Double Negative Posted January 20, 2012 Share #21 Posted January 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) There's a lot to be said for using Leica glass and even batteries (for M8/M9) on Leica bodies... But VFs and other "accessories" there's less of an argument for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2012 Posted January 20, 2012 Hi Double Negative, Take a look here Viewfinder for 21mm lens?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MarkP Posted January 20, 2012 Share #22 Posted January 20, 2012 Hi, this topic has been covered a lot before and it would also be worthwhile doing a quick search throughout the forum on 21mm viewfinders. I agree with the others above regarding them being essential for accurate framing, and in the end not that obtrusive (especially the relatively small Leica VF). I have just returned from a road trip with my son, which included a fair amount of hiking. I just kept the viewfinder on the M9 whenever I thought it likely that Imay use the 21mm lens, which was a lot. Much more convenient than slipping the VF on & off all the time with risk of dropping it. Yes, I'd much rather not have to use an external VF but it's benefits more than offset this small inconvenience. Although they are inconveniently expensive new I would now only use a Leica VF for the reasons described in the thread below (post #2). I would strongly advise AGAINST any 21mm viewfinder other than a Leica because the it gives the most accurate framing - and in the end that is the purpose of a viewfinder (I should add that I previously had the rather large Zeiss VF before I sold it and bought the Leica VF - although the Zeiss was glorious to look through the framing is inaccurate and I also found that the larger Zeiss was more likely to snag on things). Without being repetitive, please read the detailed posts by Menos and myself re the pros & cons of the various 21mm VFs in the link below: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/212291-21mm-finder-comparison.html Regards, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 20, 2012 Share #23 Posted January 20, 2012 I would not advise AGAINST any finder at all, seeing that they all do the job. But for quality I would rate 1 Zeiss, 2 Leica 3 CV. Given that price ranking is 1 CV 2. Zeiss 3. Leica, I would say that overall Zeiss is the clear winner with Leica and CV in a shared second place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted January 21, 2012 Share #24 Posted January 21, 2012 Well, you can always try it and see if you can get by without.. For me, though, the 21 is such a challenge for composition, that I feel I really need the viewfinder. I go sometimes without, but I'm usually not satisfied with the experience. I have the Zeiss VF and am very happy with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 21, 2012 Share #25 Posted January 21, 2012 I would not advise AGAINST any finder at all, seeing that they all do the job. But for quality I would rate 1 Zeiss, 2 Leica 3 CV. Given that price ranking is 1 CV 2. Zeiss 3. Leica, I would say that overall Zeiss is the clear winner with Leica and CV in a shared second place. Hi Lars, We will have to agree to disagree:) although I could have worded my advice more gently. The Zeiss is with doubt a glorious viewfinder to use: crystal clear, large eyepiece, seems to suck in the light. They all sort of do the job but they do not all frame accurately (obviously further complicated by distance and parallax), and as I wrote before this is still( in my opinion) the most important thing. For most 'general' work they are all OK but where one wants/needs more critical alignment I find the Zeiss inaccurate as it is obviously designed for a camera where the hotshoe overlies the centre of the lens axis which is not the case with the Leica cameras - hence the reason I replaced the Zeiss with the Leica (again, note the link in my post above). Regards, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 21, 2012 Share #26 Posted January 21, 2012 Hi Lars, [ ... ] Regards, Mark You seem to have mistaken me for Jaap. I'm flattered. Or is it the other way round? The old man since 1936 (pretty sure of my identity by now) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2012 Share #27 Posted January 21, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Flattered too The young whippersnapper from 1946 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2012 Share #28 Posted January 21, 2012 Wel, I agree we have to disagree:). Without doubt there is a parallax error. With all external viewfinders, which is the reason they often have a line in them for the vertical part of it. But the horizontal parallax error is what you are talking about, and on a camera wit an offset hotshoe it will be different from a camera with a centered one. However the viewfinder can only be correct on one distance, like the framelines. I am not convinced this correctness of the Leica finder ( presumbly at 1m) is enough of a practical advantage to make a difference. After all, using an optical viewfinder in general is an excercise in mastering framing inaccuracy by definition. Hi Lars, We will have to agree to disagree:) although I could have worded my advice more gently. The Zeiss is with doubt a glorious viewfinder to use: crystal clear, large eyepiece, seems to suck in the light. They all sort of do the job but they do not all frame accurately (obviously further complicated by distance and parallax), and as I wrote before this is still( in my opinion) the most important thing. For most 'general' work they are all OK but where one wants/needs more critical alignment I find the Zeiss inaccurate as it is obviously designed for a camera where the hotshoe overlies the centre of the lens axis which is not the case with the Leica cameras - hence the reason I replaced the Zeiss with the Leica (again, note the link in my post above). Regards, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartie Posted January 21, 2012 Share #29 Posted January 21, 2012 I`ve never used a viewfinder with my 21 Zeiss...get to know how your lens frames the subject and then allow for it in the rangefinder.....works for me,but at the end of the day it`s horses for coarses... Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freusen Posted January 21, 2012 Share #30 Posted January 21, 2012 ............I`ve never used a viewfinder with my 21 Zeiss........... I don't understand how you can use a 21mm lens without an auxilary viewfinder, I use external viewfinders for my 21mm, 24mm, 28mm and even 35mm lenses. I prefer the VC round metal finders, small, elegant and sufficient clear. The new metal Leica finders are not bad, but way too expensive. ___________ Frank R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted January 21, 2012 Share #31 Posted January 21, 2012 Wel, I agree we have to disagree:). Without doubt there is a parallax error. With all external viewfinders, which is the reason they often have a line in them for the vertical part of it. But the horizontal parallax error is what you are talking about, and on a camera wit an offset hotshoe it will be different from a camera with a centered one. However the viewfinder can only be correct on one distance, like the framelines. I am not convinced this correctness of the Leica finder ( presumbly at 1m) is enough of a practical advantage to make a difference. After all, using an optical viewfinder in general is an excercise in mastering framing inaccuracy by definition. Lars, my concern is that the Zeiss VF introduces a rotational not simply a horizontal error which would bother me less as it's easier to compensate for. Your comments regarding parallax are of course correct. The centre of the image using the Zeiss is above and to the right of the centre of the image compared with what is seen through the camera's internal viewfinder at all distances, try it for yourself. Therefore when framing with the external Zeiss VF one overcorrects by rotating the camera down and to the left. That is my concern. I should add that initially I didn't want to change finders as the image is much better through the Zeiss and I had to purchase a new expensive Leica VF but framing is much more accurate and I have no regrets about purchasing it. Please read my post (#2 etc.) in http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...omparison.html. This has been described by others (post #9 etc.) http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/168679-21mm-viewfinder-leica-zeiss.html Regards, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 21, 2012 Share #32 Posted January 21, 2012 Hell, I don't even use a finder with my 4/18 ZM! Use the internal VF as a guideline - especially to keep things level, etc. and visualize a little (a.k.a. "zen") on the framing. It's not that hard. Just don't "frame" too tightly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted January 21, 2012 Share #33 Posted January 21, 2012 "Wel, I agree we have to disagree. Without doubt there is a parallax error." The error is NOT parallax! MarkP and myself have Posted on this subject before and I have even Posted pictures on another forum showing the ROTATIONAL error introduced that CANNOT be compensated for. When i purchased my Leica 21mm f2.8 ASPH, I got a the plastic Leitz finder with lock. Works nicely but I read from all the 'EXPERTS' on various Forums about the superiority of the Zeiss finder. A few dollars later I had one and was out shooting a new Corvette ZO-6 for a friend. I also did some architectural work on the Calatrava in Milwaukee. Was I embarrassed when the shots came back. They ALL had a horizontal rotation and were simply unusable. After comparing the finders and even loosening the three screws on the bottom of the Zeiss to rotate for compensation, I did some drawings of the effect and it was simple to see the problem. I even shot pictures showing the effect after the 'EXPERTS' said again there was not problem introduced with the offset. My conclusion was the no one had EVER actually studied the problem technically and that the so called 'EXPERTS' were in fact blowing smoke and Posting drivel about this problem and who knows what else. I'm very used to solving highly technical problems and this one was really a no-brainer but it seems as if the myth of the Zeiss finder on Leica M equipment persists and will not go away, even in the face of obvious evidence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 21, 2012 Share #34 Posted January 21, 2012 The offset issue makes a lot of sense in how it would affect framing (obviously). But what doesn't quite make sense is the Zeiss finders not being offset as some Leica finders. They were primarily made for the Zeiss Ikon... Which has just as much offset between the hotshoe and center axis of the lens as Leica bodies (at quick glance without actually measuring anyway). I think the take away is that offset finders are more accurate than non-offset finders regardless of who makes it. In this picture you can see the Ikon offset. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2012 Share #35 Posted January 21, 2012 There is horizontal and verical parallax, reason the M framelines move diagonally. You are giving a good description of horizontal parallax here. The external viewfinder can only compensate by being rotated to the optical axis, so it is only accurate at one distance, preferably the one where the viewfinder framelines are accurate as well. I have no idea which angle of offset was chosen by Leica and Zeiss. Do you have the numbers? "Wel, I agree we have to disagree. Without doubt there is a parallax error." The error is NOT parallax! MarkP and myself have Posted on this subject before and I have even Posted pictures on another forum showing the ROTATIONAL error introduced that CANNOT be compensated for. When i purchased my Leica 21mm f2.8 ASPH, I got a the plastic Leitz finder with lock. Works nicely but I read from all the 'EXPERTS' on various Forums about the superiority of the Zeiss finder. A few dollars later I had one and was out shooting a new Corvette ZO-6 for a friend. I also did some architectural work on the Calatrava in Milwaukee. Was I embarrassed when the shots came back. They ALL had a horizontal rotation and were simply unusable. After comparing the finders and even loosening the three screws on the bottom of the Zeiss to rotate for compensation, I did some drawings of the effect and it was simple to see the problem. I even shot pictures showing the effect after the 'EXPERTS' said again there was not problem introduced with the offset. My conclusion was the no one had EVER actually studied the problem technically and that the so called 'EXPERTS' were in fact blowing smoke and Posting drivel about this problem and who knows what else. I'm very used to solving highly technical problems and this one was really a no-brainer but it seems as if the myth of the Zeiss finder on Leica M equipment persists and will not go away, even in the face of obvious evidence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted January 21, 2012 Share #36 Posted January 21, 2012 I've been using the Leica 12025 for some time, but recently (on a G.A.S. whim) I purchased a Leica Universal Wide Angle Viewfinder, and I'm really enjoying it. I brought both on this trip to Mexico but the "Frankenfinder" is the one I have used the most. Yes, it's as big as a battleship, but the bubble level is very useful, and also the ability to change to the 18mm framelines has been wonderful in lens selection. Optically it's a stunner!!! I had thought I would try the Frankenfinder out and if I didn't like it just send it back for a quick refund, but for me it's a keeper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21, 2012 Share #37 Posted January 21, 2012 I am amongst the convinced, Stephen, but I am unable to get myself to buy it.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrozenInTime Posted January 21, 2012 Share #38 Posted January 21, 2012 If only the Frankenfinder had a vertical bubble But I do like they way the bright lines correctly mimic the barrel distortion - which makes it easier to align along edges. True parallax correction is also very useful when close up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted January 21, 2012 Share #39 Posted January 21, 2012 If only the Frankenfinder had a vertical bubble I also found it strange that the Frankenfinder did not have a vertical bubble. Perhaps Leica did not want to make it too big Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted January 21, 2012 Share #40 Posted January 21, 2012 I've never been able to figure out why people wouldn't want to use an accessory finder. For wides (anything wider than 35mm on an M with a .72x viewfinder) it's a real boon -- bright and clear and uncluttered. Another vote for the ZM 21 lens and accessory finder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.