Viewfinder magnifier 1.25x or 1.4x for 75mm lens

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What can I say - my shots are in focus, and if not I know why -pilot error.What do I need these things for? Maybe it is indeed using rangefinders since 1976...

[01af]

Every time these threads come up, I take all the magnifiers off the cameras, try the "contrast" focusing thing for an hour, put all the magnifiers back on the cameras.

Huh? You don't need to remove the magnifiers in order to "do the contrast focusing thing."

[Guest mc_k]

Huh? You don't need to remove the magnifiers in order to "do the contrast focusing thing."

 

The rationale for no magnifier, as I understand it, is to get more contrast, and using the jump in contrast to focus is supposed to be better than using the split image.

 

If you stack a couple of magnifiers (even Leica) in dim light, you can see the patch is less contrasty.

 

I think maybe you will use a magnifier or not depending on your subject matter. Need precision--use split image. Need speed--use contrast. (?)

[01af]

The rationale for no magnifier, as I understand it, is to get more contrast ...

Basically, the rationale for not using a magnifier is to get more field of view when using wide-angle lenses. While there is some (small) contrast loss indeed when using a magnifier, it usually is outweighted by the increased magnification by far ... unless the magnifier's glass is smudged, badly scratched, or low-quality. So when removing a magnifier from the eyepiece, the gain in contrast usually is not significant while the loss in magnification is. And even with a slightly reduced viewfinder contrast, you can still do the contrast focusing method. Loss of contrast generally is not a good thing—but it will affect any focusing method.

 

 

If you stack a couple of magnifiers (even Leica) in dim light, you can see the patch is less contrasty.

Sure. When stacking them, the losses will add up and may become significant.

 

 

Need precision—use split image. Need speed—use contrast.

I don't feel split-image focusing and contrast focusing were inherently different in speed and/or precision. You always simply use the method that matches the structures/textures of your subject.

[ericborgstrom]

Hi,

 

Isn´t this whole debate actually about the 1953 mechanically and optically beautifully designed Leica Messucher about its obsolescence.

 

The M10 needs an electronical indicator of correct focus.

 

And why not an optical zooming finder so lenses longer than 90 mm or perhaps 135 mm can be used.

 

Eric

[jaapv]

Ah- yes what REALLY needs to be done is to rebadge the Sony NEX as Leica M10 - it would solve all the perceived M problems....

 

Hi,

 

Isn´t this whole debate actually about the 1953 mechanically and optically beautifully designed Leica Messucher about its obsolescence.

 

The M10 needs an electronical indicator of correct focus.

 

And why not an optical zooming finder so lenses longer than 90 mm or perhaps 135 mm can be used.

 

Eric

[BeFree]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello!

 

I was away from computer for long time. Thank you to everybody for responses. I find answer to my question. I will order 1.4 x magnifier. It is nice to see that Leica forum has passioned and helpful members.

 

BeFree

[hoppyman]

Eric some people would agree with you and you can find a lot of posts and discussion on this throughout the forum.

The alternative position is that the essence of the M is exactly that current clear bright optical viewfinder with rangefinder. I won't be surprised if the next serial M has the LED illumination of the frame lines as included in the M9 Titan though.

 

 

No thank you. The M10 does not 'need' this electronic focus confirmation nor is the current system obsolescent. Rather is is part of why people choose Leica M cameras in the first place and have done so for more than fifty years. Changing that carries a large risk of alienating so many of those users.

 

If you have an opportunity to look through one of the Contax G1 or G2 cameras you will see that a zooming viewfinder is much inferior to the current M finders.

[IkarusJohn]

No thank you. The M10 does not 'need' this electronic focus confirmation nor is the current system obsolescent. Rather is is part of why people choose Leica M cameras in the first place and have done so for more than fifty years. Changing that carries a large risk of alienating so many of those users.

 

If you have an opportunity to look through one of the Contax G1 or G2 cameras you will see that a zooming viewfinder is much inferior to the current M finders.

 

I understand this view entirely, but wouldn't this take the pressure off lenses with focus shift, like the previous 35 Lux (which otherwise owners seem to love). On another thread, someone (Jaap?) commented that focus shift goes hand in hand with fast lenses. If that is the case, then surely the way to eliminate the focus shift problem and to retain the character of those lenses is to improve the correlation between what you see and what comes through the lens?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pressing for SLR - but what you're valuing here (a nice, bright, but effectively mechanical and at times misleading viewfinder) is counter-productive, isn't it?

 

I guess that assumes that a viewfinder which adjusted for focus shift, and zoomed for focal length, is achievable without becoming pixelated and ordinary. I should add that I like what I see, the framelines don't bother me, and if I have a focus shift problem with any of my lenses (which I seriously doubt), I put it down to operator error. Composition, focusing in general and exposure keep me busy at the moment (along with remembering to turn my camera on).

 

However, if I did have lenses I loved, but which aren't up to the grade because of focusing issues inherent in the lens, an improved viewfinder would make me very happy.

 

Cheers

John

[hoppyman]

John I think that you are discussing a concept or preference rather than a solution:)

As mentioned my preference is strongly for what the M finder provides. But they are simply different animals to dSLRs. Each tool best for different things and many value the M's in their tiny niche precisely because of the differences.

But if you are talking pixellated and zoomed views you are talking about EVFs which are by definition the antithesis of Messsucher (rangefinder) cameras.

 

Any focus confirmation is different to the focus shift issue.

Remember that the whole concept of focus shift is that the effect occurs as you change aperture. Yes fast lenses (one or two stops down before DoF starts to mask the effect) can be the most prone.

 

In my experience, modern designs like the (current) Summilux 35 and 50 ASPH as well as the APO Summicron 75 behave impeccably in this regard. In some instances other lenses are said to be resistant however it comes at the expense of undercorrection and lower contrast. That is not to say that those design compromises are not acceptable (subject to personal preference). One man's smooth is another's soft in that regard

 

Still there is no accurate means at all for coupling shooting aperture with the rangefinder operation and VERY little room in the body for any additional complexity in that area. Look at the M8 anatomy threads some time.

[juergen]

I asked Leica just now. let's wait for an answer

 

Hi Jaap,

 

any response from Leica yet?

 

Juergen

[01af]

Any response from Leica yet?

I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting for a reply. Moreover, the issue has been settled in the discussion above anyway—yes, there is a difference in the eyepiece's diopter strengths with and without eyepiece magnifier attached. The magnifiers really add approximately -0.5 dpt indeed.

 

Regarding the question as to why they do that—no idea. And if you ask me—it's a bad thing. Rather than asking Leica Customer Information Service about if they do it, we should ask why they do it. Unfortunately, the people at Leica Customer Information Service are disconcertingly incompetent when it comes to the finer details of Leica technology (or photographic technology in general). They don't know anything that goes beyond what's written in the product brochures or manuals anyway. So I wouldn't expect them to even know if the magnifiers add their own diopter strength ... much less why.

 

Oh, wait—while thinking about it, a possible explanation occurs to me. [speculation]Maybe the magnifiers' negative diopter strength produces a longer exit pupil distance, or a wider field of view, or both.[/speculation] Just speculating out of thin air.

[wda]

Hello!

 

I was away from computer for long time. Thank you to everybody for responses. I find answer to my question. I will order 1.4 x magnifier. It is nice to see that Leica forum has passioned and helpful members.

 

BeFree

BeFree, you will be very pleased with your purchase.

 

Re-reading this thread it seems that it is impossible to make allowance for every user's unique eye-sight. It is far from easy to generalise in the way some members try to. That is why it is desirable to try before you buy, a nigh impossibility in today's world, at least for eye-piece modifiers.

[BeFree]

Hello!

 

I finally got Viewfinder magnifier 1.4x and can tell that this is what you need for 75 mm. Also with glasses you see perfectly total 75 mm area in viewfinder. It is much easier to get correct focus in near distant with it.

 

Best regards,

BeFree

[wda]

The uncorrected 1,4 magnifier allows a good view of the 75 and 35mm framelines and for me allows easier focussing than the 1,25, it also seems to be ok if eyeglasses are used.

I endorse Robert's view. Combining the attachment with additional correction lenses can lead to complications if your eyes change (which they normally do!). I can frame perfectly well wearing spectacles, as normal.

[jaapv]

I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting for a reply. Moreover, the issue has been settled in the discussion above anyway—yes, there is a difference in the eyepiece's diopter strengths with and without eyepiece magnifier attached. The magnifiers really add approximately -0.5 dpt indeed.

 

Regarding the question as to why they do that—no idea. And if you ask me—it's a bad thing. Rather than asking Leica Customer Information Service about if they do it, we should ask why they do it. Unfortunately, the people at Leica Customer Information Service are disconcertingly incompetent when it comes to the finer details of Leica technology (or photographic technology in general). They don't know anything that goes beyond what's written in the product brochures or manuals anyway. So I wouldn't expect them to even know if the magnifiers add their own diopter strength ... much less why.

 

Oh, wait—while thinking about it, a possible explanation occurs to me. [speculation]Maybe the magnifiers' negative diopter strength produces a longer exit pupil distance, or a wider field of view, or both.[/speculation] Just speculating out of thin air.

I agree. strangely enough the response of Leica was a denial of the phenomen. I clearly found the difference you mention when I was using diopters - I cannot repeat the experiment as I sold the Leica diopter because I focus better without the thing.

[hoppyman]

In my opinion it is unreasonable to expect the Solms Customer Service people to be technical experts on this. That's not their job in any case.

My technical questions for the forum have always been passed to their engineers and answered by them.

[jaapv]

This was an "engineer" answer, Geoff.

[hoppyman]

Japp I would like to have a better understanding on this too. If anyone can point to a digestible source on dioptres, eye relief, sight accommodation and the rest, I'll be pleased to learn as well.

My comment though was in response to earlier remarks about the Customer Service staff. I think those were unfair. My own experience and relationship with them has been very good.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear