Magnification of "classic"M6/M4-P: .7 or .72?

[simon_wong]

Hi,

 

<p>

 

Does the old M6 have a .7 or .72 finder?

 

<p>

 

I was comparing a "classic" with the M6TTL.72 and thought I could see a fraction more of the 35 frameline in the older camera. Or perhaps it's just the eyepiece in the TTL is a little deeper?

 

<p>

 

Bit of a non issue really, but just curious. I wear glasses and I didn't have to "hunt" for the frameline edges as much with the "classic". The .58 is best, but I felt a little "removed" from the action.

 

<p>

 

Cheers.

[Rob F.]

Simon, I think it is .72, since that is the figure given for all M-

Leicas exept the M3 and M6 0.85. I don't think they varied it.

[Rob F.]

Oh, and of course, the 0.58.

[simon_wong]

Quite.

 

<p>

 

Thanks Bob, I thought so. Must just be the depth of the eyepiece

being a fraction different?

 

<p>

 

Cheers.

[simon_wong]

Or just being led astray by Eastland's Leica Compendium again....

[jay_.]

I have an M4, used to have an M4-2 and M2's also. Compared to the M6

(classic, 0.72)the 35 framelines in the M4/M4-2 are slightly larger.

I definitely have a harder time seeing the 35 framelines in the older

bodies. I thought this might be due to my having M6 rubber-clad

eyepieces on all of them, but I've checked OEM-eyepiece M4's and they

are the same. The only thing I can think of is that they might have

dropped the magnification just a hair to include the 28 framelines

from the M4-P on, or perhaps increased the exit pupil just slightly.

I don't know for sure and no one has an authoritative answer. Also,

the 50mm framelines in the M4 are larger than in the M6. They

actually delineate a larger area, if you compare them side-by-side,

so it isn't a finder magnification issue. All I could come up with

is that since the frames are sized to show what the lens sees at its

closest focusing distance, the older 50 frames must be calibrated to

the older 50's which only focused to 1m, vs 0.7m for the newer 50's.

Interesting trivia but not much practical use I'm afraid.

[andy_piper2]

I don't think there's actually a magnification difference between the

4-frame M4-2 and the 6-frame M4-P/M6...i think leica just 'cheated'

the 35 frameline in a bit in order to make room for the 28 frame (it's

not like we EXPECT Leica frames to be accurate, is it?)

[jay_.]

You may be right. Whatever, it's easier to see with glasses

(although if you're right, it just means it shows even *less* of

what's going on film than the M4 did).

[simon_wong]

Thanks for the input guys.

 

<p>

 

I got the same impression as you Jay. Eastland's book states the M6

is .7x and all the other M's as .72x. Perhaps he's right?

 

<p>

 

Initially I thought it was just the parallax correction shifting the

RHS line out of my view at close focus. Maybe it still is the case?

That comparison was with the .58 so it might be a red herring.

 

<p>

 

Regards the frameline view, I thought the lines are set for about 7

foot and closer you need to use less than the brightline and at

infinity about 3 times the thickness of the brightline?

 

<p>

 

Is the M6 different to the earlier M's in this?

 

<p>

 

Cheers.

[jay_.]

The framelines on all M's are set for the lens' minimum focus

distance (0.7m on 35 and 50, 1m on 90, 1.5m on 135 etc.). At medium

distances (3m-5m eg.) the difference (on the 50 frame) is about 1

thickness in addition; at 10m-infinity it grows to about 3

thicknesses (on all but the M3 which has thicker lines to begin with,

I think it's 2 thicknesses--have to get my Osterloh book out!) I

find in practice that at infinity with the 50 I've become accustomed

to how far to pull my eye back from the finder so the black outline

shows what the 50 will give me. With the 75, you can use the 50

framelines at ling distances. With a 90, using the preview lever to

bring up the 75 framelines is nearly exact. For the 135 frames just

compose to the outer edge of the frameline at infinity.

[Rob F.]

. . . And when the 75mm finder does a better job than the 90, and the

50 better than the 75, the difference between .72 and .70 kind of

pales into insignificance. Simon, you were right. It's a non-issue.

[lucien1]

Look at Erwin Puts' <a

href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/leicahome.html">Leica

Papers</a> : <a

href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/overview/rfspecs.html">Rangefin

der specifications for all Leica RF models since 1954</a> and

<a

href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/rfaccuracy.html">Range

finder accuracy</a> .

[andy_piper2]

I was wrong. Leica didn't 'cheat'.

 

<p>

 

I just compared my M4-2 finder to an M4-P and M6TTL .72x.

 

<p>

 

1. The magnifications are identical. I put the finders to my eyes in

pairs and there was no difference in the size of objects seen through

two finders at once (man, I must have looked weird!)

 

<p>

 

2. The sizes of the 35 frames are identical (except the M6 is missing

a chunk to make room for the >o< meter).

 

<p>

 

3. The M4-P/M6 both seem to have a slightly wider "tunnel" carved out

for the viewfinder, which makes it easier to see space around the 35

frame than with the M4-2 (about 2 frame-line-widths of extra visible

area) and possible to see the 28 frame. In a standard M4-2 finder the

28 frame would be well out into the black area around of the finder.