M8 Viewfinder Limitation

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica made nothing but .72x viewfinders for 30 years - 1967-1997.

 

I wonder how in the WORLD so many Leica photographers were able to make do with just that one magnification over all that time, and even win Pulitzer Prizes with their pictures.

[gdewitt]

Leica made nothing but .72x viewfinders for 30 years - 1967-1997.

 

I wonder how in the WORLD so many Leica photographers were able to make do with just that one magnification over all that time, and even win Pulitzer Prizes with their pictures.

 

By shooting longer lenses. Or using aux. finders. Neither is my cup of tea.

[lct]

Leica made nothing but .72x viewfinders for 30 years - 1967-1997...

Except 0.85x for the M6J in 1994.

Bought a copy for this reason but i prefer by far the M3.

The 1.25x mag is usefull but hardly confortable IMO.

What a shame to be forced to use a loupe on such cameras!

[rfleica]

something is still bothering me about the m8 viewfinder topic. can someone help me out here please?

am i right to assume:

.68mag<.72 mag

.72 mag finder just about shows up a 28mm frameline

21mm on m8 is efov to 28mm

....so how come a less magnified finder (in the m8) can't show a frameline (or just the correct view without line) for an 28mm efov lens, ie one with an actual focal length of 21mm?

[sean_reid]

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 think it's too tight for a 21. I don't wear glasses and I can just see a bit of area outside the 24 frame. I'd recommend a 28 finder.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Does the standard 1.25 maginfier for the earlier M bodies also work on the M8?

 

JC

 

Hi John,

 

As I mentioned in the first review, yes it does.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, it works fine and I've already found it's good for 50, 75 and 90.

 

Also 35 if you don't wear glasses.

 

S

[sean_reid]

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'm not sure if I follow you. Do you mean that you don't want to wait to see a lower mag finder? I think .68 was an excellent compromise, all factors considered. That said, different people have different priorities and so I suppose that we can't assume that "one mag. fits all. What mag. were you hoping for?

 

Cheers,

 

S

[ChrisC]

I'm not sure if I follow you. Do you mean that you don't want to wait to see a lower mag finder? I think .68 was an excellent compromise, all factors considered. That said, different people have different priorities and so I suppose that we can't assume that "one mag. fits all. What mag. were you hoping for?

 

Cheers,

 

S

I'm sorry if I was not clear. Ideally I would choose a viewfinder with a frame for the 21mm. lens to give a 28mm. equivalence in film terms. Would that not be a .68 magnification? I am new to Leica and unsure of viewfinder magnification numbers, but I do know the focal lengths and fields of view I primarily use.

 

I need to make my purchasing decision fairly soon and might be prepared to wait if Leica were to announce an alternative viewfinder. Failing that the choice for me is reluctantly accepting the current viewfinder, or forgetting M Leica and staying solely with digital SLRs. I have used high quality rollfilm 6x7 and 6x9 rangefinders for 25 years, I am familiar with their strengths and weaknesses, that is why I really do want the M8 to work for me. It's just the viewfinder configuration I am struggling with.

 

Thank you for your reply.

Yours Sincerely...................Chris

[ho_co]

Chris (and Sean), pardon my jumping in here:

 

The difficulty is just that as you reduce magnification to acommodate wider lenses, you also reduce focusing accuracy. On the film cameras, I believe that more people took Leica up on the 0.85x finder than on the 0.58x version. And the most popular was the standard 0.72x.

 

The M8 is only just shipping; Leica needs to find out what changes are most wanted, and you're not the only one to ask for a finder with lower magnification. But for the time being I'll be pulling out my old 28 finder for use with the 21mm once I get the camera.

 

--HC

[ChrisC]

Chris (and Sean), pardon my jumping in here:

 

The difficulty is just that as you reduce magnification to acommodate wider lenses, you also reduce focusing accuracy. On the film cameras, I believe that more people took Leica up on the 0.85x finder than on the 0.58x version. And the most popular was the standard 0.72x.

 

The M8 is only just shipping; Leica needs to find out what changes are most wanted, and you're not the only one to ask for a finder with lower magnification. But for the time being I'll be pulling out my old 28 finder for use with the 21mm once I get the camera.

 

--HC

 

You are hardly 'juming in', I am here for one reason only; too learn from other people who generously share their working experience. Thank you for your contribution,you have introduced something I had not considered.

 

Yours Sincerely...............Chris

 

PS

If, like me , your first passion is photographs and not doing neccessary forum reading about equipment, I recommend you follow the link below to view Constantine Manos' work [as I did when I followed an earlier thread]. It might not put hairs on your chest, but I guarantee it will put sunshine in your heart:

 

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essays/color.aspx

[ho_co]

Constantine Manos' work ... might not put hairs on your chest, but I guarantee it will put sunshine in your heart:

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essays/color.aspx

Chris--

You're right! Manos's use of color is astounding, his admission of running out of steam and having to rediscover himself very open and almost unnerving, and the recognition that it's hard to make people laugh a great perception! Thanks for the link!

 

--HC

[Liaonet]

I have been using 12mm Heliar on my RD-1 for ages with the supplimentary viewfinder and did some testing today with the M8 and found no problems and while having the viewfinder sitting on top of the camera is not ideal neither is it overly traumatic.

[Jay Clawson]

As I returning Leica user, I'm looking forward to using the M8 with a 21mm and am leaning toward the Zeiss Biogon. However, since I wear glasses, I know that a 28mm external finder will be permanently attached to the camera. For this reason, I would like to get the best finder, but only have experience with the older Leica 28mm BL. How do the Voigtlander and new Zeiss finders compare? Also, how does the Zeiss 25/28 combo work (a single bright line, or?).

 

Any experience with these finders will be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Jay

[johnll]

I think it's too tight for a 21. I don't wear glasses and I can just see a bit of area outside the 24 frame. I'd recommend a 28 finder.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Thanks, Sean.

[tom0511]

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 doubt because IMO the 24mm frame in the M8 is allready pretty tight for my taste.

[tom0511]

I also dont understand why Leica would not just supply/offer the same viewfinders they have in the M7 and MP, with the three different magn. and the same frames.

 

Also why does a 28mm frame fit in a .72 viewfinder, but only a 32mm frame in the M8 .68 viewfinder? Has the viewfinder become smaller?

 

Anyway, I dont know if its that much of a difference between 28mm FOV and 32mm FOV and therefore I ordered the 24mm lens.

 

I have to say though that the 28mm frame in the M8 looks much more compfortable to see for me than the 24mm frame. (I dont wear glasses)

[sean_reid]

I'm sorry if I was not clear. Ideally I would choose a viewfinder with a frame for the 21mm. lens to give a 28mm. equivalence in film terms. Would that not be a .68 magnification? I am new to Leica and unsure of viewfinder magnification numbers, but I do know the focal lengths and fields of view I primarily use.

 

I need to make my purchasing decision fairly soon and might be prepared to wait if Leica were to announce an alternative viewfinder. Failing that the choice for me is reluctantly accepting the current viewfinder, or forgetting M Leica and staying solely with digital SLRs. I have used high quality rollfilm 6x7 and 6x9 rangefinders for 25 years, I am familiar with their strengths and weaknesses, that is why I really do want the M8 to work for me. It's just the viewfinder configuration I am struggling with.

 

Thank you for your reply.

Yours Sincerely...................Chris

 

Hi Chris,

 

To see the frame lines for a 21 in the finder, the mag. would need to be lower than .68. Somone here will likely do the math as to exactly what the mag. would need to be. There are compromises involved in going to lower finder mags., though, and so it would make sense to offer, say, .62X mag (just to pick a number) as an optional mag. but probably not as a standard mag.

 

Again, I think .68 was an excellent compromise when one considers the many factors involved.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[gdewitt]

Sean,

 

I still don't understand why the 28mm lines show up in a .72x finder but the 21mm lines (same EFOV) don't show up in .68x. It just doesn't make sense to me. But then plenty of other things in life don't either.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[steve_l]

Gary -

I'd guess that the finder image in the M8 is physically smaller - what you can see is a function both of the magnification and the physical size of the image...