Going to have to eat my earlier skepticism now...

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Sergius, I don't have the surviving M240 with me here to compare, ( it's on loan to a friend right now ), I sold the other one two days ago, but I was struck immediately with realizing that I couldn't see the corners of the 28mm frame lines well when I first picked up the camera.....So I guess yes, the M240 probably does show the WA lines better at least for me. Maybe it's the finder's "longer" viewing angle? As principally a WA shooter, ( very rarely above 50mm, 28mm being my "normal" ), with M's my favourite finder has always been the .58, but that's a memory now with the digital M's.

But it's no big deal because as I said I've always regarded the M frame lines as a rough not totally accurate guide and shoot accordingly.

Greater M10 magnification (.73x versus .68x), but offset due to the fact that the M10 VF has a larger opening and provides better eye relief.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

It pays to remember that the Leica M viewfinder as we have had it since the M2 emerged in 1958, is designed for nothing wider than a 35mm.

 

The 28mm lines were "squeezed in" with the M4-P of 1982, and were always grossly inaccurate compared to the other frames (you got far more in the final picture than the finder lines showed). Leica even revived a more-accurate separate 28mm external finder around 1998 (with the introduction of the 28mm Summicron), and also tried to compensate with the .58x internal viewfinder option (which no longer had enough magnification for a 135 lens).

 

With the M10 being optimized for framing at 2-2.5 meters, and the wider "high-eyepoint" eyepiece, the 28 lines do seem to have grown, to be a bit more accurate (but harder to see all at once).