Best place to get a good loupe

[evan clarke]

Evan, thanks for that. I am going to take a look. A store near me sells them....

Since you own them all - which one has the most light coming in ? Does your favorite hold up on that score?

Lenny

It's as good light wise as any I own but it's also built like a tank and it's tiny..Evan

[Richard Mahoney]

Hello Drew,

I use a loupe every shot, period, and use it carefully, even with the 8x10. Can't imagine how anything could be seriously enlarged without checking first. I prefer something around 7X.

Although the question of whether or not one always needs `to loupe' is tangential to Lenny's initial query -- so please pass over this note at will -- I *am* interested in peoples' views on this. I certainly wouldn't dispute the appropriate use of focus and the use of a loupe -- in my case a 6x -- to achieve it. What I have found in my own case, though, is that it is far more satisfactory for me to use my depth-of-field calculator to achieve what I think is the optimal focus. I do this with the aperture opened right up, setting the farthest point of sharp focus, followed by the nearest point. The depth-of-field scale indicates the aperture I will need to achieve what I want, and only then, taking its word, do I stop down. Initially, when I didn't trust my beast I used to double-check the darkened glass with my linen tester, but now, after so often finding this superfluous and just a waste of time, I rarely bother. I'm sure my tester feels quite contemptuous of me, but at least it still gets used once the film is developed. Anyway, although I'm generally loath to fall in line with advertising claims, I'm going to have to agree with Messrs. Cambo on this:

It's quick, easy, and -most important- accurate.

Kind regards,

Richard


P.S. This is pretty representative of what happens in the field. I'm assuming -- as it was primarily a studio camera -- that the depth-of-field calculator could also be used to good effect in close up product photography.

How to Impart Image Quality? [page down]
http://camera-antipodea.indica-et-bu...olution-images

[Capocheny]

Hi Bob,

That's what one of the local Blad dealers told me...

Regardless of whether it's a 3x's or 6x's... it seems to work well for me.

[If it is indeed a 3x's... thank you for the correction.]

Cheers,

[rdenney]

It's as good light wise as any I own but it's also built like a tank and it's tiny..Evan

I use one as well and I agree with Evan's description. I removed the tilting base on mine. The base has an angle cut on one side to allow the tilt, and I just tilt it as necessary. The base was a bit too big and interfered with the corners of the ground glass frame. The other side is at right angles to the axis of the lens so it's also easy to hold it straight onto the glass when necessary. I have had no complaints in terms of brightness. What it gives up is coverage--it's for focusing, not for seeing a big chunk of image. The tilting feature is essential for me--I frequently enough use the Sinar with a 47mm lens and a roll-film holder.

I've been using my Pentax 6x7 chimney finder on the light table. It works very well, requiring only a bit of caution about resting it on the film. I think I'll make a felt base for it when I'm using it for that application. I think it's about 3.5x or so. Bright, with good eye relief and no distortion. I like it on the camera, too.

I can't compare these with high-end loupes because I've never handled them. But these seem to get the job done.

Rick "who doesn't want to ever see what a $500 loupe provides" Denney

[Roger Cole]

Hello Drew,



Although the question of whether or not one always needs `to loupe' is tangential to Lenny's initial query -- so please pass over this note at will -- I *am* interested in peoples' views on this. I certainly wouldn't dispute the appropriate use of focus and the use of a loupe -- in my case a 6x -- to achieve it. What I have found in my own case, though, is that it is far more satisfactory for me to use my depth-of-field calculator to achieve what I think is the optimal focus. I do this with the aperture opened right up, setting the farthest point of sharp focus, followed by the nearest point. The depth-of-field scale indicates the aperture I will need to achieve what I want, and only then, taking its word, do I stop down. Initially, when I didn't trust my beast I used to double-check the darkened glass with my linen tester, but now, after so often finding this superfluous and just a waste of time, I rarely bother. I'm sure my tester feels quite contemptuous of me, but at least it still gets used once the film is developed. Anyway, although I'm generally loath to fall in line with advertising claims, I'm going to have to agree with Messrs. Cambo on this:




Kind regards,

Richard

None of this will work if the camera doesn't have a distance scale for focusing, which my de-rangefindered Technika certainly doesn't.

I do find a loupe absolutely essential. What I don't find essential is a good loupe. I'm not viewing and enjoying the final image through it. A cheap one will show me best focus as well as a good one, or so it seems to me as I've never really used a good one. Same for dropping it on a transparency or negative on the light box. If there's a little chromatic aberration or whatever, no matter. I can see what I need to see.

One that could get into the corners easier would be valuable and I may try one of those. But otherwise my 8x and about eight bucks old Agfa loupe seems fine to me. Maybe I'm missing something here and maybe I should avoid ever trying a good one!

[rdenney]

...Initially, when I didn't trust my beast I used to double-check the darkened glass with my linen tester, but now, after so often finding this superfluous and just a waste of time, I rarely bother.

The problem with depth-of-field markings on a lens (and my Sinar has them, too) is that I don't know what standard they are using. Are they basing it on the Zeiss formulat (c of c = picture height / ~1500) the way it is normally done in small format? That may be abundant or it may not be enough, depending on the desired print size.

But if it's sharp enough with a 6x loupe on 4x5, it's sharp enough for any print I'm likely to make.

Any secondary measure may be accurate, unless I mess up something on which it relies, but a loupe on the ground glass tells no lies. And mostly I'm checking tilts and swings, and the depth of field scale doesn't tell me if I've nailed the focus plane. Getting the focus plane nailed really helps make the depth of field work for me instead of covering up my lapses. And often enough I just can't keep my subject still for a half-minute exposure, and just need to open the lens up a bit.

Rick "who finds the focus scale on a view camera more fiddly than any loupe" Denney