IkarusJohn Posted February 4, 2012 Share #21 Posted February 4, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Lars, I don't think Mark's experimentation really supports your otherwise pragmatic approach. If you have a choice between close and not close, there's not much point in getting the least accurate frame lines. No one is suggesting 100% accuracy. Young man from the age of bellows camera with gun sight frame lines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here 21 for My M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
MarkP Posted February 4, 2012 Share #22 Posted February 4, 2012 and the fact is that you can't do it even with a SLR camera finder, unless it shows 100% of the actual exposed image – and damn few ever did, my Olympus OM cameras being one of the few exceptions. The old man from the Age of the Brilliant Finder ...my old Nikon F3/T being another... Lars, again we continue to spar on this topic:rolleyes:. By no means did I want to change from the Zeiss to the more expensive Leica viewfinder. For standard framing it probably doesn't matter too much BUT I found that more critical composition (especially with architectural images) was much improved with the external Leica VFs compared with the Zeiss. There was no comparison... and I actually tested my hypothesis... The younger man frustrated by non-Leica 21mm external viewfinders:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Verrips Posted February 4, 2012 Share #23 Posted February 4, 2012 I use the Leica metal bright line finder, never tried another type, but i think your M deserves a real metal finder, no plastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share #24 Posted February 4, 2012 I use the Leica metal bright line finder, never tried another type, but i think your M deserves a real metal finder, no plastic. I tend to agree on getting a metal one. It cost more but will last a lot longer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted February 5, 2012 Share #25 Posted February 5, 2012 The metal Leica is really nice, and as pointed out they can stand the action (mine is 35 years old).It is very good optics, and very bright. The Zeiss is also very bright, the viewfinder slightly larger and more bulky, but one should check if the frame lines are right. They are usually a bit off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 5, 2012 Share #26 Posted February 5, 2012 Lars, again we continue to spar on this topic:rolleyes:. By no means did I want to change from the Zeiss to the more expensive Leica viewfinder. For standard framing it probably doesn't matter too much BUT I found that more critical composition (especially with architectural images) was much improved with the external Leica VFs compared with the Zeiss. There was no comparison... and I actually tested my hypothesis... The younger man frustrated by non-Leica 21mm external viewfinders:D The fact is that I have a black Leica metal finder (the current one) to go with my Super-Elmar. But accuracy is not the reason. There are lots of subjective factors entering in the acceptance of accessory finders (any finder, in fact) but don't tell me that three millimeters' lateral displacement does make a difference with a superwide lens. Or even four millimeters. Finders simply aren't that accurate. The old man from the Age of the Brilliant Finder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted February 5, 2012 Share #27 Posted February 5, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) My personal view is that every finder I have ever had, fairly quickly became a camera bag queen. Unless you are going to leave a wide angle lens on your camera for a considerable period of time, it is just too much bother to mount and unmount finders. I also don't like having to focus in one window and then compose in another. I did have the Frankenfinder until recently when I swapped it and my WATE with another forum member for his 28 Summicron plus adjustment. I guess I might have used the Frankenfinder 3 or 4 times in the last year. I find I can get a reasonable idea of what I will get from a photo by just looking without a finder and having a rough idea of the horizontal angle of view each wider lens will subtend. I know my 16mm fish-eye gives about 160º and my 25mm Biogon around 70º. If you hold your hands out at these angles in front of your face (fingers inwards is easier), you will get a good idea of what your picture will look like without using an external viewer. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 5, 2012 Share #28 Posted February 5, 2012 The fact is that I have a black Leica metal finder (the current one) to go with my Super-Elmar. But accuracy is not the reason. There are lots of subjective factors entering in the acceptance of accessory finders (any finder, in fact) but don't tell me that three millimeters' lateral displacement does make a difference with a superwide lens. Or even four millimeters. Finders simply aren't that accurate. The old man from the Age of the Brilliant Finder Hi Lars, I think you are completely missing the point that I'm trying to make 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! . I keep stating that it is not the issue of a few mm lateral displacement where with standard framing for street, travel, etc this is NOT a significant problem It is that the centre of the image with the non-Leica external VFs is above and to the right of that determined by the built-in VF (this is a minimal problem with the 3 Leica external VF's I checked). Hence when composing where the alignment of straight lines is important (which becomes more critical further from the centre of the image with a wide angle) they are thrown out by a rotational error that cannot be reliably corrected in PP. ie. external VF framing therefore forces an incorrect tilting/rotation up and to the right. It is this rotation that throws out the horizontals & verticals with subsequent distortion of the image. My pervious posts and those of others explain this in more detail. Try it for yourself! Regards, Mark The Younger Man who won't live to be an Old Man as he's going to die trying to explain this to the Old Man from the Age of pre-perspective-corrected medieval art. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! . I keep stating that it is not the issue of a few mm lateral displacement where with standard framing for street, travel, etc this is NOT a significant problem It is that the centre of the image with the non-Leica external VFs is above and to the right of that determined by the built-in VF (this is a minimal problem with the 3 Leica external VF's I checked). Hence when composing where the alignment of straight lines is important (which becomes more critical further from the centre of the image with a wide angle) they are thrown out by a rotational error that cannot be reliably corrected in PP. ie. external VF framing therefore forces an incorrect tilting/rotation up and to the right. It is this rotation that throws out the horizontals & verticals with subsequent distortion of the image. My pervious posts and those of others explain this in more detail. Try it for yourself! Regards, Mark The Younger Man who won't live to be an Old Man as he's going to die trying to explain this to the Old Man from the Age of pre-perspective-corrected medieval art. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/171903-21-for-my-m9/?do=findComment&comment=1918093'>More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted February 5, 2012 Share #29 Posted February 5, 2012 Note that the frankenfinder is the only one where dioptre correction is available...... If you wear specs and use them all the time with a camera (or perfect vision) then its ok... If like me you take them off and have a dioptre correction on the camera then you will find all the available viewfinders produce OOF images. When I quizzed Leica about this and why the finders weren't threaded for dioptres they clearly thought I was mad and that no-one had moaned about this before ....... Anyway half an hour with a file and supeglue and I have a dioptre welded to the back of 18mm finder ...... which incidentally will do for 16 (M8 frame lines), 18 (M9 framelines) and 21 (full finder view) .... Plus.... its very difficult to align verticals and horizontals with these gizmos (which is the bane of the W/A lens user) and I often revert back to the main viewfinder to do this .... which sort of defeats the whole object really... With my WATE I only stick the finder on for indoor work such as churches etc where its difficult to judge just what you are really covering and avoiding things in the periphery that cause distracting distortion.... Considering the above and the fact that none except the Frankenfinder adjust for parallax so they are all a bit rough and ready I would get the cheapest available or forget it and just rely on educated guesswork..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted February 5, 2012 Share #30 Posted February 5, 2012 Considering the above and the fact that none except the Frankenfinder adjust for parallax so they are all a bit rough and ready I would get the cheapest available or forget it and just rely on educated guesswork..... I'm pleased you said that. I am trying to figure out if I need an external VF. Strikes me that it just can't be accurate moving from VF to RF screen and back again. There has to be a fairly large inaccuracy there. I just think that its 28mm frame lines plus a little bit more. Perhaps it's because we are all concerned about the stigma of 'chimping' and because we have M9s it's not 'the done thing' but surely looking at the LCD is not that bad an idea to check framing (even if it's crap at everything else!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted February 5, 2012 Share #31 Posted February 5, 2012 I'm pleased you said that. I am trying to figure out if I need an external VF. Strikes me that it just can't be accurate moving from VF to RF screen and back again. There has to be a fairly large inaccuracy there. I just think that its 28mm frame lines plus a little bit more. Perhaps it's because we are all concerned about the stigma of 'chimping' and because we have M9s it's not 'the done thing' but surely looking at the LCD is not that bad an idea to check framing (even if it's crap at everything else!) Nice to hear from someone with a bit of sanity....... I have more problems with horizon alignment with W/A lenses than whats actually covered...... and although I've had the back of my legs slapped on the forum for suggesting it ...... 'saturation bombing' photography a la 'overgaard' has always struck me as the obvious solution ... you do have almost unlimited exposure potential, the ability to review them instantly, and the ability to take multiple shots quickly, so who cares if only one in ten is perfect....... I can't understand sticking to film camera mentality when you are using a digital instrument..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share #32 Posted February 6, 2012 Being the OP, I knew there would be opinions both ways whether an external VF is necessary or not. I have used them in the past and found them helpful for composition. True they may not be that correct and yes with digital you can see what you just shot but I personally think they are useful and I will use the 21 I just bought. Thanks for everyone's input. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sp12 Posted February 6, 2012 Share #33 Posted February 6, 2012 If you're that concerned with accurate composition/leveling shouldn't you be using a mirrorless or SLR anyway? You guys are so caught up with the gear you're missing the soul of the M. The freedom of composition. The sight with your mind. If you think a hunk of metal Zeiss finder will make you a better photographer maybe an M isn't the camera for you. Not to mention using Zeiss on Leica is silly to begin with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted February 6, 2012 Share #34 Posted February 6, 2012 I like the Zeiss finders to look through but I don't like them otherwise. In the last 50 years I've dropped more than 5 or 6 finders, and the Zeiss ones look like that's what will happen to them. They stick up a lot more than the Leica finders, and the funny sharp front corners are exactly what catches on things to drag them out of the shoe. After a number of dropped finders I learned to use the 'lens keeper' lanyards to tie the things to the strap eyelets, but that's a nuisance too. I mostly use the Voigtlaender plastic finders, as they are relatively cheap an have rounded corners, but my favourites are the plastic Leica ones. They are low profile, and don't catch on things like the metal ones. No, they don't look as elegant as the metal ones and they don't produce as nice a view as the Zeiss ones, but they are the ones that will most likely be in the shoe when I next need them. I have about 5 finders that cover 21mm right now, but it's the plastic Leica one that I usually have in the shoe when I go out. I'm certainly not springing for the new Leica metal finders. Finders are for looking through; lenses are what produce the pictures. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted February 6, 2012 Share #35 Posted February 6, 2012 ...... which incidentally will do for 16 (M8 frame lines), 18 (M9 framelines) and 21 (full finder view) .... You're going to be very disappointed with your results, if you use that methodology. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 6, 2012 Share #36 Posted February 6, 2012 Hi Lars, I think you are completely missing the point that I'm trying to make [ATTACH]298985[/ATTACH]. I keep stating that it is not the issue of a few mm lateral displacement where with standard framing for street, travel, etc this is NOT a significant problem It is that the centre of the image with the non-Leica external VFs is above and to the right of that determined by the built-in VF (this is a minimal problem with the 3 Leica external VF's I checked). Hence when composing where the alignment of straight lines is important (which becomes more critical further from the centre of the image with a wide angle) they are thrown out by a rotational error that cannot be reliably corrected in PP. ie. external VF framing therefore forces an incorrect tilting/rotation up and to the right. It is this rotation that throws out the horizontals & verticals with subsequent distortion of the image. My pervious posts and those of others explain this in more detail. Try it for yourself! Regards, Mark The Younger Man who won't live to be an Old Man as he's going to die trying to explain this to the Old Man from the Age of pre-perspective-corrected medieval art. Oh my. I get it. You are worried about internal parallax, not about framing. Internal parallax is the difference in the relationship of two objects in the picture that are at different distances from the lens. This displacement is what gives us binocular 3D vision, and parallax correction cannot remove that. It can only adjust framing in the plane of focus. But you get that internal parallax with any direct finder including the built-in M finder. The accessory finder just makes it change its direction somewhat. To avoid it, you must have a finder that looks through the lens, i.e. a SLR finder or an electronic viewfinder. Here I have a M9 with the current 21mm finder mounted. The distance between the lens's optical axis and the optical axis of the built-in finder is c. 50mm. In the case of the accessory finder it is about 60mm. Horror! The sky is falling down! No? The old man with a residual sense of proportions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 7, 2012 Share #37 Posted February 7, 2012 Lars, I understand your point. All I'm saying is that I found problems with framing and correct alignment of verticals and horizontals corrected once I used the Leica VF compared with the Zeiss. DISAGREEING WITH YOU DOESN'T JUSTIFY SARCASTIC OR PATRONISING REPLIES, BUT...oh my...I FORGOT THAT YOU ARE ALWAYS RIGHT..the sky just fell down... yes I am shouting... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 7, 2012 Share #38 Posted February 7, 2012 I have a Zeiss finder too. Like the Leica finders, it sits completely laterally centred in the camera shoe. So there should be no difference in lateral displacement. The optical axis of Zeiss finders is about 3.5mm higher than that of the Leica finders. So vertical parallax is actually a bit greater with the Zeiss finders. Lateral parallax is practically identical with both Zeiss and Leica. By the way, while the lateral displacement between lens optical axis and finder axis is c. 8mm with the accessory finders, it is about 36mm for the built-in camera finder. And one might argue that lateral internal parallax is more noticeable than the vertical kind, simply because our eyes are side by side, not over-under! Have those crafty people of Oberkochen manipulated the internal optics of their finders in order to make parallax go away, or at least decrease it? I cannot be absolutely certain without actually disassembling bott the Leica nad the Zeiss finders, which I am not going to do, for obvious reasons. But as far as I can ascertain, the Zeiss finder design is completely symmetrical. Conclusion: Zeiss finders do not deal more efficiently with internal parallax than Leica does. This leaves subjective factors for consideration. The Zeiss finders use larger diameter eyepieces, which makes for greater user comfort, but also less accuracy. And yes, Zeiss finders have parallax compensation marks. My suspicion is that greater user comfort is behind the perceived difference. Then we try to rationalise our feeling with arguments about parallax, which sound more 'objective'. The binocular old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted February 7, 2012 Share #39 Posted February 7, 2012 Lars, paragraph 3 of your post is my point. I had assumed that the Leica finders have an internal correction for the shoe offset. Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 7, 2012 Share #40 Posted February 7, 2012 Lars, paragraph 3 of your post is my point. I had assumed that the Leica finders have an internal correction for the shoe offset. Mark Mark, I don't think so. It is true that the Leica 21mm finder does not have any parallax compensation marks (which my Zeiss 18mm finder does have) but Leica, or rather Leica-inspired writers have always argued that parallax is no big issue with superwide lenses. I tend to agree. As before, I would say that people who are ultra-finicky about parallax should get themselves a technical camera, or at least one with a 100% SLR or EV finder. In the age of film, there were a few purists who made a demonstrative point of always printing their 35mm negs full frame; and to prove that they did that, they actually printed a bit of the clear celluloid outside the exposed frame too. But they were in a small minority, and I always felt that it was OK to fine-adjust the framing under the enlarger. The urge to make maximum use of the tiny neg was another matter, and did not hang on one millimeter here or there. When shooting action with a RF camera – and that is really what Leica M cameras have been for – we have a lot of things going on in the finder, besides the framing. Not to speak of internal image parallax. And they are all more important for the final image. Best regards, no kidding or irony, from The old man with both his eyes screwed on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.