M-A vs M10 viewfinder

[peggers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello!

I’m looking to get an M-A and just out of curiosity wanted to know if anyone had made a comparison of its viewfinder vs the M10’s?

My understanding is that the M10’s is a little more robust and brighter. Has anyone seen a real world difference?

Many thanks,

peggers

 

www.pegden.co.uk

[wattsy]

There's a view held by some here that the M-A has some kind of "improved" VF on a par with the one in the M10. I don't have the latter to compare but IMO the M-A VF is the same as the one that has been used for donkey's years in other M film bodies like the MP and M7.

[a.noctilux]

After some years of using M-A and M10 (and others...), I don't 'see' any difference in real life using.

Each one has the best viewfinder of Leica M which I use, in clarity and contrast.

 

To be picky, M10 (x0.73) can be a bit superior to M-A (x0.72) which in turn is "cleaner" at whole, without any LED and complete frame lines.

M10 has a bit longer eye-relief / wider opening which needs larger (+2mm) correction lens or magnifier

( I use the adapter 24001(12mm to 14mm ring) if I need to use my older stuffs from old M days)

The permanent frame lines showing in M-A is more natural than time-out lines of M10.

 

RF focussing for me has same quality which is the most important on Leica M.

[davidmknoble]

3 hours ago, wattsy said:

There's a view held by some here that the M-A has some kind of "improved" VF on a par with the one in the M10. I don't have the latter to compare but IMO the M-A VF is the same as the one that has been used for donkey's years in other M film bodies like the MP and M7.

I agree - The MP and MA seemed to have essentially equivalent viewfinders, but I'm old and blind....

 

[davidmknoble]

I also agree here with the eye relief.  Comparing the M10 to previous digital models, I do think the M10 is an improvement, especially with glasses on.  

For film, I invested a while back in two a-la-carte MP's.  One with the 0.85 finder and one with the 0.58 finder.  I can tell you that using 35mm on up with the 0.85 finder is great and a lot like the old M3's.  The 0.58 is great for wide angle the there is a 28mm frame and the 24mm lens is essentially full coverage, so while the focusing isn't easy, its perfect for wide angles with more depth of field anyway.  Not for everyone, but I like it.

[Dennis]

 

On 3/4/2020 at 7:08 AM, davidmknoble said:

The 0.58 is great for wide angle the there is a 28mm frame and the 24mm lens is essentially full coverage,

 

Exactly. I was looking for viewfinder options on Leica camera, and I found this: 

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!

Wow!!! Like John Belushi, I saw the light! 😃 I now understood that (despite I never tried), I'm definitely a 0.58 viewfinder guy. I don't struggle with my M10 with a 35, but to be honest, I would love to have a bit more space around the frame lines. And I don't like at all the 28mm frame lines. I also know that I would love to get in the future a 24mm Elmar. So... With a 0.58, I would see much much better my 35 frame lines, much better the 28mm, and guestimate more accurately the 24mm frame without an external viewfinder. Awesome. So, here go the questions for you, the experts.

 

• Can I change my M10 viewfinder (from 0.73 to 0.58), and how would it cost?
• Is a de-magnifier a good option?
• Is it a bit more difficult to focus? Is the patch little or much smaller?

The only lens I would use would be 24-35-50. I don't need a longer FL.
Thank you in advance for your feedback.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Dennis

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dennis,

i'd just use one of ... those, depending on situation

Visoflex 020

or 12013/12014

or the best of add-on finder, not Leica made but usable on all Leica made since 1925, Zoom Finder 15-35

 

😉 que te diviertas

[Dennis]

Thanks for the links. The point would be to use a RF camera with only looking at the VF, w/o using an external VF. That's would be awesome. Because I prefer to shoot in the 24-50 range, and a 0.58 VF will meet my requirements I think. I don't like the idea of looking in one VF to focus, and in another VF to compose. Also, if I would use another VF, I would have to take off my Thumbs Up: and I really want it.

That's why the magic should happen only in the OVF, IMO.

 But as I always say, i'm new in the Leica world, and I still need to try many new things and gadgets. Step by step

[davidmknoble]

@Dennis As far as I know, the ONLY rangefinder replacement is for the film cameras.  I have never seen a digital camera adjusted for size.  However, the EVF for the M10 series is much better than the EVF for the prior series.  Not near as good as the SL or SL2, but workable.

[Dennis]

4 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

the EVF for the M10 series is much better than the EVF for the prior series.  Not near as good as the SL or SL2, but workable.

I heard very good things about SL2 EVF 🙌

 

[IkarusJohn]

I’ve tried to photograph my M9M, M-A & M10-D through the viewfinder with my iPhone, with zero success and significant frustration!

Trying one after the other, each with a 50 mounted, the M10-D viewfinder is brighter and crisper than the other two.  The M-A is better than the M9M, the latter seeming a little yellower.  I appreciate that the magnification of each is slightly different - M9 (0.68), M-A (0.72) & M10 (0.73).  I agree that the M-A doesn’t appear to have the same viewfinder as the M10, but it is uncluttered.  I actually don’t mind the Monochrom viewfinder at all - I take my glasses off to use these cameras as my eyesight is good since my cataract surgery.  

Interestingly, the 75mm frame lines (often criticised) are quite different.  The M9 has adequate framelines, with corners and a couple of lines on the top and on the bottom - not great, but adequate; the M-A has tiny corners and nothing more; but the M10 has reasonably good framelines.  I guess this must be taken in the context that framing with an M is approximate at best.

Which viewfinder is better?  M10, hands down.

[adan]

A key difference between the M-A and M10 finders: the first (like every film M since 1954) uses ambient light to illuminate the framelines full-time (even when the camera is "off") by way of the third rectangular serrated window on the front, while the M10 uses an internal LED to back-illuminate the frameline slits, and only when turned on.

I can't say one or the other is "better," but they may react differently to how light is falling on the front of the camera. In some situations, the lines of either can be a bit poorly lit (and thus hard to see against the scene).

Additionally, in making a major revise of the whole RF/VF for the M10, the front viewing window is physically quite a bit larger than even the previous digital Ms, and also the M-A. By several mm in width as well as height.

I would guess that was done as part of increasing both the magnification and the high-eyepoint at the same time (a difficult trick). I have no idea how that affects the "view" through them, although it may explain the M10 looking "brighter." But obviously the M-A finder has worked satisfactorily for decades in previous cameras from the M2 on (just with changes to which lines are shown).

Speaking of which, it intrigues me to hear that the M-A has reverted to the original 1981 M4-P 75mm markings (just small corner tick marks). I guess that has the plus of making the 75 markings less distracting for 50mm users. Myabe not as nice for dedicated 75 users, however.

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!

 

[wattsy]

5 hours ago, adan said:

Speaking of which, it intrigues me to hear that the M-A has reverted to the original 1981 M4-P 75mm markings (just small corner tick marks).

In the interests of accuracy (which this forum is renowned for), the M-A wasn't the first modern M camera to revert to an older style 75mm tick markings. The MP, in its limited edition MP Classic guise (the non-metered version of the MP that was commissioned by Schmidt for the Asian market), used the exact same frame masks. In fact, that camera was pretty much the model for the M-A – the only difference that I can tell, apart from paint finish, is that the M-A has a more elaborate film speed reminder dial on the back. The MP Classic uses a rather cheap feeling metal disc that I presume you are meant to mark with a pencil.

Incidentally, Andy, the M-A/MP Classic frame mask set also includes a reduced 135mm frame (corner tick marks again) so you get a nice uncluttered view of both 35mm and 50mm frames. A change I rather like but, now that I only really use a 28mm or 90mm, is of little personal benefit.

[adan]

2 hours ago, wattsy said:

The MP Classic uses a rather cheap feeling metal disc that I presume you are meant to mark with a pencil.

Ah - another throwback to the "cost-saving" Canadian M4-2/P bodies.

https://www.cameraquest.com/m4p84.htm