Moose thus did this to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4s4wejeyS0
Ok, a truce, please?
Here's the deal. Yes, I did go off on my religious argument about modern
technology of which I was aiming it not at you but was just a general rant.
Sorry that you interpreted it as anything more than a bad hair day.
Now to the specifics of rangefinder focus: I have had several rangefinder
focus cameras through the years which have had varying degrees of usabilty:
- The rangefinder optics/spot in my Yashicas was REALLY nice as it was very
bright and large enough to actually be a bit usable. Accuracy? I've never
scientifically measured, but it never was a problem for the half a dozen
years I used those GSNs as my primary cameras. As those were "training
ground years" for me, I'm pretty positive that the cameras were far more
capable of accurate focus than me. I sold off two, and kept one for my
"museum" that has a broken RF mechanism. Although the RF spot was large
enough to be usable, it was still quite a bit smaller than many other
cameras--it made up for it by sheer brightness.
- Mamiya 6. Never owned one, but used one a couple of times. The RF spot is
very large and very usable. Unfortunately, the color of the spot is not
like the Yashicas' BRIGHT YELLOW and is quite a bit harder to focus in low
light and against objects that have low contrast. The big advantage of the
Mamiya is that the RF spot motion seems to be more in tune with the lens
focus ring. The optical movement comes closer to matching the perceived
finger-movement than other cameras I've used.
- Mamiya Press (forgot which specific model) - Owned one of these beasts for
several years. The RF spot was horrid and as close to unusable as I've ever
encountered. Sold the camera, kept the case. This camera is the
poster-child of rot-gut focusing. If you could get the lens focused
accurately, it did take great pictures. I think I have two or three to
prove it.
- Olympus XA. The spot wasn't contrasty enough and the rangefinder base was
far too short. This is not an example of RF done right.
- Crown Graphic. My dad has one from the late fifties and mine was from
1964 with the latest/greatest RF system. The focus "ring" (knob on the
rack) was the biggest issue with focusing this camera--not the rangefinder
add-on. Now granted I had like four different viewfinders/ways to
compose for this thing and no one was complete in its own right, but used
together, a person could operate quickly and successfully. As to low-light,
the Graphics' RF box had a really nifty feature. Mine had a built-in
flashlight that shown through the rangefinder windows. All you have to do
is press the red button on top (momentary switch) and adjust focus till the
two "dots" lined up. Honestly, it worked like a charm (my personal one was
broken, however I'd shine a penlight through the eyepiece). My dad's didn't
have the built-in light, but had a sliding "hatch" where you could shine a
light down through it (his was a side RF, mine was a top RF). In normal
daylight operation, what really helped make this rangefinder usable and
accurate to use was the fact that the entire optical view was double-imaged.
- On rare occasion I've had the pleasure to "hold" a Leica. Is there
something magical about the viewfinder's RF image? Well, not really, except
for the size. It is large enough that you don't feel like you are
desparately trying to exactly point the camera at the subject keeping the
subject dead-centered. This totally depends, however, on the magnification
of the viewfinder--I personally prefer the viewfinders with the close to 1:1
optics which makes everything so much larger. To me, size does matter.
There is a level of brightness to the Leica RF spot which makes this camera
easier to focus than other RF cameras and the long RF base greatly improves
accuracy as well as smoothness in the linking of the fingers on the
focus-ring with what the eye sees. You FEEL like Superman, even if you
still are mere mortal.
Yes, I do lament the passing of an era where the technology really did reach
the peak of design. Those buggy-whips were the best ever made. The OM-4T
given to me last year is a perfect example of how a camera design was
improved upon to the point where, short of throwing a computer inside, it
couldn't be bested without changing the entire form-factor.
I very very much like AF. In MOST circumstances it is faster and more
accurate than I could ever be. But "most" is not "all". There are days
when I lament not having a RF spot. There are rare occasions where that mode
of focusing would beat any SLR, liveview or AF made. And, yes, one of those
occasions is low-light work. Of the listed systems above, I would gladly
use the Leica, Mamiya 6 (or 7) and even the Yashica as the RF spots are
bright enough to be usable.
Another factor in focusing RF cameras is something that really doesn't
happen as much with any other type of camera. The users of RF cameras
almost always "zone focus" then fine-adjust with the RF. They look at the
subject and as they are bringing the camera to the eye, they've already
moved the focus ring to the approximate distance before the eye even is at
the viewfinder. The ergonomics of the camera also play into this as the
left-hand plays a much greater roll in holding the camera and lens.
AG
http://www.zone-10.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|