My M8 frameline rumors were wrong.

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No it can't. Thats because the new M8 rangefinder is designed to be compatable with the old googled lenses.

 

Rex

 

 

Oh, thanks Rex. I didn't know that.

 

LCT, the whole frame of the viewfinder could be the exact framing of the 21mm lens. This trick would allow to incorporate 6 framelines but 7 frames.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

...LCT, the whole frame of the viewfinder could be the exact framing of the 21mm lens...

With which VF magnification, Ruben?

[marknorton]

Are you sure they were not testing a... R-D1?

 

Well yes, they might have been!

[sreidvt]

Sean

That's one of the compromises that the shorter baseline of the RD1 forced on the photographer. Not that big of a deal unless one owns a Noctilux.

 

With the M8's longer baseline, the Noct. will focus as designed. You have to get something for your money.

 

Rex

 

The short baselength of the R-D1 is problematic for several lenses but not the ones I tend to use myself. Thanks for the comments on the M8 focusing accuracy, good to get an insider perspective (G)

 

S

[sreidvt]

Bill--

As I'm sure you know, the short-base rangefinder means they can use some of the space immediately under the top cover for other things, like analog dials. But the longest lens reliably focusable on the R-D1 is apparently 50mm. (And, according to Sean above, no faster than 50mm f/2.)

 

--HC

 

Actually, a well-adjusted R-D1 can focus a 50 1.4 reliably.

 

Cheers

 

Sean

[kidigital]

I've been using a magnifier on my RD-1 for the past several weeks and have to say that I'm pleasantly suprised with the results. I am now much more accurate in attaining fine focus with all of my lenses especially my noctilux and 75/2. Here is a link to the magnifier I am using: http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=22&products_id=112

 

Kurt

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting that that site is not allowing sales to the US and Germany where Leica have a patent on the Viewfinder Magnifier.

 

You can see this patent at USPTO.org, search for Patent No 6621986

 

This one looks to be good value at less than 1/3 of the Leica price.

[kidigital]

Mark ....Dirk, the person who sells the magnifiers, has been very careful to adhere to Leica patent restrictions. For US and Europe customers, he is able to sell the accessory for use on other cameras like the Nikon D70.

 

Kurt

[marknorton]

It's interesting that Leica patent it in the US and Germany, but not apparently in Japan. I think the patent wouldn't apply to SLR cameras because the claims made of it apply only to rangefinder cameras.

 

Re-reading it, the patent gives a candid assessment of viewfinder limitations. Leica clearly know all the issues, as we expect. The patent talks about using magnifiers in the range 1.1 - 1.7 depending on the base viewfinder magnification. It also underlines the desirability of a 1.0 overall magnification to allow binocular vision and open eyed photography.

 

Also, it's interesting that one of the inventors was Peter Karbe who I believe now heads up optical development and who wrote the illuminating article on sensor sizes in LFI.

 

Worth reading, easier to digest than many patents with their "pluralities" and "prior arts".

[rosuna]

With which VF magnification, Ruben?

 

I don't know LCT. The 0.68 number seems too low. The 28mm equiv. angle of view is lost, so it doesn't make sense a lower magnification factor than 0.72. The 75mm (100mm equiv.) and 90mm (120mm) lenses will be usable with the M8, so the tele lenses should be reinforced in the M8. The 0.78 is a more reasonable number, if the 24-90 focal range is true.

However, maybe, the physical baselength of the rangefinder will be larger. In that case we could have a 0.68 magnification and frames for the range 21-90mm (28-120 equiv).

It is assumed the same physical baselength for the rangefinder, because it has not changed from the M3, but I am not so sure about it.

[lct]

...maybe, the physical baselength of the rangefinder will be larger...

I'm afraid not as your forget the goggles my friend.

What would i do with that lens for instance?

 

[leicapfile]

Is it just possible that we may be over analyzing this whole frameline discussion?

 

If the new M8 VF is say, one of 0.72 magnification, and I place a 24mm lens on the M8, would it not show the lines of coverage for a lens of 32mm considering the crop factor?

 

And the same for a 28mm lens placement (37mm framelines), a 35mm lens (47mm lines), a 50mm lens (66.5 mm lines), etc., etc. Seems they'd fit.

 

Only with this short Tri Elmar they speak of, would you have to have an aux VF.

 

Then again it's late (or early).

 

Jerry

[marknorton]

The reason why we've discussed it to death is because the viewfinder is not well suited to a focal length range ratio of 6:1 (21:135). Leica have addressed this in the past by providing 3 different base magnifications to set the "sweet spot" according to what the user uses most often and adding an aux finder/finder magnifier to stretch it in each direction.

 

We of course want it all. I want to be able to mount my 21mm and see the 28 eqfov frame, preferably with glasses on. Other people want to be able to focus/frame their 75mm Summiluxes and 90mm Summicrons accurately. Other people would like an effective 1.0 magnification for ease of use. Most of us, I feel sure, would prefer not to have to choose one of three viewfinder magnifications at purchase time and have to buy fiddly accessories like the aux finder and the finder magnifier.

 

Sadly, unless Leica have done something radical, some or all of us are going to be disappointed to varying degrees. The real solution is to provide a camera with built in variable magnification, two fixed, overlapping ranges, so you buy one camera which does it all.

 

Andy Piper has given us valid reasons as to why not and development budget needed elsewhere may well have made an M7 finder modified for the crop factor the only option. We'll know soon enough.

[rvaubel]

Is it just possible that we may be over analyzing this whole frameline discussion?

Jerry

 

Yes. I myself have spent countless hours over analysing the frameline issue. Nothing can be more fun. In pursuit of frameline perfection, I have a collection of perhaps a dozen accessary viewfinders. I have theories about framelines that could fill volumes.

I have no doubt that after the introduction of the M8, I will be convinced that Leica is involved in some conspiracy to deprive me of my frameline rights.

 

But on the other hand, what else do I have to do in my spare time.......mmmm, there's always the full frame vs crop conspiracy to expose!

 

I have to learn how to use those smiley things.

 

Rex

[ho_co]

You may have considered this one somewhere, but in case not:

 

Considering that the miniature cameras with 0.72x finder include a 28mm frame and that the M8's widest-field frame will cover the angle of a 32mm (equiv) instead;

 

assuming that the 24mm frame is as near the edges of the finder on the M8 as the 28mm frame is on the M6 et al;

 

comparing the fields of view of the 24mm and the 28mm lenses (factor 1.12 or 1.13 depending on diagonal);

 

applying that factor to the figure of 0.72x magnification:

 

we get an M8 viewfinder magnification of between 0.80x and 0.82x.

 

I think these numbers are in agreement with lct's formulae, but I think I may have approached the matter differently. If so, it would offer further confirmation for the already predicted magnification.

 

--HC

[marknorton]

Howard, that's the same conclusion I came to on Post 22 on this thread but who know? I wonder if Leica spent as many man-hours deciding what to do as we have spent deliberating the issue?

[rosuna]

If you have 0.72 magnification you should be able to include 28-90 framelines (21-75mm) and to guarantee perfect focus. It is the actual situation. The only difference is that you use a 35mm lens and the 50mm jumps. The problem is that the 90mm lens is related to a 120mm frameline. In order to make room for it, and increased magnification would be necessary. In fact, 24-90mm (32-120mm) would be consistent with that supossition.

[wparsonsgisnet]

I spoke with my dealer yesterday, to cement my order (now that the rep has called on him). The dealer did NOT see the camera -- tho the rep had had his/her hands on it (lotta good that does us) -- but the dealer tells me that it will be:

 

1. slightly thicker

2. handle framlines from 24 - something (he said 75, but we have heard 90)

3. will come with 2 new lenses.

 

I recommited my vows and also committed to one of the new lenses, a new wide prime.

 

And, I'm putting more money into the milk bottle for a end-Oct/early-Nov timeframe.

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[marknorton]

Does sound like it's 28/90, 24/35, 50,75 with maybe 21mm as "all you can see". As for the new lenses, any further info, 28mm f2.8 ASPH or do you think they are both shorter than 21mm, say 15mm and the much speculated on 15/16-18-21 Tri-Elmar?

[wparsonsgisnet]

Does sound like it's 28/90, 24/35, 50,75 with maybe 21mm as "all you can see". As for the new lenses, any further info, 28mm f2.8 ASPH or do you think they are both shorter than 21mm, say 15mm and the much speculated on 15/16-18-21 Tri-Elmar?

 

Mark,

 

I expect to buy a new 28mm asph. I think the rumor of the tri-elmar is also correct.

 

Bill