Here is a look at the new 1.25 magnifier

[john_collier5]

Rich at Photovilla has kindly posted an information sheet on the

new M viewfinder 1.25 magnifier. I now have one on order from

my dealer.

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photovillage.com/html/news.html">

http://www.photovillage.com/html/news.html</a>

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

[jackflesher]

John:

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the link! I am intersted in one of these, as I really like

my .58x M6... However, am I the only one that thinks they should have

brought this out in a 1.5x model also, so as to take the respective M

finder up two magnification steps? When I'm using my .58 body, the

only time I feel under-magnified is with the 90 (or 75 if I had it)

and up. Hence, having the ability to jump 2 steps to a .85 or even 3

steps to a 1.06 would have a lot of merit, as I'm pretty sure the 75

framlines would still be easily visible. But I guess Leica does not

want to obviate any demand for their .85 bodies... yet.

[andrew_schank]

OK, so when does the .8 magnifier come out so I can use a 35mm lens

on my M3 without eyes (just kidding)

[albert_smith]

Thanks John.

 

<p>

 

I am still a bit lost as to how an eyepiece magnifier can increase

the accuracy of the rangefinder, (point 2 from the description sheet

on the website). I can see how you will have a better view for

composition due to the enlargement of the frames, but it seems to me

that the rangefinder is not effected if the two front windows remain

the same. The triangulation of the rangefinder occurs laterally and

to the front of the camera. How can the effective RF base be

increased 25% without altering the front of the camera?

 

<p>

 

The three M6 versions, (.58, .72 and .85) have different effective RF

bases in part because of the front window of the finder. It is hard

for me to understand how simply holding a magnifying glass up to my

eyepiece does anything to increase RF accuracy, other than seeing

everything more clearly.

 

<p>

 

Maybe I'm just dense.

[jim_shields]

Yes, let's get some answers here. Can someone tell us that

lengthening the rangefinder base and increasing the magnification of

the viewfinder window both increase our ability to focus accurately?

The M3 is recommended by some for critical focusing with the Noct.

and 75 at full aperture. The CL has a short rangefinder base and

this makes critical focusing difficult (do I have that right?).

Does simply magnifying the rangefinder patch do the trick?

[jackflesher]

>Can someone tell us that lengthening the rangefinder base and

increasing the magnification of the viewfinder window both increase

our ability to focus accurately?<

 

<p>

 

1) Lengthening the rf base increases accuracy because of

trigonometry - The increased base-length of the triangle allows for

more accurate angualr discrimination of the rf arm at the end of said

base -- reduced triangulation error, if you prefer. Inreased angular

discrimination (reduced triangulation error) translates into

increased accuracy of focus in an rf system.

 

<p>

 

2) Magnification plays an equally important role because it allows

the viewer increased visual discrimination in alignment of the two

windows. This again translates into increased focus accuracy in an rf

system.

 

<p>

 

Note: An SLR's focus system improves over the Leica M with lenses

over about 90mm because of the increased magnification the lens

provides to its rf system. Also, the rf base-length in an SLR system

is essentially equal to the maximum optical diameter of the lens in

use; hence faster SLR lenses provide more rf focusing accuracy over

their slower counterparts in an SLR system.

[andy_piper2]

Al: Look at it this way. There is no physical baselength diffence

between the .58, ,72 and .85 M6 bodies (or the M3 for that matter).

Stick a ruler across the front and the distance between the centers of

the RF windows is the same on all four (69mm plus/minus). The .85 does

NOT have a longer physical baseline and the .58 does not have a

shorter physical baseline.

 

<p>

 

Point the three bodies at a subject 6.9 meters away. The rangefinder

mechanism in ALL THREE BODIES will be measuring the exact same

triangle with the exact same angles, and hence the exact same raw

accuracy.

 

<p>

 

BUT, that RAW accuracy is affected by how well YOU can see the RF

split image and determine whether the RF is actually aligned. The

higher the magnification, the easier it is to see whether the images

are aligned or not (but the harder it is to see the whole picture).

 

<p>

 

That's all the .85 viewfinder does - magnify the image (or actually,

MINIFY it less) so that your eye can more accurately determine if the

images are aligned.

 

<p>

 

That is also exactly what the 1.25x eyepice does, magnify the .72

image (or reduce the built-in MINIFICATION) so that your eye can more

accurately detemine if the images are alinged.

 

<p>

 

The 1.25x eyepiece actually does it a tad better, since the .85 is

(relative to the .72) only a 1.18x magnification.

 

<p>

 

 

(BTW, the triangle in the example above has two sides of 69mm and

6900mm. For extra credit, what is the length of the third side?)

 

<p>

 

A. 7000mm

 

<p>

 

B. 6900.34mm

 

<p>

 

C. 6920.34mm

 

<p>

 

D. 6969.69mm

[jackflesher]

Andy:

 

<p>

 

I did not bother to consult Pathagorus or my calculator, AND I'm on

my second apple martini -- yes, I realize it is not my traditional

Sunday single-malt, however it iss verry good... 2 parts Kettle-one

or Skye, 1 part sour apple schnapps, plus a splash of sweet&sour,

yummmmm -- and since you have given no "E None of the above" I'll

have to go for an educated guess of "B"... BUT something about "D"

iss sounding very good to me right now too, just can't quite put my

finger on it ;^)

[jackflesher]

tangent of what = .001?

[jackflesher]

Gotta be what, .2 degree?

[jackflesher]

Pythagoras?

[jackflesher]

Heck, I dunno, 'nother martini...

[dan_brown4]

Forget the Leica magnifier, send me a Sun Yellow Hasselblad!

[Rob F.]

Andy, it's 6,900.34499138. The angle is 0.57293870 degrees. I used

the rectangular-to-polar button on my h-p 32S. So it's B.

 

<p>

 

What do I get?

 

<p>

 

Dan, I like that Sun yellow Hasselblad myself!

[andy_piper2]

OK, Bob wins the sun yellow Hasselblad. "B" it is.

 

<p>

 

Jack wins consolation prize for "Most Creative Martini recipe."

[andy_piper2]

Actually, I can't wait until Jeff Spirer gets a load of what

Hasselblad believes defines the 'sophisticated' photographe.

 

<p>

 

You see that, Jeff? - it has nothing to do with the quality of our

images or our ability to see 'photographically'. It all comes down to

the color of our vulcanite/rubber/vinyl.

[Spearhead]

I'm sorry, I can't talk about this right now, I'm using Photoshop to

remove that miniature Leica so I can see everything behind it.

[andy_piper2]

Don't blame you....

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

So in my M3 what would I get from a 1.15 magnification finder, a

bigger frame for my 90 OK, and will I still be able to see my 50

frame?

 

<p>

 

Thank´s for sharing this information John, I woudn´t think it would

be so easy to have another finder.

[msitaraman]

Nobody has mentioned the fact that higher magnification with a fixed

aperture means a dimmer image, which decreases low light focusing

ability in practical situations.

 

<p>

 

I believe this one reason people find the .58 finder so gorgeous-its

brighter.

 

<p>

 

The 1.25 (can't wait to get mine) will dim the image, albeit slightly.

 

<p>

 

Slightly, but not imperceptibly.

 

<p>

 

A ton of complaints in LUG about dimness when the original M6 HM .85

came out, and my own very definite reaction to the .85 viewfinder

over the .72 I was used to, lead me to believe that the 1.25 will

elicit similar responses.

 

<p>

 

Also the ergonomics are such that one will have to hold the camera

further away from the face, perhaps leading to a loss in stability

(?).

 

<p>

 

On the other hand, it definitely will be useful with the 90 and 135.

Anyone who has used a brightline finder with the 90 or the (rarer)

135 will attest to the usefulness of both the higher magnification,

and the utility of integrating focusing with a high magnification

viewfinder.

[msitaraman]

<b>Precious Metal</b><br><p>

 

Does this gizmo weigh a mere 7 grams, about a quarter oz, as the spec

sheet says it does? Surely this is a misprint?

 

At current prices, that would make it about cost three and a half

times as much as pure gold, gram for gram.

 

But with Leica, you never know...

[jim_shields]

How is this, more valuable than gold, gizmo different than a diopter?

[andy_piper2]

Jim: It's most a question of degree.

 

<p>

 

A diopter is a very slight corrective lens similar to the lens in a

pair of glasses - depending on the prescription it may magnify OR

reduce things very slightly but its main purpose is to correct vision

WITHOUT much magnification or reduction (except, possibly, for reading

glasses).

 

<p>

 

A magnifier is optically similar but designed intentionally to make

something bigger and easy to see close up. The Leica 1.25x has 2

elements and is .7 inches long, so it would seem to actually be a tiny

(and very mild) telescope that magnifies the middle of the M6

viewfinder - subject, frames, RF patch and all. It wouldn't surprise

me if the viewable area barely includes the 50mm frame and excludes

the 28 and even 35 frames on a .72 viewfinder.

 

<p>

 

It would require one hell of a prescription for a diopter to do that.

[wayne_murphy7]

Is this accessory for real? Not a practical joke?

 

<p>

 

Are we really expected to take seriously a monocle on a string? As

others have observed, the wider framelines will not be visible and we

would have to screw this thing on for longer lenses and then unscrew

it when we change to "wider" lenses, leaving it to dangle on its

string. Where does the dioptre correction lens go? Before or after

the magnifier?

 

<p>

 

I await the all-new Leica ear trumpet or steam powered motor drive.

 

<p>

 

I can just see the Contax designers wetting themselves with mirth.

[joshroot]

I have to say that the phrase "Leica Ear Trumpet" made me laugh

harder than I have in a couple of days (although since there hasn't

been much to laugh about, that isn't as big of a deal as it seems).

But hey, it was really funny.