ChrisC Posted November 2, 2006 Share #1 Posted November 2, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am very tempted by the M8, but as a predominantly wide angle lens user I am disappointed and frustrated by not having a choice of viewfinder magnifications. Leica's message confuses me; that for film users a bright frame for a 28mm lens is desirable, but for digital photography a 32mm. equivalence is desirable [in film terms, given the multiplication factor for the 24mm. widest bright frame]. A bright frame of 21mm. in the M8 would give the view equivalence of 28mm. [in film 'M' terms], it would make the combination of M8 and 16-21mm. Tri-Elmar a very attractive one for predominantly wide angle photographers such as myself. I would not use the 21mm. focal length for fast photography if an external finder was required, and given the cost of buying into the M system for the first time I am beginning to doubt whether the current viewfinder limitation is tolerable. The two principal M8 reviewers, Michael Reichmann and Sean Reid, prefer to work at longer focal lengths than I do and from what I have so far read appear to be comfortable with the M8 viewfinder's magnification, but do other dissenters feel disappointed with Leica's choice of viewfinder magnification too? How about it Sean; care to speculate whether Leica will give a choice of viewfinder? I welcome your replies. Sincerely, Chris. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 Hi ChrisC, Take a look here M8 Viewfinder Limitation. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted November 2, 2006 Share #2 Posted November 2, 2006 I am very tempted by the M8, but as a predominantly wide angle lens user I am disappointed and frustrated by not having a choice of viewfinder magnifications. Leica's message confuses me; that for film users a bright frame for a 28mm lens is desirable, but for digital photography a 32mm. equivalence is desirable [in film terms, given the multiplication factor for the 24mm. widest bright frame]. A bright frame of 21mm. in the M8 would give the view equivalence of 28mm. [in film 'M' terms], it would make the combination of M8 and 16-21mm. Tri-Elmar a very attractive one for predominantly wide angle photographers such as myself. I would not use the 21mm. focal length for fast photography if an external finder was required, and given the cost of buying into the M system for the first time I am beginning to doubt whether the current viewfinder limitation is tolerable. The two principal M8 reviewers, Michael Reichmann and Sean Reid, prefer to work at longer focal lengths than I do and from what I have so far read appear to be comfortable with the M8 viewfinder's magnification, but do other dissenters feel disappointed with Leica's choice of viewfinder magnification too? How about it Sean; care to speculate whether Leica will give a choice of viewfinder? I welcome your replies. Sincerely, Chris. Hi Chris, I don't know if you read the review where I discussed this but I think Leica hit an excellent compromise with the .68 finder and the magnifier for longer lenses. But, long term, I've suggested to them that they consider making alternate versions of the M8 with other finder mags. I wouldn't want the mag. any lower than .68 as standard but as an option, yes. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Maio Posted November 2, 2006 Share #3 Posted November 2, 2006 Hi Chris, I don't know if you read the review where I discussed this but I think Leica hit an excellent compromise with the .68 finder and the magnifier for longer lenses. But, long term, I've suggested to them that they consider making alternate versions of the M8 with other finder mags. I wouldn't want the mag. any lower than .68 as standard but as an option, yes. Cheers, Sean I like to use the 90mm Summichron on my M7 and, after ordering the 1.25X magnifier, its much easier to focus accurately and frame. ( M7 has a 0.58 viwefinder - which works well for the 35 Summichron) This got me to thinking - why not make a future M8 with a viewfinder magnification more suited to wider lenses and add a variable magnification adapter with a rubber eye cup for the longer lenses? Seems like that would be an easy solution for Leica to design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnll Posted November 2, 2006 Share #4 Posted November 2, 2006 In the meanwhile, I *estimate* that the full finder area is a pretty good approximation to the FOV of a 21mm lens. I *reckon* it is a bit on the narrow side by maybe 2 frameline widths and a tiny bit too tall, by about one frameline width. Perhaps Sean could comment on this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted November 2, 2006 Share #5 Posted November 2, 2006 Surely it would be cheaper for Leica to offer minus-magnification finder attachments than to make a-la-carte rf units. Is this not optically sensible? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted November 2, 2006 Share #6 Posted November 2, 2006 Does the standard 1.25 maginfier for the earlier M bodies also work on the M8? JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted November 2, 2006 Share #7 Posted November 2, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Surely it would be cheaper for Leica to offer minus-magnification finder attachments than to make a-la-carte rf units. Is this not optically sensible? As soon as the plus-mag. attachment was introduced I wondered why someone didn't produce a minus-mag. version. The M8 finder seemed fine for the focal lengths I use most (in my brief handling of a demo camera) but if the choice was between using an external finder for wide angle or simply screwing in an eyepiece attachment to see the entire viewfinder frame, I'd choose the screw-in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 2, 2006 Share #8 Posted November 2, 2006 Does the standard 1.25 maginfier for the earlier M bodies also work on the M8? JC Yes, it works fine and I've already found it's good for 50, 75 and 90. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 2, 2006 Share #9 Posted November 2, 2006 In the meanwhile, I *estimate* that the full finder area is a pretty good approximation to the FOV of a 21mm lens. I *reckon* it is a bit on the narrow side by maybe 2 frameline widths and a tiny bit too tall, by about one frameline width. Perhaps Sean could comment on this? Sadly, there's little to see in the finder around the 24mm frame so the 21mm will go wider than what you can see. In practice, it's probably OK to work with that extra margin around what you can see in the finder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbondo Posted November 2, 2006 Share #10 Posted November 2, 2006 Being a wide-lens shooter too, I'm also very tempted to get the new Tri-Elmar - if it doesn't turn out too big and heavy... I plan to use it without the bulky external finder and either 1) shoot from the hip, which I mostly do with my current DSLR anyway or 2) use the built-in finder to aim at the desired object. I won't be able to frame the picture perfectly at the widest angle(s), though. But being digital, I can always shoot a few extra times without any extra cost. And again, I rarely take the camera to the eye anyway. A nice side-effect of shooting at wide angles is also that I can get away with setting the focus ring at an estimated distance, and my picture turns out sharp. At longer focal lengths I use the finder to focus and frame, so it's more important to me to have a higher finder magnification in those cases (although the situations are rare). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted November 2, 2006 Share #11 Posted November 2, 2006 Leica told me that the mechanical stability of the metal-frames is the problem. Additional 21mm directly beneath the slightly bigger 24mm are difficult to achieve. A la carte (and therefore different magnifications) will come when the first M8-hype cools down a little bit (summer/autumn?) and they are sure that everything works fine - hard enough to introduce a comletly new camera at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted November 2, 2006 Share #12 Posted November 2, 2006 In the meanwhile, I *estimate* that the full finder area is a pretty good approximation to the FOV of a 21mm lens. I *reckon* it is a bit on the narrow side by maybe 2 frameline widths and a tiny bit too tall, by about one frameline width. Perhaps Sean could comment on this? I should get my camera Saturday, and this is one of the first things I'm going to work out -- tripod, big long run of window squares, etc. If it's close, I can fake it. 8-) Mark: Thanks -- and those are exactly the lenses I was wondering about. Do you have a 135? Tried it yet? JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted November 2, 2006 Share #13 Posted November 2, 2006 Sadly, there's little to see in the finder around the 24mm frame so the 21mm will go wider than what you can see. In practice, it's probably OK to work with that extra margin around what you can see in the finder. Hi Mark, I think the numbers work like this. 32mm is the sensor diagonal/normal lens; 0.68 X 32mm = 21.76....22mm rounded (good approximation anyway). To get a 24mm FOV from an 18mm lens in the finder with space around it, we'd need a 0.50X (16mm/32mm) Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfleica Posted November 2, 2006 Share #14 Posted November 2, 2006 As soon as the plus-mag. attachment was introduced I wondered why someone didn't produce a minus-mag. version. The M8 finder seemed fine for the focal lengths I use most (in my brief handling of a demo camera) but if the choice was between using an external finder for wide angle or simply screwing in an eyepiece attachment to see the entire viewfinder frame, I'd choose the screw-in. i suppose such a device would have to fit on the front of the viewfinder, gogglewise. Not perfect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 2, 2006 Share #15 Posted November 2, 2006 Mark: Thanks -- and those are exactly the lenses I was wondering about. Do you have a 135? Tried it yet?JC No I don't have a 135, 90 is as long as I go, and those (2.8 and 4) are fine. Question mark over the Macro Adapter which sits further in front of the viewfinder windows (because the lens mount is no longer flush). I was finding it difficult today to get sharp results; framing was no problem but focussing appeared to be - I need to practice some more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 2, 2006 Share #16 Posted November 2, 2006 Mark, I am very interested in hearing more about the 90/4 and Macro adapter. Please post as you find out more. Perhaps Leica will make a new version for the M8, just like with the grip (which unfortunately isn't half-flat any more, for the M8). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted November 3, 2006 Author Share #17 Posted November 3, 2006 Hi Chris, I don't know if you read the review where I discussed this but I think Leica hit an excellent compromise with the .68 finder and the magnifier for longer lenses. But, long term, I've suggested to them that they consider making alternate versions of the M8 with other finder mags. I wouldn't want the mag. any lower than .68 as standard but as an option, yes. Cheers, Sean Thank you for replying Sean, and others too. I seem to have inadvertantly invited a duplication of ground previously covered, my apologies. I certainly cannot wait for a long term introduction of a .68 viewfinder magnification, which could mean a reluctant third time in 25 years Leica lose me as a new customer. I am surprised, however, that less people are exercised by the viewfinder issue than I expected. I will, of course read your review before making my purchasing decision Sean. Sincerely..............Chris. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 3, 2006 Share #18 Posted November 3, 2006 Mark, I am very interested in hearing more about the 90/4 and Macro adapter. Please post as you find out more. Perhaps Leica will make a new version for the M8, just like with the grip (which unfortunately isn't half-flat any more, for the M8). Carsten, I've done some more testing this morning - usual oblique pictures of a newspaper page to see if the line you're focussing on is actually the one in focus and it appears fine. Extremely shallow DoF of course. There are some slightly weird effects - the rangefinder image of a square slopes to the right so you need to practice but it's still quite neat for a rangefinder to be able to go down to 1:3. The angle finder provides a nice view of the 90mm frame as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdewitt Posted November 3, 2006 Share #19 Posted November 3, 2006 Thank you for replying Sean, and others too. I seem to have inadvertantly invited a duplication of ground previously covered, my apologies. I certainly cannot wait for a long term introduction of a .68 viewfinder magnification, which could mean a reluctant third time in 25 years Leica lose me as a new customer. I am surprised, however, that less people are exercised by the viewfinder issue than I expected. I will, of course read your review before making my purchasing decision Sean. Sincerely..............Chris. I bet more people are interested than it seems based on the very small number of people posting here. By far my favorite focal length is 24mm and it has always bothered me that the best I could do without a finder was 28 on Leica and now I can't do that with an M8 (EFOV). People say they're great for wide angle but they must have a different definition of wide angle than I have. So I would buy a lower finder mag if it were available. And if they make it available sometime down the road I'll just have to sell my M8 and get another. But I'm not going to sit around waiting for it. I've waited years for the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 3, 2006 Share #20 Posted November 3, 2006 I agree, you can sit on the fence forever waiting for the perfect camera to come along or you can enjoy what's available. Just spent the afternoon trying out various things with the M8 and it's a great camera to use. I'm even warming to the aux finder for the 21mm Elmarit (set to 28mm) and the little CV 15mm is interesting as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.