almoore Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share #21 Posted July 3, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) like on any other camera as well But I'm not asking about any other camera or any other finder. In my first post I asked if anybody had teamed the Q with a particular 28mm finder - the SLOOZ - and ascertained whether or not they aligned well. I couldn't have been any more specific. If all the viewfinders are somewhat inaccurate, then in my opinion the it doesn't matter whether the framelines are 95% or 96% accurate. First of all you can look at the result on the display, adjust and shoot again. Second, it probably makes more sense to consider the other factors in choosing your viewfinder: how big, how clear, how bright... I appreciate you offering your opinion, but my opinion differs. If I have the option of two 28mm finders and one of them provides a marginally bigger and brighter view but is badly misaligned on the vertical plane whereas the other aligns well, I'll go for the latter despite it offering a smaller and duller view. I realise that received wisdom around here is that all finders of the same focal length - Leica, Cosina, Zeiss - are more or less interchangeable, but they're really not. The problems don't arise because of the angle of view (which will be similar in all) but because of the plane of view (which can be surprisingly different). It would make perfect sense if the Q was engineered to take advantage of pre-existing Leica M accessories like external viewfinders, but I'm not going to assume that that's the case. For all I know they might have deliberately ensured a mismatch to allow them to bring to market a brand new lizard skin Q OVF. More likely, they haven't even thought about it. Thank you to Peter and Ian for an injection of common sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Hi almoore, Take a look here Does a 28mm brightline align with the Q?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
-Lss- Posted July 3, 2015 Share #22 Posted July 3, 2015 On the same topic, I am interested in hearing how the framing is with the Voigtländer 28mm viewfinder (DA426A or DA426B). Thanks to OP for starting this very relevant discussion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share #23 Posted July 3, 2015 Thanks to OP for starting this very relevant discussion. Thank you for helping to get this back on track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernie.lcf Posted July 3, 2015 Share #24 Posted July 3, 2015 If I have the option of two 28mm finders and one of them provides a marginally bigger and brighter view but is badly misaligned on the vertical plane whereas the other aligns well, I'll go for the latter despite it offering a smaller and duller view There are viewfinders on the market that are substantially larger and brighter than others (Zeiss comes to mind) - not just marginally brighter. In your case, you seem to have two viewfinders that are more or less similar, but one is visibly more accurate. I agree that in this case, you'd pick the more accurate one. As to viewfinders in general: I would not assume the different brands to be totally interchangeable. Leica M, Q and (Cosina) Voigtländer Bessa have hotshoes that are a little right of the center of the lens - they are not centered with the lens' optical axis. The Bessas, as far as I remember, are a little further to the right than the Leicas. Zeiss Ikon M hotshoe is closest to the center. Leica X1, X2, X-Vario and X (113) hotshoes are centered. Ricoh GR is centered Leica D-Lux is centered. The frames are going to be off horizontally when the viewfinders are mixed. Also, the vertical distance is going to influence the distance calibration, but this is going to change based on subject distance anyway - so, most people probably don't notice. The older Cosina viewfinders used to be offset to compensate the hotshoe placement. The current ones are apparently centered to the hotshoes (and therefore, offset to the lens' optical axis) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookedart Posted July 5, 2015 Share #25 Posted July 5, 2015 I find the q's evf nice enough in bright daylight. If it's extreme I usually just shade the top of the finder and it's very contrasty. I'm an eyeglass wearer so I'm sure there is some flare that exists because of the distance the evf is from my eye. That being said the hot shoe is quite offset from the lens. The central axis of the lens almost lines up with the left side of the hot shoe. This would make an ovf a little tricksy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 5, 2015 Share #26 Posted July 5, 2015 Which means that the finder would only line up at one distance, if at all, and for- and background will show parallax shift in all cases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
screwmount Posted July 6, 2015 Share #27 Posted July 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) why don't you use the built in EVF? it covers 100% and has no misalignment. ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted July 6, 2015 Author Share #28 Posted July 6, 2015 why don't you use the built in EVF? it covers 100% and has no misalignment. ... A more pressing question is this: why are you persistently attempting to derail a thread that is of no interest to you? I've explained why - in certain circumstances - I'm interested in using an external finder with the camera, so it's an absolute mystery as to why you're still confused. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.