PDA

View Full Version : viewfinder attachment for contaxes?


Pherdinand
11-09-2004, 06:26
handy little thing -or not, dunno...looks cool!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30099&item=3851530195&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

wlewisiii
11-09-2004, 06:34
Eh, that's about the max I'd pay. Then, I'm saving pennies for (along with everything _else_ :) ) a russian turret finder instead. If I have to futz with a finder of any kind, I'd rather do that one.

Also, just as a point of reference, my Contax book says that the 135 covers "just more than" the range finder patch and the 85 covers three widths of the rangefinder patch. So, with a little practice, a finder for the longs shouldn't be necessary. Just a thought.

William

back alley
11-09-2004, 06:35
does look kinda cool.

but i am a bit of a fool though and would actually try to shoot without it or an external finder.

joe

Pherdinand
11-09-2004, 06:42
me too, joe:) [however, it won't be the case for a while! no extra lenses in this year.]

rick oleson
11-09-2004, 06:43
the rangefinder patch in the contax is closer to a 200mm - but i use that rather than a shoe-mount finder with a 135, because it takes very little wobble in the shoe for the finder to miss the target by half the frame with that long of a lens.

FrankS
11-09-2004, 12:57
the rangefinder patch in the contax is closer to a 200mm

Hmmm. Any idea of the coverage of the separate Leica IIIf rangefinder window?

rick oleson
11-09-2004, 13:49
That's harder to peg, since it's not the same shape as the frame. But it is useful for aiming a tele, just be a little casual about exactly where you want the edges to be.

back alley
11-09-2004, 13:55
frank,

are you looking for a 135 external finder?
i just aquired one for my 135 canon but now that i'm getting a canon 7 i really don't need the finder anymore.
let me know.

joe