"In" and "out" magnifiers for M viewfinders

The HK company in Hong Kong advertises (eBay, under M8 or other Leica M), both

0.85X and 1.25X after-market viewfinders. These appear OK, but I wonder if anyone has

experience with them. The 1.25X is much cheaper than the Leica magnifier. What do

you think of the quality (clarity of image, fixation on the M body) of the HK devices?

 

The 0.85X sounds good for anyone using widest possible lens framelines on M

viewfinders, or using eyeglasses. Might it even allow approximate visualizing of the 21

mm field (in reality, 28 with the 1.33X sensor crop) on the M8?

I bought a .85 finder from another outfit in Japan through another forum member - but it was not cheap (it was about $140 IIRC). It works great and the quality is almost up to that of the Leica 1.25x mag adapter.

 

But the HK mag adapters are so inexpensive, why not buy one and report to the forum about it?

My experience with the .85x mini-fiers is that they don't work. They make the view in the

finder smaller, but you cannot see any further around the edges, so you are basically

paying to have a smaller view. In addition, your eye needs to be perfectly centered or the

image distorts to the extent that you cannot see at all. Overall I think they are a very bad

investment. My experience is only with a Japanese version that I bought for someone at

Map Camera in Tokyo. Perhaps the HK versions are better, but I doubt it. On the other

hand, my experience with the Leica Magnifier is that it works pretty well. It is not as good

as dedicated finder, but it is pretty effective. I would imagine that the HK 1.25x will

probably work as well. It is one thing to magnify the finder image, but I am dubious as to

whether any piece of glass in front of the finder can effectively expand the VF image

without a severe degradation.

I have bought one from the Honk Kong online supplier. It was the 1.25x. I asked the seller if

the Leica diopter would screw on it as it does on the "real" Leica Magnifier. He replied yes. It

didn't. I asked him if the magnifier itself did screw all the way in the VF as the Leica does, he

said yes, of course it didn't, and it looked pretty awful protuding out on the camera. My

opinion is that beside looking like a cheaper copy of the real thing (that I had in the past),

also the image was somehow smaller than expected and definitively less clear than the one I

was used to with the original leica one. I returned it (and got full refund after a couple of odd

emails exchanged in a strange english with a seller who probably did not even remember my

original questions made before buying its Magnifier). I would NOT recommend it.

Would the .85 version reduce enuogh to allow you to see the full viewfinder window in a M3 without having to strain your eye around, so it would be easier to use a 35mm on it? I realize it doesn't add a frame for it, but if it just made the window sufficiantly smaller, it would be good enough for me.

I tried my 0.85 on a M3 on which Sherry Krauter had updated the eyepiece a few years ago (I don't know if that is reqiured to have the correct threads).

With my rather thick glasses the 0.85 did not help (or hinder) the filed of view.

Without glasses I don't know if it would help much due to the increased offset of the eye from the viewfinder itself.

 

I would like to sell the 0.85 which I bought new about a month ago.

 

Doug

Why do people buy expensive Leica cameras and lenses then buy third party junk to save a dozen or few $$$?

Perhaps these magnification devices are too inexpensive to be true. I

appreciate all your comments. However, Stephen, you just have to look at the

ratings of the 28mm VC aspherical Ultron f1.9 to realise that such 3rd party

"junk" is only about 1/8th the price of a more or less comparable 28mm

Summicron f2 ASPH, and is reputed to provide very similar performance. I

won't trash my existing modern Leica lenses, but these have yet to provide a

high quality-price ratio that the vast design and manufacturing experience of

Leica should be able to provide at this advanced date in the company's

history. They have nothing yet to compete with my VC 12mm lens (which

would be 16mm on an M8, I'm told), but I am glad Leica doesn't, because

(virtually) none of us would be able to afford it!

I just purchased 1 of the $70 HK 1.25x magnifiers for use w/my M8 & it works fine (can't say as much for the M8, which is now in Solms for repair). I have no extensive experience w/the Leica magnifier, but the optical quality & workmanship of the HK device seems very good to me, though it does protrude a few mm more than the Leica.

 

Also, as to Stephen's question, I would counter w/my own question: why would I spend almost 3x more for the official Leica product for a (very low-tech) accessory that I will use only occasionally?

Correction: the Leica magnifier is actually about 4x more than the HK product.

I'd agree with what Stuart said. The 0.85 finder is well enough made but you don't really see any more of the finder area because you eye is moved further out by the physical size of the magnifier. You just see about the same but smaller. This is presumably why Leica don't make one.

 

I don't see any reason that the 1.25 magnifier wouldn't work well enough though.

 

WTT HK 0.85 demagnifier for HK 1.25 magnifier...

Why bother buying ANYTHING Leica because EVERYTHING is 3 to 4 times more expensive.

How did that old song by Leslie Gore go? "It's my ego and I'll crow if I want to, crow if I want to, crow if I want to...you would crow too if it mattered to you" ;-)

 

Actually the 0.85 is something Leica doesn't offer for love or money, like a 12mm or 15mm lens. Too bad the design is so flawed for its intended purpose that a ten year old could see it: sticks out and shortens the eye relief to cancel out any benefit of demagnification.

Not everything Leica is 3 or 4 times more expensive & the cost to benefit ratio is even worse w/accessories than actual lenses & bodies.

Doug, I'd be interested. Is it at least clear? If you are intersted, I'm at work right now, but if you got my email address from photonet why don't you let me know what you want for it. I don't use glasses when I shoot, but if it doesn't bring the 35 in, than there's not really a point ot it. If it gets a lot closer, I may consider because with parrallax and just general rangefinder use, though I find the focus very accurate, I don't worry so much about precision framing.