 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / July 2006Rolleiflex: magnification and field of view of the viewfinder
hi, we often talk about magnification and field of view of a SLR's viewfinder. so, i interest what's these values for my Rolleiflex 3.5 plannar. who can tell me? thanks. - woody Recently, Steven Woody <narkewoody@gmail.com> posted: > hi, > > we often talk about magnification and field of view of a SLR's > viewfinder. so, i interest what's these values for my Rolleiflex 3.5 > plannar. who can tell me? thanks. One roll of film is worth 1,000 words on usenet. ;-) To learn what your TLR is "seeing", simply use a scene with predictable boundaries, then compare the film image to what you see in the VF. Neil > Recently, Steven Woody <narkewoody@gmail.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Neil Or quicker still, open up the back and use a piece of ground glass or thin paper, to see the "taking" and "viewing" image simultaneously.  SignatureJon ____________________________________________ jondotrogersatntlworlddotcom ============================================ > Recently, Steven Woody <narkewoody@gmail.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > One roll of film is worth 1,000 words on usenet. ;-) actually, i've shot one roll :) > To learn what your TLR is "seeing", simply use a scene with predictable > boundaries, then compare the film image to what you see in the VF. > > Neil two problem: 1, it's hard to tell what's the magnification 2, it most likely i've already forgot what's the real boundaries when i watching the prints that is serveral days after the shooting :-) Recently, Steven Woody <narkewoody@gmail.com> posted: >> To learn what your TLR is "seeing", simply use a scene with >> predictable boundaries, then compare the film image to what you see [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 1, it's hard to tell what's the magnification The magnification should be unimportant, and as David points out, it is likely to be the same for both taking and viewing lenses (check the focal length markings to be sure). > 2, it most likely i've already forgot what's the real boundaries when > i watching the prints that is serveral days after the shooting :-) Well, that's a different situation... perhaps shooting a second roll is in order. ;-) Place the camera on a tripod; mark the position of the tripod & shoot your scene. When you get your prints back, put the camera back in the same position as before and compare what you see with what was printed. Of course, take into consideration whether or not the prints are cropped! Neil > Recently, Steven Woody <narkewoody@gmail.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > position as before and compare what you see with what was printed. Of > course, take into consideration whether or not the prints are cropped! thank you, it's a good idea. but, i've already told that my camera is Rolleiflex 3.5E/3.5F, and they both get 75mm taking and viewing len, why not somebody simply draw me an answer? > Neil > hi, > > we often talk about magnification and field of view of a SLR's > viewfinder. so, i interest what's these values for my Rolleiflex 3.5 > plannar. who can tell me? thanks. I don't recall the magnification of the flip up magnifying lens but it isn't much...maybe 2X? You can determine what the taking lens is seeing by... 1. Looking at the ground glass 2. Solving this old ratio used by aerial photographers... I:F::G:A where I = image size F = focal length of lens G = ground (dimension covered) A = altitude (subject distance from camera) Looking at the ground glass is easier :) SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico > we often talk about magnification and field of view of a SLR's > viewfinder. so, i interest what's these values for my Rolleiflex 3.5 > plannar. who can tell me? thanks. The magnification and field of view of SLR (and rangefinder) viewfinders makes no sense for TLRs, since you are looking directly at the ground glass. It's a different game completely. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> we often talk about magnification and field of view of a SLR's >> viewfinder. so, i interest what's these values for my Rolleiflex 3.5 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan Nonetheless, the size of the ground glass and the negative size aren't necessarily exactly the same (although it wouldn't make much sense to have them different), and not all TLRs are equipped with masks for correcting parallax error. SignatureJon ____________________________________________ jondotrogersatntlworlddotcom ============================================ >>> we often talk about magnification and field of view of a SLR's >>> viewfinder. so, i interest what's these values for my Rolleiflex 3.5 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > them > different), The vast majority of film cameras made show a smaller image in the viewfinder than what you actually get on the film. That's a different issue than the magnification of the viewfinder _as a telescope_, which is what the viewfinder magnification is. > and not all TLRs are equipped with masks for correcting > parallax error. My 1952 'flex corrects for parallax, so I'd be surprised if the far more recent 3.5F of this thread didn't... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > >> we often talk about magnification and field of view of a SLR's > >> viewfinder. so, i interest what's these values for my Rolleiflex 3.5 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > different), and not all TLRs are equipped with masks for correcting > parallax error. what is the 'masks' you mentioned? does my 3.5E or 3.5F get this gear? thank you. >> Nonetheless, the size of the ground glass and the negative size >> aren't necessarily exactly the same (although it wouldn't make much [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what is the 'masks' you mentioned? does my 3.5E or 3.5F get this > gear? thank you. 1. Take out your Rollei 2. Point it at something 3. Look at the ground glass 4. Rapidly rotate the focusing knob back and forth See the parallax correcting masks under the ground glass at top and bottom moving? SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico > >> Nonetheless, the size of the ground glass and the negative size > >> aren't necessarily exactly the same (although it wouldn't make much [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > See the parallax correcting masks under the ground glass at top and bottom > moving? yes, i noticed, thank you ! Recently, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> posted: >> we often talk about magnification and field of view of a SLR's >> viewfinder. so, i interest what's these values for my Rolleiflex 3.5 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > viewfinders makes no sense for TLRs, since you are looking directly > at the ground glass. It's a different game completely. This is a puzzling response, David. I agree with your conclusion that it's "...a different game completely...", but for different reasons. In TLRs and rangefinders, the viewing lens is separate from and not always the same focal length as the taking lens, therefore it is possible that the view in the finder will not reflect the scene as captured on film. I think that addresses Steven's question about "...field of view..."; it seems that he wants to know if what he sees is what he'll get on film. Neil > Recently, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> posted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and rangefinders, the viewing lens is separate from and not always the > same focal length as the taking lens, Uh, unless something's seriously batty, it's within error tolerances of being the same focal length in TLRs. (What are the error tolerances are, of course, an interesting question, but I'm under the impression that the error tolerances for focal length in fixed-focus lenses are pretty small.) In rangefinders, the issue isn't the focal length (since a rangefinder is a (negative magnification) telescope), but where the frame lines are drawn. Anyway, as before, it seems to me that for the "viewfinder mag" bit, SLRs and rangefinders have more in common than TLRs and rangefinders. > therefore it is possible that the > view in the finder will not reflect the scene as captured on film. I think > that addresses Steven's question about "...field of view..."; it seems > that he wants to know if what he sees is what he'll get on film. You're right; I spaced on that one. I was only thinking of the "viewfinder magnification" bit, which is the part that is a different game. The answer is: "close enough for government work". Jon's point about parallax now makes more sense<g>; he was answering the field of fiew question. Ah, that's why I spaced; I thought field of view was some sort of confusion about focal length multipliers or something, but you point out that it's probably a sensible question. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan Recently, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> posted: >> Recently, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> posted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Uh, unless something's seriously batty, it's within error tolerances > of being the same focal length in TLRs. I agree that this is typical (and desirable), but ISTR some cameras that had (for example) an 80 mm taking lens and 75 mm viewing lens. Perhaps it was an owner-made retrofit, but such an arrangement is not completely unreasonable. Neil > Recently, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> posted: > >> This is a puzzling response, David. I agree with your conclusion > >> that it's "...a different game completely...", but for different [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > was an owner-made retrofit, but such an arrangement is not completely > unreasonable. If the viewing lens and taking lens of a TLR are mounted to the same front standard, or geared so they move the same amount forward/back, they have to be the same focal length. Otherwise the camera won't focus correctly. Some TLRs have a viewing lens that is a little faster than the taking lens, like an 80/3.2 and 80/3.5, perhaps that's what you were thinking of? Recently, bjw@mambo.ucolick.org <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> posted: >> Recently, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > taking lens, like an 80/3.2 and 80/3.5, perhaps that's what you > were thinking of? That would be understandable and typical of Rollei, but not what I was referring to. FWIW, my old Rollei has 75 mm in both positions, with the viewing lens slightly faster (2.8) than the taking lens (3.5). IIRC, someone on one of the Rollei lists mentioned getting a TLR with different focal lengths for the lenses. However, your point about focussing properly is a consideration that I hadn't thought of, and makes it seem even more likely that this was a user-retrofit. Or, I could be losing it and dreamed it all. ;-) Neil > Recently, David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that addresses Steven's question about "...field of view..."; it seems > that he wants to know if what he sees is what he'll get on film. yes! it's is what i wanna know, if the answer is not 100% FoV, i can do some anticipation when compositing. >> [...] it seems >> that he wants to know if what he sees is what he'll get on film. > > yes! it's is what i wanna know, if the answer is not 100% FoV, i can do > some anticipation when compositing. If a viewfinder shows less than 100%, you can be 100% sure that you will get 100% of what you see on film. > >> [...] it seems > >> that he wants to know if what he sees is what he'll get on film. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If a viewfinder shows less than 100%, you can be 100% sure that you will get > 100% of what you see on film. sure, but that means crop. it's so bad especially when shooting slides. >> If a viewfinder shows less than 100%, you can be 100% sure that you will >> get >> 100% of what you see on film. > > sure, but that means crop. it's so bad especially when shooting slides. Since there are no slide mounts that keep 100% of the image on the slide uncovered... Crop... Would be worse if the viewfinder showed more, wouldn't it? ;-) >> This is a puzzling response, David. I agree with your conclusion >> that it's "...a different game completely...", but for different [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > yes! it's is what i wanna know, if the answer is not 100% FoV, i can > do some anticipation when compositing. If you want to know for sure you could... 1. Take the back off the camera 2. Put it on a tripod 3. Place a piece of tissue paper across the area where the film normally is. You can fasten it there with a bit of spit. 4. Set the shutter to bulb, open the shutter and compare what you see on the ground glass to what you see on the tissue paper. SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico >>> This is a puzzling response, David. I agree with your conclusion >>> that it's "...a different game completely...", but for different [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 2. Put it on a tripod I was about to suggest all this, when I remembered that the 'flex tripod mount is part of the back! > 3. Place a piece of tissue paper across the area where the film normally > is. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the > ground glass to what you see on the tissue paper. It ain't quite that easy<g>. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>>> This is a puzzling response, David. I agree with your conclusion >>>> that it's "...a different game completely...", but for different [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I was about to suggest all this, when I remembered that the 'flex > tripod mount is part of the back! Whoops. Oh, well...he can set it on a table :) SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico >> we often talk about magnification and field of view of a SLR's >> viewfinder. so, i interest what's these values for my Rolleiflex 3.5 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > makes no sense for TLRs, since you are looking directly at the ground glass. > It's a different game completely. If you are looking at the screen from 10 inches away, the image on the ground glass will appear about 30% of the size that the objects appear to your eyes. With your eye to the magnifier, magnification is about 80%. Field of view for a 75mm lens on 56mmx56mm is about 41 degrees horizontal and vertical. For an 80mm lens it is about 38.5 degrees horizontal and vertical. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > >> we often talk about magnification and field of view of a SLR's > >> viewfinder. so, i interest what's these values for my Rolleiflex 3.5 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > With your eye to the magnifier, magnification is > about 80%. thank you. > Field of view for a 75mm lens on 56mmx56mm is about > 41 degrees horizontal and vertical. For an 80mm lens > it is about 38.5 degrees horizontal and vertical. what you talked is lens FoV, i wanna know viewfinder FoV, that is, say, FoV = n%, it means the image on the viewfinder is only n% part of image on the nagative. ( this holds when n less than 100 ). > Peter. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.