IkarusJohn Posted March 5, 2012 Share #1 Posted March 5, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm waiting for a 1.4x magnifier, and I've decided to try the 1.25x, as it's available. I have struggled a bit with nailing focus (there is also a bit of motion blur), and I want to try a magnifier with my M9, while using lenses with more critical focus issues (Sx 75/1.4 & Nx 50/0.95). Can people with or who have used both make any recommendation for one over the other? Also, I understand that the 1.4x gives a 1:1 view through the viewfinder. What frame lines can you see (useably) on the M9 while using the 1.4x magnifier? Do you simply get the focusing box, or do you also see the 75 frame lines? Are the 50 frame lines visible with either? Cheers John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 5, 2012 Posted March 5, 2012 Hi IkarusJohn, Take a look here 1.25x or 1.4x magnifier?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
01af Posted March 5, 2012 Share #2 Posted March 5, 2012 What frame lines can you see (useably) on the M9 while using the 1.4× magnifier? Do you simply get the focusing box, or do you also see the 75 frame lines? Are the 50 frame lines visible with either? My recommendation is—use the 1.25× magnifier for 50 mm and 75 mm lenses; use the 1.4× for 90 mm and 135 mm lenses. With the 1.4× magnifier, you can see the 75 mm framelines ... but just barely, it's not very comfortable, and you'll need to move the eye around in the eyepiece to see the frame's farthest corners. Doable but not recommended. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 5, 2012 Share #3 Posted March 5, 2012 Make sure your eyes are fully corrected first; otherwise any magnifier will just magnify the problem. Magnifiers will also reduce contrast a bit. Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share #4 Posted March 5, 2012 Make sure your eyes are fully corrected first; otherwise any magnifier will just magnify the problem. Magnifiers will also reduce contrast a bit. Jeff Thanks Jeff. I suffer from the long sightedness that comes with age! The magnifier is not intended to make anything sharper - it should simply make the focusing box larger ... Cheers John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 5, 2012 Share #5 Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Thanks Jeff. I suffer from the long sightedness that comes with age! The magnifier is not intended to make anything sharper - it should simply make the focusing box larger ... Yes, but it will magnify the unsharpness. Better to either wear glasses or get the correct diopter first. Then you have the best of both worlds...big and sharp (but still less contrast with a magnifier, and many rely on contrast peaking to finely focus an M). I have astigmatism and distance issues, so correction is critical. But still, I prefer no magnifier even though I own the 1.25. Jeff Edited March 5, 2012 by Jeff S Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted March 5, 2012 Share #6 Posted March 5, 2012 I have the 1.4x but use it infrequently as I have to first remove my diopter correction lens, then attach the magnifier, the attach the diopter lens to the magnifier. Major PITA. As others have said I find the diopter correction offers the greatest improvement in focus accuracy, but the combination of both is wonderful when needed. I agree the 1.4x is not ideal with a 50mm, as the frame lines are blocked, but that focus patch looks fantastic. I will probably use it more in the coming weeks with the Hyperprime 0.95 to nail focus, using the LCD to check my framing. With a 90 Elmarit-M the magnifier is really a nice assist. Basically I hate the magnifiers, but when I need one I want all the punch I can get. The 1.4x gives me that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share #7 Posted March 5, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, but it will magnify the unsharpness. Better to either wear glasses or get the correct diopter first. Then you have the best of both worlds...big and sharp (but still less contrast with a magnifier, and many rely on contrast peaking to finely focus an M). I have astigmatism and distance issues, so correction is critical. But still, I prefer no magnifier even though I own the 1.25. Jeff Thanks Jeff, I don't need correction. For focussing, I tend to rely on the double image provided by the rangefinder, rather than contrast. Will see how the 1.25x magnifier works. Cheers John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 5, 2012 Share #8 Posted March 5, 2012 Contrast focussing is more precise - more effective than a magnifier too imo. I have a 1.25, but it remains in its little case - even for the ApoTelyt, which I use regularly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share #9 Posted March 5, 2012 Okay, this is something I need to try. Thank you for the input. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 6, 2012 Share #10 Posted March 6, 2012 To cut a long post short: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/130720-m9-faqs-frequently-asked-questions-answers.html#post1378521 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #12 Posted March 6, 2012 Share #11 Posted March 6, 2012 Contrast focussing is more precise... I don't think there is any proof of this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 6, 2012 Share #12 Posted March 6, 2012 Which means you never tried it... The proof of the pudding is in the eating... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share #13 Posted March 6, 2012 Hi Jaap, In your link above, I found this: 3. The contrast method. Once you have focus by method 1. or 2. a small adjustment will cause the rangefinder patch to "jump" into optimum contrast. At that point you have the most precise focussing adjustment. Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying that the focusing box jumps into focus, by contrast? Or that the whole screen jumps into focus? How does this work in terms of the rangefinder mechanism? My understanding was that the mechanism is a parallax mechanism only, showing split images. For contrast, there would need to be optical focusing, wouldn't there? I know,read the manual. It is, however, and interesting discussion. I don't want diopters and to wear my reading glasses with my camera. I will get a 1.25x magnifier to try this week - if you're right about contrast focusing, a magnifier should help, leaving aside any reduction in brightness. Cheers John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1JB Posted March 6, 2012 Share #14 Posted March 6, 2012 I have the 1.25 and never use it. The change in the size of the focus box is almost imperceptible and of no use on my 50 asph lux or 35 asph cron. I too have never been able to see the focus patch "jump" into focus with a small adjustment of the focus ring after achieving focus. I get the best results when I don't spend time adjusting the focus after it first comes into focus. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #12 Posted March 6, 2012 Share #15 Posted March 6, 2012 ... Jaap loves the "pop" when everything is in absolutely perfect coincidence in the rangefinder patch. If you stack a couple of magnifiers on top of each other, it is hard to see the pop because everything is dimmer and a little vague. However, just one magnifier probably never hurt anybody's results. If all you are shooting is cherry pudding--easy to see subjects in sunny light--then maybe a magnifier does not mean that much to you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted March 6, 2012 Share #16 Posted March 6, 2012 ...I don't want diopters and to wear my reading glasses with my camera.... You said (post#7) that you don't need any correction. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted March 6, 2012 Share #17 Posted March 6, 2012 I decided to just try them out, and turns out both 1.25x and 1.4x work great for me - mounted either on my M9 (to give 1.85 or 1.92, respectively). or my M6TTL 0.85 (only the 1:25x, to give 1:1) when I use a 50 Summilux or higher. I wear spectacles, BTW. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share #18 Posted March 7, 2012 You said (post#7) that you don't need any correction. Jeff Mild long sight, requiring reading glasses for small type and when I'm tired. I have no trouble seeing detail at the minimum focusing distance of 700 mm. So, no correction required. I have never had a problem seeing the focusing square perfectly clearly. Cheers John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2012 Share #19 Posted March 7, 2012 How avout ( unnoticed) mild astigmatsm.? The most common eye condition that does not show up in daily life but will impair the use of demanding optical devices like a rangefinder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share #20 Posted March 7, 2012 What's this, 20 questions? Presbyopia. No astigmatism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.