Some thoughts about 1:1 magnification

[hoot]

Though I've never held one in my hands, I'm fascinated by the idea of the Bessa R3a having a 1:1 magnification viewfinder, allowing one to shoot with both eyes open and still be able to take advantage of rangefinder focusing and parallax-corrected framelines. However, as I've understood it, lenses wider than 40mm won't give you the framelines in the R3a viewfinder because the viewfinder window is too small to accommodate them.

Being that so much money and efforts are being invested in developing high-class rangefinder cameras à la Leica M7, the new Zeiss Ikon, the medium-format Mamiya 7IIs, and digital rangefinders, why hasn't anyone thought of building a rangefinder with 1:1 magnification viewfinder that's big enough to include wideangle framelines such as 28mm? The new Zeiss Ikon already has a hump to fit its oversized viewfinder window. It's only a small step from there.

 

[back alley]

the canon p has the 1:1 finder in it and while i quite like it i have lived without it for many cameras before i started using p's.

it's nice but not a necessity.

joe

 

[hoot]

Joe, what are the widest framelines in the Canon P's viewfinder?

The reason I'm fascinated by 1:1 magnification is because I think it would improve photographer/subject interaction. By being able to maintain constant eye contact, I believe that less of a barrier would be created between the photographer and the subject.

 

[furcafe]

The P has 35mm frames @ its widest, but they're pretty close to the edge of the VF.

You can always learn to keep both eyes open even when using a camera w/ < 1:1 magnification finder. It's a little weird @ 1st, but it is possible (I do it all the time).

Joe, what are the widest framelines in the Canon P's viewfinder?

The reason I'm fascinated by 1:1 magnification is because I think it would improve photographer/subject interaction. By being able to maintain constant eye contact, I believe that less of a barrier would be created between the photographer and the subject.

 

[back alley]

that's right, 35 fl are the widest and hard to see at that.

i shoot mostly candids/street stuff so having an interaction with my subject is not so important to me.

joe

 

[pshinkaw]

Whether you have 1:1 magnification or not, your sibject still sees a glass eye. If you really want to maintain some photographer-subject contact, use a TLR , open both eyes and raise your head.

Of course I'm being facetious, This after all a rangefinder camera forum.

I do think that you can maintain some form of human-to-human contact with your subject by just not gluing your eye to the viewfinder. Use it for framing, use it for focusing, and use it for aiming. The rest of time open both eyes and look at your subject.

That's my big beef with SLR usage. It gets too impersonal to view the world through a lens. mirror, and inside of a 24X36 mm frame.

-Paul

-Paul

 

[hoot]

That's a clever post, pshinkaw. Thanks.

As change may have it, I'm babysitting a TLR this week and will see whether I'm brave enough to release the shutter while not looking into the viewfinder.

 

[RayPA]

Joe, what are the widest framelines in the Canon P's viewfinder?

The reason I'm fascinated by 1:1 magnification is because I think it would improve photographer/subject interaction. By being able to maintain constant eye contact, I believe that less of a barrier would be created between the photographer and the subject.

This is an interesting theory, Hoot. Does the 1:1 vf IMPROVE photographer/subject interaction? At first I disagreed; but I think it could improve that relationship, and only because it would be EASIER for the photographer to keep his/her eye open. The act of squinting to focus or frame is like closing your eyes to the subject, disengaging from the subject, signaling that something was going to happen, which then would seem to force the subject's attention to the lens/camera, bringing that "barrier" back up, or setting up the role of photographer and subject.

Theoretically, how do you regard the vf on digital cameras, specifically, the external LCD's on the back, where you could/can keep both eyes to the subject and frame the camera with quick glances?

😕

 

[hoot]

The act of squinting to focus or frame is like closing your eyes to the subject, disengaging from the subject, signaling that something was going to happen, which then would seem to force the subject's attention to the lens/camera, bringing that "barrier" back up, or setting up the role of photographer and subject.

Yes, that's exactly what I think. You've phrased it better than I could've.

Theoretically, how do you regard the vf on digital cameras, specifically, the external LCD's on the back, where you could/can keep both eyes to the subject and frame the camera with quick glances?

Hmm, was that a question? I don't shoot digital, so I'll have to pass on that one.

 

[former member]

The Nikon S3 also has a 1x viewfinder for 35mm lenses. The problem is flare, it takes in a lot of light. A 28mm FOV with a 1x finder would probably have an issue with flare.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why has no-one made a 1:1 finder with 28mm frames? For the same reason Kobayashi-san didn't. It's optically impossible in a combined range-view finder. Why do you suppose there's an R2A and an R3A?

Yes, it is easier to keep both eyes open with 1:1 but you can train yourself to do it with other magnifications: I've done it for years.

Or look for a Voigtlander Kontur, which you can't see through. I'm not kidding. One eye gives you the brightline frame; the other, the scene. The brain superi,poses one on the other.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[rbiemer]

I like 1:1 vfs but as I am left eyed (and my right eye is fairly useless except for motion) I end up with the camera covering most of my face--usually a good thing for the subject if I'm shooting people😀 I only really use one eye when Itake pictures so the binocular approach doesn't work for me.
Rob