Can I Use A Polarizer With A Rangefinder Camera
Post past theinternate on May 26, 2020 16:37:15 GMTCheers for the answer. I am new to using a cpl. while I understand that the light meter behind the lens will guess the correct shutter speed, I am wondering about how to accordingly suit the cpl since the rangefinder does not allow me to run across the effects through the lens. If I am fairly certain that the sun is at about ninety° from where I am shooting is that the best guesstimate I tin can brand? Thanks for your communication in accelerate | |
Mail service by lumiworx on May 26, 2020 23:23:09 GMT ...I am wondering about how to appropriately adjust the cpl since the rangefinder does not allow me to see the effects through the lens. If I am fairly certain that the sun is at virtually 90° from where I am shooting is that the all-time guesstimate I tin brand? Thanks for your advice in advance That is an fantabulous question, and I'thou not sure if there's a surefire solution to get authentic enough results without using a purpose-built solution similar the Kenko Rangefinder Polorizers. They aren't terribly expensive, but not exactly every bit inexpensive every bit the SLR lens filter setups either. You buy the ii pieces separately - the index-marked polarizer pair for the lens, and a shoe mounted finder - and you match the numbers read from the adapted finder to employ to the filter ring's indexing number. A youTube video on using that setup: There is also a very old solution, simply information technology's more akward to use... A Tiffen Polaroid Rotoscreen set. These aren't made anymore, just they await to be like shooting fish in a barrel finds on ebay. Yous'll also need a "Series" blazon adapter ring to fit to your lens, as they don't announced to exist pre-threaded. | |
| Last Edit: May 26, 2020 23:24:12 GMT by lumiworx |
Post past lumiworx on May 26, 2020 23:35:05 GMTA quick bank check with a currency convertor on the Kenko stuff makes it a fiddling higher than it commencement appeared to be. A 55mm Polarizer is ¥8,944 = $83.21 USD Ouch! | |
| xkaes Posts: 681 | Post by xkaes on May 27, 2020 12:36:53 GMTI tin can't speak to circular polarizers, simply all of the linear polarizers I've e'er seen are designed to be rotated and take a mark -- a white dot or stripe on the edge for alignment. All you need to exercise is look through the polarizer and notice where the mark is -- when you achieve the desired effect. Then place the polarizer on the lens and turn the polarizer so that the mark is in the aforementioned identify when you were looking through it. |
Post by lumiworx on May 27, 2020 sixteen:08:18 GMT[Moved to a new thread, to keep the original one on-topic] A couple of things that might be worth pointing out... About of the better polarizers (linear or CPL) are probable to have at to the lowest degree 1 'marking' to use every bit some kind of a reference point, all the same they may non provide annihilation useful under every circumstance. The reference points seem to be arbritary equally an angular reference of 'XY degrees', and then it might be xc degrees or 0/cypher degrees (or anywhere in betwixt) when the dot is in a given position. It might be happenstance or it might be that each manufacturer sets the glass a certain fashion with the polarization issue at X percent at Y position for Z degrees. Not ane of the polarizers I ain came with an instruction sheet (and I simply purchase new CPL filters, never used). Brusk of the one sentence on the box to "attach and turn...", at that place's zippo about the mark. I've looked through the documents available online from Hoya, Tiffen, and B&W (Schneider Kreuznach), and none of what they offering any mention there'due south a reference marker at all, let alone how they're meant to exist used. Of the "CPL" filters I've used (Hoya or B&W) the effects of polarizations repeat and contrary as you turn. I get in and out of the ninety caste effect twice on the Hoya 55mm I merely tried, and the front end element is the only one of the 2 back-to-dorsum filter plates that has the mark, then there's non a lot of certainty without the precise re-placement of both drinking glass plates in positioning when you lot get from off-lens to on-lens. I should as well note that it is not my personal practice to use filters as a matter of grade, and if I practice utilise a CPL at all, it'southward for water reflections on shallow h2o, or for glass reflections on interior shots. I don't use them for color enhancements or dissimilarity control. I may not exist ane to offer advice on how best to use a CPL for those situations at all, as I'm just not familiar with using them that way. Non that it's relavant for an Electro 35 CCN as a pic camera, but for the sake of anyone stumbling on this post later and wondering... linear polarizers won't work with TTL metering, autofocus, or digital cameras in general. | |
| Last Edit: May 27, 2020 xvi:24:33 GMT past lumiworx |
Post by ridgeblue99 on Jun 2, 2020 23:l:00 GMTPlainly Japan Exposures must have bought up all the remaining stock of those Kenko filters, as I haven't seen them for sale anywhere else in a long time. Even the Kenko site hasn't listed them for many years. Like I said in my other mail they are kind of expensive, merely at least now yous can get the finder separately. PF | |
| xkaes Posts: 681 | Post by xkaes on Jun 3, 2020 two:03:45 GMTI just checked out those Kenko circular polarizer pairs for rangefinders. I'chiliad quite amazed, and it makes me glad I merely utilise linear polarizers. I know very, very little most round polarizers, simply it makes me call up they developed them to solve one problem, and created another. I've used polarizers on many rangefinder and viewfinder cameras from the simple, viewfinder Yashica 72-Due east to the feature-laden, parallax-correcting, rangefinder Canon Canonet QL17 GIII. For both, I've used several dissimilar linear polarizers. All of them had a mark on the edge, but I suppose some don't. And equally I said to a higher place -- all you lot demand to practise is look direct through the polarizer and discover where the mark is -- when y'all achieve the desired issue. Then place the polarizer on the lens and rotate the polarizer so that the mark is in the same place when you were looking through it. There is no need for the manufacturer to place this mark at a specific bespeak, angle, or anything else. Most people are using information technology on an SLR and encounter the effect in the viewfinder -- so the mark is non in that location for them. The mark is for Not-SLR (TLR, rangefinder, viewfinder, etc.) camera users, and works perfectly well wherever it is. It is there just as a reference (AKA, starting) bespeak. Why anyone would go to the cost of a polarizing pair -- i for the lens and one for the flash shoe (assuming your cameras has a shoe) -- strikes me as odd. I've got to presume that it has something to do with the nature of round polarizers -- which are something that well-nigh (all?) viewfinder and rangefinder cameras don't need. What Contax or Yashica cameras viewfinder and rangefinder cameras would demand a circular polarizer? Just curious. |
Mail by lumiworx on Jun 4, 2020 17:22:52 GMTI call up there might be some circumstances where polarizers might exist 'needed' from a creative perspective, but most times they aren't absolutely required to but accept a photo on a rangefinder. There are a couple of instances where polarizers (of any blazon, on any camera) tin can dramatically alter a photo's visual content and the artistic touch on to the person viewing them - and both deal with specific reflections. One is h2o reflections, where you're shooting a very shallow brook or stream that's absolutely clear, where your naked middle will run across the lesser, but the camera is likely to prove a surface reflection in the final shot. If you're focusing on the fish below the surface (they're the only thing in the frame worth photographing) and your photo shows the clouds and sky instead... you'd need a polarizer to correct the trouble. The second issue is a scene where someone is continuing close to, and looking out of a window, and you - within with that person - desire to shoot a portrait of them looking out and not see their reflection in the window glass. That person will likely be close at a 90 caste angle in reference to their position to the glass, and only a polarizer could greatly reduce or eliminate that reflection. That reflection might obscure the view of any is on the outside, and it can't be seen well plenty with reflections in play. If that'due south the of import content of the shot, it won't be easily visible without a polarizer in use. If y'all take a metered SLR or an Electro 35 CCN (w/ metering cell on lens-front), or any other rangefinder that has a lens-mounted meter, you need a round polarizer to insure yous can correct the issue -and- accurately meter the scene you're shooting. Linear versions are invisible to the meter, and could crusade a ane to 3+ stops difference in exposure. Information technology tin can vary enough that you tin't assume a specific value will be close enough to get a correctly exposed photo, and effort to fool the meter by adjusting something (like, ISO) by the equivalent of X.ten stops. You can switch the filter from being in forepart of annihilation other than the lens (i.e., your eye, a paw-held meter, another on-camera non-TTL meter) back to being screwed into the lens' filter threads -merely- you tin certainly forget capturing spontaneous shots with that method, or in any circumstance where you tin can't command positions or movement of whomever/any you're trying to capture in a shot. That would be a nightmare and impractical with a rangefinder, and switching to an SLR would exist a better culling by far. | |
| Last Edit: Jun 4, 2020 17:24:51 GMT by lumiworx |
| xkaes Posts: 681 | Post by xkaes on Jun iv, 2020 20:59:05 GMTI certainly hold that those are two situations where a polarizer might be a good idea, but I normally utilise a polarizer for different reasons. The chief one is to darken the heaven. This is true in B&W besides as color -- but of course it merely darkens the blueish portion of the sky, and only at a sure angle. It's also expert for reducing HAZE -- by that I mean reflections off of moisture, grit, etc. in the air. And while polarizers can reduce reflections off of water -- over again at sure angles -- it reduces reflections off of many surfaces, from paint, rocks, cactus, flowers -- in brusk LOTS of things -- intensifying the colour or tone/contrast. Talk about dramatic thunder clouds with a reddish or orangish filter AND a polarizer. And polarizers and exposure meters are simply a problem for some meters -- the ones that use certain mirrors. All the rangefinder/viewfinder and SLR cameras that I employ WITH POLARIZERS accept no problem at all with correctly compensating for the polarizer (which have variable exposure impacts depending on how much reflection is removed from the scene. I've never used one on my Yashica Samurai Z, but that'due south the only auto-focus camera I have -- so I don't really intendance if a polarizer would mess up its metering as well equally its focusing. I'll have to give it a endeavour one of these days, and cheque it out. Thank you for the proffer. |
| Last Edit: Jun iv, 2020 21:03:37 GMT by xkaes |
Source: https://yashica.boards.net/thread/876/polarizers-on-rangefinders
Posted by: hayescamagirse.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Can I Use A Polarizer With A Rangefinder Camera"
Post a Comment