Group: Member
Post: 10 (1 liked)
Join date: March 2024
Status:
|
|
on May 29, 2024 18:10:36 GMT
Last Edit: May 29, 2024 18:59:40 GMT by andreir
I would like to share a little test result done with my Yashica Electro 35 GT. The object of the test was to see how much of what is visible through the viewfinder actually goes into a negative frame. I positioned the camera approximately 8 feet from the wall and marked on the wall (as precisely as I could) what I saw through the viewfinder with masking tape. Then I accentuated the markings on a computer with colored lines. The outer rectangle (Yellow) represents the outer limit of the shot seen through the viewfinder. The inner rectangle (Green) represents the marking -- the "bright trimming frame" (as they call it in the camera user manual) in the viewfinder. As you can see in the actual scanned film negative, the outer rectangle didn't fit into the actual negative shot. I took a shot of the viewfinder with my phone for a general idea. I hope somebody will find this useful. YashicaEl35_Viewfinder_Test by Andrei Rabo, on Flickr YashicaEl35_Viewfinder_Test_Viwfinder by Andrei Rabo, on Flickr YashicaEl35_Viewfinder_Test_Shot_resize by Andrei Rabo, on Flickr
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,409 (314 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on May 31, 2024 21:26:02 GMT
Posted: May 31, 2024 21:26:02 GMT
An interesting observation. I'd have to dig through a bunch of manuals to see if the view percentage was ever emphasized for Yashica gear, and specifically for the Electro and other fixed lens cameras. A couple of thoughts... The entire series of the Electro, Minister/M, Lynx, 35/YK/YL, et all, are essentially rangefinders at their heart. That means there's no mirror in the box, and the flange focal depth distances are very shallow compared to SLR's - and obviously different depths again, for DSLR's. I have to think there's some optimization that's calculated for a number of factors, like circle of confusion 'edge fuzziness' and point of clarity, light scatter and bounce, and more than anything else, IMHO it would probably come down at the base end as a matter of cost and engineering complexity for that time period. I imagine that the viewfinder percentage ratio (viewfinder to film frame) could have been increased much higher, but with considerable cost and effort that couldn't be justified by the company execs. In contrast - If you look at Leica's M series film cameras at the high end of the market, there were multiple view percentages 'chosen' by design, for different models. There are at least 3 available, as " .58 vs .72 vs .85". The flange distance is exactly the same on all 3 of those body types, and obviously Leitz wasn't concerned with costs. One major difference with the M film series that won't apply to Yashica gear, is that although the M's are still technically 'Rangefinder" bodies, they do have interchangeable lenses. Reference on 'FFD' : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance. Now you've got me wondering if Yashica TLR's had similar characteristics. They're on equal footing to be classified as fixed-lens rangefinders, only they're stacked vertically and don't use prisms for focus ranging. If I can find a substitute lying around for ground glass on a 6x6 film plane, I'll take a peek to see.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 10 (1 liked)
Join date: March 2024
Status:
|
|
on Jun 1, 2024 5:14:39 GMT
Posted: Jun 1, 2024 5:14:39 GMT
An interesting observation. I'd have to dig through a bunch of manuals to see if the view percentage was ever emphasized for Yashica gear, and specifically for the Electro and other fixed lens cameras. A couple of thoughts... The entire series of the Electro, Minister/M, Lynx, 35/YK/YL, et all, are essentially rangefinders at their heart. That means there's no mirror in the box, and the flange focal depth distances are very shallow compared to SLR's - and obviously different depths again, for DSLR's. I have to think there's some optimization that's calculated for a number of factors, like circle of confusion 'edge fuzziness' and point of clarity, light scatter and bounce, and more than anything else, IMHO it would probably come down at the base end as a matter of cost and engineering complexity for that time period. I imagine that the viewfinder percentage ratio (viewfinder to film frame) could have been increased much higher, but with considerable cost and effort that couldn't be justified by the company execs. In contrast - If you look at Leica's M series film cameras at the high end of the market, there were multiple view percentages 'chosen' by design, for different models. There are at least 3 available, as " .58 vs .72 vs .85". The flange distance is exactly the same on all 3 of those body types, and obviously Leitz wasn't concerned with costs. One major difference with the M film series that won't apply to Yashica gear, is that although the M's are still technically 'Rangefinder" bodies, they do have interchangeable lenses. Reference on 'FFD' : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance. Now you've got me wondering if Yashica TLR's had similar characteristics. They're on equal footing to be classified as fixed-lens rangefinders, only they're stacked vertically and don't use prisms for focus ranging. If I can find a substitute lying around for ground glass on a 6x6 film plane, I'll take a peek to see. Thank you for your input, Lumiworx! I see you're really digging into the subject. I just wanted to know what to expect when I compose my shot. I couldn't find any information on this matter about Yashicas, so I had to find out myself. I know the Nikon F shows 100% of a shot in the viewfinder -- a WYSIWYG thing. The Nikon N2000, for example, shows 92%, as the published specs state. In that case, I can expect there will be a little more "room" in the shot. With the Yashica Electro 35, it's a different thing -- I can see more than I'll get in the actual shot. This test is not very precise because the view changes slightly with eye movement relative to the viewfinder. It would be easy to do the same test with my Yashicaflex TLR, but I'm a bit stingy about sacrificing one of the 12 frames of the roll.
|
|