Leica M6 TTL Viewfinder Comparison*L@@K*

[nhp]

Leica M6 TTL Viewfinder Comparison (0.58 vs. 0.72 vs. 0.85)

http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/m6ttl/sucher/beispiel/index.html

[kens]

Interesting. And I'm sure they're "accurate" representations in a

strictly geometric sense. But these don't convey the true feel of the

viewfinders in real life. I've tried all 3, and all are tighter than

these representations lead you to believe. Probably has to do

with "eye relief". The 35mm lens on the .58 viewfinder, for example,

feels perfectly sized in reality, whereas the representation leads

you to believe that the 35mm frame line is very small in the

viewfinder.

 

<p>

 

Also, remember that the wider the viewfinder, the shorter the

effective rengefinder base, meaning less accurate focusing.

 

<p>

 

I like the .58 viewfinder very much, but nothing longer than a 50mm

lens will work on it for me. Similar with the .85 viewfinder -

nothing shorter than a 50mm for my taste.

[joshroot]

Had they made the .58 viewfinder with 21 & 24 framelines I would have

bought one sight unseen. Even if it just had 24 lines (with the

outside edges of the viewfinder getting close to 21) I probably would

have bought one. But since I can see the 28 lines on my m6 just fine,

.58 isn't that big of a deal to me as I had hoped it would be. It's

tempting, but not enough to make me want to ruch out and plunk down

the cash.

 

<p>

 

I'd rather use the money to go to the beach that is pictured in their

comparison shots.

[paul_chefurka2]

>I like the .58 viewfinder very much, but nothing longer than a

>50mm lens will work on it for me. Similar with the .85 viewfinder -

>nothing shorter than a 50mm for my taste.

 

<p>

 

They sound like a perfect pair, don't they? I'm using a Hexar RF and

a .85 in just such a configuration. It works like a charm.

[jay_.]

I personally prefer the 0.72 because it covers the widest gamut of

lenses and as I carry two bodies I don't have to think about which is

which. I also have a Hexar, and have used the 0.85 Leica. I don't

find the lower or higher magnifications significant save for the

framelines they eliminate, which to me is a disadvantage. All the

different magnification viewfinders give the same "look", so I find

the accessory finder for 28mm and wider gives a more realistic view

of what the shot will actually look like. The 90 and 135 frames in

the 0.85 are really not much larger than in the 0.72 (the 13%

increase is less evident the smaller the frame). I think the various

magnifications are a way Leica Camera can, at very little cost to

them, appear to be in motion. My hope is that they will not decide

the 0.72 is superfluous and discontinue it. Then again, that would

probably only drive up the value of the "classic" M6!

[tse_sung_wu7]

I went to Adolf Gassers the other day in San Francisco and they didn't

have any M6's out of box to handle. I did peer into a Bessa-R and the

Hexar RF (heavy!). The man behind the counter, tho' admitting he

couldn't afford a Leica, merely sniffed at these 'pretenders.' Yeesh!

If and when I get a Leica, I hope I don't come across so snobby!

<p>

Why couldn't he ditch the attitude and just say, "Well there are a lot

of reasons why a- they cost so much and b- people are willing to pay

the price." Instead he sounded defensive and was in snob-mode.

<p>

Ahem, anyhow, I wonder if anyone knows what the VF magnification on the

Hexar (classic) is (which I do have and adore)? I haven't been able to

find it here or on photo.net. Or how the VF magnification of the Hexar

RF and Bessa-R are? <a href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/

leicahome.html">Erwin Puts</a> seems to <a href="http://www.imx.nl/

photosite/leica/mseries/choosem.html">advocate</a> the .58 as the

single all-around body, contrary to what some people have said here.

He says the eye relief can be important for people who shoot a lot in a

day, and that it'd work well with the 75/1.4 and even 90/2. Anyone

know if the original Hexar's VF is close to 0.6?

<p>

Thanks.

[Spearhead]

The Hexar is 0.6. Of course, before Leica had the 0.58, Puts didn't

consider this adequate viewfinder magnification, particularly for the

90/2. That changed with the new Leica model.

[tse_sung_wu7]

Jeff,

<p>

<i>The Hexar is 0.6. </i>

<p>

Hm. Compared to the graphic at the site with the views of .58

through .85, I find my Hexar's finder looks closer to the .72. The

35mm FL framelines seem to match those of the .72 better than the .58.

<p>

<i>Of course, before Leica had the 0.58, Puts didn't consider this

adequate viewfinder magnification, particularly for the 90/2. That

changed with the new Leica model. </i>

<p>

I don't follow. Puts placed the lower theoretical limit above 0.6, but

was proven wrong when he got his hands on a .58 M6?

<p>

[Spearhead]

Konica and everyone else shows 0.6 so I assume that is the spec.

 

<p>

 

Puts said on the LEG (Leica group on topica) that 0.6 was inadequate

for properly focusing 50/1.4 and 90/2.0. Magically, when Leica

brought out a lower magnification rangefinder, these limits

disappeared for the Leica. When I questioned him on the LEG on the

discrepancy, he failed to answer.

 

<p>

 

It's what's called "marketing."

[tse_sung_wu7]

On this topic of VF mag., is there any way to convert VF magnifications

to what you see looking though an SLR with a lens of a certain focal

length?

 

<p>

 

E.g., is 0.6 similar to what you see through a 28mm lens?

 

<p>

 

Is the M3's finder as close to a 50mm lens?

 

<p>

 

I realize that not all VF's of SLRs are the same (92% vs 100%

coverage).

 

<p>

 

Tse-Sung

[grant_.]

how can you tell what magnification you have...my m6 is used, and

probably from the 80's....theres no mag #'s on the front finder...