ULtrasonic range finder - anyone use one for photography?

[Kodachromeguy]

Hi everyone, I recently bought an old Vito BL camera with a viewfinder but no distance measuring aide. I noticed that the Watameter and similar auxiliary rangefinders have crept up in price (like all this good analogue equipment). Have any of you tried an untrasonic rangefinder? My concern with one of these units is if it could distinguish a thin item standing alone, such as a fence post or tree trunk, with the background at much greater distance. The laser units used by golfers and hunters are >$100 and more than I need. But the ultrasonics are as little and $10-15.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rangefinde...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

 

[AgX]

Ultrasonic rangefinders are nothing new in photography. Think of the SX-70 Sonar.
However the disadvantage of such devices is that you do not know what you are metering, which will be an issue once you neither got a plane or a single oustanding subject to meter on.

Just think of staggered objects.

 

[Pieter12]

A $25 laser distance measuring device might work better, but not in bright sunlight. Also, probable a bit bigger. And don't point it at anyone's eye!

 

[Craig75]

phone app would be my first choice (rightly or wrongly)

 

[bdial]

Apparently the linked device has a laser for aiming, but 18 meters max range sounds optimistic. It would probably work ok out to 15 or 20 feet, which is likely all that's needed anyway. A red laser will be hard to see in daylight, some of the newer laser level and distance measuring devices for construction are using green lights which are supposed to be easier to see in bright conditions. But those start at 50 or 60 USD.
If it works at all, the $10. is a bargain.

 

[AgX]

There is no hint whatsoever at a laser aiming aid. There only is a small, second thing at the front, which might be a window for a laser.
But still such laser would not necessarily be a solution to the problem I hinted at. One would have to test whether the meter can actually differenciate between closely staggered subjects pointed at.

A optical rangefinder does not have these issues. What you see is what you get (simply put...)

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Why is this necessary? It has a 50mm lens which would provide adequate depth of field at moderate apertures and distances. At close distances and wide apertures, a person can learn to estimate distances with acceptable accuracy. That's what people did in 1956 when that camera was made. That's what I do with my early 1950's Zeiss Nettar.

Also, just to continue acting as a curmudgeon, I have always thought the use of distance measuring devices on a golf course, (and that includes a caddy) violates The Spirit of the Game. It is enjoyable spending time to learn the course and distances on one's own.

 

[mshchem]

I have a decent laser rangefinder I bought for my Fuji 6x17. I never use it. As long as I remember the distance scale is metric I'm fine. I wouldn't spend the money unless you are curious . The laser I bought wasn't that expensive and it works great indoors and at short distance. I have an old Kodak Service Rangefinder It works great, I never use it either.
Polaroid "Sonar" units were great for closeup work, Polaroid offered the technology to other companies.

 

[jim10219]

I measure distances using objects I'm familiar with. My middle finger nail is a half inch wide. My first three fingers are two inches wide. My hand, fully extended in front of me is 2.5 feet (30 inches) from my chest. I'm six feet tall. A basketball goal is ten feet tall. Ten yards on a football field is 30 feet. The whole football field is 120 yards, including endzones (American football, of course).

By visualizing how many of these objects I can place between the camera and the subject, I can make a pretty accurate guess at distance in a lot less time than it takes to use a sperate rangefinder. And it's one less thing to hold. It's kind of like Sunny 16 for distance.

It may not work well for telephoto lenses where depth of fields are thinner at further distances, but how often are you using telephoto lenses on a zone focusing camera? It can also trip you up for underwater photography if you try to do actual measurements instead of visualize them due to the properties of optics through a water medium, since things appear closer to both your eyes and the lens.

Best of all, it's a skill that comes in handy all the time in daily life.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

phone app would be my first choice (rightly or wrongly)

That is interesting, I never thought of checking for a distance app. There are tens of them out there. Theo above may be right that I may not need one. But I find that I can estimate easily close, such as 1 or 2 body distances away. And far away (infinity) is easy. But it is the intermediate distances that confuse me.

 

[Eric Rose]

It doesn't take long to train yourself to measure distance by eye. Give it a go.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

It doesn't take long to train yourself to measure distance by eye. Give it a go.

Thanks, I already have a bit. For the first test roll, I used the camera tripod-mounted, so I could set the aperture at f/8 or f/11, which provided plenty leeway. For my type of work, maybe exact focus is not needed. I will ponder this some more. By the way, the Color-Scopar lens is really nice in misty, gloomy weather. Thank you for all the hints.

 

[Craig75]

That is interesting, I never thought of checking for a distance app. There are tens of them out there. Theo above may be right that I may not need one. But I find that I can estimate easily close, such as 1 or 2 body distances away. And far away (infinity) is easy. But it is the intermediate distances that confuse me.

You probably only need a distance aid for a couple of rolls and then you will be able to judge that tricky 5m to 10m away at f4 by eye. Scale focusing with wider lenses or subminiature formats is a lot easier than a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. No crime in having a little assistance to teach you how to do it by eye.

 

[Europan]

Optical rangefinders are way more useful and cheap today, second hand. I repair and service them.

 

[John51]

My first 35mm camera was scale focus. Doesn't take long to get good at estimating distances.

 

[jim10219]

That is interesting, I never thought of checking for a distance app. There are tens of them out there. Theo above may be right that I may not need one. But I find that I can estimate easily close, such as 1 or 2 body distances away. And far away (infinity) is easy. But it is the intermediate distances that confuse me.

I've not had much luck with them. I haven't found them to be very consistent. Though it may depend on what model phone you're using.

 

[fabulousrice]

I'm going to revive this thread with the three options I use at the moment for cameras that do not possess WYSIWYG viewfinders:

Image.

The first one is a Russian "Blik" - it's super fun to use but is only in Meters.
The second one is a LS-1 - very frustrating to use right, because it only has a single button, which makes it hard to go between Meters and Feet, but very fast.
The third one is a Bosch GLM30. Kind of an eyesore, but easy to use and easy to switch between Meters and Feet.

Are there other alternatives out there?
I'd definitely need both Meters and Feet, using a wide range of cameras, and for the tool to be easy to use and quick to deliver a reading.
Any recommendation appreciated!