M8 Viewfinder options ?

[uk]

Is there any news on the viewfinder for the digital M ? Will there be options ? What will be the length of

the rangefinder ? What frame lines will be on show ? ..... and with a smile :-) ..... will there be focus

confirmation, auto ISO and bracketing options ?

 

I prefer the 0.91 viewfinder of my M3 and its rangefinder base accuracy, but I don't anticipate Leica will

offer such a fine system on the M8. Even so, there is a massive difference between the 0.85 and the

0.58 (presumably multiplied by 1.33 ?), and it will be disappointing if only the widest finder is available.

Although I'm not a 135mm lens user, wouldn't that lens be pretty useless on a 58mm equivalent

viewfinder ?

 

Is a second optional finder glass especially complex to design and manufacture once the first has been

designed ?

 

Leica know exactly what its customers preferences are. Hopefully the investment requirements will

allow them to provide the choices.

[fred_c1]

Most people in this forum don't believe it, but Leica does have an e-mail address for such questions and they do send out replies: http://www.leica-camera.com/mail/index_e.php3

[fred_c1]

BTW, make sure you explain to them what you mean by "58mm equivalent viewfinder" and "a second optional finder glass."

 

If you have "variable-magnification finder" in mind, LTM Canons started having it about 50 years ago, something Leica hasn't picked up so far and probably never will.

[working camera]

I'm talking through my arse here but I suspect it will be the standard 0.72 finder. But with

the ﾓ1.33x cropﾔ a 0.85 mag would make sense.

 

Maybe the whole set up might be redesigned with its unique VF mag so perfectly suit the

so-called crop factor?

 

Anyway the whole thing is totally irrelevant because I scored a really good Leica Binocular

neck strap for my M5 and it works really well on the third lug I just had added. Now that is

exciting stuff to have my M5 back in working order again.

 

Everybody knows that even numbered Leica Ms are just NO GOOD. So the M8 is going to

be a dog.

 

The M2ﾅ poor sister to the M3

 

M4ﾅ a short term stop-gap camera. A hybrid that encompassed the worst aspects of the

M3 and M2 and pre-empted the superficial sexy look of the M6. An that dumb film loading

system. Only over zelious German efficiency could come up with something like that.

 

M4-2ﾅ (two even numbers!) the worst ever M model! Apart from selling NHL players to

the USA what have the Canadians done that is any good. Ohﾅ forget Ed The Sock and the

Sunnyvale Trailer Park series theyﾒre cool.

 

M4-Pﾅ even worse than the M4-2 could only be made worse still by adding a TTL meter

 

M6ﾅ the dumb blonde of the Leica Msﾅ super sexy lookin but lightweight ﾅflairs up at

the least provocation. Her (M6) younger sister the BP MP is stacks hotter looking though

 

The M6TTL only half an M7 that works backwards.

 

The only good Leica Ms are the odd numbered onesﾅ the M3 M5 and M7

 

Iﾒll hang out for the M9 thatﾒs bound to be good.

 

 

C.

[working camera]

Sorry 'bout silly "?" marks... bad editing from a conversion from MS Word.

 

C.

[andyaitken]

Yep, them M1's sure were handy cameras...

[john_amiet2]

I know I have have had a few drinks tonight but, it seems to me that so much crap gets spread around here based on NO knowledge of the facts.

 

Let Leica bring out the M8 as they have designed it, in their inestimable right, and either 'like' it or 'lump' it. No amount of b.....ting will have any influence on the outcome at this stage.

 

What anyone 'fears' or 'hopes' is inconsequential! What wil be, will be. Go take pictures with your "bloody awful" M 'odd number' models and blame the result on the camera, if you dare. I suggest the poor result is not the camera's fault.

 

No apology for the rant, and I don't blame it on the drink, even if other will.

 

Cheers,

 

JA

[working camera]

Andy

 

Yeah I was waiting with" bated�" for the M1 comeback.

 

Come on� unfair the M1 was really a Post Kamera and had no RF so it don�t count. fair go

heh.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Maybe they can copy the 1941 Ektra, and have a 4 1/8" ( ~105mm ) baseline and a magnified rangefinder viewfinder, and a removeable back, designed for 254mm telephoto lenses? :)

[al_kaplan1]

Wow! A 254mm lens with a 1.3 crop factor equals a full frame 302mm lens. No thanks.

[john_graham3]

Yeah, imagine how long your arm would need to be to take self portraits with that :*)

[kelly_flanigan1]

<B>OT Ektra stuff</b>Al, the Ektra has the RF windows on either side of the camera, easy to get one covered up with the fingers. The RF window is separate, like the Medalist or Signet 35. The magnification is about 2x, soe one has a 4 1/8" times 2X effective baseline, ie 8.5 inches about 216 mm! <BR><BR>The 10 inch 254mm Ektra lens never made consumer production. <BR><BR> With the 50mm F1.9 Normal Ektra lens, the RF focuses to about 3.5 feet, but the lens has a duual range pin that one pulls to allow focusing to 18 inches by the scale. Once you pull the pin the lens only goes from 3.5 ft to 1.5 ft un RF coupled. You pull the pin out again to get the lens back in the RF coupled zone of infinity to 3.5 ft. <BR><BR><BR><BR>One cool thing is a Ektra lens has its focus cam surface protected by the lens mount, it is recessed. this means when one places a lens on a table the precise cam surface is protected from damage, unlike a Leica. <BR><BR>The viewfinder has a zoom one sets for the lens in useage, plus a diopter adjust. to replace a lens one unclutches the lock by the tripod socket, and unscrews the lens about 1 1/4 turns. The knurled ring on the lens closest to the body is rotated, the main lens body doesnt turn. There is a keyway on the body and the lens that mates at the 6 o'clock position. To place a lens one a body takes about 2 to 3 seconds, with the lens lock not touched. <BR><BR><BR><BR>The US quarter sized gear on the left eye side is used to focus, or the lens if not old and stiff. The shutters on these Ektras are often flakey or bad today.

[Rob F.]

Hmm, seems to have been some topic drift here. What was the original question? Oh, yeah. M8 finder magnification.

 

Interesting question! Let's see . . . if the shortest Leica lens is 21mm, and the crop factor is 1.33, then the widest available view is equivalent to 28mm. That would justify a .58 finder, wouldn't it. So .58 could be in the running. And then again, if the longest lens for which it has a frameline should be the 90, that's equivalent to a 120mm view. And that would justify a .85. And in between, there's still room for a .72.

 

Even if the smallest frameline is for a 75 (Iforget what we said last month when this came up), that's a 100mm equivalent, and with the Summilux 75, a .85 finder would be useful.

 

So, I could see where they might start out with the .72 and before long add the .58 and .85; or more likely, offer the latter two a la carte right from the start. Hmm. "A la carte from the start" has a catchy ring to it, no?

[john_camp]

"An a la carte, right from the start" scans better.

[jtk]

The M8 viewfinder was inspired by Harry Potter's glasses...but it's not just fictional, like the camera itself: more than fictional, it's mythical, like bokeh. :-)

[andy_piper2]

News? No.

 

Options? Doubtful - Leica does not offer VF options anymore except via A LA CARTE. Leica will be busy enough filling 'straight' M-digital orders - no time for screwing around with A LA CARTE for a couple of years, if ever, in the digital line.

 

.72x view of the subject, with framelines downsized to account for the crop factor to a bit smaller than the 'boxes' in a .58x viewfinder (.5401x to be exact).

 

Length? Exactly the same as all other Ms. 57.76mm or whatever - window to window. No point whatsover in wasting time and R&D money redesigning what works perfectly.

 

Framelines? For the following LENSES (NOT fields of view, true focal lengths): 28/35/50/75/90.

 

FOV or "equivalent focal length"(Silly concept): 36/48/67/100/120.

 

Leica has already said the 135 focal length will 'not be suitable' for use on the M, probably because the downsized frame would be quite tiny (many people think the full-sized 135 frame is too tiny, but not me!).

 

21mm, 24mm and the hypothetical new 15mm superwide will require accessory viewfinders in the hot shoe (actually, probably a new 'zoom' accesory finder based on the current one, for all three "effective" focal lengths 21/28/32).

 

However, using the whole viewfinder outside the framelines will probably do a fair job for the 21 or 24 (remains to be seen which is closest), just as the edges of an m2/m4/m4-2 viewfinder will work for a 28mm in the film world.

 

It's not that hard to change the optics of a finder (in manufacturing) but it is a whole lot easier to cut the slits for the brightlines in a different place - thus my prediction of a .72x finder with the framelines repositioned/resized.