Small Diopter Change, Big Improvement

[mdemeyer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I started with my M10 with the standard diopter since it seemed quite good. But I always felt my eye had to make a small adjustment when looking through the rangefinder to see the focus patch perfectly. I wear progressive glasses, for what that’s worth.

 

Went to the SF Leica Store and tried some diopters and found that a small change (+0.5) made a huge difference. The RF patch is crystal clear and it’s much easier to nail focus by judging the sharpness of the overlapped image rather than hunting for verticals to align.

 

If you haven’t tried some, strongly suggest you do. I didn’t realize how much that small change could improve things.

[Jeff S]

Same +0.5 for me, despite wearing glasses (for distance, astigmatism and sun protection). For those who don't have a similarly useful dealer nearby, a trip to a local optician will provide access to trial diopters that can be placed over the VF.

 

Jeff

Edited October 8, 2017 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

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

[marcg]

And of course it begs the question – why on earth haven't Leica fitted this new camera with an adjustable dioptre in exactly the same way that they have done with the Leica Q?

 

Is there some way that I don't understand that having an adjustable dioptre interferes with the Leica ethic or the rangefinder experience?

 

It is a kind of discriminatory behaviour from Leica to make their camera less accessible to people who are suffering from even a mild handicap of deteriorating vision and who were obliged to spend money on quite an expensive dioptre – and then get another one if there vision deteriorates still further.

 

The lack of an adjustable dioptre is an especially serious omission because the Leica/rangefinder experience depends hugely on good vision in order to focus the camera. Good vision is not simply needed for framing the scene.

 

A shame that somebody doesn't come up with an adjustable dioptre which can screw directly into the eyepiece position on the M10 and indeed on all of the other M cameras.

 

What on earth are Leica thinking about? This must be about the only modern camera in the world that is not equipped with an adjustable dioptre to make it more accessible to people with some kind of visual handicap.

[Reciprocity]

 

It is a kind of discriminatory behaviour from Leica to make their camera less accessible to people who are suffering from even a mild handicap of deteriorating vision and who were obliged to spend money on quite an expensive dioptre – and then get another one if there vision deteriorates still further.

 

I was wondering just how expensive they could be and took a look at what B&H had listed....holy moly, $175 for an M10 diopter. That is no small change!

[01af]

There simply is no room inside the Leica M body for an adjustable eyepiece without compromising quality and water-resistance. The Leica Q's eyepiece has an entirely different design, as it just looks at a tiny monitor rather than out a big optical viewfinder.

 

And yes, adding a small correction will make a huge difference in comfort and focus accuracy. +1.0 dpt for me.

[jaapv]

 

And of course it begs the question – why on earth haven't Leica fitted this new camera with an adjustable dioptre in exactly the same way that they have done with the Leica Q?

 

Is there some way that I don't understand that having an adjustable dioptre interferes with the Leica ethic or the rangefinder experience?

 

It is a kind of discriminatory behaviour from Leica to make their camera less accessible to people who are suffering from even a mild handicap of deteriorating vision and who were obliged to spend money on quite an expensive dioptre – and then get another one if there vision deteriorates still further.

 

The lack of an adjustable dioptre is an especially serious omission because the Leica/rangefinder experience depends hugely on good vision in order to focus the camera. Good vision is not simply needed for framing the scene.

 

A shame that somebody doesn't come up with an adjustable dioptre which can screw directly into the eyepiece position on the M10 and indeed on all of the other M cameras.

 

What on earth are Leica thinking about? This must be about the only modern camera in the world that is not equipped with an adjustable dioptre to make it more accessible to people with some kind of visual handicap.

 

Here you are:

 

http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/accessories/ms-mag-x1.35-magnifier-for-leica-m.html

 

It will need the adapter, though, is a magnifier as well and only of reasonable optical quality.

 

It does illustrate, however, that avariable diopter is not a simple thing to implement.

[marcg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Fuji X100 series is a very small lightweight camera and which uses a variable dioptre with its OVF

 

Also you could get five X100 cameras for the cost of one Leica M10 – or three for the cost of one Leica Q

Edited October 8, 2017 by marcg

[CJJon]

There simply is no room inside the Leica M body for an adjustable eyepiece without compromising quality and water-resistance. 

 

I disagree. The M10 really isn't filled to capacity with electronics. Just look at images of the inside of the camera and you will see there is actually plenty of room around the finder assembly. This is not a novel idea. There exist examples of very small, unobtrusive adjustable viewfinders in the market right now. 

 

Exactly what quality aspect would be compromised? Also, how could simple water resistance stymie German engineering? 

 

Leica could certainly figure it out if they wished to, it's a trivial technical challenge. They simply choose not to for other reasons. 

[CJJon]

 

 

It does illustrate, however, that avariable diopter is not a simple thing to implement.

 

Yes, for an aftermarket add-on variable diopter it is. 

 

Different ball of fish if we are talking about a Leica engineered design change. It really wouldn't be a technical challenge. 

[pop]

I disagree. The M10 really isn't filled to capacity with electronics. Just look at images of the inside of the camera and you will see there is actually plenty of room around the finder assembly. This is not a novel idea. There exist examples of very small, unobtrusive adjustable viewfinders in the market right now. 

 

Exactly what quality aspect would be compromised? Also, how could simple water resistance stymie German engineering? 

 

Leica could certainly figure it out if they wished to, it's a trivial technical challenge. They simply choose not to for other reasons. 

Perhaps you'd care to look at some more drawings. The Leica M camera has not a viewfinder but a rangefinder. These are very complex opto-mechanical devices where the placement and the spacing of the components makes or breaks the device. Leica has succeeded in markedly improving the rangefinder from the M9 to the M (Typ 240) and again to the M10. Putting those improvements at risk by integrating still more elements would not be welcome to many users. I, for one, would not profit from an adjustable ocular as my eyes need a cylindrical correction.

[CJJon]

Perhaps you'd care to look at some more drawings. The Leica M camera has not a viewfinder but a rangefinder. These are very complex opto-mechanical devices where the placement and the spacing of the components makes or breaks the device. Leica has succeeded in markedly improving the rangefinder from the M9 to the M (Typ 240) and again to the M10. Putting those improvements at risk by integrating still more elements would not be welcome to many users. I, for one, would not profit from an adjustable ocular as my eyes need a cylindrical correction.

 

I'd love to see more technical drawings. Do you have some to share?

 

Again, it really isn't a technical challenge. What you are talking about is aesthetics and staying within the confines of what is deemed a proper Leica rangefinder camera. What elements of the rangefinder optical system would be put at risk by adding an adjustable diopter to the eyepiece? These two design elements are not mutually exclusive.

 

Your particular profit from the redesign is irrelevant to the discussion. 

[Stealth3kpl]

 What elements of the rangefinder optical system would be put at risk by adding an adjustable diopter to the eyepiece? These two design elements are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

Introducing more elements to the system will inevitably reduce brightness and contrast to some extent. Weight will be increased. Mechanical stability of the optical system is another consideration. That said, the adjustable eyepiece of the Leica 111f is wonderful and I would like to see one implemented in the M bodies in an ideal world. However, as Leica went from implementing an adjustable system in the screw thread bodies to no adjustable system in the M3 and beyond, I would guess that there is great difficulty in producing an acceptable compromise in the case of the combined rangefinder viewfinder of the M.

Pete

Edited October 8, 2017 by Stealth3kpl

[Reciprocity]

I'd love to see more technical drawings. Do you have some to share?

 

Again, it really isn't a technical challenge. What you are talking about is aesthetics and staying within the confines of what is deemed a proper Leica rangefinder camera. What elements of the rangefinder optical system would be put at risk by adding an adjustable diopter to the eyepiece? These two design elements are not mutually exclusive.

 

Your particular profit from the redesign is irrelevant to the discussion.

The optical path of the viewfinder in an M with a true mechanical RF is pretty small as it is, I bet adding a diopter would increase the thickness of the body in that area by 30-50%.

 

If Leica sticks to the traditional thickness of the M and a mechanical RF as they really should, then I highly doubt an adjustable diopter would be workable. I mean, how many iterations of the M body since the M3 have they made?

 

It's not like people only started asking for an alternative to screw in diopters when digital M's hit the scene. There are quirks to the M cameras and screw in diopters seem to be one of the more prolific ones.

[marcg]

So here's another suggestion – and which would allow Leica to demonstrate how customer-facing and socially aware they are.

 

They offer their M cameras with a dioptre of your choosing as part of the basic purchase price. So if you're buying a camera and you need a +2 – then it arrives fitted with a +2 for no more money.

 

Does that work?

 

(Incidentally, I don't buy all the stuff about it not being a practical proposition to fit an adjustable dioptre in a rangefinder.

Three possibilities: –

1. Leica didn't think of it
2. Leica deliberately avoided it because of some slavish adherence to a Leica tradition
3. Leica thought about it but decided that there was good money to be made by selling dioptres

take your choice)

Edited October 18, 2017 by marcg

[Luke_Miller]

The 1938 Leica IIIb introduced the  adjustable diopter on the rangefinder.  Of course this magnified RF was only for focusing while a second eyepiece showed the full frame (without framelines) for composition. So I don't think Leica has an objection to adjustable diopters, and the stated reason for not offering it in the moderm M bodies is correct.

[@ndy_ellis]

 

So here's another suggestion – and which would allow Leica to demonstrate how customer-facing and socially aware they are.

 

They offer their M cameras with a dioptre of your choosing as part of the basic purchase price. So if you're buying a camera and you need a +2 – then it arrives fitted with a +2 for no more money.

 

Does that work?

 

(Incidentally, I don't buy all the stuff about it not being a practical proposition to fit an adjustable dioptre in a rangefinder.

Three possibilities: –

1. Leica didn't think of it
2. Leica deliberately avoided it because of some slavish adherence to a Leica tradition
3. Leica thought about it but decided that there was good money to be made by selling dioptres

take your choice)

 

This reminds me of the Billy Connolly joke where he kidded his dad that you could get a prescription windscreen for his car.