? re. using an external finder on the rd1

[back alley]

i have a nikon 35-135 zoom finder.
i bought this to use on my rd1 along with the 85 mm lens.
it does not seem very accurate (and please don't tell me to get an slr if i want accurate)
i have used external finders before and use them now for my 21 and 15 mm lenses on the rd1 and have no problems.

the finder seems most accurate set at around 105 and infinity.

is this 'normal'?
so far, i am having better accuracy with using the built in 50 mm frame lines and guesstimating the framing.

am i doing something wrong here? an 85 on the rd1 with crop factor should be about a 130 fov so i thought setting the zoom finder at 135 would be perfect but it's way off.

might it be the finder that's off? it is in great shape and seems like new.
am i missing something?

i could use some words of wisdom here guys.

joe

 

[back alley]

i feel so lonely...

 

[mgd711]

I think its just the time Joe, Saturday night with you, Sunday afternoon here.

 

[f16sunshine]

I can only tell you my experience trying to use a Zeiss ikon turret finder on the rd1. .......... Not good.
It seems to work pretty well with my IIIa but not perfect there either.
These multi finders seem to be dedicates to certain systems. I wonder if the new cv finder will be better with the rd1. Maybe the head drinkslinger can give us a clue on that front. Btw I tried a 100mm canon finder with my Summarit75. Neither the rd1 or m8 seemed to match up well to that finder even though it was a single FL.

 

[payasam]

Joe, just what do you mean by "accurate"? Is the 135 frame too large or too small or is it off L-R or U-D? The Nikon "varifocal" was said to be a pretty good expression of its kind; but all of them (perhaps barring the VIOOH) are relatively complex and therefore prone to error. If you want a finder only for use with your 85mm on the R-D1, you might be best off with a single length finder which has parallax adjustment. None is currently made.

 

[pagpow]

Joe,

Don't know that I have any words of wisdom, but possibly some experience. I went back to check some frames I shot with a Canon 100 3.5 and an Alpex 35-200 finder.

Grain of salt to go with this -- some of my conclusions are from reviewing the frames actually shot.

1) On the day of shooting, I found my framing (comparing finder and frame captured) off.

2) My recollection was that I had to zoom beyond the calculated 152 or so to get the frame size approximately right. This comports with my memory that another thread suggested using a setting longer than the calculated setting (ie 85X1.52) in your case.
this could also be a problem peculiar to my finder.

3) Review of the frames suggests that the finder was framing high -- ie I saw the whole head in the finder, but the captured frame decapitated most of my subjects (just the top of the head). This might be results of shake -- ie I finder see the whole head, press shutter too hard driving camera down. On the other hand, it seemed consistent from frame to frame. Draw your own conclusions. shooting distance was between head and shoulders on one and upper body shots for a group of three -- so I would have thought that was far enough away to reduce parallax error. My Alpex has a base parallax correction and it was set at infinity -- correction from 15ft to infinity seems small.

4) Can't tell whether there was a lateral displacement issue from the frames.

5) I decided I was better off approximating w. built-in finder, as others have suggested, but I haven't put that to the test yet.

Giorgio

 

[back alley]

i'm going with the 50mm fl and guestimation.
seems to work best so far.

 

[Ezzie]

Rich has a peice on his site concering zoom finders: http://www.richcutler.co.uk/r-d1/r-d1_04a.htm