Parallax- is it really an issue?

Finn lyle · Sep 2, 2020

I should start of by saying I shoot 90% on SLRs, but have worked with a few Kodak and Konica rangefinders and never found parallax to be an issue even when shooting close subjects. The framing on the negatives seems to be identical to what I expected from the viewfinder, but maybe I'm still shooting far enough away. You always hear SLR diehards bringing up parallax like some kind of boogyman so I'm just curious: is it ever a big enough issue to warrant consideration when framing a shot?

Sirius Glass · Sep 2, 2020

Parallax is not a problem with SLRs by definition. It is a problem with range finders and TLRs.

Andrew O'Neill · Sep 2, 2020

Parallax is why I moved from a TTL to a single lens reflex, like the RB67. .. and interchangeable backs lol

Wallendo · Sep 2, 2020

Some rangefinders adjust for parallex. For most people in most situations it is not an issue. The only times I have had real issues is when shooting a scene where I am shooting over an object that is close to me and obstructs the lens but not viewfinder. For what little close-up work I do, I use a SLR.

Bill Burk · Sep 2, 2020

It’s a problem

http://beefalobill.com/images/Scan-120708-0020.jpg

voceumana · Sep 2, 2020

For macro work it is critical. For other work, it depends upon how precisely you want close relationships between objects in the viewfinder and between the objects and the edge of the negative to be placed.

Easiest way to see the difference parallax can made is to shut one eye, then the other, and see how the image changes. It will also tell you which is your dominant eye.

wiltw · Sep 2, 2020

lay two yardsticks across each other, one vertical, one horizontal, on the ground
Set your camera on a tripod and aim it down to see the ground, elevated to close to Minimum Focus Distance
Adjust the rulers so that one end of each ruler falls at the edge of the visible frame in each direction in the viewfinder.
Take a photo.

Compare what is framed in #4 vs what you thought was framed in #3...you will see parallax error unless your camera viewfinder moves the overlay for frame edges as you alter focus...if that is the case, the camera compensates to MFD and parallax error would be visible only if you had a close-up filter on the lens to alter its Minimum Focus Distance to that of the Diopter of the filter.

Maris · Sep 2, 2020

I have a rangefinder camera, a Fuji GSW680, with moving frame-lines in the viewfinder, that maintain a pretty accurate delineation of image content at various focussing distances. My Seagull TLR (cheap Rolleiflex copy) has a moving bar under the ground-glass to show the framing changes at close distances. The idea is to avoid "haircuts" in close-up portraits.

BUT both systems fail when objects in front of the camera need to be exactly aligned: for example hiding the sun disc behind a tree branch for a contre-jour landscape. This sort of parallax is unavoidable when the viewfinder is in a different place to the taking lens.

ic-racer · Sep 2, 2020

Even my Minox LX adjusts the viewfinder outline for parallax compensation.

Also, without the principle of parallax, a rangefinder would not function; that is how it works.

mshchem · Sep 2, 2020

I can't believe we are having this discussion, oh wait, then why am I responding? Yes it's a problem. But if you stand back 30 feet from your subject it's a very minor problem.

Michael Firstlight · Sep 2, 2020

It's a huge problem when stitching multiple images for a panorama or matrix, but that's an entirely different discussion.

MFL

ic-racer · Sep 2, 2020

Michael Firstlight said:
It's a huge problem when stitching multiple images for a panorama or matrix, but that's an entirely different discussion.

MFL

Not to mention the needle holes in the paper.

mshchem · Sep 2, 2020

ic-racer said:
Not to mention the needle holes in the paper.

Yesss! Needle holes! I have sewn on buttons.
If a person can figure out how to scan and stitch they can figure out parallax. I remember how thrilled I was when I got my genuine Mamiya Para-mender 2 for my first C-330. It was so cool. I like watching the bright lines shift around when I focus my rangefinders. In the case of my new Fuji X *** 3 watching the virtual frame lines shift. How do they do that? It's clear Fuji got ahold of the Norden bombsight.

mshchem · Sep 2, 2020

Michael Firstlight said:
It's a huge problem when stitching multiple images for a panorama or matrix, but that's an entirely different discussion.

MFL

I have an old Fujica G617, first time I had it out I lost track of the bubble level in the point and shoot finder. When not level it can bend a railroad bridge into a curve.

GRHazelton · Sep 3, 2020

The Konica IIIa rangefinder's viewfinder not only moves the frame to adjust for parallax, but also contracts the frame to compensate for the slight "shrinkage" in coverage caused by the lens moving further from the film when focusing. Not even the Leica rangefinders have that latter compensation. See this for a "review" of the Konica IIIa: https://www.dantestella.com/technical/koni3.html I own a Konica IIIa, it is a delightful shooter, and with its compact weight could make an excellent personal defensive weapon!

Finn lyle · Sep 3, 2020

GRHazelton said:
The Konica IIIa rangefinder's viewfinder not only moves the frame to adjust for parallax, but also contracts the frame to compensate for the slight "shrinkage" in coverage caused by the lens moving further from the film when focusing.

So that's what's going on. I assumed this had something to do with the rangefinder mechanism, though this makes a lot more sense. I've never had the pleasure of shooting with a Leica but the Konica IIIa sure has the built like a precision tank part down .
Maris- Hiding the sun- now that's something that hadn't even crossed my mind as being an issue but it makes a lot of sense.
I can also see how it would be a massive issue with macro work, though at that point physically measuring the distance from film plane to object seems like it might just be more effective?

guangong · Sep 4, 2020

ic-racer said:
Not to mention the needle holes in the paper.

Almost all high end rangefinder cameras have parallax correction, including Leica Ms, my little Minoxes, my Fuji 67 folder. All work fine for general photography. Even older cameras without parallax correction are not much of a problem. For close ups Leitz invented the Visoflex, so there is a problem when shooting close and need absolute accuracy of image on film frame.
The advantage of ref cameras is rapid focusing and speed of operation, giving up precise accuracy of framing. SLRs provide accurate framing but are mode fiddling bout focus. So there is a problem, but one that can usually be ignored.

narsuitus · Sep 4, 2020

Back when I shot a lot of weddings and a lot of product shots, I used a Mamiya TLR. I liked the quiet operation of the TLR but for closeup work, parallax was a problem that I had to fix with a paramender.

When I stopped shooting so many weddings I continued to shoot lots of product shots. At that time, I switched from the quiet TLR to the noisy Mamiya RB67 SLR in order to avoid parallax problems and for the larger image size.

markjwyatt · Sep 4, 2020

It can be a problem with rangefinders close-up, so as you get close think about it. At a certain distance it becomes more important (macro work), I have a Zeiss CONTATEST for the Contax rangefinder, and it compensates (maybe in a fixed way), as well as above I have a paramender for my Mamiya C330f TLR. For handheld work on the Mamiya, there is a parallax indicator which gives you an idea where the top of the frame is. Fora third example,. on the Retina IIIc, there is a scribe in the bright-lines that indicate where the edge of the frame will be for a "really close" shot. SLRs do solve the issue more directly. Truthfully, it is not a big issue for me, but I like using SLRs for some close-up work.

narsuitus · Sep 4, 2020

I have never had parallax problems with 35mm or medium format rangefinder cameras because I do not use them for close-up or macro photography.

MattKing · Sep 5, 2020

It is only a practical issue usually if you are working at a distance closer than 10 times the focal length of the lens.

pentaxuser · Sep 5, 2020

MattKing said:
It is only a practical issue usually if you are working at a distance closer than 10 times the focal length of the lens.

Thanks Matt. Something definite to work with now to help resolve a very reasonable question.

So Finn are you ever closer than 10 times your focal length and if so, a list of your cameras that do not exhibit parallax even when closer than 10 times the focal length might be useful

Then it might resolve the question fully or have the respondents still scratching their heads if the cameras have no parallax compensation.

pentaxuser

MattKing · Sep 5, 2020

All cameras that aren't SLRs will exhibit parallax.
Some non-SLR cameras offer aids that help you deal with it, but they don't eliminate it.
Usually it won't matter if your subject is more than 10 times the lens focal length away.
If you are dealing with a scene where the relationship between two or more objects that are different distances away needs to be dealt with precisely, you will need to take steps yourself to deal with it. The best method for dealing with it is to compose with the viewing system and then move the camera so as to put the optical centre of the lens where the centre of the viewing system was at the time of composition - the Mamiya TLRs offer the paramender accessory to accomplish that.

darkosaric · Sep 5, 2020

For me the problem is not parallax, it is the size of the frame lines against portion what you get on the negative. For example 50mm lens on Leica M6 - lines on infinity shows you around 75-80% of what you will get on the negative (on close focus it is better). SLR that are not with 100% finder are also showing this, but not so extreme. That is why I like top line Nikon F/F2/F3... - they show you exactly what you will get, when printing full frame without a cropping, this is important.

On a good side - once when you get to know your camera - it is easier to guess what you will get. But it is still a guess.

John Koehrer · Sep 5, 2020

Finn lyle said:
I can also see how it would be a massive issue with macro work, though at that point physically measuring the distance from film plane to object seems like it might just be more effective?

.

It's not distance between film & subject. It's the distance between the viewing lens and viewfinder.
Assume the VF is 5mm to the side and 20 mm above the lens center. What you need is to point the camera slightly to the right
and downward to compensate for the different view.

Parallax- is it really an issue?

Finn lyle

Sirius Glass

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Wallendo

Bill Burk

voceumana

wiltw

Maris

ic-racer

mshchem

Michael Firstlight

ic-racer

mshchem

mshchem

GRHazelton

Finn lyle

Attachments

guangong

narsuitus

markjwyatt

narsuitus

MattKing

Moderator

pentaxuser

MattKing

Moderator

darkosaric

John Koehrer

Parallax- is it really an issue?

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency