Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,552   Posts: 1,544,909   Online: 938
      
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    164
    Hello;
    Make sure that the ground glass is cut to fit on the inner film guide rails, not over the outer rails. There is a difference of about 0.015 to 0.020 thousands. Steven.

  2. #12
    Peltigera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Lincoln, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    417
    How do pictures come out? If they are fine I cannot see anything to worry about.

    If you are experiencing the same thing with different cameras and lenses - it is you, not the kit.

  3. #13
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,219
    Quote Originally Posted by newcan1 View Post

    I suppose I could do some critical focusing tests. But if any of the cameras are off, what would be the reason, and is corrective action possible? I guess I just don't know how the focusing mechanism works on an SLR. The lenses are all manual focus.
    Most of the focus issues I have encountered with fixed-focus screen 35mm SLRs are from the mirror. The mirror is a likely suspect because it moves with each exposure and needs to always come back to the exact same position that it was when it left the factory. The fixed-focus screen 35mm camera system I use has an easily adjustable (without camera disassembly) mirror for both angle and up-down.

    In cameras with interchangeable focus screens, in addition to the mirror being off, there can be a host of additional focus issues relating to focus screen placement from tampering etc.

    In cameras in which the mirror is not adjustable, sometimes it is easier to shim the focus screen. Sometimes you have to both adjust the mirror and shim the focus screen to avoid inducing parallax error between what the screen shows and what the film sees.

  4. #14
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    My hypothesis: the split-image rangefinder or the microprism crown rangefinder are not influenced by the defects of your sight, focusing on the ground glass is, your sight is not optimal, which makes you focally-challenged when using the ground glass.

    For instance, when the split-image rangefinder shows a perfectly aligned edge in the two halves, the image is in focus. If you have sight defects you will not see the image perfectly in focus, but you will see that the two halves are aligned, or are not, so that the indication of the split-image rangefinder will be correct regardless of your sight quality.

    Focusing on the bare ground glass on the other hand is influenced by your sight. If your sight is not the one which is presumed to be by your viewfinder (normally 0, sometimes -1 dioptre, it's indicated in the camera specifications) the entire focusing system will act as a correcting lens for your eye, and the best focus for your eyes will not coincide with the best focus on the film plane.

    A problem with the camera mirror would normally affect both the split-image rangefinder and the bare ground glass, I suppose, and so would a problem of geometry between ground glass and focal plane.

    Three remedies to the problem above:

    - Only use focusing aids (split-image rangefinder, microprism-crown rangefinder) without relying on the ground glass (not satisfactory);
    - Use your glasses when using your camera (your camera will scratch them unless the glasses are made of real glass, or you put some sort of rubber ring around the ocular);
    - Mount on the camera ocular a lens of the correct power so that the sum of the power of the viewfinder and the power of the additional lens equals the power of your glasses.

    For instance, supposing you have myopia and in your right eye, which you use for focusing, you need a lens with -2 dioptres, and supposing you camera, as it comes out of the factory, has a viewfinder with a -1 dioptre, you need to add a -1 dioptre in order to reach -2.

    As far as I understand there is a little trick here to be kept in mind.

    If you buy the original make dioptre for your camera, in the case above, the dioptre marked -2 will actually be a -1 dioptre, because the original manufacturer will probably take into account the power of the viewfinder and give you a dioptre marked with the "total effect".

    If you buy a universal dioptre (or have it made by your optician) you have to apply a -1 dioptre in order to obtain -2.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Peak District, Derbyshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by newcan1 View Post
    Understood. But the phenomenon I was referring to is this: I focus on an object using the split screen, then I move the camera slightly so I can see the same object on the ground glass, and then I find that the sharpest image of the same object on the ground glass is at a slightly different focusing point.
    It will be, you moved the camera. When you tilt it up or down you are changing the spot from where you focused to somewhere else.

    If however you are seeing a change in focus in your results rather than as implied on the screen, so you accurately focus one way or another, and then your neg shows the focus point is a fraction nearer or further away, you may be getting aperture related focus shift. In which case the lens is (say) calibrated for accurate focus wide open, but when you shoot the picture your lens automatically stops down and in many lenses as you stop down the focus point changes. This is something rangefinder users can get obsessed about because it is more difficult for them to know if it's their rangefinder out of adjustment or the lens has aperture related focus shift. A lot of lenses are calibrated to be accurate wide open, when DOF is most critical, and of course that is how you see things with an auto-diaphragm SLR, but focus may wander as you stop down, until you get to f/8 when DOF takes over and compensates for any focus shift. Because focus shift is a flaw in the design of the lens (given that no lens can be perfectly corrected), the only option may be to stop down after you focused and see if with the smaller aperture the focus point still looks crisp, but it can be hard or impossible to do. The other option is to know your lens inside out and compensate each time you think it may happen.

    Steve
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/

    book
    wood, water, rock,
    landscape photographs in and around the Peak District National Park, UK.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ogden, Utah USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,073
    one thing nobody has mentioned is that the sharpness of focus also depends on how fine the ground glass is ground -- it can look sharp when it isn't really.

    Leica used to say that the way to show how accurate its rangefinders are was to put two pins stuck into the table 3 feet away, one pin an inch in front of the other. If you focus with the rangefinder on the one in front, you will notice that the one in back already looks a bit doubled in the rangefinder.

    An SLR, I wager, would make both pins look sharp except for the most excellent viewing screen around (leicaflex SL2???) but the real point is that, with a wide-open lens, both pins can look sharp in the viewfinder, but the image will show a difference.

    this is why a good rangefinder is better in dim light, especially with wide-angle lenses. It may not be a defect in your slr, it may just be the way the system works.

  7. #17
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,734
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by summicron1 View Post
    An SLR, I wager, would make both pins look sharp except for the most excellent viewing screen around (leicaflex SL2???) but the real point is that, with a wide-open lens, both pins can look sharp in the viewfinder, but the image will show a difference.

    this is why a good rangefinder is better in dim light, especially with wide-angle lenses. It may not be a defect in your slr, it may just be the way the system works.
    Um, you'ld lose that bet. Just tried a facsimile of that test with my FM2.

    The grind though can definitely affect the brightness.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,443
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Um, you'ld lose that bet. Just tried a facsimile of that test with my FM2.

    The grind though can definitely affect the brightness.
    I tried it with a Nikkormat Ftn and 50/2 Nikkor H. No trouble focussing on one pin or the other.

    Edit - If the Leica rangefinder could distinguish between pins at, say, 10 feet, I'd be impressed. I wonder if a Contax II could at 10 feet? Making that test at 3 feet is giving the rangefinder every advantage - not much of a test really. Roughly 3% accuracy.
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 06-30-2012 at 01:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga TN
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    502
    Images
    12
    I think I am going to do a test. A bit like the Leica test, but maybe 12 pins one inch apart. I can focus on the central one (say pin 5 or 6) from distances of 3 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet, 15 feet, and expose at full aperture for whatever lens I am using. I'll use b&w film, maybe ultrafine Xtreme 100ASA of Polypan F. I can do the test in the alternative, focusing using the split screen, where the camera has one , and the ground glass. I will do this for each of the cameras I use regularly. Give me a week or so to get through this all and I will report my findings.

    My eyes are not what they used to be, but are pretty good with glasses. I usually use my glasses when focusing, except in the case of one of the Nikons that has a corrected viewfinder that seems to suit me.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga TN
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    502
    Images
    12
    I finally did a couple of tests. I took a 3 foot long strip of wood and nailed nails to it about an inch apart. I placed it about 3ft from the camera, focused on a nail in the middle of the strip and took a picture. Then I did the same with the strip about 10 ft away.

    With the first of the above, the focusing appeared accurate. On the second, with the strip more distant, the nail I focused on was at the rear end of the depth of field.

    I did some research, and I am led to believe the following:

    1. My eyesight has nothing to do with what appears to be the best focus point on the ground glass screen that I am essentially viewing through the camera's viewfinder prism. The image is either in focus or not. Poor eyesight may make it harder to discern the best focus, but it could not cause an image to appear sharper when it is less sharp on the ground glass.

    2. The point of focus in the split screen focusing aid in the center of the ground glass focusing screen must coincide with the best focus on the ground glass screen, absent manufacturing defect; the split screen prisms are embedded in the focusing screen. For more on how they work see:

    http://dougkerr.net/pumpkin/articles/Split_Prism.pdf

    3. Therefore, How accurately focus is depicted on the focusing screen should not vary with the distance of an object.

    My conclusions: my focusing issues are either the result of operator error, it being harder to focus accurately on a smaller, more distant object; or there is a very small error in the camera that may cause focus to be off only a fraction of an inch up close but several inches at greater distance.

    Curiously, I performed the same test on three different Nikkormats, with similar results. I also practiced with a D70 (sorry) with power off, then switched power on - each time the in-focus light was on, indicating that my focusing was accurate.

    I can only think of one cause other than operator error, and that could be that over the years, wear could have caused the mirror to be off by a couple of thousandths of an inch. Rather than adjusting it and potentially making things worse, I will do a final test affixing some masking tape to the back of the mirror, to raise it slightly, and see what happens. But at this point I'm guessing that the problem is operator error.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin