.85MP framelines

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is there an appreciable difference between the .85MP 75mm and 135mm framlines, and teh .72MP framelines, or are we into diminishing returns?

 

Yea I have looked at the pictures in the manual.

 

Thanks.

[budrichard]

72/85= 0.85 or the frame size is reduced 15% between the 0.85 finder and the 0.72 finder. I only use 0.85 M's or my M3 since I do use 135mm, 90mm and 75mm. Anything wider than 28mm on the 0.72 requires an external finder anyway. The only reason for the 0.72 or 0.58 is for users that must/prefer to wear glasses when using thier cameras. I don't wear glasses.

Before making a decision you really need to use both and then make a decision.

Note that unless your vision shows severe problesm. a diopter from Leica is available to match your script. I use +0.5 diopter which gives me the 0.0 I need on a Leica M which has -0.5 diopter built in.-Dick

[rob_x2004]

The 75 135 frames are small, I was wondering whether you notice the 15% larger in practice, or is it just that you get a better magification that lets you see more detail / definition in the shifting rangefinder patch?

[bill]

Rob, I have a .85 M7 and in my practical experience you do. It is my second favourite viewfinder after the uncluttered simplicity of the M2. I have used it regularly with 75 and 135 lenses and indeed traded up from a .72 M6 specifically because I was (and still am) more of a teletubbie than a wide-boy

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Photoskeptic]

I used to have an M6 TTL .85. I really loved that body. Even so, I did shoot a 135 on occasion and the framelines were still small, not a big improvement over my M4. However, all my 135 shots were in focus and sharp. If I were you, I would consider a 1.25 magnifier on a .85 viewfinder for the 135. BTW, the 135 framelines are accurate.

[gyoung]

Is there an appreciable difference between the .85MP 75mm and 135mm framlines, and teh .72MP framelines, or are we into diminishing returns?

 

Yea I have looked at the pictures in the manual.

 

Thanks.

 

My experience of the 0.72 finder on the M6 is that the 135 is so small as to be little use unless the subject is stationary, and the focussing is none too easy either.

For 135 I use my M3 for choice, if I hadn't got that I would think about a body with 0.85x finder or a 2.8 Elmarit,

I haven't tried the magnifier, that should give a super view with the M3!

 

Gerry

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

135 is so small as to be little use unless the subject is stationary, and the focussing is none too easy either.

 

But theres two different issues isnt there. The framelines are the framelines, and nothing to do with focusing, and the rangefinder patch is the same on a given camera body for any lens, which is where I was heldging to the .85, an accuracy thing that you might need if your depths of field come down? Using a 1.25 on a .72 is going to take you past .85 anyway?

 

I was unsure whether the slightly larger framelines help much on the longer lenses.

[dfbldwn]

I was unsure whether the slightly larger framelines help much on the longer lenses.

For me, a newer viewfinder was more important than magnification.

E.g. When shooting my 135mm, I prefer my 0.72 M7 viewfinder to my 25-year old M6's 0.72 viewfinder with 1.25 magnifier (effective viewfinder magnification 0.90, quite close to original M3). Viewfinder condition determines sharpness of my focus more than magnification does.

 

If you ever have to wear glasses (even sunglasses) when shooting, you notice the larger framelines real quickly, especially if you extend the viewfinder tunnel's length by using the 1.25x magnifier. Wearing glasses, the 50mm framelines are outside my field of view when I use the 1.25x magnifier.

 

Had the same results a dozen years ago, when my M6 outfocused a 38-year old M3, despite M3's better magnification.

 

p.s. I enjoy your posts.

[gyoung]

But theres two different issues isnt there. The framelines are the framelines, and nothing to do with focusing, and the rangefinder patch is the same on a given camera body for any lens, which is where I was heldging to the .85, an accuracy thing that you might need if your depths of field come down? Using a 1.25 on a .72 is going to take you past .85 anyway?

 

I was unsure whether the slightly larger framelines help much on the longer lenses.

 

Indeed there are, the 135 frame on a 0.72 finder is vestigial, and small, the M3 135 frame for 135 is not only bigger but a complete outline. The magnification gives a more accurate rangefinder with the longer lens, in practice a small movement of the focussing mount on the lens gives an obvious movement to the second image in the r/f patch with the M3 whereas it takes more movement of the focussing mount to make an obvious shift of the second image in the 0.72 finder.

I presume that the advantages of the M3 finder are also there with the 0.85, its a long time since I looked through one but I seem to remember that the 135 frame was a complete frame, and the magnification is pretty close to the M3.

 

Gerry

[budrichard]

Nothing beats the M3 finder but even Leitz recognnized that the 135 frame lines were small, hence the 135 2.8 RF with googles, the best of the lot to this day.-Dick