Getting used to Leica viewfinder

[k_m20]

<p>Hey guys,<br>

I've had a Nikon SLR for a while now. I am very happy with it, but I also want to add a rangefinder to my collection. I've decided on the Leica M6, but I still have some reservations.<br>

Can anyone tell me if it was difficult getting used to the "framelines" on Leica camras? I am used to my F3HP which shows almost exactly what will be on the negative. I will exclusively use 50mm and 35mm lenses.<br>

Just to make sure I understand correctly: the M6 viewfinder shows the area outside the frame, and other frame lines as well? Does that get confusing/is it hard to envision your picture?</p>

<p>Any thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.<br>

Thanks</p>

 

[dhbebb]

<p>The main problem for some people is that everything in an RF viewfinder looks sharp, whether it is in focus or not. The framelines themselves are not usually a problem, except that the M6 shows frames in pairs and you have to remember which lens you're using! I have an M2 and an M4 so don't have this. Being able to see outside the frame is one of the advantages of an RF camera, you can "see things coming".</p>

[SCL]

<p>In addition to David's comments is something which is much more important (in my mind at least). There is a slight diopter correction in the Leica viewfinders, which your eyes may or may not accommodate (with or without glasses and depending on the elasticity of your eyeball - age related issue). Many people find that they benefit by adding a small Leica eyepiece diopter to really snap the view into focus. If you find that the view isn't screaming bright and razor sharp, you should visit a Leica dealer and try their corrrective eyepieces until you find one which does the job for you....it can make all the difference in the world in terms of your enjoyment of the camera. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I am used to my F3HP which shows almost exactly what will be on the negative</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You won't have that with the M6 - its viewfinder is not a precise framing tool - the framelines rather loosely define what's going to be on the image. The full M6 viewfinder shows the view of a 28mm - so the 35mm frame will be about 64% of that and the 50mm frameline about 32% (or about 50% of the 35 area). Should give you an impression how small the image in the viewfinder will be. In addition, focusing via the RF patch will take some getting used to as well.</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>Over the years I've run hot and cold on various viewing systems, going back and forth between Leicas and Nikons, generally. I don't think it will be predictable how you'll get on with it, but I do think that it will involve changing the way you think or see. If you're flexible in that regard, you might find it rewarding. Or you might just find it frustrating. I think it's an interesting exercise in seeing differently, which is always good. These days I'm into the seeing the upside down way :-) There's only one way to really find out how it will work for you, right?</p>

[jason]

<p>It's an answer of Faith and Realty.<br>

The SLR, a la Nikon F3, which is 100% viewfinder.<br>

What you see, is what you get!<br>

To be absolutely sure, do a "stop down" of aperture!<br>

The Leica viewfinder is a good guess.<br>

The M3 is practically perfect.<br>

Each newer M is less so..<br>

My M6 a wild guess.<br>

I think the M4 does show two frames on one setting.<br>

The 35mm frame also shows a tiny 135mm frame..<br>

The easiest way is to borrow, try out, go see one in real life.<br>

It may be an imperfect way to exact framing, but the kiss of a Leica,<br>

on your cheek, sealed with the clear view, means you are forever bewitched.</p>

[k_m20]

<p>The main reason I'm considering getting the M6 is because it's newer (therefore less maintenance?) and has a built in meter. I'm afraid of paying around $1,000 for a M3, only to need frequent CLAs. Legit concern?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>An M6 might be between 15 and 30 years old by now - and will need maintenance sooner or later (likely sooner). Might also need a viewfinder upgrade (to the MP finder) if you want to get rid of the RF patch flare issue. You said you will use 35mm lenses - then forget the M3; an M2 would be the a better choice then. My personal favorite is the M5 though...</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>First - correction - the M4 finder does display 35 and 135 frames together - I almost always use only a 50 mm, so had forgotten this.<br>

CLA - a Leica M2. 3 or 4 in good condition is likely to be that way because it has lain in a drawer for years. It will almost certainly need a CLA because of dried-up grease. but ONE CLA should be fine for 40 or so years of light use, say 25 to 50 rolls of film a year. Pros and cons of M3 - pro is the almost lifesize viewfinder image with the 50 mm lens, big con is the need for a 35 mm lens with reducing viewfinder lenses ("spectacles"). These are hard to find - if you have a normal 35mm lens, you'll have to use a separate viewfinder. Even though I use mostly 50 mm lenses, I prefer my M4 because I can see the whole 50 mm frame more easily with eyeglasses.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I have an M4-P (unmetered M6). I shot non-SLRs before, so mentally adjusting to a frameline is no big issue for me. With a 35mm things are easy it takes (at least me) some looking around in the viewfinder to compose with all 4 borders of the 28mm Frameline, the 35mm is pretty close to my natural field of view. A bigger issue with 35mm is being unable to see through my 35mm Hexar it's vented hood reaches the lower right corner of the 90mm frame and the lens itself the 50mm frame, but composing around that issue is possible. Envisioning my picture inside the rather bright framelines has never been an issue for me. To do some dry swimming at home, maybe try handholding some crude wire frame? - I thought a lot of folks start seeing photographically that way? Be aware of the Leica caveats. I really recommend being sure to be able to use a Leica without glasses and your right eye before you get one or double check hands on, if it feels tempting.<br>

I second all Dieter about CLAs. If you are going to buy an M2, do so at some dealer giving an option to compare it's RF patch brightness with a recent model's. My M3 turned a bit dim, is still usable and better than other RFs I own, but the M4-P or even an MP "pop" faster. - I see no reason why well maintained old mechanics should need CLAs more frequently than a budget version built 20 years later. Leicas aren't like cars where the introduction of oil filters reduced the maintenance circles. - At least I never read about such a thing.<br>

I only run half a test roll through a borrowed M6 once, but I don't see much value in the built in meter. Sure one piece of equipment less to care about... But metering with the camera pointing at the subject slows you down you don't get figures of the reading... I like my handheld meters more, but most of my other gear has no great built in meters either.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Others have said it -- take an M and try it out if you can. It is a different experience. If you like long telephotos you won't

like rangefinders. If you're a macro fiend probably the same. Rangefinders work best for people who only want a few

prime lenses between ultra wide and about 90mm (though there is the 135 in various forms). Focusing is pretty fast with

the rangefinder patch but there is no depth of field button. What there is is a depth of field scale on the lens which works

better for me. The design of the M has been basically stable for 60 or so years and it works very well, but tastes do vary

hence trying it out is good.

 

In the film world I have 2 M2s. I like the 35-50-90 frame lines. The M3 has 50-90-135. Later Ms got more and more frame

lines at the expense of some visual complexity. I like a meter so I use the clip on Voigtlander. Well I used to. I switched to

an M8 (which I still use some) and a Sony Nex7 and am considering the A7 unless I talk myself into a used M9. An M is a

beautiful camera to use either film or digital.

[dhbebb]

<p>A couple of further points - for most subjects, the viewfinder image does not have to be super-sharp, since you are not judging sharpness but the coincidence of two patches. The one HUGE failing of RF focusing is subjects which do not have a handy (preferably vertical) line or dot in them to focus on (imagine for example a painted wall with a very fine texture) and above all pattern-type subjects where you have recurring elements from one side of the pic to the other and you can't tell one from another. The only way to focus with an RF here is to focus approximately by scale and then try to pick out a detail to fine-focus on - you might not find one and end up just scale-focusing.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>If you only shoot as wide as 35mm and rarely go beyond 90mm, the M6 TTL 0.85X may be what you need. The viewfinder image is not quite as highly magnified as the M3, but at 0.85X it comes quite close. It is probably the best M6 if you use just a 35 and 50mm lens. It, and the 0.58X viewfinder M6, were made in smaller numbers than the common 0.72X M6's, so it may take more effort to find one. </p>

<p>I always found my M6 meter to be quite good, provided you keep in mind its field of coverage. Seeing outside the frame always felt less constraining and easier to use than an SLR for me. Once one knows how the frame lines act with very close and far subjects, the question of frameline accuracy becomes a bit less important. But it requires extra thinking about it that the SLR (if 100% coverage, only some offer that) does not. Maybe an inaccurate analogy and comparision to make, but using a Leica RF versus an SLR is for me like various kinds of shoes. Some feel better and more comfortable than others or we walk longer with one kind.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>The main reason I'm considering getting the M6 is because it's newer (therefore less maintenance?) and has a built in meter. I'm afraid of paying around $1,000 for a M3, only to need frequent CLAs. Legit concern?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I get a Leica M I would prefer a meter less one. </p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>Having both I find the M6 easier to use ergonomically which makes it easier to compose.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

I used a Retina IIa (with no frame lines) for years but having moved on to more modern cameras I really

like frame lines. You get a heads up if some thing is about to move into the frame just a you release the

shutter. Also I appreciate being able to see what might improve the composition if I move the camera a bit

in any direction.