Zeiss finders on the M9

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been testing this rotational error on my 18 and 25 Zeiss finders and could not confirm it. In fact they are very well centered.

[Advertisement]

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

[kdriceman]

I don't see how there could be rotational error unless you are consciously thinking about the 6mm offset of a non-Leica viewfinder and, instead of making the precise compositional adjustment of simply moving 6mm laterally, you rotate the camera to compensate. Mathematically it could be determined, but even so, I would think it would have a minuscule effect unless you were focused on a very near subject and still concerned about alignment of elements very deep in the image. I may have to dust off my old geometry book and see what the effect would really be.

[jaapv]

i would say it would be well within the tolerance of the positioning of the finder in the hot shoe.

[MarkP]

I don't see how there could be rotational error unless you are consciously thinking about the 6mm offset of a non-Leica viewfinder and, instead of making the precise compositional adjustment of simply moving 6mm laterally, you rotate the camera to compensate. Mathematically it could be determined, but even so, I would think it would have a minuscule effect unless you were focused on a very near subject and still concerned about alignment of elements very deep in the image. I may have to dust off my old geometry book and see what the effect would really be.

 

 

 

This one comes up every two to three months for the 21mm external VFs and we usually politely agree to disagree:).

 

In a nutshell, it is not just lateral displacement of the image. The centre of the image in the external Zeiss VF is above and to the right of the centre of the image using the internal VF. Therefore when more precise framing is required with the external VF, one unintentionally rotates the camera slightly to get what appears to be the correct framing. This significantly throws out straight horizontals & verticals. In more general photographs this isn't appreciated.

 

My argument for the Leica over the Zeiss 21mm VF (having owned and tested both) is very carefully laid out here:

post #2 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/212291-21mm-finder-comparison.html

and by Budrichard here:

post #9 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/168679-21mm-viewfinder-leica-zeiss.html

[kdriceman]

This one comes up every two to three months for the 21mm external VFs and we usually politely agree to disagree:).

 

In a nutshell, it is not just lateral displacement of the image. The centre of the image in the external Zeiss VF is above and to the right of the centre of the image using the internal VF. Therefore when more precise framing is required with the external VF, one unintentionally rotates the camera slightly to get what appears to be the correct framing. This significantly throws out straight horizontals & verticals. In more general photographs this isn't appreciated.

 

My argument for the Leica over the Zeiss 21mm VF (having owned and tested both) is very carefully laid out here:

post #2 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/212291-21mm-finder-comparison.html

and by Budrichard here:

post #9 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/168679-21mm-viewfinder-leica-zeiss.html

 

Yes, I remember seeing these threads before. Isn't the Zeiss vf at the same vertical elevation (above the internal vf) as the Leica vf? If so, then the only difference in the vf views would be the horizontal displacement. (if we're comparing vf's) And once I'm finished with the internal vf and I move to the external vf for final composition I don't know why I would rotate the camera if I'm trying to be accurate. I would try to keep the sensor plane parallel to my intended focus plane, so I wouldn't rotate the camera, but I would, perhaps, try to move the whole apparatus a few mm vertically and horizontally to compensate for the location of the vf. I'm not necessarily disagreeing here (I have been intrigued with this rotational debate since seeing your original posts), I'm trying to understand how it really occurs. In reality, you're probably correct because I doubt (actually I know) I'm not composing with that kind of discipline (and most people probably arent) and probably do that slight rotation. The next question is ... is it really meaningful amount (or under what conditions is it meaningful)? That's where the geometry book comes in.

[pico]

The hot shoe on Zeiss cameras is tilted to make up for the vf rotation. That is why they don`t work on a Leica.

 

My first 75 CV finder was off 3 degrees or so . Photo Village replaced it.

 

I will not buy anything that comes from that factory anymore.

 

Wow! That is positively astounding! Thanks!

.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Like Jaap says you are talking nonsense. Do you really own an M9? I ask because this comment would not be coming from a real M9 owner.

 

His pictures were made with an M9, unless you think he would go through the trouble of faking the EXIF info. I do not think he (or whomever made the pics) did.

.

[MarkP]

Yes, I remember seeing these threads before. Isn't the Zeiss vf at the same vertical elevation (above the internal vf) as the Leica vf? If so, then the only difference in the vf views would be the horizontal displacement. (if we're comparing vf's) And once I'm finished with the internal vf and I move to the external vf for final composition I don't know why I would rotate the camera if I'm trying to be accurate. I would try to keep the sensor plane parallel to my intended focus plane, so I wouldn't rotate the camera, but I would, perhaps, try to move the whole apparatus a few mm vertically and horizontally to compensate for the location of the vf. I'm not necessarily disagreeing here (I have been intrigued with this rotational debate since seeing your original posts), I'm trying to understand how it really occurs. In reality, you're probably correct because I doubt (actually I know) I'm not composing with that kind of discipline (and most people probably arent) and probably do that slight rotation. The next question is ... is it really meaningful amount (or under what conditions is it meaningful)? That's where the geometry book comes in.

 

Hi KD,

you're right that in most photography it isn't noticed. however once one needs some control of perspective especially with control over straight lines/convergance /divergance, even the corners or ceilings in a room) it can be a problem.

 

When standing behind the camera the image composed with the Zeiss 21mm VF is slightly higher and to the right than compared with the internal M9 VF or the external Leica 21mm VF. Therefore, when composing with the Zeiss external VF the sensor plane is incorrectly directed up and to the left - which in effect rotates the sensor plane incorrectly off the correct axis for the image

 

The easiest way to see this is to identify the centre of the image with the internal VF (easy enough to do) and then compare it with the centre of the image through the Zeiss & Leica external VFs (a bit difficult because obviously they are wide angle). Even at various distances the Leica VF and M9 are similar and the Zeiss is above and to the right.

 

This is not easily fixed in PP.

 

In the end it bothered me to the point where I replaced the Zeiss with the Leica and all is now well. It clearly doesn't bother other people.

 

Regards,

Mark

[kdriceman]

 

Hi KD,

you're right that in most photography it isn't noticed. however once one needs some control of perspective especially with control over straight lines/convergance /divergance, even the corners or ceilings in a room) it can be a problem.

 

When standing behind the camera the image composed with the Zeiss 21mm VF is slightly higher and to the right than compared with the internal M9 VF or the external Leica 21mm VF. Therefore, when composing with the Zeiss external VF the sensor plane is incorrectly directed up and to the left - which in effect rotates the sensor plane incorrectly off the correct axis for the image

 

The easiest way to see this is to identify the centre of the image with the internal VF (easy enough to do) and then compare it with the centre of the image through the Zeiss & Leica external VFs (a bit difficult because obviously they are wide angle). Even at various distances the Leica VF and M9 are similar and the Zeiss is above and to the right.

 

This is not easily fixed in PP.

 

In the end it bothered me to the point where I replaced the Zeiss with the Leica and all is now well. It clearly doesn't bother other people.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

Let's just hope that now that it is in my head it won't bother me. I didn't want to have to buy a Leica VF.

[MarkP]

Let's just hope that now that it is in my head it won't bother me. I didn't want to have to buy a Leica VF.

 

Neither did I after I'd already bought the Zeiss 21mm VF on the dealers recommendation. When he later ordered in the Leica 21mm VF we tested the two on the M9 in his store and he too was convinced. He sold me the Lieca VF and took the Zeiss back to sell-on second hand so I really wasn't much out of pocket:)....beyond the outrageous cost of the Leica finder:eek:.

 

As I've written before, the Zeiss finders are glorious to use being so bright and with their large eyepiece but, in the end I want a viewfinder that gives the most accurate framing (for a RF) and for me that is the Leica.

 

Good luck.....

[kdriceman]

 

Neither did I after I'd already bought the Zeiss 21mm VF on the dealers recommendation. When he later ordered in the Leica 21mm VF we tested the two on the M9 in his store and he too was convinced. He sold me the Lieca VF and took the Zeiss back to sell-on second hand so I really wasn't much out of pocket:)....beyond the outrageous cost of the Leica finder:eek:.

 

As I've written before, the Zeiss finders are glorious to use being so bright and with their large eyepiece but, in the end I want a viewfinder that gives the most accurate framing (for a RF) and for me that is the Leica.

 

Good luck.....

 

I'll let you know. I'm using a voigtlander vf now and I like it a lot. (1/2 the price of the Zeiss and about 1/2 the size). I can't tell much difference in brightness and since I rarely require absolute precision when framing an image I think it will be fine.

[richard_man]

The Smoking Gun, see the photo of the framelines in the viewfinder. We leveled everything as best we can using bubble levels. The internal M9 framelines are “dead-on,” definitely good enough for framing purpose. As you can see, the framelines inside the Zeiss finder, as marked by the red lines, are tilted. Notice that the finder is just sitting on top of the camera, not in the hotshoe, so it has nothing to do with “rotational” axis with respect to the center of the lens etc.

 

[MarkP]

The Smoking Gun, see the photo of the framelines in the viewfinder. We leveled everything as best we can using bubble levels. The internal M9 framelines are “dead-on,” definitely good enough for framing purpose. As you can see, the framelines inside the Zeiss finder, as marked by the red lines, are tilted. Notice that the finder is just sitting on top of the camera, not in the hotshoe, so it has nothing to do with “rotational” axis with respect to the center of the lens etc.

 

 

Many of us made it clear we all felt from the beginning that this problem is CLEARY due to an internally misaligned/faulty VF. I can't believe that the person who sold it to you didn't know it was faulty. The rotational errors from the 21mm Zeiss finder are subtle.

 

Regards,

Mark

[kdriceman]

Now you can tell that Zeiss person that you know - with certainty - that it IS the viewfinder.

[richard_man]

Now you can tell that Zeiss person that you know - with certainty - that it IS the viewfinder.

 

I did and now they sound more conciliatory. No matter, I sold it cheap to a fellow Leica user who says he can probably fix it, and if not, he will just use the whole finder for his large format lens.

 

The CV25 finder should be here shortly, I will see how it works. I do love the gorgeous view the Zeiss finders provide, so we shall see. Such is life.

 

Thanks all.

[richard_man]

Many of us made it clear we all felt from the beginning that this problem is CLEARY due to an internally misaligned/faulty VF. I can't believe that the person who sold it to you didn't know it was faulty. The rotational errors from the 21mm Zeiss finder are subtle.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

I blame myself - someone mentioned that there was a ZM 25 with finder for sale in NJ Craigslist when I was looking. No problem I thought, since my brother can pick it up for me and mail it to me. I figure that if the physical condition is good (which my brother can ascertain), what can POSSIBLY go wrong!??!

 

Live and learn.

[MarkP]

I blame myself - someone mentioned that there was a ZM 25 with finder for sale in NJ Craigslist when I was looking. No problem I thought, since my brother can pick it up for me and mail it to me. I figure that if the physical condition is good (which my brother can ascertain), what can POSSIBLY go wrong!??!

 

Live and learn.

 

It was a reasonable plan but bad luck.

[sdk]

I have both the Zeiss 21mm and 25mm/28mm finders, and neither of these show any yaw effect on my Leica M7 or M9P. I think there is something wrong with the original poster’s finder. I suspect a problem like the frameline mask being twisted a few degrees counterclockwise or the foot being crooked, though the latter is less likely, given how precisely and stoutly built the attachment is.

 

It’s very odd that the Zeiss customer support rep would think he could dismiss the problem over the phone without any physical examination to diagnose the problem. I think his explanation made no sense. A slight horizontal shift on an M9 vs an Ikon ZM should not result in a rotational error, but would cause a slight horizontal shift error. This should be testable when using a tripod. I would send it in for repair, and I would not believe the rep’s word as to the origin of the problem. I’m sure they have access to Leica M camera bodies for testing, but if I’m right and the framelines are rotated, the yaw would occur on any camera, even an SLR with a hot shoe could be used to test the rotation error.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear