Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wilfredo

M9 Frame Lines

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

John if this was a reply to my last post then simply Leica could not offer the x.72 finder as stock because then the EFOV would of been 37mm using a 28mm lens. I think they knew if they did that the camera would not of sold as well as it did.

 

Sure they could of but for reason stated many times in this thread they had to lower the mag to make the camera more usefull.

 

I think we got a bit at cross purposes. I'd said that if it had been easy to tweak the trade-off between body thickness, field of view and magnification Leica would have supplied the M8 in 0.58, 0.72 and 0.85 versions, meaning the exact same magnification(s) as the M6 and M7 rather than the 0.68 we have. You picked up on the alternative magnifications rather than the 0.72 vs 0.68.

 

I'm sure we agree it wouldn't have been at all easy to give the M8 a higher-magnification finder while retaining useful 24mm framelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't be so sure about that.

 

Actually you probably would, because you have the manners of someone who was raised in a barn.

 

 

I'll give you my address if you like because I doubt I'll ever be anywhere near here and there.

 

Well, like I said, the internet makes men out of the meek.

 

This conversation is over. If you try to contact me on or off this site or continue this conversation I will take the appropriate steps to have you removed from this site.

 

Goodbye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So much anger over such a small matter.

 

As a woman, I'm sure you know how sensitive men become over their "small matters."

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very true Jeff. I spent years believing that my forefinger was 8 inches long.

 

But, now you understand (based on this thread) that it depends upon body thickness, field of view and magnification.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Electronic frame lines and call it a day. Still holding out for it, I know so 21st century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually you probably would, because you have the manners of someone who was raised in a barn.

 

 

 

 

Well, like I said, the internet makes men out of the meek.

 

This conversation is over. If you try to contact me on or off this site or continue this conversation I will take the appropriate steps to have you removed from this site.

 

Goodbye

 

216 Adair St Decatur GA 30030.

Stop over some time and we'll have a talk. No it's not a barn.

 

Ok now you can take steps to have me removed from this site.

Have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be a discussion where nobody is able to convince his opponent. So lets call it a day and wait and see whether Leica will be offering the M7 viewfinder in the M9 body, which is bound to be as thick as the M8. The proof of the pudding, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we got a bit at cross purposes. I'd said that if it had been easy to tweak the trade-off between body thickness, field of view and magnification Leica would have supplied the M8 in 0.58, 0.72 and 0.85 versions, [ ... ]

The decision to have 0.68 magnification in the M8 finder was not a question of technical necessity, dictated by the dimensions of the body. It was a marketing question: Which focal lengths should the finder serve?

 

The only thing that matter to me is that this myth of finder magnification at the mercy of body depth is put aside.

 

The old man from the Age of Frame Finders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The decision to have 0.68 magnification in the M8 finder was not a question of technical necessity, dictated by the dimensions of the body. It was a marketing question: Which focal lengths should the finder serve?...

Marketing hardly explains why a .72x magnification has not been chosen for 24mm lenses the FoV of which (32mm) is not wider than that of 28mm lenses on .72x film cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marketing hardly explains why a .72x magnification has not been chosen for 24mm lenses the FoV of which (32mm) is not wider than that of 28mm lenses on .72x film cameras.

 

That FACT seems to escape some here.

Don't let the FACTS get in the way of what you think is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a thread with all the necessary ingredients:

 

Extremely high knowledge of a specific field, scientific disagreement and a near fight!

 

May I ask a simple question at the end: Is there no chance that the M9 will have 24 mm framelines built in? I am lusting for the 24 mm Summilux so then I shall have to buy an external finder?

 

Åmund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That FACT seems to escape some here.

Don't let the FACTS get in the way of what you think is true.

 

In British English this would be, "With respect, Lars, I'm not absolutely sure I follow your argument."

 

Either way it's fighting talk. Lars, old man, if the argument that's been developed in this thread about the linkage between body thickness, field of view and magnification in a reverse Galiliean finder is erroneous, it would be very decent of you to explain in what regard. If not, I find it easier to believe my algebra than your assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Is there no chance that the M9 will have 24 mm framelines built in?...

Would need a .58x version of the M9 most probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...