Zeiss 25/28 Viewfinder Brightlines for framing

[A.D.]

Hello,

I am looking to get the Zeiss 25/28 Viewfinder for my Ricoh GR DIGITAL III.

I am in possession of the Voigtländer 28 Metal Brightline Viewfinder but, literally, cannot trust the Viewfinder's Brightlines.

If I align one of the Viewfinder's Brightlines to a straight line present in the subject I am framing, the result will always be sideways.

IMHO, the issue comes from the distortion the Voigtländer VF has (which might have been accentuated by the fact that it fell twice).


So here's my question to the Zeiss 25/28 Viewfinder users:

• Can you trust its 28 Brightlines for framing?

Thank you to let me know.
All the best,
A.D.

[Tom A]

All rangefinders are a compromise - even aux. finders. It depends on the distance, parallax error etc.
If you are using a digital, use the finder for approximate framing and then the cameras screen for fine-tuning.
Only way to get exact framing (with film) would be to go to a SLR and among those few would give you 100% (Nikon F is one).

[fuwen]

If u are very particular about perspective distortion in the sense that the vertical lines of buildings are not photography properly, then a tripod with a spirit level to ensure the lens and body at water level is more promising than even use SLR.

[Turtle]

Or better still a camera system that allows for shift! If anything under correction is better than over correction.

[Tim Gray]

Originally Posted by TWoK

I can tell you the distortion in all of the Zeiss finders I've used and own, all but the 21mm, is lower

So what about the 21? I'm thinking of getting this. Do you mean it shows more distortion, like the CV, or do you mean something else...

[FrozenInTime]

Distortion aside, are you accounting for the 4:3 aspect ratio of the GRDIII vs 3:2 of 35mm film OVFs such as Zeiss and Voigtländer ?

The Ricoh GV-2 shows reasonably low distortion, but I find on the GRD-III that the frame is somewhat conservative for use at infinity ( something that is true for almost all brightline OVFs )

I know the GRD-IIIs LCD is not the best in bright sunshine : have you tried shading it with a hood ?

EDIT: reading your post again - it sounds like you are suffering from perspective distortion. i.e the buildings your are photographing look more like rockets than rectangular slabs.
No viewfinder is going to help you.
You must not tilt the camera up - instead hold it perpendicular to the ground.
It may also help to use the GRDIII's built in level meter to keep the horizon straight ( it's a shame there is not a level meter on all 3 axis ).

If the building does not fit in the frame, and you are forced to tilt the camera up - keeping the horizon level will still help.
Then use photoshop/ camera-raw perspective correction to square things off.

[kossi008]

Originally Posted by Tim Gray

So what about the 21? I'm thinking of getting this. Do you mean it shows more distortion, like the CV, or do you mean something else...

I am guessing he didn't own it. Because I got a lot of responses stating the same thing about the Zeiss 21 finder. Look here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=89857

[kossi008]

Originally Posted by FrozenInTime

EDIT: reading your post again - it sounds like you are suffering from perspective distortion. i.e the buildings your are photographing look more like rockets than rectangular slabs.
No viewfinder is going to help you.
You must not tilt the camera up - instead hold it perpendicular to the ground.

But that's the original poster's point exactly. Using my CV 21 finder, the buildings do not look like rectangles, not like rockets, more like barrels (it *is* called barrel distortion, after all, right?).

Which makes it very hard to get the verticals vertical...

[Rob-F]

I have both the 21 and 25/28 Zeiss finders. I find the brightlines to be more straight and linear than the Leica and CV ones. In fact I sold my 21mm Leica finder after getting the Zeiss.

Here's something to be aware of when framing. You have to make sure that the verticals are aligned in the finder on both sides, not just one side. That will only happen when the camera is being held absolutely level, and not tilted up or down. I start by holding the camera so that I think it's close to level. Then I note whether the verticals, left and right, are converging or diverging. If converging, I lower the camera. If diverging, I raise the camera. Then comes a final check, left and right, followed by a final adjustment before shooting. Of course this is done best from a tripod, but with practice I've learned to get it right in hand-held work as well.

[A.D.]

Thank you for all your replies.

Now: architectural photography was there as a bad exemple as I do not do architectural photography... my apologies.

Here is a better example: say I am approx. 10 meters away from a lamp post and compose my street scene with the lamp post framed on the left of the photograph. Through the VF it'll look straight yet, on the actual photograph, it won't be slightly sideways if you're picky; it will be big time sideways...

I'll run some further tests but my question is this:

. In such a context (i.e. with a subject which isn't too close neither too far), does the owners of the Zeiss VF using the 28 brightlines on a 28mm lens have such framing issues?

[A.D.]

I have to add two important details:

1. I am using the GR D III set at a 3:2 ratio.
2. I never had this issue with the Ricoh VF (GV-1).