Scrolling framelines, too hard to create?

There are perfectly adequate finders built-in to cameras and add-on models covering from 28mm to 135mm in one unit, but any wider than that and it would probably be unwieldy. Many extra-wides come with huge specialised finders anyway (eg. within the CV range) so occasionally choosing such an unusually wide lens can be handled without having the bulk and weight of a mega-wide adapter in/on the camera the rest of the time. I suspect most rf users own nothing wider than 24 or 28mm.

What do you see as the advantages of a wide-range scrolling (zooming?) viewfinder for most users ?
 
My point wasn't the wideness, sorry, 10mm is totally too much of course, but the point is the scrolling. To have not just 24, 35, 50 ja 90, but everything in between them. Like if I wanted to use a 40 mm on a M8, I could just scroll the framelines to that.
 
Not a bad idea. Digitally projected framelines in a sort of mini-HUD would be very cool. There could be a sensor that detects when your eye is up to the camera (like on the Canon 400D and others). When you're not looking through the VF, nothing would be projected. Digital framelines would also not rely on external light for illumination, so they would always be as bright as you want them to be. I'd also like some sort of hybrid between the CV/ZI shutter speed display and a +/- EV compensation bar.

There are plenty of innovations that can be applied while still keeping the essence of the RF experience intact.
 
the contax G2 has a multifocal view finder that adapts automatically from the 28 to the 90 mm + parralax correction... but they made it a bit too narrow ... they could have been a bit wider and put a frame... so you would have a "leica" effect (a wider finder with a frame inside)... but they didn't
 
To do it properly, focal length, parallax and focal distance (for coverage) should be accounted for. Parallax is pretty independent of the focal length, film coverage however, is strongly dependent on what lens you use (wide lenses are much less sensitive than long lenses). I.e., for the same lens, the frameline needs to be larger when you focus at infinity, and smaller when you focus close up.

Focal length could be communicated to the camera manually or via coding of the mount. Focal distance is harder since it changes depending on the photo.

IF you had an autofocus body (that knows about focal distance), and automatic or manual lens selection, it would be possible.

Either via a mechanically moving frameline with some micro computer control, or via an LCD frameline projected into the viewer. I believe we will see the latter sooner or later.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
To do it properly, focal length, parallax and focal distance (for coverage) should be accounted for. Parallax is pretty independent of the focal length, film coverage however, is strongly dependent on what lens you use (wide lenses are much less sensitive than long lenses). I.e., for the same lens, the frameline needs to be larger when you focus at infinity, and smaller when you focus close up.

Focal length could be communicated to the camera manually or via coding of the mount. Focal distance is harder since it changes depending on the photo.

IF you had an autofocus body (that knows about focal distance), and automatic or manual lens selection, it would be possible.

Either via a mechanically moving frameline with some micro computer control, or via an LCD frameline projected into the viewer. I believe we will see the latter sooner or later.

Roland.
Click to expand...

Yes, as already said, 'as soon as' 10 years ago in the Contax G2 lol 😛 (except that the outer areas where masked).
By way of a mechanical coupling, it continuously changed the magnification of the viewfinder depending on the mounted lens (or on the current focal length, when the zoom was mounted).
The frameline was indeed computer-controlled both in position as well as in size, depending on where you focussed (each side could move independently !).

It was built in titanium, could shoot at more than 4fps, the shutter was as fast as 1/6000s, it had TTL metering for flash, lenses were second to none...

... It had no red dot, though.
 
adonf said:
It was built in titanium, could shoot at more than 4fps, the shutter was as fast as 1/6000s, it had TTL metering for flash, lenses were second to none...

... It had no red dot, though.
Click to expand...

It had some of the best lenses ever produced (45/2 planar, 21 biogon)... but it was bit noisy...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom