Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Leicaflex SL Explanation
From: "Tony Salce" <NadinaTony@bigpond.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:16:42 +1000
References: <20010319100119.17846.cpmta@c014.sfo.cp.net><000a01c0b06a$ad26d880$141036cb@oakhill> <p0501041fb6dc0689945e@[209.53.33.7]>

Thank you to Doug, Jason and Henning for the explanation of the microprisms
in the focussing scren of the Leicaflex SL. Your explanation was clear.

Kind Regards,

Tony Salce
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Henning Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leicaflex SL Explanation


> >Excuse my naivete but I do not understand what Dick Gilcreast means when
he
> >comments in Volume 28 No 2 1995 on the SL that "the central microprism is
> >cut for the relatively large lens speed of f2.8 ...and is therefore
> >relatively more accurate shooting at f2". He also says that the best
lenses
> >to use with the SL screen are f2, f2.8, f3.4 and f3.5 lenses.
> >
> >He makes similar comments about the outer prisms being "cut for about
f5.6".
> >
> >Could list members please help me decipher this ? I am new to the SL and
> >require some assistance.
> >
> >
> >Kind Regards,
> >
> >
> >Tony Salce
> >
> >Kind Regards
>
> Split image or microprism focussing aids for SLR's work best at
> certain apertures. What this really is optimised for is the apparent
> aperture at the film plane (or focussing screen), so for strong
> retrofocus or telephoto designs this isn't exact. Retrofocus lenses
> act like slower lenses, and telephoto lenses act like faster lenses.
>
> In any case....
>
> If a prism is cut to work best at f/2, then it will deliver the
> optimal accuracy for f/2 lenses, but will be no more accurate for
> f/1.2 lenses, so for these lenses the prism might not be quite
> accurate enough. If a lens with an aperture smaller than f/2 is used,
> part of the prism will go dark, so then the prism is totally useless
> as a focussing aid.
>
> Most SLR focussing aid prisms were cut to be optimal for lenses of
> around f/3.5 or so aperture. Cameras with interchangeable screens
> often had screens with microprisms or split image prisms that were
> optimised for very fast or slow lenses, but fixed screen cameras had
> to compromise, and whatever lenses you couldn't focus with the
> central focussing aid you focussed on the surrounding ground glass.
> Some cameras, like the SL I believe, and then some Minoltas and
> others, used microprisms cut for slower lenses in the outer areas to
> increase brightness, but if you tried to focus very slow lenses or
> stopped down macro shots, most of the screen might go dark. If you
> did this a lot, the factory usually had an option of changing the
> screen to a ground glass type for a better compromise.
>
> The central focussing aids were intended to extend the basic ground
> glass focussing capabilities of SLR's in to the wideangle and
> standard lens areas with a rangefinder (and the prisms act optically
> exactly like a split image rangefinder) to be more competitive with
> range/viewfinder cameras in practice.
>
> --
>     *            Henning J. Wulff
>    /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>   /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
>   |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com

In reply to: Message from Doug Herr <telyt@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] Re: To the defense of the 100 Apo Macro)
Message from "Tony Salce" <NadinaTony@bigpond.com> ([Leica] Leicaflex SL Explanation)
Message from Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com> (Re: [Leica] Leicaflex SL Explanation)