Super Scope

It was a sort of vf reverse periscope.
A window on the top of the camera that showed the view from the front of the camera.
Making a sort pf waist level finder.

I had a folder once that had a side prism.
Not exactly the same but kind of similar.
It was tiny. Kind of a peephole to look through.
 
The other day, I was wondering why there were no cameras with this feature, which seems like it would be easy enough to implement and would guarantee better-framed photos. I always worry about cropping heads with viewfinder cameras.

But what I was actually dreaming of was a little more involved, with a periscope in front of the lens that would swing of the way automatically when the shutter button is pressed, or a hot shoe attachment that did the same.
 
Superscope was an American hi-fi audio company in the 1950's-1970's.
Notably they distributed Sony tape recorders and later acquired Marantz.


PKR said:
I always thought Superscope was a cine format?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35
Click to expand...

Same company.


The miniature waist-level viewfinder on my Yashica T3D P&S seems like a good idea.
With bright overhead light e.g. daylight it is quite hard to see i.e. practically useless.

Chris
 
The real estate used for the SuperScope would better have been used for enlarging the main viewfinder. Odd that its front window is bigger than the main's.
 
mich rassena said:
The other day, I was wondering why there were no cameras with this feature, which seems like it would be easy enough to implement and would guarantee better-framed photos. I always worry about cropping heads with viewfinder cameras.

But what I was actually dreaming of was a little more involved, with a periscope in front of the lens that would swing of the way automatically when the shutter button is pressed, or a hot shoe attachment that did the same.
Click to expand...

Have you seen this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfield_Periflex

:)

Rob
 
mich rassena said:
The other day, I was wondering why there were no cameras with this feature, which seems like it would be easy enough to implement and would guarantee better-framed photos. I always worry about cropping heads with viewfinder cameras.

But what I was actually dreaming of was a little more involved, with a periscope in front of the lens that would swing of the way automatically when the shutter button is pressed, or a hot shoe attachment that did the same.
Click to expand...

Hi,

There are a lot of cameras with this feature, box cameras, folding cameras and - for example - Leicas with the AUFSU gizmo fitted. I call them waist level view finders, btw. And I have a very low opinion of them and as for the Periflex...

Anyway, what's wrong with just buying (say) any old SLR, with or without the WLVF, which will do the job far better?

Regards, David
 
These were standard on plate film folders and box cameras - the German term was "Brilliantsucher". By the fifties the general accuracy of cameras had increased to the point that a waist level view at a 1cm reflection was generally considered useless as a composing tool and these things fell out of use.
 
David Hughes said:
Hi,

There are a lot of cameras with this feature, box cameras, folding cameras and - for example - Leicas with the AUFSU gizmo fitted. I call them waist level view finders, btw. And I have a very low opinion of them and as for the Periflex...

Anyway, what's wrong with just buying (say) any old SLR, with or without the WLVF, which will do the job far better?

Regards, David
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with an SLR, and the existence of SLRs explains why such contraptions don't exist. But I like to tinker. The defining characteristic of the feature being discussed is the periscope. It could easily be used with an eye-level finder instead. The waist-level finders you've used examples are all of a different type, with a mirror reflecting directly on a screen without a second mirror or prism to relay the image like in a periscope.

I guess my thoughts boil down to a question about the history of photography. There was an era where some large portion of photographers used the viewfinder/rangefinder system rather than directly viewing the image on a ground glass and through the lens viewing hadn't been miniaturized yet to create the SLR (or they just continued using rangefinder cameras). Maybe it doesn't matter in the scheme of things, but it has always seemed odd to me that the finder windows on many cameras is located to the side and above the taking lens which makes the kind of tight composition available with ground glass or SLRs difficult or impossible with a viewfinder. I know this is partially an ergonomic issue making it easier to hold the camera on side of the face, instead of across the bridge of the nose. But again, a periscope could have made it possible to shift the image to the side of the camera, but left the viewing lens in the middle, and at least correct one dimension of parallax.
 
mich rassena said:
Sure, I was aware of the Periflex. I keep looking for one to buy, but they cost a bit more than I can do.
Click to expand...

Me too, actually. Mostly because I think those early ideas are interesting. I don't think especially practical but it would be fun!

For those of us who are left eyed shooters, there are not very many cameras that we can use with both eyes in the RF or scale focus cameras. Although, I usually turn the camera down when shooting vertical (on 35mm) so that I can use both eyes in that situation.

There were some slr cameras that did not have the vf centered, most recently, I think, was the Minolta Vectis APS camera which had the vf in the left corner.

Rob
 
rbiemer said:
Me too, actually. Mostly because I think those early ideas are interesting. I don't think especially practical but it would be fun!

For those of us who are left eyed shooters, there are not very many cameras that we can use with both eyes in the RF or scale focus cameras. Although, I usually turn the camera down when shooting vertical (on 35mm) so that I can use both eyes in that situation.

There were some slr cameras that did not have the vf centered, most recently, I think, was the Minolta Vectis APS camera which had the vf in the left corner.

Rob
Click to expand...

For some reason I like cameras which don't fit the mold. SLR designs converged at some point, with the Nikon F being the template. After using cameras for a few years, most of the niceties that came along over the years don't matter to me. Return mirror, lever wind, metering, autofocus are strictly not necessary. But I use the cameras for fun, so that makes a bit of difference.
 
FWIW, I had the Periflex in my misspent youth and some 40 or 50 years later to double check. Both times I found the periscope thingy irritating. It's for checking the focus but I found that finding what I wanted to focus on with it was difficult.

Regards, David
 
mich rassena said:
There's nothing wrong with an SLR, and the existence of SLRs explains why such contraptions don't exist. But I like to tinker. The defining characteristic of the feature being discussed is the periscope. It could easily be used with an eye-level finder instead. The waist-level finders you've used examples are all of a different type, with a mirror reflecting directly on a screen without a second mirror or prism to relay the image like in a periscope.

I guess my thoughts boil down to a question about the history of photography. There was an era where some large portion of photographers used the viewfinder/rangefinder system rather than directly viewing the image on a ground glass and through the lens viewing hadn't been miniaturized yet to create the SLR (or they just continued using rangefinder cameras). Maybe it doesn't matter in the scheme of things, but it has always seemed odd to me that the finder windows on many cameras is located to the side and above the taking lens which makes the kind of tight composition available with ground glass or SLRs difficult or impossible with a viewfinder. I know this is partially an ergonomic issue making it easier to hold the camera on side of the face, instead of across the bridge of the nose. But again, a periscope could have made it possible to shift the image to the side of the camera, but left the viewing lens in the middle, and at least correct one dimension of parallax.
Click to expand...

I would have said that SLR's have been around for a lot longer than CRF's. I think the first SLR's appeared, or were patented, in the 1860's. Trouble was, they were expensive and heavier and bulkier.

FWIW, I've an elderly SLR in the collection/heap and it weighs in at about 11 pounds with 12 quarter plate dark slides...

Then the CRF's and 35mm film came along and later on the SLR's made a comeback with the Exakta and so on.

Regards, David
 
I ask because I do a lot of my shooting from my bicycle or while driving- not always taking too much time to frame up shots. The on-top scope or viewfinder could be ideal for this. The Yashicas are absurdly over-priced and the Sure Shot Ace doesn't quite have the optics I desire.

Eh, guess I'll just have a to make my own camera...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom