these systems and determining which to keep. As far as a camera that just gets out of my way, the Leicaflex fits the bill, but I have one lens and being a priest (Anglican with wife and kids) the chances of ever having money to get more "R" glass is probably slim. It holds very well for my hands because of the shape of the body but is heavy on days the arthritis is more operative. I meld very well with this camera, but could never afford to fix it. I do, on occasion, miss the ability to do aperture priority.

The F3 I have had for several years and have a few lenses, but the thinness+weight is difficult more often than not. The experience even with the DK-17M is good, but not the "get out of the way" of the Leicaflex overall. A Nikon is easy to get repaired and lenses are plentiful- the most practical financially. My glasses love the rubber eyepieces.

The OM's are almost as quiet as the Leicaflex, the viewfinder fairly easy (although I'd love to see a series 2 screen) and the weight is great but on a day the arthritis is bad the shutter ring is painful. An OM-2n might fix that, thus my trade offer in the classifieds.

Practically, my view is Nikon-Olympus-Leica but subjectively it's Leica-Olympus-Nikon which is pretty consistent for both the bodies and the lenses.
 
There is one important thing you should know: there isn't anything like an SLR that focuses well all the lenses. I have about a dozen of SLR's between Leicaflex, Leica R, Nikon and Minolta, and I have been through hell of testing all the lenses with all the bodies, sometimes multiple times, as I have been changing the screens on my F2 and F3. Contrary to what may be obvious, each focusing screen introduces a variation of perfect focus plane with a lens of a given FL and speed. This is why, among other reasons, why you can get 35 different focusing screens for Nikon F3.
For example, my Leicaflex SL focuses well the tele lenses beyond 90mm, the 90mm Summicron and Macro Elmarit 60, but misses focus on the 50mm Summilux and Summicron, on 80mm Summilux and 90mm Elmarit.
When I find a body and a screen that match well to a lens I like, I just glue the lens (metaphorically) to this camera.
I also wear glasses, but I find the F3 with DE2 or F2 with DE1 perfectly sufficient to get sharp focus, PROVIDING I have a tested lens on. One of the biggest blunders in Nikon line is the FM3A - I have 2 bodies, and so far have not found a single lens among 20 or so, that focuses well on these.
BTW, if you decide to test your body lens combinations too, do not use the split focusing aid, just check the focus on the plain screen, as you would normally do, because the split aid is also introducing false information.
 
mfogiel said:
There is one important thing you should know: there isn't anything like an SLR that focuses well all the lenses. I have about a dozen of SLR's between Leicaflex, Leica R, Nikon and Minolta, and I have been through hell of testing all the lenses with all the bodies, sometimes multiple times, as I have been changing the screens on my F2 and F3. Contrary to what may be obvious, each focusing screen introduces a variation of perfect focus plane with a lens of a given FL and speed. This is why, among other reasons, why you can get 35 different focusing screens for Nikon F3.
For example, my Leicaflex SL focuses well the tele lenses beyond 90mm, the 90mm Summicron and Macro Elmarit 60, but misses focus on the 50mm Summilux and Summicron, on 80mm Summilux and 90mm Elmarit.
When I find a body and a screen that match well to a lens I like, I just glue the lens (metaphorically) to this camera.
I also wear glasses, but I find the F3 with DE2 or F2 with DE1 perfectly sufficient to get sharp focus, PROVIDING I have a tested lens on. One of the biggest blunders in Nikon line is the FM3A - I have 2 bodies, and so far have not found a single lens among 20 or so, that focuses well on these.
BTW, if you decide to test your body lens combinations too, do not use the split focusing aid, just check the focus on the plain screen, as you would normally do, because the split aid is also introducing false information.
Click to expand...

A revelation.
 
Good to know, mfogiel, thanks a lot. Maybe things would be less frustrating if I had a huge SLR and lens sale and went RF.
 
If what I read on the original post, you should not use an F4 screen in an F3. The proper way is to disassemble the F4 screen and remount in the F3 frame. There is enough difference between the screen frame to introduce focussing errors, which you are trying to improve. Trust me, I've known this since the 90's and have done plenty of arguing on the internet to try and correct this. Bottom Line: The only way to get the brighter F4 screen into an F3 is to disassemble and remount in the F3 frame. Unless you are looking for more focussing errors, then by all means have fun.
 
Could just be me but I don't seem to have trouble focusing my F3 personally, could be that I'm relatively young and with good eyesight, but my F3 with a K screen (red dot) is easy to focus with my 24 / 50 / 105 combo.

I actually rather like the split image focusing method, always seems to work well for me.
 
mfogiel said:
There is one important thing you should know: there isn't anything like an SLR that focuses well all the lenses. I have about a dozen of SLR's between Leicaflex, Leica R, Nikon and Minolta, and I have been through hell of testing all the lenses with all the bodies, sometimes multiple times, as I have been changing the screens on my F2 and F3. Contrary to what may be obvious, each focusing screen introduces a variation of perfect focus plane with a lens of a given FL and speed. This is why, among other reasons, why you can get 35 different focusing screens for Nikon F3.
For example, my Leicaflex SL focuses well the tele lenses beyond 90mm, the 90mm Summicron and Macro Elmarit 60, but misses focus on the 50mm Summilux and Summicron, on 80mm Summilux and 90mm Elmarit.
When I find a body and a screen that match well to a lens I like, I just glue the lens (metaphorically) to this camera.
I also wear glasses, but I find the F3 with DE2 or F2 with DE1 perfectly sufficient to get sharp focus, PROVIDING I have a tested lens on. One of the biggest blunders in Nikon line is the FM3A - I have 2 bodies, and so far have not found a single lens among 20 or so, that focuses well on these.
BTW, if you decide to test your body lens combinations too, do not use the split focusing aid, just check the focus on the plain screen, as you would normally do, because the split aid is also introducing false information.
Click to expand...

FWIW I have remounted F3 K screens into F2 Frames to use on Nikon F2's with DE-1 prisms. I also had a plain F2 Beattie intenscreen without any focusing aids and it seemed ideal for use with telephoto lenses and ill suited for wides.

Currently I have a Beattie Intenscreen with a split image mounted on my F3P. It is considerably brighter than a standard F3 K screen yet with certan lenses this added brightness confounds focusing because the contrast gets washed out.

I find that with some lenses it is the contrast helps, particularly with wides, yet because the split image on the Beattie screen is so oversized that specifically when using a Nikon 28/2.8 AIS that my F3P more closely is like a rangefinder. In some ways if it were not for the massive oversized split image on the Beattie I'd have to use an plain original F3 K screen.

Another case in point is with the 45/2.8P (a simple Tessar lens with the most modern multicoating), a very contrastty lens, that the Beattie works great and it is very well suited for use with the 55/2.8 Macro AIS.

Also note that generally I prefer to focus on the ground glass.

Cal
 
do not use the split focusing aid, just check the focus on the plain screen, as you would normally do, because the split aid is also introducing false information.
Click to expand...

Strange. I never use anything else than the split screen as the plain part is to dubious to focus with at all. Even with an 180 (MF) this never failed for me. Might be because my eyesight isn't 100%.
 
mfogiel said:
One of the biggest blunders in Nikon line is the FM3A - I have 2 bodies, and so far have not found a single lens among 20 or so, that focuses well on these.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Over the years I've owned the FM3a on 3 occasions. Each time I couldn't focus it reliably and ended up selling it. So my experience backs up what you're saying.

But it doesn't make sense that a premium camera maker like Nikon would make a top flight manual focus SLR that has problems with manual focus, or that this is not widely known. I had assume that the problem was with me, not with the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom