teehas53 Posted June 8, 2007 Share #21 Posted June 8, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) OK, now to really get things going: Aren't we supposed to accept less-than-perfect framing as part of the rangefinder fun? I am using the Leica tri-finder and it's, well, less-than-perfect. But it is convenient, and accurate enough for most situations. What I REALLY miss (compared to SLRs) is an adjustable diopter. My eyesight falls neatly between no correction and the first available screw-in diopter... Here's an interesting tidbit: with the tri-finder, at 21 and 28, the view is somewhat blurred to my eye, but at 24 it's perfect! The "correction" changes as you "zoom." T Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 8, 2007 Posted June 8, 2007 Hi teehas53, Take a look here Zeiss Viewfinder debate for the WATE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pelikan1931 Posted June 8, 2007 Share #22 Posted June 8, 2007 i have the zeiss 15mm viewfinder, which has big and bright view, (as compared with the leica finder for wide tri-elmar). i wonder if it is possible zeiss could simply put the frameline for 18mm and 20mm on the same finder. there is plenty of space, provided you don't mind the somewhat busy view. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted June 8, 2007 Share #23 Posted June 8, 2007 Tom, don't you need a Milich adapter for your WATE? I have this weird filterholder and a cheap UV filter, but I don't use it. I have not received the Leica filters yet. AS you see, I don't use filters just for protection. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted June 8, 2007 Share #24 Posted June 8, 2007 dont have the wate (yet) but the 15cv and 21 cv and even if the side-ratio is 3:4 I think the small optical external finder for the Ricoh grd which has a 21 and a 28 frame works pretty good. Its small, bright, not expensive. Others using it too? cheers, tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tourmie green Posted June 19, 2007 Share #25 Posted June 19, 2007 Greetings all. I have been watching this thread with interest as I am yet to make any long term decisions about wide lenses for my M8.I favour a simple combination to replace a film equivalent of 24mm combined with 35/50mm in the middle.I am hoping the forthcoming 18mm Zeiss is going to fit the bill but in the meantime recently bought a lovely used 21mm Zeiss with finder.The quality of the finder in combination with my everyday glasses was a pleasant shock! I immediately sold a used Leitz 21/24/28 v/f which I was struggling with. It got me thinking that if I do eventually go the WATE route that I also buy the 25/28 Zeiss finder and find a way of combining the two together side by side on my M8. - I think there is voightlander tandem holder that might facilitate this;I must drop the guys at Robert White a line to see if they can try it out for me. I will feed back when I get a reply. Best regards to all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Campbell Posted June 19, 2007 Share #26 Posted June 19, 2007 dont have the wate (yet) but the 15cv and 21 cv and even if the side-ratio is 3:4 I think the small optical external finder for the Ricoh grd which has a 21 and a 28 frame works pretty good.Its small, bright, not expensive. Others using it too? cheers, tom Yes. The framing is actually pretty good. It's offset to the right of the hotshoe attachment so it obscurs the shutter speed dial. Surprisingly free from distortion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoff Posted June 19, 2007 Share #27 Posted June 19, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...It got me thinking that if I do eventually go the WATE route that I also buy the 25/28 Zeiss finder and find a way of combining the two [21mm Zeiss finder] together side by side on my M8. - I think there is voightlander tandem holder that might facilitate this... Ivan, I have both the Zeiss Z1 21mm and 25/28mm viewfinders along with one of the Voigtlander Double Accessory Shoes. Both viewfinders mount perfectly, side-by-side, in the double accessory shoe with only a hairline gap between them. The total cost for all three items is about USD$613.ºº, which is close to what one would pay for the Leica Universal Wide-Angle Viewfinder. Therefore, I think it really becomes a matter of weighing out the pros and cons of each solution in terms of size versus parallax accuracy as both options equal in about the best otical quality I have found in a viewfinder. Geoff www.myspace.com/geoffotos Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted June 19, 2007 Share #28 Posted June 19, 2007 Hi folks well today i spent the whole day with a Frankenfinder and it really is very nice for several reasons. Not as big as you may think but still big but it screws down and have to say that is a huge plus since my zeiss 25/28 hit the deck yesterday , still fine but my heart fell out of my chest with it. Also having a 12mm CV lens you pick up that also with it , so 4 focal lengths, actually 5 . Now it does have more distortion than the Zeiss which is the best in this area but the framelines are very accurate and the bubble level is a huge plus. I may get one anyway and maybe just have the Zeiss and the Frankenfinder. In Solms we saw them being put together and very well made as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tourmie green Posted June 19, 2007 Share #29 Posted June 19, 2007 Thanks for your input Geoff. I knew I could rely on a resident of Philadelphia for some friendly informative feedback.As I have not commited to a WATE yet I can still take advantage of the combi price if I decide to go that way,but I will probably still get the 25/28 finder and the voight.double shoe.I also have a 21/2.8 Zeiss and the 28 will cover that quite nicely. I wonder if Leica will ever extend their current try b4 you buy scheme to the WATE. - I'm sure it would push a few more punters "over the edge" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted June 19, 2007 Share #30 Posted June 19, 2007 Olsen - thank you for posting that image. I agonised somewhat over which should be my first M8 lens, and whilst traditionally a 'wide' shooter, even the 30% off special deal couldn't eventually attract me to the WATE because of the hideous Frankenfinder, and the lack of a suitable alternative finder. By that I mean a finder with a built in spirit level, for me that is a pre-requisite for wide angle shooting. I too considered the Zeiss finders for the WATE and rejected them as incomplete designs. I did not realise it at the time, but I guess I was spoilt by the finder on my Mamiya 7 super-wide 43 mm lens which has an accurate spirit bubble viewed in the finder, and variable diopter correction. I expect no less of Leica, and personally think the Frankenfinder is a shameful piece of crap design not worthy of production this side of 1945. I fully sympathise with Guy's dillemma, rangefinder shooting subjects on wide angles without a built in spirit level can be very problematic. The picture with the Frankenfinder on top of the M8 reminds me I made the right decision forgoing the WATE; I chose the 24 instead, but the finder problem for my second [wide] lens will not go away. .................Chris After borrowing A Frankenfinder from Leica Academie and using it with the WATE for the past two days I can honestly say that to buy the WATE without the finder is a mistake. i don't care what it looks like this is a seriously bright finder and with the bubble level etc makes so much sense. So particularly if you are buying new with your 30% discount get the finder...............and don't worry about anything else. This is serious good stuff Woody Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dseelig Posted June 20, 2007 Share #31 Posted June 20, 2007 HI Guy and guys I got Guy's 21 zeiss and for the 15 it is very nice but the 15 does give a little more in the frame then the lines say. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted June 20, 2007 Share #32 Posted June 20, 2007 Why use any finder for 21mm when you can use the M8 viewfinder AND FOCUS at the same time ? This is digital, precise framing is totally irrelevant. Also, why would you ever need a spirit level ? Again, this is digital: CTRL T in photoshop and rotate, flip, squash, stretch, resize as much or as little as you like. WATE + small CV 21mm (for 16mm) finder sounds to me like the most cost effective and efficient combination. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted June 20, 2007 Share #33 Posted June 20, 2007 Why use any finder for 21mm when you can use the M8 viewfinder AND FOCUS at the same time ? This is digital, precise framing is totally irrelevant. Also, why would you ever need a spirit level ? Again, this is digital: CTRL T in photoshop and rotate, flip, squash, stretch, resize as much or as little as you like. 1) Because I dont want to postprocess each image in PS 2) because I dont want to loose 2 from the 10 MP with cropping an image afterwards because of unprecise framing 3) 24mm frame hard to see, so I still dont get it that the whole viewfinder should show the 21mm frame- it does not IMO, as long as I dont put my eye into the glass of the viewfinder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted June 20, 2007 Share #34 Posted June 20, 2007 You don't want to lose a few pixels here or there (perhaps you are printing poster sized prints for everything ? 10mp is *more* than enough for 99.9% of needs) yet at the same time your shots don't seem important enough to post process at all ? Without wishing to sound provocative, that all sounds a bit paradoxical. All digital shots require post processing. Its an inherent part of the medium. Its like saying you want to shoot film but won't be developing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted June 20, 2007 Share #35 Posted June 20, 2007 You don't want to lose a few pixels here or there (perhaps you are printing poster sized prints for everything ? 10mp is *more* than enough for 99.9% of needs) yet at the same time your shots don't seem important enough to post process at all ? Without wishing to sound provocative, that all sounds a bit paradoxical. All digital shots require post processing. Its an inherent part of the medium. Its like saying you want to shoot film but won't be developing. 1) I mainly shoot raw and do some adjustments in raw conversion. (c1) I do not postprocess each image (I didnt say any image) in Photoshop. If I would do a big print I would probably do some additional post, and for such a print I also can use each of the 10MP pixel. Usually I dont know in the moment of taking an image if I want to print it big one day. Paradoxical to me is if you loose time and image quality correcting something in post what you could have done better in the first step but did not on purpose. Cheers, Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtelierM Posted June 29, 2007 Share #36 Posted June 29, 2007 What would preclude the M8 from having a preview or live view using the LCD Monitor to determine the image to be taken? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Yoder Posted June 29, 2007 Share #37 Posted June 29, 2007 My WATE and finder arrived yesterday. The lens is a little narrower than I expected it to be ... but I'm impressed that the lens is as small as it is in size. Kurt Kurt, when did you send your order in to Solms? Did they notify you that it was coming and would charge your credit card? TIA, Stan Yoder Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted June 29, 2007 Share #38 Posted June 29, 2007 This is a good debate . I wish we would have done the side by side comparison in Germany. Because the Leica Akademie loans lenses to participants, we had probably 10 WATE s and frankenfinders between our personal copies and the Akademies. I used my Zeiss finders with the WATE everyday for over 12 days of shooting but did not compare it to the Frankenfinder. The advantages of the Zeiss finders are (1) size (2) brightness and lack of distortion. . Since it can not be adjusted for distance ...you have to decide how you would like to set it up. I set my finders up to provide a tight but accurate frame at my typical distance to subject....12ft to infinity. For me the 21 finder matched the 18 not the 16. Whenever I put part of the subject inside 12 ft......the lens was tighter than the finder.....I had to estimate and check my images . I found this method worked very well especially as I built experience and feel for the FOV . The 18 was always my starting point( I had the 24 on a 2nd body ). Converting to the 16 was easy ..just the opposite ...at distance the Zeiss 21 finder was a little tight.....close up it matched perfectly. Using the 21 required either guessing and a little trial and error or changing to the other finder(Zeiss 25/28). This was definately too much work ..I would not do this frequently in the field. The Frankenfinder is definately a precision optic..we watched a technician assembling the finder. Its is bright and with adjustments can match any of your wide angles from 12mm thru 24mm..both near and far. I got one with my WATE but haven t done a side by side comparison with the Zeiss. For now I will continue to use the Zeiss. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwfreund Posted June 29, 2007 Share #39 Posted June 29, 2007 What would preclude the M8 from having a preview or live view using the LCD Monitor to determine the image to be taken? The M8 already has nearly that feature. Push the shutter release and you can see what you got on the lcd. If you like it, keep it, else delete. -bob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidigital Posted June 29, 2007 Share #40 Posted June 29, 2007 Stan, I don't remember the exact date I ordered, but it was early in the process. I have a very early November M8. I received no notification that it was on its way ... it just arrived one day (the same day my credit card was charged). I was sweating it as I wanted to use it for a number of projects and a trip to Europe and was uncertain if it would arrive in time. I'm good to go now with the filter, holder and lens. (Oh, in my opinion, it can be a long wait, but it is worth it.) Kurt 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.