21mm Viewfinder - Leica or Zeiss

[budrichard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just want to add some comments, since it's not very clear everyone got the ROOT cause of the problem.

 

Leica's hot shoe is off center of the lens axis. Leica's engineers are almost too clever, so much so they designed the hot shoe to have a rotational off set. so that at a set distant (i.e. 2 meters) the flash will intersect the lens axis

 

THIS is the offset leica has built-in to their view finder. When the VF is mounted on the hot shoe, the plane of the viewfinder is parallel to the film plane, even though the hot shoe is not. The left/right offset has almost nothing to do with this.

 

You can easily test this by mounting a flash to the M9, look from top down, you will see the front edge of your flash is NOT parallel with the front edge of the camera.

 

Hope this helps. Someone can correct me if I got anything wrong.

 

I don't have an M9 but on my M7's if you mount a flash, the forward edge of the flash is parallel to the front edge of the camera. With the Leica 21mm finder with offset when mounted, the finder is centered over the lens centerline and parallel to the front of the camera as it shoud be.

I see no rotational offset on the hot shoes?

Your mount on your flash may be rotated?

The Root Cause of the problem is as Mark and I have outlined.-Dick

[kivis]

I have the most current Leica VF for 21mm and it is as good as good can be. It better be cause it cost an arm and a leg.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[kdriceman]

I have the most current Leica VF for 21mm and it is as good as good can be. It better be cause it cost an arm and a leg.

 

I sold my Zeiss 21 mm viewfinder and replaced it with a Voigtlander 21/24mm metal viewfinder. It is still very bright and at 21mm shows more outside the frame lines than the zeiss. It is well built, more compact and half the cost... A third the cost of the Leica. If you are troubled by the offset (which, if an issue at all, would only be an issue for the most exacting and precise compositions), simply move 6 mm to the right to take the photo.

[stack62]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but the viewfinder for the Zeiss 21mm biogon from the contax G1 and G2 cameras works great on Leica M. It's all metal with rubber viewfinder eyepiece, I wear glasses and can see entire view and it doesn't scratch my glasses. It's also round and doesn't cover up the shutter speed dial on my M3.

[Augost]

Zeiss over Leica viewfinder anyday. Zeiss is definatly better.

[Ulrik]

This is a very old topic but my experience with the 21 mm Zeiss viewfinder and the plastic Leica viewfinder (12008) on the M9 is very fresh, so I thought I should add my observations:

 

Zeiss: great metal finish, brilliant optics, but I wear glasses and therefore i can't oversee the whole frame. Even when using my right eye when looking into the finder my nose touches the screen of the M9 because the finder is about flush with the rear of the camera body. Framing accuracy is unacceptable (this has been discussed here in length before).

 

Leica 12008: crappy plastic housing, but has a lock, good optics. I can overlook the entire frame with my glasses. The finder protrudes over the back side of the body by about 7 mm, so it is easier to look through and the risk of smearing the display is reduced. Framing accuracy is much better than with the Zeiss, it just shows a little more than is captured by my VC 1,8/21 mm.

 

I bought the Zeiss finder new from a German dealer via ebay for 300 Euros. After beeing disappointed with that one, I bought the Leica finder for 112 Euros from a private seller on ebay. I returned the Zeiss finder, not because of the price but because the Leica finder is by far less disturbing in use.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Ulrik
typo

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I now prefer the Leica 21/24/28 zoom finder to all others.

 

But the EVF certainly does have it's uses.

[Washington]

I use Voigtlander finders.... every bit as good as the others at a fraction of the cost.

Big Bucks for a name makes no sense to me

[NJH]

I call myth on the rotational thing. I have a Leica 21/28 plastic finder, the one which looks like the current one but has a plastic body and alloy foot. When mounted on my m7 or m8 it looks at first like there is this angle but I found its just caused by the springyness of the mounting foot (it has a slot in the left side of it). Twist it slightly and then it sits parallel with the top plates front edge, but when pushed in from the back it always seems to sit with a slight angle. This looks like a design flaw to me. I tried it both ways outside on the m8 with a cv 21/4 lens and then checked the images recorded by lining up the markers with the edges of my house. With the slight angle on there the accuracy is way off and the camera ends up recording too much on the right. With it carefully aligned to look parallel the images recorded line up surprisingly accurately with the 4 little 28mm brightline markers for the M8, certainly seems to be as good as the camera bodies frame lines for other focal lengths.

 

Its a side point to my adhoc testing but anyone handy with a calculator and ability to do basic trig maths can check that if you can see an angular offset it will be way way to much to compensate for the tiny difference in positions between the lens axis and viewfinder axis,even if one was setting it for 2m.

 

I have the metal CV 21/25 finder, its better built, optically brighter and clearer, less distorted, doesn't protude out the back yet manages to be smaller, however the rear ring is metal which will scratch my glasses where the Leica 'interim' finder has a nice soft rubber ring. Shame that as its superior in every other way apart from weight.

[250swb]

The point about the CV Finder not sticking out at the back is a good point. With the plastic Leica finder it works great until you need to use it in the vertical portrait format, when focusing means the finder sticks into your forehead, so a portrait session can become very uncomfortable. The plastic CV finder is superior in very respect, it doesn't scratch my glasses (unlike the metal version), and it is brighter and it doesn't stick out a the back of the camera.

 

Steve

[kdriceman]

 

 

 

Its a side point to my adhoc testing but anyone handy with a calculator and ability to do basic trig maths can check that if you can see an angular offset it will be way way to much to compensate for the tiny difference in positions between the lens axis and viewfinder axis,even if one was setting it for 2m.

 

 

 

.

 

 

Even if there were a rotational offset that would be noticeable - (FWIW the rotation of a 10mm offset would be less than .6 degrees at a subject distance of one meter (smaller for more distant subjects)- this would translate to about 20 mm on that 1m plane at the edge of the frame on a 21mm Summilux (81 degree horizontal fov) and would still be an inaccurate composition - one who is composing with such precision would not compensate by rotating the camera. He or she would compensate by simply moving horizontally 10 mm.

[IWC Doppel]

I use a VC 21/25 metal round viewfinder and prefer it to my Leica new 18mm, I also prefer it to a 21mm Leica current viewfinder

 

I wish VC did an 18mm I'd have it instead of he Leica tomorrow

[dante]

On 7/15/2014 at 3:29 PM, NJH said:

I call myth on the rotational thing. I have a Leica 21/28 plastic finder, the one which looks like the current one but has a plastic body and alloy foot. When mounted on my m7 or m8 it looks at first like there is this angle but I found its just caused by the springyness of the mounting foot (it has a slot in the left side of it). Twist it slightly and then it sits parallel with the top plates front edge, but when pushed in from the back it always seems to sit with a slight angle. This looks like a design flaw to me. I tried it both ways outside on the m8 with a cv 21/4 lens and then checked the images recorded by lining up the markers with the edges of my house. With the slight angle on there the accuracy is way off and the camera ends up recording too much on the right. With it carefully aligned to look parallel the images recorded line up surprisingly accurately with the 4 little 28mm brightline markers for the M8, certainly seems to be as good as the camera bodies frame lines for other focal lengths....  Its a side point to my adhoc testing but anyone handy with a calculator and ability to do basic trig maths can check that if you can see an angular offset it will be way way to much to compensate for the tiny difference in positions between the lens axis and viewfinder axis,even if one was setting it for 2m.

I am just coming on this thread - and what NJH said x 100. You don't need trig to understand why the offset issue is imagined.

1. The VF/RF of a Leica camera is at least as inaccurate for framing - at most distances - than something roughly above the shoe or lens. The native VF's horizontal offset from the lens is larger than the horizontal offset between the shoe and the lens. If you think that "rotational error" is a feature of accessory finders that would be corrected by a bump a couple of MM over, show me your perfectly parallel, close-range, 28mm shots with the main finder.
2. The main finder does not magically point to where the lens is focused. The main finder has fairly basic parallax correction, and although the RF spot moves, its position drifts off center because there is zero compensation for field shrinkage as you get closer-up (in other words, although it looks centered on the framelines, it is really up and to the left of where it looks because the frame is actually shrinking down and to the right). Nor is the accessory shoe at anything but a 90 degree angle to the lens mount. Loose accessories might give the impression of "compensation" - but compensation by rotation would only work at one distance.
3. Leica has never - so far as I can tell - fielded a rangefinder with a centered shoe. So why are almost all of its finders historically - including the Frankenfinder - centered over the shoe? The introduction of offset finders seems to be a relatively new thing. 
4. So based on 1-3, a complaint about any finder sitting in the hot shoe indicts the basic way that Leica does things and doesn't call out a specific error in the design of the Zeiss finder (BTW, the ZI rangefinder body does not have a centered shoe either).
5. As the distance to the subject increases (past 3-5m), apparent errors in parallelism diminish significantly.

My observation is that the "rotational error" is the human reaction to framing that should be corrected by moving yourself and the camera, rather than simply pointing the camera. Parallelism is extremely difficult to maintain (sufficiently) with wide-angle lenses, and I have seen this with regular and offset finders. The solution to this problem is practice or using an EVF.

My surmise is that the reason the finder is offset is more to minimize focusing issues close-up (because at close range, your RF spot and your accessory viewfinder cannot be centered on exactly the same thing, and you are always turning the camera somewhat to focus (using the main VF/RF) and recompose/shoot (using the wider frame finder).

D

 

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by dante

[Pyrogallol]

Surely the wider the angle of the lens, the less any slight inaccuracy of the viewfinder’s view will matter. With a 21mm lens and finder it won’t make any difference at all if the finder is slightly offset from the centre of the lens. Every rangefinder viewfinder is offset by some amount. If you don’t like it use an SLR. The position of your eye in the back of the finder, how the look round the edges of the view as you look through it and any slight wriggle of the finder in the accessory shoe will make just as much difference.

With a longer lens, such as a 135mm I feel that any sideways movement of the finder in the accessory shoe is more likely to show up in the final picture.

[Surge]

On 10/23/2012 at 8:20 PM, budrichard said:

 

I don't have an M9 but on my M7's if you mount a flash, the forward edge of the flash is parallel to the front edge of the camera. With the Leica 21mm finder with offset when mounted, the finder is centered over the lens centerline and parallel to the front of the camera as it shoud be.

I see no rotational offset on the hot shoes?

Your mount on your flash may be rotated?

The Root Cause of the problem is as Mark and I have outlined.-Dick

Actually, on the MP there is a slight offset. When you mount something on the hot shoe, it’s slightly offset when viewed from above.