MarkP Posted October 30, 2011 Share #21 Â Posted October 30, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Mark P:Â Is this because of the slight offset in the Leica VF? I.e. Could one devise a mount for the Zeiss VF that would shift it's position and thus correct it's vision problem. Â Most probably, as I wrote in post #66 in the abovementioned thread, the Leica hotshoe (as opposed to that on the Zeiss Ikon) is offset from the mid-lens axis which means that the image in the Zeiss VF is offset up and to the right when on the Leica. Hence when ffaming, there is a rotation down and to the left resuting in a small but significant rotational error. You can see this simply by comparing the centre of the image through the camera's own viewfinder with that through the Zeiss VF. However, the Leica 21mm VF corrects for this offset. Â As Thighslapper experienced, I also could not properly frame, or align horizontals & verticals using the Zeiss VF. All is good with the Leica. Â Regarding your second question, I don't see why not, but I would have thought that getting the Leica VF would probably be easier, cheaper, and more accurate... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 Hi MarkP, Take a look here Does a 21mm need a seperate viewfinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
thighslapper Posted October 30, 2011 Share #22 Â Posted October 30, 2011 In fact I use a Leica 18mm finder....... Â Aligning horizontals and verticals with extreme WA lenses is a generic problem...... Â The tiny image in the finder really doesn't help much..... which is why the frankenfinder has an inbuilt bubble level.......and it allows parallax correction by setting the distance....... Â To be honest, all the other available finders give such a rough and innaccurate idea of what will be in the photo that they offer a general guide only.... Â Try without...... most of the time you will be ok and with 17mp to play with there is always the option of cropping. Â This all might be heresy to the Leica purist but most of us live in the real world..... The less junk you carry about with you the better..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 30, 2011 Share #23  Posted October 30, 2011 Thanks,  I can't comment on 18 or wider but I understand your point. I still find the 21 Leica VF is worthwhile and accurate for framing   Regards, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohnri Posted October 31, 2011 Share #24 Â Posted October 31, 2011 My second most commonly used lens on my M9 is my 21 'lux. Â I almost never use an external VF. For my shooting, the inconvenience of occasionally missing a shot due to framing error is far, far less than the inconvenience of missing shots nearly constantly due to the external VF. Â For those that work slowly or with static or predictable subjects an external VF may be worthwhile. Â It really depends on your shooting subjects and style. Â Best, Â Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted October 31, 2011 Share #25 Â Posted October 31, 2011 For those that work slowly or with static or predictable subjects an external VF may be worthwhile. Â Actually using a 21mm lens and external VF is an incredibly fast solution for street photography. Set exposure manually and set zone focus and there is no need to look through the rangefinder window. I will shoot as I'm raising the external VF to my eye. I've also used this technique with a 35mm lens, composing in the center of the 21VF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethC Posted October 31, 2011 Share #26  Posted October 31, 2011 My second most commonly used lens on my M9 is my 21 'lux.  I almost never use an external VF. For my shooting, the inconvenience of occasionally missing a shot due to framing error is far, far less than the inconvenience of missing shots nearly constantly due to the external VF.  For those that work slowly or with static or predictable subjects an external VF may be worthwhile.  It really depends on your shooting subjects and style.  Best,  Bill  I'm with Seafurydriver. I find it far more convenient and faster to know what I'm shooting and guesstimate exposure if I need to than to know exposure and then guesstimate what's in the frame. My reality on a 21 is that I've preset focus and invariably exposure so I actually know them ahead of time. I don't know what I'm taking a photo of because I've always found a viewfinder on the M9 (external or built in) a tremendously valuable accessory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 31, 2011 Share #27 Â Posted October 31, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree with Gareth & sfd regarding use for fast work with pre-set focus, pre-set metering, and external VF. Â The correct VF is invaluable for more 'considered' work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macpants Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share #28 Â Posted October 31, 2011 Thanks for all the useful responses. As with all things Leica there really does seem to be divided opinion. Â My main reason for asking is, as I am new to both Leica and the M9, I didn't know what the AOV was across the entire viewfinder. Judging by these responses it appears that the angle is somewhere near the 24mm equivalent. Â It may pay me to consider a 24mm instead of a 21mm wide as then I almost certainly could live without the extra viewfinder. Â My reasons for not wanting the extra viewfinder was more to do with the speed of setting up a shot rather than the cost (although cost is always significant - especially if you don't really need something). The speed issue does not seem to be a problem for most though. Â Thanks again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daive Posted October 31, 2011 Share #29 Â Posted October 31, 2011 I have a short question on the viewfinder topic: Â I am about to buy a M9 with the 35 Summicron very soon. Which focal lenght or "cutout" will I see when I look through the integrated viewfinder? resp. will I see anything happening "outside" of my 35mm picture while looking through the viewfinder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macpants Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share #30 Â Posted October 31, 2011 You will see two sets of 'bright line' frames. The outer frame is the 35mm frame and the inner, which you will ignore with the 35mm lens you are getting, is the 135mm frame. Â You will be able to see 'outside' of the 35mm frame lines as (I believe) the entire viewfinder window is somewhere in the region of 24mm - although I know somebody will correct me on this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macpants Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share #31  Posted October 31, 2011 If it helps: 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! 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/165063-does-a-21mm-need-a-seperate-viewfinder/?do=findComment&comment=1830954'>More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 31, 2011 Share #32  Posted October 31, 2011 How much you will see outside the 35mm frame depends on whether you wear glasses – and how thick the lenses and the frames are. It is a matter of the distance between the pupil and the eyepiece. For instance, I use specs and I see the 35mm frame well, but I can't use a 28mm lens except with an auxiliary viewfinder.  The old man from the Age of Bifocals (now fortunately a thing of the past ...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daive Posted October 31, 2011 Share #33 Â Posted October 31, 2011 Thanks a lot for the quick explanation! As a beginner I was afraid that I would see much less with the already wide 35mm lens - unnecessarily Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted October 31, 2011 Share #34  Posted October 31, 2011 Thanks a lot for the quick explanation!As a beginner I was afraid that I would see much less with the already wide 35mm lens - unnecessarily  The widest frame lines on the M9 are 28mm, and you can actually see a little more than that if you don't wear glasses and can get close. Being able to see the composition unfold into your 35mm frame is one of the biggest advantages of a Leica rangefinder over a dSLR.  Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted October 31, 2011 Share #35  Posted October 31, 2011 I would really like a 21mm lens to finish off my basic colletion of 35mm Lux, Zeiss 50mm and 90mm Cron. I have been led to believe that in order to use the lens I MUST have an appropriate accessory viewfinder. A 21mm Lux is around £4,400 and when you add a 21mm finder (£580) you end up with a bill for nearly £5,000.  The question is, is the complete frame on an M9 anywhere close to a 21mm angle of view and, if so, do you really need the viewfinder?  Thanks for any advice.  A little late to the party but...you're ok paying $7K for a lens, and it's certainly your right to do so vs the many other excellent 21mm lenses you could get for a fraction thereof. But if the $925 for a new, current finder seems excessive, why not shop around for one of the discontinued ones? Sure it's plastic (not the optics though), but it will cost you a fraction, frame as well as the new one, and after all it won't affect the optical quality of the pictures. Otherwise, how long will it take you to learn to guesstimate accurately enough that you're not either cutting parts off or having to crop significantly? Doing either it seems to me you wouldn't be getting anywhere near your money's worth out of the lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted October 31, 2011 Share #36 Â Posted October 31, 2011 +1 Â I bought a "like new" silver chrome 21mm finder (the current version) from Popflash for $600 this summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted October 31, 2011 Share #37  Posted October 31, 2011 I would really like a 21mm lens to finish off my basic colletion of 35mm Lux, Zeiss 50mm and 90mm Cron. I have been led to believe that in order to use the lens I MUST have an appropriate accessory viewfinder. A 21mm Lux is around £4,400 and when you add a 21mm finder (£580) you end up with a bill for nearly £5,000. ....:  macpants, I think you approach your lens purchasing from an oblique angle. You haven't defined a purpose for owning a 21mm lens. And then in your statement you assume you have to buy the most expensive version available, the Summilux. Settle for the new Super Elmar, if you can find one, or a mint used Aspheric Elmarit; not only does your budget shrink but you have spare funds to buy a necessary viewfinder.  I have the latter lens which is super for most needs. I also have a dedicated Leica 21mm viewfinder. Although I could guess the framing for impromptu street photography, for considered architecture, inside or outside, a viewfinder becomes more than desirable.  You will find that when you go into the super-wide territory, much more care is needed with framing and alignment. Skill follows lots of practice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daive Posted October 31, 2011 Share #38  Posted October 31, 2011 The widest frame lines on the M9 are 28mm, and you can actually see a little more than that if you don't wear glasses and can get close. Being able to see the composition unfold into your 35mm frame is one of the biggest advantages of a Leica rangefinder over a dSLR. Stephen  I would appreciate it, if somebody could write about the "field of view" with a 24mm lens and no glasses, is it critical already? Where is the "boundary" with normal, average eyes (if I want to do an exact composition)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted October 31, 2011 Share #39 Â Posted October 31, 2011 Settle for the new Super Elmar, if you can find one, or a mint used Aspheric Elmarit; not only does your budget shrink but you have spare funds to buy a necessary viewfinder. Â Or the most excellent Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon. I've had great success with this lens, and only recently sold because I'm purchasing the 21/3.4 Super Elmar M. The 21 is a bit of a niche, wonderful but not my most used focal length by a long shot. My 35 Summicron is by far my most used lens (and will be until I can get my hands on a 35 Summilux ASPH FLE). Â Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted October 31, 2011 Share #40 Â Posted October 31, 2011 I would appreciate it, if somebody could write about the "field of view" with a 24mm lens and no glasses, is it critical already? Where is the "boundary" with normal, average eyes (if I want to do an exact composition)? Â I don't want to be rude but this is a topic that you need to search for on the forum. There have been many discussions on the need to use a 24 on an M9 w/o VF. The short answer is "yes and no". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.