RF patch 0.72 vs 0.85 finders

[FlorianM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just curious, is the centre RF patch larger on a camera with a 0.85 finder vs the 0.72 version?

 

Thanks!

[Advertisement]

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

[Walt Calahan]

I don't believe it is larger, simply magnified.

 

I have a 0.58 M6TTL, and a 0.85 M6TTL, and the rangefinder windows to the right of the viewfinder are the same size.

[FlorianM]

Thanks for the quick reply!

 

I don't think I expressed myself very well. When you look through the viewfinder at the central RF patch itself, does it look bigger with the 0.85? or to put it another way, if you were to look at the same scene to compare both viewfinders, would the 0.85 patch cover a larger part of the scene than the 0.58?

 

Thanks!

[giordano]

As I understand it, the RF patch is bigger, but so is everything else - so its size has not changed in relation to the framelines.

[Agent M10]

Looking at my 0.72 and 0.85 MPs, the 0.85 is a bit bigger because of the higher magnification. They are the same dimensions within the frame lines if that makes sense.

[cbretteville]

The one in my .58 M7 is smaller than the one in my .72 M6 so yes, it makes sense that the VF magnification is what changes it.

Carl

[Walt Calahan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Florian,

 

Yes, when I look through the .85 viewfinder the focus area does appear larger because the entire viewfinder is magnified.

 

The trade off is you must us external viewfinders with many wide angle lenses.

 

I use my .85 for my 75mm and 135mm lenses. The .58 for my 35mm and 24mm lenses.

 

The .58 doesn't have framelines for the 24mm, but the viewfinder represents closely how the 24mm sees if you use the area of the viewfinder outside the widest frameline. Not 100% accurate, but when working quickly it helps in composing if you don't want to switch to an external viewfinder.

[FlorianM]

Thank you guys! That's the info I was looking for, that the RF patch is magnified along with everything else.

 

Now, if only Leica would see fit to bring back the 0.85 finder for the M9....., or the M10

[OwinThomas]

Now, if only Leica would see fit to bring back the 0.85 finder for the M9....., or the M10

 

Surely that's what the viewfinder magnifiers are for You could then choose from normal, 1.25 and 1.4 best of both, or 3 worlds.

[FlorianM]

Surely that's what the viewfinder magnifiers are for You could then choose from normal, 1.25 and 1.4 best of both, or 3 worlds.

 

That's a good point Thomas. I had read about magnifiers a while ago and I was left with the impression that they reduce contrast, thus not being as good as the actual 0.85 viewfinder. It might be worth trying one though, if only to see what a 0.85 finder might look like. I'd like the M10 to be my last camera for quite a while (ha, what a pipe dream, lol!), so It'd be important to choose the magnification carefully. Then again, there's a good chance the 0.68 will be the only choice available, again.

 

Speaking of magnifiers, I'm going to do a search to see what people are saying about them.

 

Thanks again everybody!

[jpattison]

The 0.68 is determined by the fact that the M8/9 have a slightly deeper body than the film Ms.

 

John

[UliWer]

... Then again, there's a good chance the 0.68 will be the only choice available, again.mr

 

Speaking of magnifiers, I'm going to do a search to see what people are saying about them.

 

...

 

I think it's realistic not to exspect different viewfinder magnifications in an M. Last Photokina the Leica representatives were asked about this and denied any plans to change the present viewfinder - and proposed the magnifiers instead.

 

I have the M6 with 0.85. Though its good with longer focal lengthes, it rules out 28mm and makes 35mm uncomfortable.

 

Many users in this forum are not sympathetic with the magnifiers and have their points for this. I am not as critical and think they perform quite well. Though there is a real problem about them: risk of loss, if you don't screw them in very tight! If you do so you will certainly see the little rubber ring breaking and disappearing one day. I glued it, but it doesn't look as it will last long.

[TomB_tx]

Leica's niche market for the M9 is wide angle use. Ever since they introduced the Leicaflex in the 1960s they agreed that an SLR was better for long lenses, the rangefinder for wide angle. I imagine Leica tracks lens sales, and I'll bet most are 35 and shorter.

I have an M3, but seldom use it, as I prefer the M4 finder even with a 50mm, and have no difficulty with a 90. So my move to the M9 was easy, and I'm content with the M9 finder as-is.

Besides, magnifier sales for those who need it generate more money for Leica!

[FlorianM]

Both Tom and Uli have a point. Take the two together, and indeed it seems unlikely they will offer the 0.85 again. OTOH it cannot possibly be a big deal for an optical meister such as Leica to adapt a 0.85 finder to the thinner body, even if they lose some magnification and it becomes a 0.81.

 

I use the 50mm 99% of the time, and when I want a wide I would probably go right to 21mm, which would require an external finder anyway.

 

It is possible though that they can barely keep up with demand for the standard bodies, so they don't feel the need. Things might improve when they open up that custom orders department.

 

I thought some more about magnifiers, and I think the only issue would be with how much it sticks out. I took some pictures of myself from the side while holding the camera in the shooting position, and I think the mag would poke right into my eye. I would probably get that japanese 1.35 one as I need a slight diopter adjustment too. OTOH the 1.25 just might be enough.

[Agent M10]

I have a 0.85 and 0.72 that I use with a magnifier. The thing with magnifiers isn't their use, but the way you have to carry work around carrying the camera in a bag.

[FlorianM]

That's a valid point, thank you. In my case it would be left on the camera more or less permanently, as I use the 50mm almost exclusively. The odd time I put on a wide angle I don't think I would mind unscrewing the magnifier.

 

I think you would be uniquely qualified to answer this one: would you say the 0.72x with a 1.25 mag (assuming that's what you use) is just about the same OPTICALLY as the real 0.85x? Are there are differences like i.e. dimmer view, or less RF patch contrast?

 

thanks!

[Agent M10]

Okay, first, sorry for the typo. (I tend to go to the forum when I have ten things going at once.) I just meant to write that the magnifier becomes a problem if you want to leave it on when you bag your camera.

 

For the 0.72, I use the 1.4 magnifier—it gives a 1.01 ratio. I have the 1.25, but haven't used it since getting the 1.4. Comparing the 0.72 with the magnifier and the 0.85 without one, the 0.85 is a bit brighter. But I had to do a number of look-sees to figure it out. I will add that the 0.85 looked a bit "cleaner" or more "crisp," even though I cleaned both cameras before doing this little comparison. That might be because of the additional glass that the magnifier adds. On a performance note, I don't see where the magnifier combination would affect focusing. I, in fact, used the 0.72 and 1.4x at a concert last night and didn't have a problem (and didn't say, "Boy, I wish I had brought my 0.85). The magnifier was actually great help.

 

Personally, I really like the 0.85's viewfinder, even more than the M3s I have. The frame lines are a bit sleeker than the 0.72's and they fill up the viewfinder just enough to see a smidgen beyond the frame on a 50mm. I plan to keep the magnifier (and the 1.25x I have) to use with my 0.85, but I am looking to trading my 0.72 for another 0.85.

 

This is all with the proviso that I sold my 35mm summicron ASPH. All my lenses are 50mm or more. I don't know how I'd feel about using a 35mm on the 0.85, although Ralph Gibson never seemed to have a problem with it.

[tomasis7]

Both Tom and Uli have a point. Take the two together, and indeed it seems unlikely they will offer the 0.85 again. OTOH it cannot possibly be a big deal for an optical meister such as Leica to adapt a 0.85 finder to the thinner body, even if they lose some magnification and it becomes a 0.81.

 

I use the 50mm 99% of the time, and when I want a wide I would probably go right to 21mm, which would require an external finder anyway.

 

It is possible though that they can barely keep up with demand for the standard bodies, so they don't feel the need. Things might improve when they open up that custom orders department.

 

I thought some more about magnifiers, and I think the only issue would be with how much it sticks out. I took some pictures of myself from the side while holding the camera in the shooting position, and I think the mag would poke right into my eye. I would probably get that japanese 1.35 one as I need a slight diopter adjustment too. OTOH the 1.25 just might be enough.

 

 

i feel the same as you, im hoping for digital M with high magnifier vf. They could offer available vf (0,58, 0,72, 0,85) for custom configuration when one orders new or send back the body to Solms.

 

 

However now I stay with M3 and Epson Rd1 as now Rd1 vf patch is not so bright, but i have to live with it.

 

Magnifier looks crumbersome due its size, making the body less sleeky. btw I wear glasses, so it is hardly an option for me.

 

However Im lucky that M3 exists as one of most awesome pieces of engineering ever! :D

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dubes]

I have 2 M6s, one with the .72 magnification and one with the .85 magnification. I got the latter after using the .72 mag + 1.25x magnifier for longer lenses--this combination works but is much less elegant with the viewfinder sticking out the back of the camera.

 

That said, the .85 finder (without MP modification or perhaps "the shade") is more prone to flare/whiteout than the .72 finder, so all is not glory with the higher mag viewfinder. Also, as others have noted, I prefer not to use the .85 finder with lenses shorter than 50mm; the 35mm framelines are too close to the edge of the viewfinder, which for me defeats one of the great features of the rangefinder viewfinder vs. an SLR, i.e. the ability to see what is just outside the frame so as to anticipate action.

 

Of course, this is all just my humble opinion.

[FlorianM]

 

That said, the .85 finder (without MP modification or perhaps "the shade") is more prone to flare/whiteout than the .72 finder, so all is not glory with the higher mag viewfinder.

 

I would be curious how effective the MP modification is, i.e. if the 0.85 finder on the M7 is more flare prone than the 0.72, again on the M7.