landsknechte
Well-known
I'm a left eyed shooter, which means that I typically end up with strange imprints on my forehead from accessory viewfinders. I've been contemplating one of the various Leica "sportsfinders", but I've never had a chance to look at one in person. Do they jut out from the back of the camera in the same way that the eyepiece of a regular accessory viewfinder would, or do they fit more flush to the camera body?
Thanks,
--Chris
Thanks,
--Chris
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Chris,
When I use mine I have my eye almost in the little square opening
(while I`m aiming for the wide rim for 35mm mask)
but it won`t leave a mark on your head or anything, I think that the ROSOL is the best finder and also more lightweight then anything else and it works on 35/50/90 and 135mm fields
I only want a VIOOH for collectors reasons, I use the ROSOL now full-time on my everyday camera *1945 "Half Race" Leica IIIC to IIIFBD conversion*
(see below)
First time I`ve ever used this type of finder since I started Leica and I find it the most comfortable and also light weight and also quite the conversation piece
It does stick out like a inch or so in the back, but you hold it to where you are comfortable and adjust your distance with the backpiece which slides up and down, real easy!
Only downside is these are also collectable and while they used to be $50 items, are now always fought for over the evilbay, with some luck still you can find them under $100 - Canon also made one as well in the 1950`s, but it`s pretty rare and is also in the collectable bracket price
Tom
When I use mine I have my eye almost in the little square opening
(while I`m aiming for the wide rim for 35mm mask)
but it won`t leave a mark on your head or anything, I think that the ROSOL is the best finder and also more lightweight then anything else and it works on 35/50/90 and 135mm fields
I only want a VIOOH for collectors reasons, I use the ROSOL now full-time on my everyday camera *1945 "Half Race" Leica IIIC to IIIFBD conversion*
(see below)
First time I`ve ever used this type of finder since I started Leica and I find it the most comfortable and also light weight and also quite the conversation piece
It does stick out like a inch or so in the back, but you hold it to where you are comfortable and adjust your distance with the backpiece which slides up and down, real easy!
Only downside is these are also collectable and while they used to be $50 items, are now always fought for over the evilbay, with some luck still you can find them under $100 - Canon also made one as well in the 1950`s, but it`s pretty rare and is also in the collectable bracket price
Tom
Last edited:
landsknechte
Well-known
Cool... I've got a VIOOH and a Tewe finder, the positioning of both are far from comfortable when I'm trying to use the rangefinder. If it wasn't for the comfort factor, I'd be 100% happy with the Tewe.
R
richiedcruz
Guest
Nope, they stick out from the front of the camera. Unless I need the paralax correction, I do not usually bother with the little opening in the back. You just have to make sure that your eye is roughly about where the opening would be.
Richie
Richie
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Yeah, I thought I wanted a Tewe before for my Nikkor f2/85 for using on my
IIIC`s (the Nikkor f2/85 is`nt so great on a IIIC, while the original chrome Nikkor hood makes the viewfinder flare badly)
BUT, after I put the lens on a Canon 7s for the FIRST TIME, I realized I did`nt want to use the IIIC`s anymore for anything but a "wartime" Elmar 35 and all my 50`s - The Nikkor f2/85 and the Canon 7s are a match made in heaven!
Tom
Last edited:
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Chris, I'm right eyed but often -- vertical shots -- needed to look into the accessory finder with my left eye. With a bit of practice you might be able to focus using your right eye.
landsknechte
Well-known
I've got 20/15 vision in my left eye, and my right eye is astigmatic, near-sighted, and doesn't quite line up properly. I have no natural depth perception without glasses. So far, my attempts to retrain myself have been in vain.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
That does make things difficult.
To be accurate, a frame finder must be of a certain length. However, it can stick out in front above the lens (see Tom's photo) and be flush with the rear edge of the top plate.
To be accurate, a frame finder must be of a certain length. However, it can stick out in front above the lens (see Tom's photo) and be flush with the rear edge of the top plate.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Chris,
The RASAL has frame lines for everything from 35 to 135. They are much less than the Nikon one that Fred has, though somewhat not as cool. You can find them from time to time on EvilBay for $35, but going price is much more.
I loved it on my Bessa T and think you would be fine with it or a 3rd party clone. I have a clone that needs adjusting (it is lazy, sits down all the time). Drop me a PM if you're interested. I might have a second RASAL if I can dig through what is left.
B2 (;->
The RASAL has frame lines for everything from 35 to 135. They are much less than the Nikon one that Fred has, though somewhat not as cool. You can find them from time to time on EvilBay for $35, but going price is much more.
I loved it on my Bessa T and think you would be fine with it or a 3rd party clone. I have a clone that needs adjusting (it is lazy, sits down all the time). Drop me a PM if you're interested. I might have a second RASAL if I can dig through what is left.
B2 (;->
Roger Hicks
Veteran
One word of warning here: not everyone likes frame finders, especially on 35mm, where they are big, bulky and easy to knock off. Framing is fairly vague, too, but this will come as no great surprise to most Leica owners. I still have a frame finder for Linhofs, but I got rid of my last RASUK many years ago.
The RASUK was 35/73 one way, 50/90 the other, and you had to add the (easily lost) mask RAMET to get 105/135mm. RASUK + RAMET = RASAL. As far as I recall, ROSOLwas rather less useful and not a lot more common: 50-90-135 without the rotating front. I've always find a Tewe, FSU Zeiss turret copy or dedicated single-focal-length optical finder much more useful.
I'm not calling anyone wrong: I'm just saying that some people (me included) are less enchanted than others when it comes to frame finders.
Cheers,
Roger
The RASUK was 35/73 one way, 50/90 the other, and you had to add the (easily lost) mask RAMET to get 105/135mm. RASUK + RAMET = RASAL. As far as I recall, ROSOLwas rather less useful and not a lot more common: 50-90-135 without the rotating front. I've always find a Tewe, FSU Zeiss turret copy or dedicated single-focal-length optical finder much more useful.
I'm not calling anyone wrong: I'm just saying that some people (me included) are less enchanted than others when it comes to frame finders.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
landsknechte
Well-known
Roger, how do you mean "rotating front"?
If they made an adapter that shifted the accessory shoe forward by a hair less than a centimeter, I'd be a happy camper. The jab in the forehead factor is the only real reason why I'm looking for an alternative.
If they made an adapter that shifted the accessory shoe forward by a hair less than a centimeter, I'd be a happy camper. The jab in the forehead factor is the only real reason why I'm looking for an alternative.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The front mask is on a foot forming an L-shape: the mask is the upright, the foot, the horizontal leg.
The foot is pn a post that can swivel, so the layout is (i for rear eyepiece)
i _l (front mask further away) or i l_ (front mask closer)
As for the second, a trick I did with an FSU turret is to file off the front part of the foot that goes into the accessory shoe so that it goes in deeper -- not 1cm, obviously, but conveniently further forwards, maybe as much as 5mm (it's on one of my wife's cameras so I can't check at the moment -- she's asleep and the camera is in the bedroom). At the same time I added a little brass packing piece so that the finder fits really tightly into the accessory shoe (on a Bessa-T) and won't fall out/get knocked out.
Cheers,
Roger