Dear panoramist,
Optical door spyviewers (big
diameter models) are easy to be transformed in
wide field finders.
Just mark front glass with field.
Cheap solution.
Michel
DUSARIEZ
>I find the subject of ultrawide finders to be quite interesting,
>particularly after pricing some commercial examples (aargh!) ;-) The
idea
>of spending $450 for a finder is disconcerting, but even the
russian 21mm
>and leica finders cost more than some of my 35mm SLR
lenses (nikkors at
>that!)
>
>has anyone come up with
any decent finder alternatives? Ralph
>Fuerbringer's point (re: $450
linhof is similar to 0.42x superwide adapter)
>suggests this might be
one low cost way to create a suitable very wide
>finder?
>
>Unfortunately, the Ikelite flash shoe mount finders would be ideal,
except
>they aren't very wide (like 20mm?) and they _are_ painted
dayglo orange
>and they are pretty big and still circa $100 US. These
finders are used in
>scuba diving underwater, where you can't use a
regular viewfinder (e.g. on
>nikonos) for lack of wide angle coverage
or ability to get close while
>wearing a mask. The eye relief on
these Ikelite finders is tremendous -
>like five or six inches - and
they support a variety of standard 35mm lens
>masks and also come
with custom plastic screens you can scribe your own
>pattern as
needed. Grids show typical barrel distortion, but they are
>pretty
accurate. Gizmo is size of a small lemon; price was around $100 US
>last time I bought one (albeit some years ago)...
>
>I
have been experimenting with a Topcon rectilinear fisheye lens assembly
>from a digital light processor - the projection TVs that use Texas
>Instruments mirror chips to project big screen bright tv images.
fisheye
>is about 1 1/2" in diam. and very wide angle coverage,
projects from flat to
>flat screen (e.g., pretty rectilinear) and
bright (no iris though) -
>coverage is small, to match digital chip,
but relatively close to the eye
>pupil size (7mm etc.). Just another
alternative for finder hackers to
>consider? (these are local surplus
examples, any others out there?)
>
>I suppose one of the new
0.42x or similar mutars would be useful, as
>ralph notes, with the
right masking. I have found at least 2 types, the
>old solid glass
ones are heavy and big, designed for 35mm and 2 1/4"
>cameras; the
newer ones (often claiming to be "autofocus" and "titanium"
>and
"macro") are much lighter and cheaper ($20 used from Goodwin photo
>for last used one I bought) and might make decent finders at that?
>
>anybody got any good examples of finder alternatives that
work for panos
>and ultrawides without leaving that "empty wallet"
feeling? ;-) Thanks!
>
>regards bobm
Michel DUSARIEZ
UNLIMITED FIELDS RESEARCH PANOPTIC IMAGING
KITE
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WORDWIDE ASSOCIATION - FOUNDATION
14, Avenue
Capitaine PIRET
B-1150 BRUXELLES - BELGIUM
Fax 32 2 512 68
29
