budrichard Posted March 2, 2011 Share #41 Posted March 2, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) "f you want precise framing, get a Nikon F/F2 or one of the Leica reflex cameras." It is not 'framing' that is the problem but rotation about a vertical axis and a correctly aligned finder solves the problem for a Leica M.-Dick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Hi budrichard, Take a look here 21mm Viewfinder - Leica or Zeiss. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bernie.lcf Posted March 2, 2011 Share #42 Posted March 2, 2011 CV is perhaps offset for Zeiss cameras? If not it is just their poor design dept that is told to make things to a price point. Well, to be honest... I can't see a pattern with the viewfinders. The Voigtländer Bessa cameras are offset with (hotshoe to lens) with exceptions, as far as I can tell from pictures. I am guessing, the 21mm viewfinder I just purchased is made for a Bessa camera. I would have to check, but I only own an M8 The Leica definitely is offset. The Zeiss is centered. However, with the exception of Zeiss (and honestly, with Zeiss I just don't know) both Voigtländer and Leica make (und have been making) centered and offset viewfinders - sometimes for the same focal length. Maybe there is a reason behind this, but I wouldn't know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted March 3, 2011 Share #43 Posted March 3, 2011 The Leica Universal Wide Angle Finder has no offset, to place the optics directly over the lens axis. It does not have to have, as it has an adjustable parallax correction - framing is very precise. The combination of offset and combined parallax correction in two dimensions make this finder most precise on Leica M bodies. On other cameras it is usable, but will show parallax failure (Bessa, EPSON R-D1, Zeiss, etc…). Click the links, to see more angles of view: Left Front Right Front Left Right Back Right All single focal length finders have been designed, to have a parallax correction at an optimal distance matching to a certain camera. You can be safe to assume, that for all Zeiss finders, this will be the Zeiss Ikon, for all Voigtlander branded finders, the Voigtlander Bessa models and the EPSON R-D1 and for all Leica finders, Leica models. Deviations from this assumptions are mentioned and designed that way for a certain camera (Voigtlander finders for Barnack bodies, the 40mm CV finder for the Summicron on Leica M, etc…). The Leica Frankenfinder is the most precise device, to be offered new for a Leica M today. If framing precision matters, get one. If size is more of a priority, go with the Leica M finders. If size and price is a priority, go with the Zeiss or on a more pressed budget, the Voigtlander branded finders. Odd alternatives are around aplenty as well (the Ricoh GRD 21/28 finder or any exotic finder from the past). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Linsengericht Posted March 3, 2011 Share #44 Posted March 3, 2011 It is not 'framing' that is the problem but rotation about a vertical axis and a correctly aligned finder solves the problem for a Leica You seem to be the only "expert" to have that issue. Even if that rotation issue would exist, how about the large vertical offset between the lens and the finder? The offset shoe alignes the finder horizontally only. If your theory would be correct, we would now experience your rotation issues for portrait orientation. And because the offset is much larger there, these issues would be much worse than in landscape orientation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted March 3, 2011 Share #45 Posted March 3, 2011 As a Nuclear Engineer I studied Optics in Graduate school to be able to use both SEM and optical Metalagraphs. In my career I learned to solve Root Cause problems with quantative methods. I just don't blow hot air out and Post whatever comes to mind. A simple optical diagram will suffice to see the rotation and an actual test will also. The problem occurred the first time I used the Zeiss finder with Leica 21mm and M7 to shoot a Corvette Z06. One could clearly see that the pictures had an offset. Shortly after I used the same combination to shoot some architectural work and the problem was even more magnified. After analysis and testing a switch back to the Leica 21mm finder solved the problem as it should. I would have the new Leica 21mm finder but not with M8 frame lines. -Dick BTW The Zeiss finder is for sale, $225USD plus shipping and insurance if anyone's interested. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted March 3, 2011 Share #46 Posted March 3, 2011 LOL, so brightness in a finder does not matter but elegance does?!?! If you are doing a lot of shooting, brightness makes the whole experiences a lot more pleasurable and makes you feel more connected to your subject matter. It helps a hell of a lot in dim conditions too. You may focus through the main finder or zone focus and not spend any time at all looking through the main finder in which case ONLY the accessory finder's brightness matters. I cannot comment on the new Leica one, but the CV and ZM I can. The ZM is brighter, has a larger image (magnification, or so it seems) and all round much nicer to use. The CV I thought to be darned good until I got the Zeiss. Seeing as the Zeiss seems brighter than the real world (yes, it looks brighter through hte finder than looking through only your eyeball) I struggle to imagine the Leica is any better, but you'd have to ask someone who has used both to know. I'd get a Zeiss. The Leica costs double. Leica or Leitz finders are very good, there is no such thing as 'the best' finder. 'Zeiss is the brightest', is that important? No, because you have to focus through the cameras finder and the auxiliary finder is only for composing. The Leica or Leitz finders have an offset to be more 'in line' with the lens, important for better composing. Finally the Zeiis finders are (in my opinion) very ugly on the elegant Leica cameras. ------------ FrankR Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted March 3, 2011 Share #47 Posted March 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... I cannot comment on the new Leica one, but the CV and ZM I can. The ZM is brighter, has a larger image (magnification, or so it seems) and all round much nicer to use. The CV I thought to be darned good until I got the Zeiss. ... Me too. ... Seeing as the Zeiss seems brighter than the real world (yes, it looks brighter through hte finder than looking through only your eyeball) I struggle to imagine the Leica is any better, but you'd have to ask someone who has used both to know. ... I have used both and the Zeiss is brighter than the Leica external finder for the 21 Summilux. Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbbeyFoto Posted March 5, 2011 Share #48 Posted March 5, 2011 ... or the Voightlander? Anybody with experience while using glasses is much appreciated. Thanks! The VG 35mm metal is very good. I tried a VG zoom but it fell to pieces when I dropped it! I use Zeiss 21mm and 25/28mm finders; they are very good. I have recently invested in correction lenses for them. This allows me to push the finder into my eye socket with less interference from oblique light into the rear of the finder, glasses and my eye. A good eye socket huging eye cup with built-in diopter settings is a major plus on my SLR/DSLRs. I have not tried the equivalent eye cups on Ms - I assume there are some. Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcoles Posted March 6, 2011 Share #49 Posted March 6, 2011 I've held a Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtlander 21mm VF side by side and it's no contest: the Zeiss is the brightest and clearest without a doubt. Pete. +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
voe Posted March 7, 2011 Share #50 Posted March 7, 2011 Not sure what everyone else thinks but I believe the priorities for choosing a viewfinder should be in that order: 1. Correct framing (or the closest to correct) 2. Parallax correctioin. 3. Brightness 4/5. Size/built. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted March 7, 2011 Share #51 Posted March 7, 2011 Not sure what everyone else thinks but I believe the priorities for choosing a viewfinder should be in that order:1. Correct framing (or the closest to correct) 2. Parallax correctioin. 3. Brightness 4/5. Size/built. I respectfully disagree with your ranking:) but I notice that distortion doesn't get a mention at all. Would you be happy, for example, with a wide angle finder that gives 1 to 5 in the correct order but has severe barrel distortion? Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2011 Share #52 Posted March 7, 2011 I respectfully disagree with your ranking:) but I notice that distortion doesn't get a mention at all. Would you be happy, for example, with a wide angle finder that gives 1 to 5 in the correct order but has severe barrel distortion? Pete. Actually, Pete, I think I would. I have the metal Leitz viewfinder for my 21 Lux - it only has the full frame lines, so it predates the M8. It has very severe barrel distortion, but I only use it for framing. Otherwise I tend to use the camera viewfinder. The 21 view finder is only for checking framing, so it's all about accuracy. Cheers John 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted March 7, 2011 Share #53 Posted March 7, 2011 John, If it's got severe barrel distortion how will you reliably know what makes it into the edges of the photo and what's doesn't? Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted March 7, 2011 Share #54 Posted March 7, 2011 Hi Pete Donno, you need to do a test on the corners and the edges with grease prood paper, with the lens you use.Note not all my 21mm lenses are the same angle, think I've got three... But since I drop them (the finders) I need to know how many times I can drop an expensive one relative to the number of times I can drop a cheap one... Noel 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2011 Share #55 Posted March 7, 2011 John, If it's got severe barrel distortion how will you reliably know what makes it into the edges of the photo and what's doesn't? Pete. Hi Pete, Well, from using the lens and the viewfinder, I'm confident that the framelines in the viewfinder accurately indicate the edges of the picture I'm going to take. What is in the edge of the picture is not critical to me - it really only sets context, as the subject fills the built in viewfinder. In many respects I check to make sure that I have everything in there (feet, for example) that I want, and I don't have stuff I don't want (half a person walking into the frame). I can do everything I want to do with the rangefinder, but this. The additional viewfinder does this job perfectly adequately. Bear in mind that I got this viewfinder cheap as it was old stock - the only reason I have one is that I can't check the framing of my picture with the built in viewfinder on my M9. The additional viewfinder serves no other purpose, as I still have to focus and check the shutter speed using the built in viewfinder. Cheers John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted March 7, 2011 Share #56 Posted March 7, 2011 Well, John, I admit you've confused me now. On the one hand you say: ... The 21 view finder is only for checking framing, so it's all about accuracy. but on the other hand you say: ... What is in the edge of the picture is not critical to me ... <Cups chin in hand and gently scratches head.> Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2011 Share #57 Posted March 7, 2011 Surely not! At no stage have I said that the frames do not record sufficiently accurately for me. Perhaps it is simpler if I just say that the only reason I use the 21 viewfinder is to check the framelines. It does that admirably. The list above (1-5) is the order that works for me. Does that help? Cheers John 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted March 7, 2011 Share #58 Posted March 7, 2011 Hi Pete, Well, from using the lens and the viewfinder, I'm confident that the framelines in the viewfinder accurately indicate the edges of the picture I'm going to take. What is in the edge of the picture is not critical to me - it really only sets context, as the subject fills the built in viewfinder. In many respects I check to make sure that I have everything in there (feet, for example) that I want, and I don't have stuff I don't want (half a person walking into the frame). I can do everything I want to do with the rangefinder, but this. The additional viewfinder does this job perfectly adequately. Bear in mind that I got this viewfinder cheap as it was old stock - the only reason I have one is that I can't check the framing of my picture with the built in viewfinder on my M9. The additional viewfinder serves no other purpose, as I still have to focus and check the shutter speed using the built in viewfinder. Cheers John Hi John, I think that what concerns Richard and I is that the Zeiss finder( which I otherwise love for its brightness and clarity) may introduce a potential rotational error off the sensor/lens axis which alters perspective, not a simple framing or angular problem which can be corrected afterwards in Light Room etc. I have no such problem with my other lenses. Hence, as per my earlier post I'll put up some comparative example images once my dealer gets in the Leica VF. Regards, Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2011 Share #59 Posted March 7, 2011 Hi Mark, I understand that. What I was questioning was the fixation on the quality of the imagine in the viewfinder, when its core purpose is to frame the shot. What this discussion has got me slightly concerned about is whether or not the framelines are truly accurate. I will check when I next get the chance. What I have noticed is a small flake of silver (chrome?) floating around the inside of my viewfinder If I tap the viewfinder, I can move it out of the way. It's currently caught somewhere inside the viewfinder. Is anyone else using this version? It doesn't have any distinguishing marks or number on it. Cheers John Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/144842-21mm-viewfinder-leica-or-zeiss/?do=findComment&comment=1609404'>More sharing options...
budrichard Posted March 8, 2011 Share #60 Posted March 8, 2011 "Is anyone else using this version? It doesn't have any distinguishing marks or number on it." My 21mm finder is marked Leitz but its the plastic model with offset and locking lever. Is your finder offset?-Dick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.