Jeff S Posted August 16, 2009 Share #41 Posted August 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) with the 28mm frame as difficult to see as the 24mm frame is now. We obviously won't know until it's available, but if this were the case, then I'd have another good reason to save my money and keep using the M8.2. Just love that 28 cron, wear glasses, like to see the frame lines clearly and hate external finders. Until recently, even with the myriad M9 threads, there doesn't seem to have been much discussion on finders. It is a critical feature in my camera and lens selection, and has been a limiting factor in my experimenting with wider lenses. I did at one time own 2 M7s...one with .58 finder and one with .85 finder...and maybe the M9 might ultimately have different versions. But, the cost of 2 cameras would likely be prohibitive, and I much prefer sticking with a single body anyway. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 16, 2009 Posted August 16, 2009 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here Viewfinder frame lines M8/8.2. Framing accuracy of M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted August 16, 2009 Share #42 Posted August 16, 2009 One of the things that's striking when you look at an M8 viewfinder/rangefinder is how completely separate it is from the rest of the camera. There's the coupling to the frame selector and the focusing cam roller and that is it. It would be possible then for Leica to offer the "Classic" viewfinder option for those who abhor change and then a new all-singing all-dancing viewfinder for those who can tolerate larger viewfinder windows, a 1cm (say) taller camera and a lump out the back. How much would I pay for such an option? Keeping in mind the amount you can spend on dioptres, finders and magnifiers, a lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted August 16, 2009 Share #43 Posted August 16, 2009 Yes, I know...and I do know that RF VF coverage can only be, by definition, actually perfect at a single distance. It's a little more complicated than that. In theory a finder like the M's can be very accurate at a single fixed distance - which may be different for each set of framelines. At all other distances it's incorrect both for frame size and parallax compensation. RF viewfinders that adjust both frame size and parallax compensation for distance - e.g. the Koni Omegas' - can be very accurate at any distance distance focused on but will be incorrect at all other distances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted August 16, 2009 Share #44 Posted August 16, 2009 Sadly though, what I expect we will get on 9th September will be a case of new bottle, same dreary old vintage. Even so, I bet you still buy one (or three). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted August 16, 2009 Share #45 Posted August 16, 2009 a 1cm (say) taller camera and a lump out the back. Sounds great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted August 16, 2009 Share #46 Posted August 16, 2009 mark, this time you are helping me out...playing the role of the leica-legacy basher and nikon fanboy. i am glad that you said it first---))) peter It's not just a question of finder magnification, it's the size of the optical system. The eyepiece diameter of the Nikon D3 is 17mm and that gives me a great view of the focussing screen and the displays below it and to the right; eye position with glasses is not hugely critical. Similarly, the Frankenfinder is very easy to use because of the large diameter of the eyepiece. I expect the S2 viewfinder and eye comfort will be fabulous. The M eyepiece is a measly 11mm in diameter and we all know that makes it more difficult to use. Add the fact that it has a sweet spot around 28 - 50mm requiring aux finders at one end of the range and magnifiers at the other and it's easy to conclude the finder is not fit for purpose. Leica invests huge sums in new lenses but the one optical component which we use every shot we take has been studiously ignored for decades. Leica need to let go of all this legacy and compatibility nonsense and give us a finder which really is the crowning glory of the M camera, the key product differentiator. Sadly though, what I expect we will get on 9th September will be a case of new bottle, same dreary old vintage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted August 16, 2009 Share #47 Posted August 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) i am really worried about how much focus accuracy we can get out of that rangefinder, in conjunction with an 18mpx sensor. i had the feeling that the 10mpx of the m8 may already get thresholded by the rangefinder accuracy. unless they give us focus confirmation.... peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 16, 2009 Share #48 Posted August 16, 2009 Sounds great. Now, now, Ian, no need to be sarcastic. As for buying one or more of the new camera, I haven't pre-ordered or even enquired of the dealer yet! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted August 16, 2009 Share #49 Posted August 16, 2009 Mark I absolutely agree. For me the M8 finder is a very weak aspect of the camera and a hindrance to my picture making. A redesign is long overdue. .............. Chhris What is the problem(s) you are having? Are you having trouble seeing certain framelines? Focusing accurately? Framing accuracy (I suggest upgrading to the 8.2 mask. Huge improvement) Eye relief (I wouldn't mind a bigger eyepiece...) What changes are you looking for? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted August 16, 2009 Share #50 Posted August 16, 2009 I wouldn't mind seeing the following changes - LCD projected framelines. They would not look radically different than what we have today, but could be deadly accurate with any lens, at any distance. They could also be illuminated for shooting at night. - Longer rangefinder base length for more accurate focusing. - I suspect that we would return to the .72 magnification if the M9 is FF. - Slightly bigger eye piece for better eye-relief. It doesn't have to be like an F3 HP, but a little more would be nicer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 16, 2009 Share #51 Posted August 16, 2009 It would be possible then for Leica to offer the "Classic" viewfinder option for those who abhor change and then a new all-singing all-dancing viewfinder for those who can tolerate larger viewfinder windows, a 1cm (say) taller camera and a lump out the back. How much would I pay for such an option? Keeping in mind the amount you can spend on dioptres, finders and magnifiers, a lot. Great idea, Mark, seriously. But the size and geometry of the camera are determined by the rangefinder. If you're replacing the rangefinder, you should increase its baselength as well. Remember, one of the reasons for the size of the viewfinder ocular is that it was a major step forward "back then." But another reason is to give the eye one axis of usefulness, keeping the framelines, the rangefinder patch, the exposure information all at the same projected distance. IOW, I would guess it's a much more demanding task than putting a focusing screen and exposure data at the same distance in an SLR. Changing the rangefinder is a consummation devoutly to be wished, but would also mean a major change to the design that has kept Leica in business so long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted August 17, 2009 Share #52 Posted August 17, 2009 What is the problem(s) you are having? Are you having trouble seeing certain framelines? Focusing accurately? Framing accuracy (I suggest upgrading to the 8.2 mask. Huge improvement) Eye relief (I wouldn't mind a bigger eyepiece...) Mark has already covered some of this, but as you asked: The close distance framing for the M8 was a daft idea, unfortunately; as much as I would like the M8-2 shutter and improved M8-2 framing it isn't an option for me. The usual explanation that the space around the framelines give the photographer a chance to see what is about to come inside the frame has always seemed to me like a 'virtue out of necessity' explanation. If it really was a good idea then SLRs and other cameras would similarly have excess space around their image framing. The 'waste of space' isn't really a problem for me with a 28.. lens, it's a little irritating with a 35mm lens, it's a total pain for a 50mm, and my experience is that with the 50 the tunnel effect of trying to concentrate on a small framing area whilst ignoring the surrounding space has a profoundly negative effect on my picture construction. Using a 50mm on the M8 should be wonderful because of the wide lens choice we can draw on, for me it is seriously harder work than a camera of choice should make it. The 2009 pantomime solution for lenses with longer than 35mm focal length is; take one's dioptre off [how few M8 users don't use dioptre correction], screw a magnifier on, screw the dioptre back into the magnifier, all without dropping either item or getting finger grease on any glass surface. I think it is appalling that the M8 was introduced without dioptre correction built in, and preferably with a slight zoom capability so that lenses longer than 35mm can be used without the absurd screw-in magnifier solution. If Leica make the viewfinder more user friendly in these regards alone, the use and sales of longer lenses than 35mm will increase, and some of us would no longer view the camera as predominantly a 28mm and 35mm close-working and wide angle camera. I know that twinned framelines are a solution for the viewfinder as it is, but I do find them a ghastly intrusion into my photographic concentration. When I used a 24mm lens I could later detect the effect of the perpetually irritating twinned 35mm frames in the pictures I made. Totally ignoring the twinned frameline is a forlorn hope when you have spent decades training yourself to see the subtle, and when a loud rectangle in the centre of your image framing is constantly pulling your eye for attention. Good design facilitates unhindered use of the designed product during it's intended use, and in that respect I consider the M8 viewfinder weak design because it gets in the way of me using the camera. It remains my camera of choice; but the viewfinder should be so much better, and I could do without the extra effort I put in to try and negate the negative effects the viewfinder has on my picture making. I don't know what is technologically possible but I do have a dream viewfinder; it includes improved framing which follows focus, has zoom and built in variable dioptre correction, single framelines only, and a menu choice for half-greying-out the remaining waste of space around the framelines. Too much for some? ............... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 17, 2009 Share #53 Posted August 17, 2009 The usual explanation that the space around the framelines give the photographer a chance to see what is about to come inside the frame has always seemed to me like a 'virtue out of necessity' explanation. If it really was a good idea then SLRs and other cameras would similarly have excess space around their image framing. It really is really useful (for me at least) to see around the framelines. There would be big issues with an SLR doing the same thing relating to the size of the pentaprism and mirror required - not to mention the size of the lens throat - in fact the DMR was able to offer just this facility because it use a cropped sensor in a ful frame body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 17, 2009 Share #54 Posted August 17, 2009 Ditto Steve's comment. As to adding variable finder magnification and diopter correction, that's not possible with the rangefinder as it is. Nothing wrong with making such a change, but it wouldn't fit into an M-size body. With respect to the business proposition Leica: They need to keep selling bodies, and they need to keep selling lenses to the buyers of those bodies. That's how we've reached the dual framesets we've got today. "Sell 'em a new lens" means "give 'em new framelines." It will be interesting to see how the rangefinder camera line develops. IMHO, Leica needs the same innovative thinking here that they've shown with the S2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted August 17, 2009 Share #55 Posted August 17, 2009 Mark has already covered some of this, but as you asked: The close distance framing for the M8 was a daft idea, unfortunately; as much as I would like the M8-2 shutter and improved M8-2 framing it isn't an option for me. Well, from an engineering standpoint it makes perfect sense. The framelines indicate the absolute minimum you will capture on the sensor. The logical solution, unless you are going to design a system that also corrects for the change in lens magnification that occurs as you focus from the closest focusing distance to infinity. Unfortunately this choice hasn't always work out so well in the real world. The problem has been around since the M6, when the indicated area of coverage changed from what is captured at 1 meter to 70cm. The framing accuracy for the 50 in particular, went from being acceptable to way off the mark. Luckily Leica came to their senses and (for once) listened to their customers with the introduction of the M8.2. The new frameline mask is a massive improvement. Maybe with the arrival of the M9, Leica will relax the rules a little and allow shops like DAG and Golden Touch to only purchase the frameline mask. This would lower the upgrade cost substantially. The usual explanation that the space around the framelines give the photographer a chance to see what is about to come inside the frame has always seemed to me like a 'virtue out of necessity' explanation. I'm not quite that cynical about why the extra space exists, but it is invaluable to a lot of shooters. Again, the only way around this would be to design a finder with variable magnification, which has it's own set of problems. Personally I shoot street photography and documentary work and being able to see the action or elements before they enter the frame is something I really don't want to have to do without. If it really was a good idea then SLRs and other cameras would similarly have excess space around their image framing. The 'waste of space' isn't really a problem for me with a 28.. lens, it's a little irritating with a 35mm lens, it's a total pain for a 50mm, and my experience is that with the 50 the tunnel effect of trying to concentrate on a small framing area whilst ignoring the surrounding space has a profoundly negative effect on my picture construction. Using a 50mm on the M8 should be wonderful because of the wide lens choice we can draw on, for me it is seriously harder work than a camera of choice should make it. It's difficult and expensive to construct a 100% finder. Making an oversize mirror box would be even more expensive and would increase the size of an SLR by a noticeable amount. We're also really comparing apples to oranges here. Personally I really don't shoot anything longer than a 50 on the M series. Let's face it, RF cameras really aren't cut out for long lens work and just because Leica sells long lenses, does it mean that it's a good idea. Even with the zooming viewfinder on the Contax G-series anything longer than a 50 felt odd. If I head in to +75mm territory I simply switch to an SLR or Visoflex. The 2009 pantomime solution for lenses with longer than 35mm focal length is; take one's dioptre off [how few M8 users don't use dioptre correction], screw a magnifier on, screw the dioptre back into the magnifier, all without dropping either item or getting finger grease on any glass surface. I think it is appalling that the M8 was introduced without dioptre correction built in, and preferably with a slight zoom capability so that lenses longer than 35mm can be used without the absurd screw-in magnifier solution. If Leica make the viewfinder more user friendly in these regards alone, the use and sales of longer lenses than 35mm will increase, and some of us would no longer view the camera as predominantly a 28mm and 35mm close-working and wide angle camera. Personally I have never encountered a single M shooter (analog or digital), who uses a diopter. Even one of my friends who wears coke bottle glasses doesn't use one, but instead purchased .58 bodies. So, in light of that I'm going to have to conclude that the vast majority of M8 users do not use a diopter and you are in the minority. Unfortunately that doesn't make your life any easier. I know that twinned framelines are a solution for the viewfinder as it is, but I do find them a ghastly intrusion into my photographic concentration. When I used a 24mm lens I could later detect the effect of the perpetually irritating twinned 35mm frames in the pictures I made. Totally ignoring the twinned frameline is a forlorn hope when you have spent decades training yourself to see the subtle, and when a loud rectangle in the centre of your image framing is constantly pulling your eye for attention. Personally the extra framelines don't really bother me. I mainly shoot a 35 on the newer bodies and at this point I don't even see the second set of lines. Anything past the M4-2 feels a little cluttered, but it's not the end of the world for me. I think that if you shoot on a daily basis or frequently, you tend to ignore the ones you don't use. For most people it's probably like living next to an airport. After 2 weeks you don't even hear the planes anymore. Good design facilitates unhindered use of the designed product during it's intended use, and in that respect I consider the M8 viewfinder weak design because it gets in the way of me using the camera. It remains my camera of choice; but the viewfinder should be so much better, and I could do without the extra effort I put in to try and negate the negative effects the viewfinder has on my picture making. I don't know what is technologically possible but I do have a dream viewfinder; it includes improved framing which follows focus, has zoom and built in variable dioptre correction, single framelines only, and a menu choice for half-greying-out the remaining waste of space around the framelines. Too much for some? ............... Chris Not too much for me, but it sounds like the current setup it is too much for you. Seriously, after reading that list I would think that the camera is pretty much useless for your requirements. In light of that, why are you sticking with the M8, instead of moving over to an SLR? Size? The glass? Inquiring minds want to know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted August 17, 2009 Share #56 Posted August 17, 2009 ......It will be interesting to see how the rangefinder camera line develops. IMHO, Leica needs the same innovative thinking here that they've shown with the S2...... Hi howard - I hope so too, I think with some re-configurations the rangefinder camera has great potential in the digital age. ............... I would think that the camera is pretty much useless for your requirements. In light of that, why are you sticking with the M8, instead of moving over to an SLR? Size? The glass?...... HI - [sorry; I don't know your name]. I accept that other people's response to the M8 is different to mine and thank you for clearly stating yours. The M8 is my camera of choice and I work around my perceptions of it's weaknesses, including the viewfinder. I have worked seriously with rangefinder cameras for nearly 30 years, all rollfilm, in formats 6x4.5, 6x7, and 6x9, I downsized to the M8 from working exclusively with rollfilm, and it is my first Leica. I'm comfortable shooting DSLR, but I prefer the size of rangefinder cameras to their SLR equivalent, and being mostly a wide to wide-ish photographer I love the lens design advantages afforded rangefinder lenses. So predominantly, the M8 is my camera of choice because of size, weight, and tiny but good glass, and because it is the only option available to someone wanting to shoot a digital rangefinder camera. [That's a fairly conformist answer I think ................ just when I thought I was free - they reeled me back in ....]. ................... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 18, 2009 Share #57 Posted August 18, 2009 ... The problem has been around since the M6, when the indicated area of coverage changed from what is captured at 1 meter to 70cm. ... Several folks on the forum have made that claim, but I think Leica says it's not so. AFAIK, close focus was changed from 1 m to 0.7 m after the M3, but until the M8, the frames were always set for 2 m. As you said, the idea that you'll always get at least what you see in the frame lines looks great on paper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 18, 2009 Share #58 Posted August 18, 2009 Personally I have never encountered a single M shooter (analog or digital), who uses a diopter We obviously haven't met. I've used dioptres for the last few years. I need reading glasses, so I don't wear them all the time, but my eyesight is bad enough that I can't clearly see the rangefinder patch without them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted August 19, 2009 Share #59 Posted August 19, 2009 So predominantly, the M8 is my camera of choice because of size, weight, and tiny but good glass, and because it is the only option available to someone wanting to shoot a digital rangefinder camera. [That's a fairly conformist answer I think ................ just when I thought I was free - they reeled me back in ....]. ................... Chris Hey Chris I think you should drop Don Goldberg (DAGcamera) a line about the framelines. Maybe once the M9 is out he will be able to get his hands on a mask from an M8.2. The jump in framing accuracy is significant. He can probably also 'turn off' the markings for certain focal lengths to un-clutter the finder. This is a widespread practice with the analog bodies and easy to do (if you know what you're doing). The only problem is that you would probably be without the camera for a few weeks or even months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted August 19, 2009 Share #60 Posted August 19, 2009 We obviously haven't met. I've used dioptres for the last few years. I need reading glasses, so I don't wear them all the time, but my eyesight is bad enough that I can't clearly see the rangefinder patch without them. I know guys are out there, I've just never run in to one of you'se. ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.