When I first started to return to film photography, I sought to shoot with modern, professional gear that I only dreamt of using prior to the advent of digital photography — primarily medium format gear made in the 1990s and later. But when the pandemic started cranking-up, I began to embrace film cameras that not long ago I dismissed as too old and too fussy to bother with. Honestly, it was probably a combination of “retail therapy” and nostalgia for a (theoretically) simpler time that was responsible for driving this, but to my surprise, I discovered that there is both incredible enjoyment (not to mention technical mastery) to be gained from the experience, especially with simple, so-called viewfinder cameras.
Before we dig-in, let’s talk about the featured image at the top of this article. Pictured there are three viewfinder cameras. Left to right, they are an early, German-made Rollei 35 (c. 1966), a Kodak Retina IB (a/k/a Type 019 Ausfuhrung II, c. 1959), and a Kodak Retina Nr. 119 (c. 1937).
For the uninitiated, viewfinder camera is the most commonly used term to describe a camera whose viewfinder system is completely decoupled from the taking lens — the lens that actually projects the image you’re shooting onto the film surface. The term is a bit confusing, because viewfinder, of course, is a term used to describe any system a photographer uses to compose a shot on pretty much any camera. And with the single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras that many of us are most familiar with, the viewfinder is actually very much directly coupled with the taking lens through a prism and a mirror — you’re focusing and composing with the same optics used to capture the image.
Of course, viewfinders of other types are common too, from the rangefinders of the Leica and many other cameras (especially those of the 1950s), to the separate (but coupled) viewfinders of twin-lens reflex cameras like the Rolleiflex.
But the plain old direct optical viewfinder of the viewfinder camera is the simplest of them all. Essentially a miniaturized telescope, the direct optical viewfinder roughly approximates the field of the view of the camera’s taking lens, sometimes including so-called bright frames or other markings that explicitly show the approximate boundaries of the image frame.
Because the viewfinder shows no focus information, however, you must one of two focusing methodologies:
- Zone Focusing
The simplest of the two approaches is called zone focusing, and it leverages depth-of-field to produce acceptable images. Box cameras, which have no focusing ability at all, are essentially zone focused cameras, because they work on the same principle. But for a viewfinder camera with a focusable lens, the idea is that you set the focus at a specific point, and depth-of-field allows the range of acceptable focus to be quite broad. - Scale Focusing
Also simple, but more involved, is scale focusing. It’s so-named because you use the focus distance scale on the camera lens, but because you have no way to actually see the focus happening, you merely estimate (or actually measure) the distance from the camera to your subject.
Let’s look at both in a bit more detail.
Zone Focusing
As I said above, zone focusing depends on depth-of-field to work. The general idea is to simply set the aperture to a small to midrange setting — f/8 or smaller (which means a bigger number, such a f/11, f/16, etc.) is often suggested — then set the shutter speed to obtain correct exposure accordingly, and finally, set the focus at around the 9 foot (3 meter) mark for snapshots (of people or other close subjects), or at about the 25 foot (8 meter) mark for more distant subjects. Depth-of-field achieved by the small aperture will provide a wide range of so-called acceptable focus that allows you to get your shot with a usable result, despite the imprecision of the focus setting.
You should check the owner’s manual of your viewfinder camera, or refer to depth-of-field scales or charts for the camera (which are sometimes on the camera body, sometimes in owner’s manuals, and sometimes nowhere at all), to find the ideal focus settings to use for zone focusing. Lens focal lengths and other factors may make my suggested 9 foot and 25 foot points inappropriate for your particular camera.
For two examples, I’ll use a couple of Kodak Retina camera models. This Retina IIc has dots on the focusing scale itself for zone focusing:
As a brief digression, and as expert users may have noticed, the Retina IIc is a rangefinder camera, and as such, doesn’t require zone focusing in order to focus the image — you can do it directly. That said, rangefinders can be difficult to use in certain lighting conditions, which is part of the reason, no doubt, that Kodak included the zone focusing scales — and technique, described in the manual — on the camera. As they note in this excerpt, there are also speed advantages to zone focusing as well:
Much older Kodak Retinas, in particular the viewfinder models, have a small round slide rule for depth-of-field lookup on the bottom of the camera body. This one, from my circa 1937 Kodak Retina Nr. 119, is in German, and uses meters, not feet, but it’s nevertheless pretty obvious how it works; you simply rotate the outer ring until the focus distance (what the lens is set to) aligns with the black triangle; go down from there to find the aperture (f-stop) you have set on the lens; then the two black lines that fan-out from there will point to the minimum and maximum boundaries of the zone of acceptable focus (again, in this example, in meters).
In the photo, it’s set to 3m, and shows (for example) that at f/11, the depth-of-field (or range of acceptable focus) is about 2m to 6m (approximately 6.5 feet to 20 feet). The slide rule is not connected to the focus ring in any way; it’s purely a look-up tool.
Scale Focusing
As I mentioned earlier, scale focusing involves using the distance scale on the camera lens, setting it to either a measured or an estimated distance from the camera to the subject.
For distant subjects, estimates work quite well, thanks to depth-of-field. For subjects closer than 6 to 10 feet (2 or 3 meters) or so, you probably want to get out a tape measure and be more accurate about the exercise.
Two things worth nothing specifically here:
- The wider your aperture (the smaller the f-stop number), the more critical your measurement has to be. This is because smaller apertures have deeper depth-of-field, and bigger ones have shallower depth-of-field. As with zone focusing, the best bet is to keep your lens at f/8 for smaller (e.g., f/11, f/16, etc.) if possible for 135 (35mm) cameras, or f/11 or smaller for 120 (medium format) cameras.
- The farther away your subject is, the less accurate you need to be. Again, this is due to how depth-of-field works. Conversely, the closer your subject, the narrower it will be, so again, for subjects closer than 6 to 10 feet (2 or 3 meters) or so, measure the distance.
Other Things to Know
With either zone focusing or scale focusing, it’s important to understand that no matter where the aperture is set, or how great the depth-of-field, there’s always a specific point of sharpest focus — and that’s wherever the lens is actually set. In the photo I referenced above (of the depth-of-field scale on a Kodak Retina), if we set the actual lens focus ring as shown in the depth-of-field calculator scale, the range of acceptable focus would indeed be 2m to 6m (at f/11), but the sharpest focus would be right at 3m.
The depth-of-field provided by a smaller aperture merely provides some “cushion” in front or in back of that point of sharpest focus. Unless the distance from lens to subject is in fact accurately measured and set, the image sharpness may not be ideal regardless, and if you want to use shallow depth-of-field for bokeh (blurred background) effects, then it’s even more critical to measure precisely. This will always mean that a viewfinder camera is not the ideal choice for certain types of use cases (like classic portraits for instance), and even under many other circumstances, won’t provide as sharp a result as a camera where the focus process (and precision) is visible to the user.
Of course, limitations aside, I think that there are a few benefits from these approaches that may not be immediately apparent:
- Learning Depth-of-Field Concepts
First and foremost, if you have to (or force yourself to) use things like depth-of-field scales (like the round slide rule on the Retina above), you can start to really wrap your head around depth-of-field in a way that can, with time and practice, become second nature. Depth-of-field is going to work differently for different cameras (e.g., 35mm vs. medium format), different lenses, different focal lengths of lenses, and so forth. But even then, if you practice and think about what’s actually going on, you can start to get the entire concept lodged into your head, and then begin to better and more easily visualize the results you’re going to get — whether with a viewfinder camera, or any other. To be certain, the depth-of-field preview capabilities of more modern cameras are nice since you can see what you’re going to get. But if your knowledge and experience are up-to-snuff, you can get the job done whether those tools are available or not. - More Engagement with the Process
I like precision as much as the next person, and there’s no bummer quite like thinking you got a shot, only to find out after the film is processed that the shot was blurry. As such, a viewfinder camera simply requires a bit more engagement in the process of shooting. You have to think about what you’re doing; you can’t just point the camera and mindlessly shoot. And given that most of these cameras also have no exposure meter, you’re fully engaging with every aspect of getting the image taken; you have to think about everything, and set it all up manually, with care — otherwise, you’re just taking a craps shoot. You might get something once in awhile, but you’ll increase your odds considerably if you pay attention to what you’re doing. - You’ll Be a Smarter, Better Photographer
This is really just a summary of the two previous points, but by taking the time to learn, apply what you learn, and engage with the process, you’ll become a better, smarter and more intuitive photographer. For me personally, I’d say I’m still on that journey, but there’s no question that using older, more manual cameras has forced me to learn — really learn — the fundamentals of photography in a way I never bothered to before, because I simply didn’t have to.
Further to that last point, I enjoy modern digital cameras as much as anyone; I truly do. There’s a particular joy in simply grabbing my smartphone, holding it up, seeing what I’m going to get, touching a virtual button, and getting it. I don’t have to think about much of anything other than whether or not the image on the screen is the one I want.
But it’s also a mindless, disconnected process that requires no knowledge of anything other than how to access the camera feature of the phone. It has its place, and it’s enabled the masses to reliably take decent photos. If it’s your thing, fantastic.
However, I think most of us are into film photography so we can be part of an experience that’s deeper than that, and I believe a viewfinder camera is one unique way to go even more deeply into this interesting hobby.
If you like film, find a good old viewfinder camera in good working order — or rescue one and have it serviced — and join the fun. I feel confident when I say that you’ll be better off for the experience.
Update: March 14, 2022
In the original version of this article, I glazed over the differences between zone focusing and scale focusing. They are not the same, and this article now clearly makes the distinction.
