DeLosLindos Posted December 11, 2009 Share #1 Posted December 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why does the viewfinder framelines cover the range 28-135 and not 24-90 (or even 21-75)? This would make much more sense as the wide-angle photography is much more 'Leica' then tele photography is. The biggest benefit would be absence of the wide-angle external viewfinder, money, bulk wise and better/easier handling. Can we expect something like this in the future? This is an aspect I can get my head around as it seems so obvious to me. I'am a longtime (d)slr user and trying to make up my mind about rangefinder photography. -best regards, DeLosLindos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 11, 2009 Posted December 11, 2009 Hi DeLosLindos, Take a look here framelines 24-90?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
yanidel Posted December 11, 2009 Share #2 Posted December 11, 2009 When you ask people what is your standard focal (RFF poll), more than 80% answer 35mm or 50mm (then preference is about 50-50% between the two). So I guess the viewfinder is optimized for the viewing of these two focals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 11, 2009 Share #3 Posted December 11, 2009 It is not a design decision that has been taken at one point of time. More of an organic growth keeping pace with the introduction of lenses in M mount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted December 11, 2009 Share #4 Posted December 11, 2009 What Steve Jay Gould would have called "historical contingency" - a series of design decisions (or vestigial carryovers) passed down from camera to camera. The original M3 had 50-90-135 framelines. The M2 dropped the magnification to cover 35 framelines, but also dropped the 135 lines (similar to your suggestion). The M4 kept the M2 35-50-90 lines but restored the 135 lines as it was intended to replace both the M3 and M2. The M4-P (et seq.) crammed in lines for a 28 that many already find hard to see. Key point here - the lower the magnification of the viewfinder (the wider the view) the less precise the RF focusing will be - which is why the 135 lines were dropped from the M2. 8-9 years ago, Leica produced a .58x magnification finder variation and dropped the 135 lines yet again. Konica produced the Hexar RF with .60x magnification. Both were just about workable for using "the whole viewfinder outside the lines" for a 24mm lens - but oddly, neither Konica nor Leica put in actual 24mm lines. Prior to the .58x body, there were rumors of real "wide" and "tele" finder versions coming - a 21-50 body and a 50-135 body. Instead Leica delivered .58x 28-90 and .85x 35-135 finders. (Cosina, OTOH really did produce a wide-angle-only body - the R4m/a: Voigtlander Bessa R4M / R4A Intro) In the M8, Leica put in lines for use with a 24mm cropped to an effective "32mm" field of view. Having used both the Konica Hexar and the Leica .58x bodies, I would say that focusing a 90 was tricky. Realistically -- and this is probably the key point -- the useful range of a Leica RF/VF, with the wide end requiring a given magnification to get a wide enough view, and the focus accuracy being limited by that magnification, is about 1:2.5. Which is clear from Leica's and Cosina's choices of focal length range in the M3, M2, and Bessa R4 M3: ratio of 50 to 135 is 1:2.7 M2: ratio of 35 to 90 is 1:2.57 R4: ratio of 21 to 50 is 1:2.38 A 24-90 viewfinder would have a "lens" ratio of 1:3.75; even a 24-75 viewfinder would have a ratio of 1:3.125. To really be able to see and use 24 framelines wearing glasses, the finder magnification would have to drop to .5x or lower, and I think one would be limited to 75 f/2.5 and 90 f/4 lenses (or slower) for the fast-paced wide-open focusing required by photojournalism. There are some who just use the classic M2-through-M9 finders and feel they can estimate the 24 framing. I'm not one of them. I also tend to go straight to a 21 (the 24 focal length in the M line only having been around for 10 years or so, and being a bit too constrained for my eye) - so for me an external finder is a given, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 11, 2009 Share #5 Posted December 11, 2009 On a practical level, which may have more to do with it, 28mm is just about the maximum point before you get a disparity between the undistorted view in the viewfinder, and the distortion a wide angle lens is producing. At 24mm or 21mm a good separate viewfinder can give a better impression of the lens characteristics than the camera viewfinder that really is just a window with a few addons. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.