VIOOH / Imarect possibly out of alignment?

M

MrRom92

Established
Local time
1:15 PM
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
52
View My Gallery
I picked one of these up not too long ago, to get that extra accuracy in framing, even with a 50mm… or to be able to use longer lenses... but I am finding on my last few rolls, every shot is consistently shifted slightly upwards from what I think I’m shooting. Or to the right, if shooting portrait orientation. It’s pretty frustrating! I realize these cameras will never be a precision framing device like an SLR or something, but I think things oughta be better than this… is it possible the VIOOH is somehow at fault? Or just chalk this up to idiot user error?
 
charjohncarter said:
Are you using the parallax adjustment? It is at the base of the VIOOH.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has the adjustment scale in feet which to my understanding is somewhat unusual. Since my Leitz lenses have the focusing scale in meters, I am doing my best to visually estimate distance on the VIOOH… but as an American being used to measuring in feet anyway, I imagine I’m not so far off from the actual measurement to cause the framing to be so far out of whack on a consistent basis.
 
What are you using it on. It's been quite a few years since I used one but I seem to recall that if you used one on an M for example the result would not be the same as on an LTM camera due to parallax caused by the different height above the centre line of the lens. Unless different variants were made for the LTM and M cameras I think these were calibrated for the LTM as regards height of the top plate. I still own 2 of these from my M3 days and I do recall some parallax issues when used on an M camera - which I just got used to and then just compensated for as I used them - more compensation is needed for closer objects obviously. One I own has a setting for use with 75mm lenses and (this being a Leica screw mount lens back then) I think it was the older of the two that I own. But I do not recollect that they behaved differently from each other with respect to their framing accuracy - I think both had similar slight framing inaccuracies on M cameras. If that is not your problem then I am not sure what else it can be. I had a little collection of 10 or so finders of various types and designs - it was something that interested me and I thought at one time that it was something relatively inexpensive to collect and use with my cameras. But eventually I stopped as prices rose over the years.

Also from memory I have opened a couple up in years gone by to clean the optics and they are simple to service. Come in through the back and there is a prism and lenses in them. I seem to recall a simple plate held down by screws that holds the innards in place. I suppose if the screws are not tight something could have shifted but it's hard to see how that could alter the alignment to produce the effect you mention. Still as I say it's been quite a few years and my memory may be faulty.
 
That's a good point^^. My IIIf shoe is slightly off the center of the lens and the same with my Bessa R. The M looks (on the internet) like it is a little more off center (and possibly a little higher), but who knows. I've only used my VIOOH once or twice on the Bessa R when I wanted to try a 135mm lenses and I remember that it was off.

What type of camera are you using?
 
peterm1 said:
What are you using it on. It's been quite a few years since I used one but I seem to recall that if you used one on an M for example the result would not be the same as on an LTM camera due to parallax caused by the different height above the centre line of the lens. Also from memory I have opened a couple up in years gone by to clean the optics and they are simple to service. Come in through the back and there is a prism and lenses in them. I seem to recall a simple plate held down by screws that holds the innards in place. I suppose if the screws are not tight something could have shifted but it's hard to see how that could alter the alignment to produce the effect you mention. Still as I say it's been quite a few years and my memory may be faulty.
Click to expand...



charjohncarter said:
That's a good point^^. My IIIf shoe is slightly off the center of the lens and the same with my Bessa R. The M looks (on the internet) like it is a little more off center (and possibly a little higher), but who knows. I've only used my VIOOH once or twice on the Bessa R when I wanted to try a 135mm lenses and I remember that it was off.

What type of camera are you using?
Click to expand...


I’m using it on a IIIf, and for whatever it’s worth - this is an earlier VIOOH with the lyre shaped body and 7.3cm setting. But if there’s not anything that can go wrong with it or any sort of alignment then I can only assume the problem probably exists behind the eyepiece 🙂
 
MrRom92 said:
I’m using it on a IIIf, and for whatever it’s worth - this is an earlier VIOOH with the lyre shaped body and 7.3cm setting. But if there’s not anything that can go wrong with it or any sort of alignment then I can only assume the problem probably exists behind the eyepiece 🙂
Click to expand...

One other thought belatedly occurs. This finder has a little toggle lever at the bottom to adjust the distance to the subject. As I am sure you know. Is there any chance it could have slipped? - e.g. There is a screw holding it in place. Is there a chance that it could have somehow allowed the toggle to move out of correct position for each distance setting? (Too lazy to hunt though my camera storage to find mine and check if this is possible). Just a thought. Though if as you say there is also some lateral error as well, this would not explain that. In which case I would be inclined to agree the problem is internal. Had any fumbles or drops? More than once I had one drop out of my accessory shoe to the ground. I recall on one occasion one of these fell without my noticing until some time later. When I realized it was no longer mounted I had to stop, recall when I last used it then turn around and backtrack a mile or more till I found it. Fortunately I was walking along quiet suburban streets and it had fallen onto short grass which cushioned the fall and also made it relatively easy to find as I knew exactly the path I had taken.

Ps you have the prettier of the two. Come to think of I think the lyre shape is what induced me to buy this one when I already had the other model which was perfectly serviceable.
 
I would only get the lyre shaped body, there’s no other option for me. It’s like a perfect meeting between music and photography, my two loves. 🙂 I held out till I found a decent price on one in nice shape!

Luckily, no falls or anything in the short time that I’ve had it - I pretty much baby the thing. It wouldn’t even be possible for it to fall out of the shoe of the IIIf, as it’s very tight and takes some considerable force to remove it.

I really don’t know anything about the mechanics of how that little lever at the bottom actually works but I have to imagine it was calibrated one way or another to be positioned a certain way when moved to one of the markings on the dial. Whether it stays accurate over time or not... that’s what remains to be seen.


Here are some examples of what I’m experiencing from a recent roll. Disregard the pinhole in the corner - that’s an entirely sepaate issue in need of sorting out. In both instances the photo is similarly shifted in the same dimension.


Here’s a portrait-orientation photo of Popeye, where he’s just a bit too far to the left (what would normally be the bottom of the frame if shot in the more typical landscape orientation)

dHkGgys.jpg



and in this one, the poor birb lost his feet. In this particular shot, I actually did know the *exact* distance (I was at the absolute closest focusing distance for this lens) and made sure to set the VIOOH accordingly

WPZRYDA.jpg
 
charjohncarter said:
Peter, I do not encounter a lever or switch at the base of my finder (except the distance lever). I wonder how many versions of the VIOOH Leitz produced.
Click to expand...

The distance level is what I am referring to. What I am suggesting is that it might be possible that if something is out of whack with that lever when you move it, the distance scale may indicate the VIOOH is pointing correctly at say 5 meters but is actually aligned for some other distance. This would not be apparent until the photo were developed but it would result in the actual image not being exactly what was seen in the finder at the time. Just a thought. Without getting mine out and checking I am not even sure that is possible.
 
Livesteamer said:
What about putting the VIOOH on an SLR and see if it agrees with what is shown in the SLR finder? Joe
Click to expand...

It will not work as the VIOOH needs to be in the accessory shoe of the SLR and because of the pentaprism any SLR shoe is much higher above the lens than on a Leica LTM camera. It could work if the height were the same.
On the other hand if one could find a mirrorless camera with the accessory port at the same height as the accessory port on an LTM Leica that might help however. But all this would do is confirm that the VIOOH is out of whack which we kind of already know. I would advocate if this were tried it would also help is it were done at a measured distance to the target. This might help identify if the problem is with the optics or with the distance setting mechanism on the VIOOH. (All the latter does is tip the VIOOH up or down at various angles to compensate for parallax at varying distances.
 
I guess at close distances I can always just manually compensate by pointing further down a little bit. Doesn’t seem ideal, I wish there were some sort of accurate viewfinder option for these cameras... but not sure what else I can do, realistically speaking.


Nice wide shots over great distances, I don’t seem to have this issue... but I never seemed to have an issue with shots like that on the built-in VF either
 
I don't have much problem with parallax on my VIOOH, as I usually take a step or two back as I frame something. But this comes more from the fact it is crooked, with a downwards cant to the right, so I compensate by including more in the frame allowing a slight crop later on. Maybe someday I'll get one with no issues, or get this one repaired.


PF
 
MrRom92 said:
I guess at close distances I can always just manually compensate by pointing further down a little bit. Doesn’t seem ideal, I wish there were some sort of accurate viewfinder option for these cameras... but not sure what else I can do, realistically speaking.


Nice wide shots over great distances, I don’t seem to have this issue... but I never seemed to have an issue with shots like that on the built-in VF either
Click to expand...

I think it is normal for top mounted finders to suffer less parallax at greater distances - the angle at which they have to point is less at long distances and hence the line of the view is more parallel to the centre line of the lens. Plus any discrepancy that does happen is less noticeable.
If you have seen through the inbuilt finder of say an M3 you can carefully observe that as you focus the lens closer, the framelines move down and to the right to compensate exactly for this. This clever piece of German engineering fixes the problem. But of course most top mounted finders cannot do this. Although some sort of do - some late Canon finders will automatically move up and down with certain late Canon rangefinder cameras to compensate in just this manner.
All of which leads me to ask the as Charjohncarter asks: Does the adjustment lever cause the VIOOH to tilt up and down when as you move it?
 
It does tilt the nose up and down as I turn it, but it’s pretty subtle. Hard for me to say if the range of motion looks correct without ever having used another example of the VIOOH to compare it to though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
J
  • Article Article
The Leica as a work of ART: Selling the image of elegant exclusivity
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Pioneer
Pioneer
J
  • Article Article
How Long Will Your Pictures Last?It all depends on you, your successors, and whether anyone else cares.
8 9 10
Replies
180
Views
13K
Freakscene
Freakscene
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
Coupled Rangefinder 35s and their Discontents: How to get the most out of these vintage classics.
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
12K
lohrentz
lohrentz
Back
Top Bottom