Do you trust viewfinder focusing?

[AgX]

With many SLR's with large aperture you still can photgraph in stepped down mode. So you do not need slower lenses just for street photography.

 

[blockend]

With many SLR's with large aperture you still can photgraph in stepped down mode. So you do not need slower lenses just for street photography.

Some SLRs offer that facility, others require the use of a stop down button which delays the process and is all but useless for street photography.

 

[AgX]

So, there are cameras where you have to engage that stop-down button time again?
I prematurely thought they all could be arrested for repeated exposing.

 

[blockend]

So, there are cameras where you you have to engage that stop-down button time again?
I prematurely thought they all could be arrested for repeated exposing.

A lot of SLRs have a spring loaded stop down button which has to be depressed. Generally speaking, older mechanical models and professional SLRs had a lever that could be engaged, as had some late cameras on the body. Stop down mode began to be seen as a luxury as camera technology developed, even as a push button facility. I can't recall whether the OP's F3 and FM can be locked into stop down. If they can, I'd advise experimenting with it for street shooting.

Strongly coloured filters can provide a similar job of 'unifying' the field of view, but that means shooting B&W.

 

[marciofs]

I have never touched this stop down thing... Thanks for the tip.

 

[clayne]

I removed the center focusing aid screens from my Nikon F bodies from day-1 to have a flat matte screen to focus anywhere without being "distracted" by (or attracted TO) the center....
...and l learned to focus anywhere on the screen...

You're basically describing the Type H screens except that the H screens actually have a usable microprism across the entire field. There is no center bias whatsoever.

 

[blockend]

I think the brightness and clarity of viewfinders is over estimated, especially for street photography. Two of the cameras I regularly use are a Zeiss Ikon Nettar and a digital Fuji X10 and both have notoriously 'poor' finders, but neither have distracting focus areas or other screen illumination and scales. An article once stated, only half jokingly, that early Leicas had such poor viewfinders only the best compositions showed themselves through it. I believe there's something in that. What's needed most for street work, is an instant appraisal of composition, not focus.

 

[marciofs]

Yes. I don't expect my street photos to have a spot on sharp focus. What really makes it stands out is the composition with the help of the subject photographed character/style/shapes and the scene moment itself.

O often use a filter to add more softness to the image like these:

 

[marciofs]

Sorry,
I think I read @blockend post too fast and I mixed up things.
But anyway. What I mean is that for street photos even if I miss a bit the focus it is fine.
But if will be grate if I find out I can have spot on focus without wearing my glasses.
I will develop the negative tomorrow and find out.

 

[marciofs]

Just to finish this thread now that I have the results. Yes, it worked for me. Focusing without wearing glasses and use the split image in the viewfinder centre or even not looking into the viewfinder and using the distance as reference. Of courser I used a 28mm lens which makes it much easier and many of the shots the focus in not perfect but it is acceptable for street photography.

 

[frobozz]

Seems like as good a thread as any to ask a question about diopters I never see discussed anywhere: I get the need for a diopter if you can't properly see at the effective distance that the viewfinder appears at. But does it change the apparent focus of the scene in the viewfinder, and/or the accuracy of the focusing aids? Let's say for instance that I know my eyes are no longer perfect with age, though they're pretty good. And when I look in my viewfinder, I can perfectly bring into focus the focusing screen, the metering needle, etc. But when something looks in focus on the screen, or the two halves of the split finder match, etc. is it definitely in focus, or is it off by the amount of error in my eyes? I guess my question is, am I looking a projected image on a surface, so it's a question of whether I can properly focus on that surface (I can)? Or is it like at the optometrist's office, where they put those lenses in front of your eyes, except in this case I'm using the camera lens to correct my vision, so the net result is I'm going to make focusing errors because my vision isn't perfect? I think it's the former, but I'm curious to know if anyone knows the answer for sure.

Duncan

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Seems like as good a thread as any to ask a question about diopters I never see discussed anywhere: I get the need for a diopter if you can't properly see at the effective distance that the viewfinder appears at. But does it change the apparent focus of the scene in the viewfinder, and/or the accuracy of the focusing aids? Let's say for instance that I know my eyes are no longer perfect with age, though they're pretty good. And when I look in my viewfinder, I can perfectly bring into focus the focusing screen, the metering needle, etc. But when something looks in focus on the screen, or the two halves of the split finder match, etc. is it definitely in focus, or is it off by the amount of error in my eyes? I guess my question is, am I looking a projected image on a surface, so it's a question of whether I can properly focus on that surface (I can)? Or is it like at the optometrist's office, where they put those lenses in front of your eyes, except in this case I'm using the camera lens to correct my vision, so the net result is I'm going to make focusing errors because my vision isn't perfect? I think it's the former, but I'm curious to know if anyone knows the answer for sure.

Duncan

No! An eyepiece mounted corrective lens simply and only allows you to see the focussing screen clearly (assuming it is the proper perscription for your form of parablepsy).

 

[frobozz]

OK good. So until my eyes go bad in such a way that I can't see the viewfinder clearly, I don't have to worry that I'm mis-focusing everything. Whew!

Duncan

 

[E. von Hoegh]

OK good. So until my eyes go bad in such a way that I can't see the viewfinder clearly, I don't have to worry that I'm mis-focusing everything. Whew!

Duncan

Think of it this way - the screen, be it on a view camera where it occupies the very same plane as the film will or in an SLR where it has the same relationship to the intended plane of focus as the film does, is a barrier (due to it's granular texture) to coherent rays of light. That is, it's a barrier that separates the image forming optical system from whatever optical system is used to view the image.
In order to focus the image, you must be able to see the focussing screen clearly. That means a good quality loupe in the case of a view camera, and for a 35 it means the ability to focus your eyeball sharply on an object about 3 feet away - the apparent distance most viewfinder optical systems present to the viewer.

 

[frobozz]

Think of it this way - the screen, be it on a view camera where it occupies the very same plane as the film will or in an SLR where it has the same relationship to the intended plane of focus as the film does, is a barrier (due to it's granular texture) to coherent rays of light. That is, it's a barrier that separates the image forming optical system from whatever optical system is used to view the image.
In order to focus the image, you must be able to see the focussing screen clearly. That means a good quality loupe in the case of a view camera, and for a 35 it means the ability to focus your eyeball sharply on an object about 3 feet away - the apparent distance most viewfinder optical systems present to the viewer.

That's what I had always assumed, but then I wondered why all the fuss with diopters... but then, I've never had such bad vision that I couldn't see the viewfinder!

Thanks,
Duncan

 

[Xmas]

a diopter won't be a complete solution if you have bad astigmatism and shoot both hor and vert.

HCBs first Leica did not have a rfdr.

with a 28mm I set it to six foot and use instinctive point all you need to do is float like Cassius Clay, think Brucie uses even closer range.

I also take up the first pressure on the shutter release

 

[Sirius Glass]

[h=2]Do you trust viewfinder focusing?[/h]Yes, that is why I mostly use SLRs.

 

[msbarnes]

I skimmed the posts but I'm a bit confused.

I generally trust the viewfinders in my SLRs but I don't like using the split-image. I have little experience with them as I prefer matte but I do not trust them for critical focus.

To me, it sounds like you might make use of a rangefinder because the focusing on those things is binary.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I skimmed the posts but I'm a bit confused.

I generally trust the viewfinders in my SLRs but I don't like using the split-image. I have little experience with them as I prefer matte but I do not trust them for critical focus.

To me, it sounds like you might make use of a rangefinder because the focusing on those things is binary.

The split-image screens are reliable, but you need a straight line or object at right angles to the split to take best advantage of them. I prefer a plain microprism dot myself. It really comes down to you, and what you're focussing on.

 

[benjiboy]

I trust viewfinder focusing, I don't trust my eyesight because without them I can't even see the split image focusing screen on my cameras never mind focusing without my glasses, however I do have my eyesight checked every year and take my camera with me when the optician does the test to ensure my glasses have the right lenses in them, and I have no focusing problems.