Englander Posted January 31, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted January 31, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Flipping back and forth with the viewfinder to decide on the relationship of lenses for future purchase is pretty frustrating on many levels. So I took the Leica illustrations of frame-lines from the M8 pdf instruction book and overlayed them. This assumes that Leica's illustrations of Leica's M8 frame-lines is reasonably accurate (hopefully more accurate than the frame lines at infinity of the camera itself,anyway). The relationship of the 75/90 appears to be even tighter than I thought. Â Maybe this will help some other people decide on their lens selections. Â Joe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Hi Englander, Take a look here Lens relationships. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
DavidERuck Posted February 1, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted February 1, 2007 Thoughtful and useful. Thank you. Reminds one that the 24mm, with the .68 mag., is the default for the M8. The entire viewfinder, given the too-narrow frame lines at street-shooting distance, realistically and handily frames the 24mm's fov. Now for the intrusion of the hood... . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 1, 2007 Share #3 Â Posted February 1, 2007 I look at that and wish the frame lines were just a little different the 28-90 is fine but 24-75 than 35 -75 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted February 1, 2007 Share #4 Â Posted February 1, 2007 Thoughtful and useful. Thank you. Reminds one that the 24mm, with the .68 mag., is the default for the M8. The entire viewfinder, given the too-narrow frame lines at street-shooting distance, realistically and handily frames the 24mm's fov. Now for the intrusion of the hood... . Â That's right, just outside the 24 mm frame lines (which is nearly the full finder) is where the true edges of most 24 mm pictures with the M8 will fall. Â Cheers, Â Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted February 1, 2007 Share #5 Â Posted February 1, 2007 Guy, I presume you mean 28-90, 24-50 and 35-75. Unfortunately, the frames were added one-by-one, as history passed, and they simply came in the wrong order. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 1, 2007 Share #6 Â Posted February 1, 2007 Yes Carsten that was what i meant. Looks like it would have to be a La carte item now. I certainly would like to go down this path instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted February 1, 2007 Share #7 Â Posted February 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've published these before, but not for a long time and not, I think, on this current incarnation of the Forum. When I get around to it I shall update them with the M8 crop factor figures. They may help those trying to choose. Â [ATTACH]24008[/ATTACH] Â [ATTACH]24009[/ATTACH] Â [ATTACH]24010[/ATTACH] Â [ATTACH]24011[/ATTACH] Â [ATTACH]24012[/ATTACH] Â Regards, Â Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 1, 2007 Share #8 Â Posted February 1, 2007 Yes Carsten that was what i meant. Looks like it would have to be a La carte item now. I certainly would like to go down this path instead. Â The best M finder ever, in the opinion of many, was that of the M2: 35, 50, 90. Period. It was definitely the cleanest. WYSIWYG -- What You See Is What You Get. Â One useful approximation to that, with the M8, would be 28+90, 35, 75. The first is of course a doubled frame, but a) they are so far from each other that a mixup is extremely unlikely (you would have to be pretty mixed up yourself), and, most of us have at least one 90 -- I have three, God help me! Â Now just let us have a goggles version of the Apo-Telyt, and a decent prime 16 mm lens with rangefinder coupling and provision for a filter. I would not have to be very speedy, really, just more compact and quick to use than the WATE. Any of you who are of the same opinion, do chime in and second this. We want to be heard all the way to Solms. Praterea censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. Â The insufferable old man from the Age of Brilliant Finders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted February 1, 2007 Share #9 Â Posted February 1, 2007 Mr. Palmer: Â Thanks for charting the "L" and "V" lenses: interesting to see these fine product offerings displayed in this manner. Â How about adding the optics from "Z" to the mix? Â -g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted February 1, 2007 Share #10 Â Posted February 1, 2007 the rangefinder viewer is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness in rangefinder cameras. Im not near as experienced with them as most people here, but my take on it is that the ideal situation is a view that extends beyond the marked view of the optic chosen. Of course all that changes when you change the optic. Â So why isnt there a more ideal way, and what would that be. Â A plugin corrector for common views A zoomable finder with just one set of marks Insertable modular finders for common views Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.