Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
skinnfell

24mm viewfinder difference?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

See it from the other side: two times shipping and handling for the vendor. Is that honest, if nothing is sold? You now have saved the costs and time to go to "Foto v.d.Graaff" several times. Did you read the conditions of the vendor? By the way why not an EVF (Visoflex)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jankap said:

See it from the other side: two times shipping and handling for the vendor. Is that honest, if nothing is sold? You now have saved the costs and time to go to "Foto v.d.Graaff" several times. Did you read the conditions of the vendor? By the way why not an EVF (Visoflex)?

The question of refunding original carriage costs on returning goods is an interesting one. Can I recount an experience which I had? I ordered a pair of shoes on-line. The T&Cs said clearly that, provided you tried the shoes on a carpeted floor, so that the soles remained unmarked and the shoes as new, then you could return them if they did not fit, for a refund excluding the carriage costs. They added that carriage costs could only be refunded if the whole contract was cancelled. What they did not explicitly say was that one had the right to cancel such a contract  within a specified deadline. So most people in my position would just return them for a refund, less carriage costs. I'm no lawyer, but I presumed that on the one hand there was actually cancelling the contract, and on the other hand there was the exercise of an option within the contract for a refund excluding carriage costs. Exercising that option, which most people would do, and getting such a refund excluding carriage, would thereby complete the contract without cancelling it. So what I did was to email them, stating that the shoes did not fit, and that therefore, with regret, I was cancelling the contract and returning the shoes. I got a refund including carriage costs no questions asked. 

I take jankap's point that it's a bit hard on the seller, but they have chosen to operate within constraints of the EU regulations. I suspect that what the purchaser could have done was, on returning the goods, to state explicitly that they were exercising their right to cancel the contract, rather than implicitly relying on the seller's general terms and conditions.

I may be completely wrong on this - Forum lawyers might like to comment - but on this occasion it worked for me!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just FYI regarding the 18696 shown in post #15.

Plastic - the "seam" around the sides is the tip-off. Glued-together clamshell case.

It was made for use on the Leicasonic D-Lux cameras, and has a slightly different cropping: 4:3 aspect ratio rather than 3:2. It kinda-sorta worked on an M, once I learned how to compensate for the 21mm-height/24mm-width of the framed area - but I dumped it for a "real" Leica metal finder as soon as one came available used locally.

Regarding the 21/24/28 zoom finder - yes, there is a reason it was discontinued quite rapidly (by Leica standards - 5 years or so). No brightlines, and quite a bit larger/taller and heavier than the svelte single-focal-length finders. Really scaled for something like a Linhof 4x5 technical camera (IMHO).

http://linhof.com/en/optischer-universalsucher/

On the original 8-year-old question:

I gave up on the Leica plastic finders (21 or 24 or 28) mostly because I've had three disintegrate over 19 years of M shooting. First the locking mechanism loses its grip (the plastic cam wears out), and then the plastic foot simply cracks into bits. Last one I had fell off and was nearly lost four times on one trip - under an aircaft seat, in a tour bus, in a small boat (lucky it didn't go overboard) and in a taxi. No grip left.

And there is a trick to make the metal finders grip the hot-shoe at least as tightly as the "lockable plastic" finders when they are working. In the finders' shoe flanges there is a narrow slot to make them springy, and a fine screwdriver can be inserted into the slot and twisted to spread the metal ~0.5mm and make the grip much tighter.

Comparing the old metal finder to the new metal finder (I use both, in 21mm form): the new is slightly lower-magnification (shows a bit more space outside the brightline), and with more contrast, but also "feels" slightly darker.

But they do include extra corner tick-marks for M8 cropping. For me that makes the 21mm version great, since it is also a "28mm" finder on full-frame Ms (and much easier to "take in" at a glance than the camera's built-in 28 lines. The 24mm finder's inner marks show "32mm-equivalent."

However, for some users it may just look cluttered.

And - the rubber-coated screw-on eyepiece on the current metal finders can unscrew and get lost, leaving the silvered-glass brightline layer very exposed. Happened to me just this summer. Fortunately the legendary Dave Elwell at Leica USA parts dept. shipped me a replacement for $26 in a week, and I firmly attached it (and will check the tightness more often in the future). ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, adan said:

Regarding the 21/24/28 zoom finder - yes, there is a reason it was discontinued quite rapidly (by Leica standards - 5 years or so). No brightlines, and quite a bit larger/taller and heavier than the svelte single-focal-length finders. Really scaled for something like a Linhof 4x5 technical camera (IMHO).

 

I bought one some years ago, but I have never used it. It is one of the worst Leica products that I have ever bought, even worse than the awful EVF finders for M cameras. I have a similar Voigtlander zoom finder which is vastly superior. My favourite wide multi-finder is, however, the much maligned Leica 'Frankenfinder' which is a joy to use and feels not that big when you get used to it.

William

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...