Viewfinder Accuracy

[darylgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Recently, I was comparing accessory viewfinders at a camera store. The Leica 24mm viewfinder stood out as being the most accurate over the older now discontinued 21,24, 28 finder. In addition, I could use the crop frame (32mm) for my 35mm lens. A quick test this week revealed the 32mm to be extremely accurate at a distance of 25-30 feet (8-10m), the

M9 viewfinder showed heavy cropping using the built-in frames. Has anyone else found the external frames more accurate than built-in? Would an older 50mm frame be more accurate than built-in?

[a.noctilux]

The 5cm "old" finder SBOOI is the clearest finder I have ever seen.

On M9 it's a pleasure to use if Noctilux is up front, no 1/3 finder black out.

 

It's not more accurate than the "in-camera finder", and the parallax compensation is lost.

 

Have a look inside an SBOOI and you would "see".

 

Arnaud

[Advertisement]

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

[darylgo]

To make the question more general, are external finders more accurate than the built-in finders. The inconvenience factor will definitely be there but if these externals are closer to the final photograph it might be worthwhile to carry them along for the occasions when accuracy is more critical.

[StephenPatterson]

To make the question more general, are external finders more accurate than the built-in finders.

 

The internal viewfinder automatically shifts the framelines to compensate for parallax errors based on focus distance. Most external viewfinders now produced no longer offer parallax compensation.

[darylgo]

The internal viewfinder automatically shifts the framelines to compensate for parallax errors based on focus distance. Most external viewfinders now produced no longer offer parallax compensation.

 

 

I had forgotten about the parallax correction. If the internal is 88% accurate (I am guessing at this number based on what I see on my lcd compared to the viewfinder lines) and parallax is corrected, is this more accurate than an external that might be closer to 100% without parallax?

[StephenPatterson]

The major advantage of a rangefinder is the ability to compose the shot, either with the rangefinder/viewfinder or an external viewfinder, taking advantage of maximum light gathering and the ability to see objects before they enter the frame. The rangefinder is a magical tool, but dSLRs have an advantage in accuracy.

 

Stephen

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The bottom line with proxy viewfinders - fixed windows that don't see through the lens itself (whether in the camera or external) - is that they have a fixed field of view. Whereas the FoV of most lenses varies with focus distance.

 

(Move a lens away from the film/sensor to focus closer, and the image it is projecting gets bigger, just as moving a slide/video projector away from the wall/screen projects a bigger image.)

 

Therefore, all the Leica viewfinders, built-in or accesory, will be accurate at some one subject distance, but not at others. (Excepting the old pre-1960 zooming external finders, which usually had click stops on the zoom control, for either close or distant framing, (as well as tilt for parallax correction)).

 

Leica sets their viewfinders to the framing at or around close focus distance, on the assumption that in the final picture, photographers would rather crop to the original "seeing" rather than be stuck with things permanently left out. That means the final pictures are "loose" at 25-30 feet.

 

Your guess of "88%" is about right, plus or minus. The 90mm lines frame about like a 105mm lens at 10 meters or so (30 feet). And you are right that the brightline accesory WA finders (with some space around the bright lines) allow for some breathing room to frame more tightly than the hard edge of the 21/24/28 zoom finder.

 

However - it isn't hard and fast that an external finder will always be better. Even the internal lines have varying framing accuracy. The 28/35/50 lines in post-M4-P cameras are definitely less accurate than the previous 35/50 lines, due to squeezing in the 28 lines. (Keep in mind that Leica has to maintain a certain spacing between framelines, to prevent the "stencil" that forms the lines from falling apart ). So it has to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

 

I did a test last week to confirm my impression that (in the M9) the built-in 75mm lines are more accurate than the 90mm lines at longer distances - but while I was at it also compared the built-in 35mm lines to using an accesory brightline finder with my 21.

 

In each case I framed to put the sides of the framelines exactly on the outer edges of the concrete planter.

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!

[darylgo]

Leica sets their viewfinders to the framing at or around close focus distance, on the assumption that in the final picture, photographers would rather crop to the original "seeing" rather than be stuck with things permanently left out. That means the final pictures are "loose" at 25-30 feet.

 

This makes sense, great information, thanks.

 

 

I did a test last week to confirm my impression that (in the M9) the built-in 75mm lines are more accurate than the 90mm lines at longer distances - but while I was at it also compared the built-in 35mm lines to using an accesory brightline finder with my 21.

 

In each case I framed to put the sides of the framelines exactly on the outer edges of the concrete planter.

 

Nice, I learned a lot from these photos.

 

In landscape shooting I am thinking that if I have tighter framing with accessory finders it will aid in getting the composition nailed to a finer degree. Currently, I use the lcd to finalize my photo but this oftentimes requires several attempts, frameline accuracy being a contributing factor.

[wda]

Given a choice, I aim to frame tight. I always find that there is extra breathing space for trimming if necessary. Try to avoid anything important at the frame edge. You never know quite how much will be included or excluded.

[tobey bilek]

I have a complete set of older Leitz viewfinders and I keep them because they are the most accurate field of view, but they do not parallax compensate except for 90/135.

The 50 relies on a compensating line.

 

The old Immerect is quite accurate, parallax compensates, but the view is miserable with uncoated optics. It can be set at any focal from 35 to 135 and intermittent.

 

The 21/35 zoom is probably to worst piece of Leica kit I ever purchased.

[darylgo]

 

The 21/35 zoom is probably to worst piece of Leica kit I ever purchased.

 

Tobey, is this finder the new Universal Wide-angle finder M, or the older round Japanese made for the M8? Or is there another that I am not familiar with?

[tobey bilek]

Tobey, is this finder the new Universal Wide-angle finder M, or the older round Japanese made for the M8? Or is there another that I am not familiar with?

 

Older round one, mine is around 10 years old. Nice secure foot, but no bright line and you get different borders depending on exact eye position. I think I used it twice and went back to the old metal BL finders