Warren Kato wrote:
> Would you settle for a "virtual" rangefinder where the electronic viewfinder
> splits the image in two by taking sequential near/far images and puts them in
> a little window?
>
LOL! I can't decide whether that's ridiculous or sublime.
> Warren
>
> PS I note that when Contax came up with the beautiful G1 and G2 that they
> dropped the use of a rangefinder for use of autofocus. I think the market
> for a true mechanical rangefinder is rather small (at the risk of being
> called a Luddite).
>
I bought a Walz mechanical rangefinder to go with an Olympus Six. It
mounts in the flash shoe to replace my dodgy distance guessing
capability. This was quite a common arrangement back "in the day" for
many brands and sorts of cameras..
It was quite a bit out of adjustment, showing, for example 30 feet for a
24 foot measured distance. I found on the web how to adjust it. To
adjust within a foot at that distance is tricky. According to my
reading, the Walz was supposed to be pretty good at the time.
It's now reasonably accurate, but seems much less precise than the AF on
my digital cameras. Then there is the question of how precise the
markings on the lens are. I don't know about other cameras of the era,
but on the Oly Six, the distance ring is adjustable on the lens.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|