Looking To Reduce VF Magnification

[typ3656]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Larger diameter opening. There are newly sized diopters to fit, if necessary. I use a +.5 diopter, in addition to my eyeglasses, to optimize viewing with my aging eyes.

Jeff

I get it now. Thanks a lot for your help, Jeff!

[SteveYork]

I wear glasses, shoot film Leica's (M2) and use pretty exclusively the 35mm focal length.  Couple considerations

As mentioned, if you reduce the viewfinder magnification, the eye relief gets better, easier to see the frame lines, but it's harder to manual focus with the smaller image.  One of the several reasons people liked rangefinders for the 35mm focal length (in the manual focus film days) is that, compared to an SLR, you have this significantly bigger image to focus.  If you reduce that image, you lose of one of the benefits of a rangefinder.  

Then when Leica added a 28mm frame line to (I think) the M4-P, it squeezed all the other images smaller.  I'm assuming this is still true with the digital M's.  Long way of saying, your 35mm frame line isn't that accurate way.  It's more like a 40mm, at least that was true with later film M's.  And that's why we have the ability to crop images, because framing with a rangefinder isn't totally accurate even in ideal circumstances.  Compared to an old M, you'll get more typically then what you see within the frame.  As an aside, Leica justified the change, by claiming the smaller frame lines were more accurate for slide photography, where you lose a bit of image to slide sleeve. 

Here's what helped me though.  If you really want to learn a focal length, to see its' dimensions with you eyes alone, just use that focal length exclusively for a period of time, six months or a year, and at the end of that time it's remarkable how your vision will just naturally see the world through that lens.  Some lenses are easy -- 21mm is your entire vision, including your peripheral; 50mm is your vision with blinders, 90mm is like one eye with blinders.  A 35mm is hard to describe but it too is easy to see.  When you can see like that, there's less concern with rangefinder framing issues.  

Just some things to consider.  Good luck with whatever you do.  Rangefinders and glasses always involve tradeoffs.

Edited July 16, 2020 by SteveYork

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, SteveYork said:

 Then when Leica added a 28mm frame line to (I think) the M4-P, it squeezed all the other images smaller.  I'm assuming this is still true with the digital M's.  Long way of saying, your 35mm frame line isn't that accurate way.  It's more like a 40mm, at least that was true with later film M's.  And that's why we have the ability to crop images, because framing with a rangefinder isn't totally accurate even in ideal circumstances.  Compared to an old M, you'll get more typically then what you see within the frame.  As an aside, Leica justified the change, by claiming the smaller frame lines were more accurate for slide photography, where you lose a bit of image to slide sleeve. 

 

Not really.  Frame line accuracy relates to camera's frame line distance optimization relative to the actual subject distance, as I posted here (see also 01af's post in the linked thread)...

 

Jeff

[davidmknoble]

I wear glasses, so a couple thoughts.  My eyesight is really poor.  I use the -3.0 diopters on all my M’s and then everything is in focus without my glasses (love the SL and S diopter adjustments built in).

I have the 0.58 and 0.85.  The 0.58 I only use with 35mm and wider, so the focusing is not an issue.  Using longer focal lengths do cause errors with f/stops for slimmer DOF.  However, I can easily see the full frame which is effective a 24mm lens. Obviously, the 0.85 is great for 35mm to 135mm.

The key is I put a strap on my glasses to I can take them off, let them hang around my neck and shoot. Then it’s easy to put them back on.  Over time I found, regardless of the camera, eyeglasses are not for looking through things.  I don’t use them with binoculars either.  I’m too far from the reticle and I end up pushing them against my face and so they need cleaned with a glasses wipe more often.

Even with the standard 0.72, I use a diopter corrector and take them off.  Loved contacts but my aging eyes are too dry now, so I use a strap.

My 2 cents…

[Dennis]

9 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

The 0.58 I only use with 35mm and wider

FWIU, w/ a 0.58x the 35 frame lines (FL) will appear similar to a 50FL on 0.72x, or is too much?

and

(same with the 0.58) the 28mm FL should look like the 35 FL

.

Something like that? Can you take a snapshot with your smartphone of what the 35FL looks like with a 0.78x? That would be fantastic. More than anything, to understand how far the FL are from the edge of the VF and how smaller the focus patch.

[davidmknoble]

@Dennis, Yes, I’ll try to post later today… 

Here is an image from https://www.EMULSIVE.org that shows some comparisons of size of frames. Also interesting is that the rangefinder patch is the same size in all 3 magnifications.  This is important because using magnifiers on the eyepiece enlarge the patch (making it more accurate). But, it means carrying around a magnifier, keeping up with it and putting it on and off.  I prefer the different body and finder, but just MHO.

 

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!

Edited August 12, 2023 by davidmknoble
Added