iiif eyepiece size?

[Rhys]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi folks. I'm looking at buying a iiif as my first Leica, but it doesn't matter how much I google I can't seam to see an indication on how big the eyepieces are and only one or two blurred pics looking through the rangefinder bit. I wear glasses sp don't know if anything really small would be any good, and I've never handled one, only an M years ago in the late 90's at a Focus show on Birmingham.

I've also been looking at Canon IVsb's as well (with the option of using Leica LTM lenses) as they show 1.1 with built in magnification for other lenses. Even looked into Canon P for the bigger viewfinder and LTM mount, but they are mostly in Japan at a decent price. The thought of owning a Leica keeps bringing me back to the iiif though (iiig is too expensive for me at the min).

I love the compact nature of my Fuji X-Pro2 but it isn't a proper rangefinder, and I've gone off my Nikon D3s as its too heavy to cart around so I'll probably end up selling it before the prices plummet any more (which will bring me into M territory).

Can anyone take a few pics of a iiif viewfinder next to a penny or similar to give me an idea of size, and maybe a few pics from a camera phone showing the rangefinder split screen and viewfinder please.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[TomB_tx]

The Canon IVSB has an incredibly tiny VF aperture - clearly not intended for eyeglass wearers. They increased the size on the IVSB2, but it's still smaller than the IIIf. I've worn glasses for over 60 years and like to use the IIIf (and other old Leicas), but I can't quite see the whole frame at once. The IIIg is quite an improvement, as the VF covers more than a 50 FOV - which is shown by bright lines (parallax adjusted) in the finder. As a result I use a IIIg more than the other Leica ltm models.

Other than the VF aperture size the IVSB is perhaps a better camera than the IIIf.

The major improvement of course was with the Leica M models, but of course the cost is still high on these. The later Canon models (especially the P and 7) have large eyepieces and are also very good for eyeglass wearers. They still take ltm lenses, but the camera bodies are bulkier.

The solution for the IIIf is to use a Leica accessory 5cm viewfinder in the accessory shoe - the SBOOI finder is small with a wonderful view, even with glasses. Since the IIIf has separate eyepieces for VF and RF you already have to switch between them to focus and frame, so the SBOOI is not inconvenient.

[Stacey]

The nice thing about a Barnack is most have an adjustment for your eyesight on the focus port, which is where it matters and needs to be clear/sharp. I have around a -2.5 glasses and that is within the adjustment for the focus port. The compose port is obviously a bit blurry without glasses due to my vision but that's not a big deal in use.

[farnz]

The diameters of the rangefinder window and viewfinder window are the same: 6 mm.

Pete.

[spydrxx]

I also wear eyeglasses and for many years avoided the Barnacks while owning an M4 because I thought it would be too "squinty". Like TomB_tx, yes the viewfinder is small and squinty and the camera is best used with an auxiliary finder for framing, BUT the magnified rangefinder is a blessing, as the adjustment, sometimes referred to as a diopter, easily lets you visually nail focus. I also have a Canon P, which is OK, but IMHO not up to Leica LTM standards as it has no "diopter" adjustment for near-distant objects, and having owned a Canon IIB as well, I didn't find its rangefinder as well defined as the Leicas. Personally, I'd advise you to go with a Leica as your first RF body for a number of reasons: 1) you'd always wonder if the Leica was better than what you bought if you selected another, 2) the Leicas are more readily serviced, although some others may be slightly better constructed, 3) Leicas tend to hold value better than many others in similar shape - whether you are a user or a collector. FWIW I'm quite fond of the later Niccas which incorporate the best of ltm Leicas as well as some features of the later M bodies, but seem much more scarce, at least in the USA, even though they sold under the Tower brand by Sears or Montgomery Wards.

[Rhys]

12 minutes ago, farnz said:

The diameters of the rangefinder window and viewfinder window are the same: 6 mm.

Pete.

Thanks Pete, that's what I was wanting to know.

 

18 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

I also wear eyeglasses and for many years avoided the Barnacks while owning an M4 because I thought it would be too "squinty". Like TomB_tx, yes the viewfinder is small and squinty and the camera is best used with an auxiliary finder for framing, BUT the magnified rangefinder is a blessing, as the adjustment, sometimes referred to as a diopter, easily lets you visually nail focus. I also have a Canon P, which is OK, but IMHO not up to Leica LTM standards as it has no "diopter" adjustment for near-distant objects, and having owned a Canon IIB as well, I didn't find its rangefinder as well defined as the Leicas. Personally, I'd advise you to go with a Leica as your first RF body for a number of reasons: 1) you'd always wonder if the Leica was better than what you bought if you selected another, 2) the Leicas are more readily serviced, although some others may be slightly better constructed, 3) Leicas tend to hold value better than many others in similar shape - whether you are a user or a collector. FWIW I'm quite fond of the later Niccas which incorporate the best of ltm Leicas as well as some features of the later M bodies, but seem much more scarce, at least in the USA, even though they sold under the Tower brand by Sears or Montgomery Wards.

That's good to know as well. I've seen Niccas for sale on fleabay, as well as Leotax Elites and others. I've just found one seller in Japan that helpfully shows images through the viewfinder.

I've just dug out my old Zeiss Ikon Nettar 6x6 checked the size of the eyepiece on that (5mm sqaure) and a little Walz rangefinder I used to use which fitted on the cold shoe (4mm, and quite bright with a nice contrasty patch) so 6mm sounds OK. I also have a lovely little Ricoh that I used to use, and its eyepiece is 6mm high (but about 10mm wide). 

 

[carbon_dragon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a IIIf which has been serviced to recondition the rangefinder parts so I can actually focus pretty well. I wear glasses (astigmatism and far sighted so diopters don't really let me use the viewfinder without glasses) and I find that it's pretty squinty to try to use the rangefinder and the viewfinder, but if your IIIf has a good, serviced rangefinder it is possible even with glasses. That said the Ms (any of them) are far easier both because they are combined and because they are larger. That said if you use more telephoto lenses, the magnification in the rangefinder window is useful.

So I think the M is WAY easier to use for me with my eyes and my glasses. But the IIIf is useable if in good shape. Before I got the rangefinder serviced, I couldn't see the split image well enough to focus hardly at all. 

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]

1 hour ago, Rhys said:

Thanks Pete, that's what I was wanting to know.

You're welcome, Rhys.

I should perhaps have mentioned that I wear spectacles but I still use a Leica screw mount camera without a problem.  I used a IIIf for many years but eventually found a IIIg that I couldn't resist and it has a much larger viewfinder than the other Barnacks, which makes framing easier.

I also have a Nicca Type 5, which is an exact copy of a IIIf but has a film door at the rear that makes loading film simple and straightforward compared to the Barnacks.  While I enjoy using it when I'm not in the mood to fiddle about loading film into the IIIg, the IIIg's rangefinder (and of course viewfinder) are significantly better than the Nicca's.

Pete.

[Rhys]

2 hours ago, carbon_dragon said:

I have a IIIf which has been serviced to recondition the rangefinder parts so I can actually focus pretty well. I wear glasses (astigmatism and far sighted so diopters don't really let me use the viewfinder without glasses) and I find that it's pretty squinty to try to use the rangefinder and the viewfinder, but if your IIIf has a good, serviced rangefinder it is possible even with glasses. That said the Ms (any of them) are far easier both because they are combined and because they are larger. That said if you use more telephoto lenses, the magnification in the rangefinder window is useful.

So I think the M is WAY easier to use for me with my eyes and my glasses. But the IIIf is useable if in good shape. Before I got the rangefinder serviced, I couldn't see the split image well enough to focus hardly at all. 

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!

I'm pretty much like you then. Long/far sighted with astigmatism. Except I see better close up than far away (due to the astigmatism).

An M unfortunately is out of my price range at the minute. If I can afford one in the future it'll probably be a digital one though. But the Fuji takes care of the digital itch. Although it doesn't have a rangefinder (boooo!!!) It does have a hybrid screen that incorporates an EVF as well as the OVF. 

Here's my Zeiss Ikon (I have a few of them)..

And my little Ricoh..

I've just removed the black insulation tape I had on it for over 20 years...

I used to carry my Zeiss Ikon around with me all the time when I was at college. I did a Photography Degree in the late 90's (digital was only just beginning) so everything was film. I preferred old cameras and old enlarging lenses. I don't have a darkroom anymore but want to try film again.

So I've decided to look for a iiif now. Just got to decide on the lens. Quite like the look and bokeh of the 50mm Summerit f2. Sumicrons are too expensive, and whilst the Elmar is compact, its a bit slower and I'm not struck on the aperture on the front, especially if a filter is fitted. I don't know anything about the Summars. 

[luigi bertolotti]

23 minutes ago, Rhys said:

 

So I've decided to look for a iiif now. Just got to decide on the lens. Quite like the look and bokeh of the 50mm Summerit f2. Sumicrons are too expensive, and whilst the Elmar is compact, its a bit slower and I'm not struck on the aperture on the front, especially if a filter is fitted. I don't know anything about the Summars. 

I think you mean a Summitar f2  (the Summarit, f 1,5, can be even more expensive than a Summicron and, in general, a someway delicate lens to use) :  a Summitar is a right choice, provided you find a good one : Elmars 3,5 ar easier to find in good conditions, but indeed the apertures' set is really old style... 🙄  But there is also the Elmar 2,8 which is more modern, and as good as the Summitar and, I'd say, more resistant to wear (and an Elmar 2,8 is also younger than any Summitar) 

Edited September 3, 2020 by luigi bertolotti

[carbon_dragon]

There are also the modern Voigtlander screwmount lenses which are not all great lenses, but can certainly rival older lenses. I don't think any of them are being made these days. And don't forget the 2.5 trillion screwmount russian lenses available for peanuts. Some of them are actually decent (like the Jupiter 8). Depends on the copy though, just like the Summitars.

[Rhys]

46 minutes ago, carbon_dragon said:

There are also the modern Voigtlander screwmount lenses which are not all great lenses, but can certainly rival older lenses. I don't think any of them are being made these days. And don't forget the 2.5 trillion screwmount russian lenses available for peanuts. Some of them are actually decent (like the Jupiter 8). Depends on the copy though, just like the Summitars.

Indeed. Although to me a Leitz/Leica lens makes the image. A camera is only a box to hold the film and the lens. There's of course a bit more to it than that 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Rhys

[Rhys]

3 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

I think you mean a Summitar f2  (the Summarit, f 1,5, can be even more expensive than a Summicron and, in general, a someway delicate lens to use) :  a Summitar is a right choice, provided you find a good one : Elmars 3,5 ar easier to find in good conditions, but indeed the apertures' set is really old style... 🙄  But there is also the Elmar 2,8 which is more modern, and as good as the Summitar and, I'd say, more resistant to wear (and an Elmar 2,8 is also younger than any Summitar) 

Yes, I meant Summitar f2. So many different designs I got confused 😕 🙄😂

On a quest now 😊