M10 + Noctilux 50/0.95 + 1,4* magnifier

[didier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear all,

I am currently making a big part of my photos with my M(240) + 50/0.95 (also using the 75/1.4) with the 1,4* viewfinder magnifier. In low light I 'd like to have more clarity.

I am considering the M10 and wonder if the better viewfinder of the M10 (particularly brightness) is still much better than the M(240) with the viewfinder magnifier (as you need to use an adapter to screw it on, do you reduce the advantage ?)

Do any of you have experience with that ?

thanks

Didier

[farnz]

Hi, Didier,

 

The M10's viewfinder is much better than the M240's viewfinder (which was also a slight improvement on preceding digital M viewfinders).  Seasoned M film and digital users are typically surprised by the additional clarity, contrast, and slight magnification of the M10's viewfinder and I've found it easier to focus my f/1 Noctilux wide open with it.  I've released my f/0.95 Noctilux 'back into the wild' now but I found focussing it on my M240 was no more easy/difficult than my f/1 Noctilux so that might give you some idea.

 

I have to admit that I'm not a supporter of the Leica (or other suppliers') viewfinder magnifiers; I used them for some years and particularly the Leica 1.4x magnifier (which was comfortably the best) with my 90/2 APO-Summicron asph and left it on when using other lenses, partly for convenience and partly so it didn't get lost.  I took it off one day to use a 28 mm lens and was astonished by how much extra contrast my viewfinder showed without it (I'd become habituated) and how much easier lenses, even the 90 AA, were to focus without it.  Of course I wondered whether my magnifier had developed low contrast but when I tested others at my dealership there was no difference.  I haven't used one since and have been happily shooting the Noctilux, 75/1.4 Summilux, and 90 AA since.  YMMV of course.

 

Pete. 

[Advertisement]

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

[a.noctilux]

Same as Pete for me.

 

When long time ago, to used my M8, I needed to focus with a loupe x1.4 or 1.25 for Noctilux-M 1.0 and Summilux-M 1.4/75.

 

But when M9 came, I used the x1.4 less and less.

 

With M10, I have the threat adapter (24001) and after trying with x1.25, never use it again.

The VF from M10 is the best thing that I wasn't aware of and focussing is easy even in dim situations requiring Noctilux wide open.

Only the blockage of almost 1/4 finder, but if need be the Visoflex 020 can rescue.

[paulsydaus]

I wouldn’t say it’s much better than the 240. It is a little better for sure. Also consider EVF during low light.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[enboe]

From an optical engineering point of view, your success of focus will be tied to the calibration of the rangefinder+magnifier and the visual acuity of the focusing sensor, your Mk-1 eyeball.    The acuity of vision will be a function of magnification (which manifests itself in the form of the minimum radius of a circle of confusion on your retina, and the signal-to-noise ratio, which manifests itself as brightness.  Assuming well-calibrated rangefinder+magnifier, and decently-bright subjects, this should give maximum accuracy.

 

Of course live view is an excellent tool as well.  Live view provides a closed-loop feedback on your focus.  It's primary limitation is the display resolution, which is a couple of orders of magnitude lower than a healthy human eyeball.  The M240 Visoflex is not so good for resolution, the M10 version somewhat better, but the back screens are better in both cases.  I have not tried, but perhaps someone else here can comment on the Type-III vintage Visoflex on an M240 or M10.  This would give a pure optical path through the taking lens.  I know the Type-I and Type-II do not fit the tall-plate M's, not sure on the Type-III.  Comments, please.

 

Eric

[enboe]

A follow-up - you would, of course, lose speed and gain magnification with the Visoflex-III.

 

Eric

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Eric, Visoflex III (original reflex housing) would be useless for M10 + Noctilux.

[rafael_macia]

While a Noctilux M lens can, via an adapter, be used on a Visoflex III, it would end being a lens for extreme close-ups only. The Visoflex III, needs specific lenses, which have shorter mounts to compensate for the thickness of the Viso. A study of this chart 

<script src="safari-extension://com.ebay.safari.myebaymanager-QYHMMGCMJR/571f80e7/background/helpers/prefilterHelper.js" type="text/javascript"> </script>

might help show what I mean. 

Visoflex is a wonderful idea, but extremely complicated ........... the plumbing.

Rafael 

<script src="safari-extension://com.ebay.safari.myebaymanager-QYHMMGCMJR/571f80e7/background/helpers/prefilterHelper.js" type="text/javascript"> </script>

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[farnz]

I wouldn’t say it’s much better than the 240. It is a little better for sure. ...

"Tomayto, tomarto

Potayto, potarto ... "

 

Pete. 

[paulsydaus]

"Tomayto, tomarto

Potayto, potarto ... "

 

Pete.

Much and little are hardly the same as you imply with that analogy.

Previous posts implied implied a very large improvement in the M10. I think it’s important to be realistic and accurate when advising people about such a large investment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[farnz]

Much and little are hardly the same as you imply with that analogy.

Previous posts implied implied a very large improvement in the M10. I think it’s important to be realistic and accurate when advising people about such a large investment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The point I was making is that the amount of difference is subjective.  What is "much better" to me might be "a little better" to you.  To me the M10's rf is significantly clearer and easier to use than those in previous digital M's of which I've been fortunate to have owned two M8's, an M9-P, and an M240 so I'm in a position to offer an educated opinion.   I will ignore your implication that I was being unrealistic and inaccurate.

 

Pete.

Edited January 3, 2018 by farnz

[a.noctilux]

That is so true, everyone has different degres of "improvment" while talking gear.

 

In my opinion (only mine of course, other may differ) M10 is a big step ahead from M240 family in every way except battery life.

 

To come to the topic: even the magnifier that I needed to focus with previous Ms is irrelevant.

Edited January 3, 2018 by a.noctilux

[Photon42]

I did use a magnifier (1.25x, if I recall correctly) on the M9, but did not really saw the benefit on the M10. With my correctly adjusted Nokton 1.1/50, I do not have any focussing issues (other than the subject moves ...) with the M10.

[LeicaGuy2014]

I've got the 1.4x magnifier on my m10, along with a diopter correction. I can see sharply through this "adjusted" VF, but am unable to get photos to be in "focus." For some reason my photos come out "back focused" almost perfectly, which is annoying. I'm able to shoot my 35mm f/1.4 and get tack sharp photos. I'm not really sure why the Noctilux isn't working ... 

[farnz]

I've got the 1.4x magnifier on my m10, along with a diopter correction. I can see sharply through this "adjusted" VF, but am unable to get photos to be in "focus." For some reason my photos come out "back focused" almost perfectly, which is annoying. I'm able to shoot my 35mm f/1.4 and get tack sharp photos. I'm not really sure why the Noctilux isn't working ... 

 

It's possible that your rangefinder might be out of calibration.  The way to test this is to mount your M10 on a tripod, focus on an object using the rangefinder and take a picture and then without moving anything use the Visoflex 020 to focus on the object and take another picture.  If the rangefinder picture is not correctly focussed then your rangefinder needs calibrating.  If you don't have access to a Visoflex then you can do the same with the LCD and focus peaking but it might less accurate.  (To test whether the magnifier is the cause you could take a third picture through the rangefinder with the magnifier dismounted, assuming that it was mounted for the first picture of course.)

 

Pete.

[LeicaGuy2014]

Thanks, Pete!