The M8's 0,68 viewfinder versus M7's 0,72

[Leicaiste]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Although the viewfinder of the M8 has a 0,68 magnification while in the normal M7/MP it is a 0,72, the finder of the M8 shows a narrower field. You have to compare the viewfinders to see it.

 

That's why the widest frames in the M8's viewfinder are showing the field of a 32mm (24mm X 1,33) while in the viewfinder of the M7, it's the field of the 28mm.

 

This may seems illogical, because on the other Leica M, the lower the magnification, the wider the field's coverage.

 

The reason is that the top cover of the M8 being deeper, the viewfinder is also +/- 3mm deeper, while the front windows have the same width. The field is therefore narrower on the M8.

 

If the viewfinder of the M8 had been a 0,72, the field cover would have been even narrower, maybe equivalent to the 37mm (28mm X 1,33).

 

To bad for the 21mm !

[luigi bertolotti]

Although the viewfinder of the M8 has a 0,68 magnification while in the normal M7/MP it is a 0,72, the finder of the M8 shows a narrower field. You have to compare the viewfinders to see it.

 

That's why the widest frames in the M8's viewfinder are showing the field of a 32mm (24mm X 1,33) while in the viewfinder of the M7, it's the field of the 28mm.

 

This may seems illogical, because on the other Leica M, the lower the magnification, the wider the field's coverage.

 

The reason is that the top cover of the M8 being deeper, the viewfinder is also +/- 3mm deeper, while the front windows have the same width. The field is therefore narrower on the M8.

 

If the viewfinder of the M8 had been a 0,72, the field cover would have been even narrower, maybe equivalent to the 37mm (28mm X 1,33).

 

To bad for the 21mm !

 

GOOD ! I also felt there was something illogical in the assumptions :

"magnifiying : 0,68x" and "largest frame : 24 mm on M8"

But did not take note of the deeper body! You really clarifies me a question I did not understand.

[lars_bergquist]

If finder magnification is a function of body depth, how the devil did they manage to put a 0,90 X finder into the M3 or BOTH 0,86 and 0,68 finders into models of many later film Ms?

This story is just superstition.

 

Leica Camera adjusts the magnification according to perceived need. In order to squeeze in a 24 mm (FF equivalent 32 mm) frame, they did not only decrease the finder magnification. They also made the frames undersize. Check the monitor -- you get a lot more real estate there than you see inside the respective finder frame.

 

The old man from the Age of Brilliant Finders

[wattsy]

Leica Camera adjusts the magnification according to perceived need. In order to squeeze in a 24 mm (FF equivalent 32 mm) frame, they did not only decrease the finder magnification. They also made the frames undersize. Check the monitor -- you get a lot more real estate there than you see inside the respective finder frame.

 

I agree that the framelines are rather undersized compared with what the sensor actually captures but this has been the way of the M for decades. I don't think the M8 has changed anything in this respect. Lars, I'm not sure what other point you are making? The 0.68x M8 has a noticeably 'narrower' field of view than a 0.72x M6 or M7 even though, if everything was equal, you would expect it to be wider. I think Lucien's point about the thickness of the body coming into play sounds like a very logical explanation for why this is so.