Cale Arthur
---- ------
So, i'm still on the hunt for a Nikkor 3.5cm lens for my S2 (probably a 2.5, as even beater 1.8 prices have gone through the roof) and have a question: does anyone use or has anyone used a 3.5cm lens with the S2's internal finder? I seem to remember Kiu mentioning somewhere that you could get away with using the extreme edges of the S2's finder and be ok with a 3.5. I guess i'm just looking for some opinions on the practicality of this notion. I know this might seem silly to some, but i'm not much of an external finder kind of guy. Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated!
--c--
--c--
MikeL
Go Fish
Hi Cale, I used an S2 with 35mm f1.8 and internal viewfinder yesterday. I'm no longer wearing glasses, which helps, but I've gotten used to estimating the 35mm frame well enough. If you take the approach that framelines aren't perfect at all distances anyways and adjust conservatively, I think you'll be fine. Probably blasphemy for some, but whatever. I've also been estimating 75mm framelines on my M3 and so far no chopped heads!
I do this with my "beater" S2 and a J-12. You get a lot of margin with the internal finder. For any critical framing, I use an external finder. Plenty cheap ones around, I use one from a Kodak Retina that was $15. Just got a well-made finder for a Ricoh 500 that is a 35mm FOV, intended for an aux lens. But most often, I end up with the 3.5cm lenses on the S3 and the 5cm on the S2 or SP.
Cale Arthur
---- ------
Hey Mike & Brian.. thanks very much for weighing in - that's exactly the kind of info i was looking for! Honestly, hyper-accurate framing isn't as big of a concern as the coverage of the internal finder - as long as i can see the totality of that angle w/the internal, then i'll probably be able to figure out where it falls with some experience (Brian, is this what you meant by "you get a lot of margin"?).
--c--
--c--
MikeL
Go Fish
Roland gave me the okay a time before, so here is a diagram of his showing the difference between the 35 and 50, that helped me. I find the 1:1 finder and both eyes open makes it easier to estimate the area outside the 50.
Here's a link:
35, 50, 90 frame lines
Here's a link:
35, 50, 90 frame lines
Cale Arthur
---- ------
Wow, that's really handy. This certainly puts it all in perspective. Thanks for the link, Mike! (and hats off to you too, Roland, wherever you are!MikeL said:
)The 1:1 finder is the reason that i was curious about this initially - i really took to this way of viewing.. it just makes so much sense! I wonder why Nikon didn't include a 35 frame on the S2?
--c--
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
>>The 1:1 finder is the reason that i was curious about this initially - i really took to this way of viewing.. it just makes so much sense! I wonder why Nikon didn't include a 35 frame on the S2?<<
That would require a larger finder. According to the Nikon website (the "Thousand and One Nights" historical articles), Nikon was caught off guard by the M3 and late in production decided to make the finder 1:1 instead of 0.9:1.
That would require a larger finder. According to the Nikon website (the "Thousand and One Nights" historical articles), Nikon was caught off guard by the M3 and late in production decided to make the finder 1:1 instead of 0.9:1.
By "margin', i mean you can frame very tightly with the internal finder and know that the image will be there even with a store-made print.
The S3 has a 1:1 finder with a 35mm FOV. It is a bigger finder, and is more subject to flare than the S2 and SP.
The S3 has a 1:1 finder with a 35mm FOV. It is a bigger finder, and is more subject to flare than the S2 and SP.
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
The way I look at it, framing with a Rangefinder camera is no exact science anyway. If you look through a Nikon S2 without shifting your eyes to the corners,it gives a pretty close approximation of the 35mm view.
Kiu
Kiu
VinceC
Veteran
It really helps to spend some time looking through an S3 finder. Then, on an S2, you can judge the difference.