M4-2 Viewfinder flare

<p>I've started to use my M4-2 in the winter as the Rapidwinder film advance works great outside even with gloves. However I discovered the viewfinder flares badly with any light on snow. I've read the flare problem can be fixed by updating with MP viewfinder parts. If anyone has tried the MP viewfinder conversion on an M4-2 was it successful? </p>

<p>Many years ago Don Goldberg (DAG) fixed the flare issue on my M6. My M6 now never flares.</p>

<p>The finder flare problem began with the M4-2, following the removal of parts in a mis-guided attempt to reduce cost. Don also fixed my M6's finder, which had the same problem for the same reason. It should be called a restoration, not an "upgrade".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"viewfinder flares <strong>badly</strong> with any light on snow" <strong>Christopher J.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Three things:</p>

<ol>

<li>If its flaring this badly, it's likely that fog/haze has formed on the RF elements from old lube out-gassing. This will certainly exacerbate the flare issue.</li>

<li>I'm careful to state that <a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00YA0r">the kit</a> is a "flare resist" upgrade. <strong>They can still 'flare'</strong>. Kit works best with the .72 mag viewfinders and worst in the .85 units.</li>

<li><a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00YCsA">The MP</a> and succeeding Leica digitals, have the advantage of full multi-coating of the RF elements etc. The "kit" obviously doesn't have this <strong>very effective</strong> added benefit.</li>

</ol>

 

<p>Living in a snow belt and often photographing sunlit snow scenes I have been only mildly put off by slight flare with an unmodified M4-P, or with a previous M4-2 once owned. Most cameras have some operational downsides that can be compensated by the photographer without missing an important picture. After all, Leicaists have struggled since the mid twenties of the last century with the imperfect framing of a VF-RF camera system, whereas many SLR and DESLR users have had to contend with less than 100% transmission of the image via their prisms.</p>

<p>I appreciate those who want to improve if not eradicate some viewing problems and encourage them if the added expense of better equipment is justifiable for them, but there is also the question of making do when using an otherwise high quality system while realising that many superb images have been made with them.</p>

<p> </p>