Viewfinder Advice Wanted

[bobby_hudgins]

I am going to buy a second Leica M body to go with my M6TTL 0.72, and

would like to know how much difference a 0.85 viewfinder would make in

actual use with a 90/2.8 and 50/1.4. Would focusing and framing be

appreciably more easy? So far, I am happy with the .72 with the 21VC,

35 and 50 lenses. I do not wear glasses to look through the viewfinder

(but can't see the camera controls without reading glasses...). Also,

I live in the middle of nowhere and don't have the opportunity to try

the different finders.

Thanks.

[mark-j]

Personally, I prefer the 0.85 or an M3 with the 0.91 finders, but then I am wierd and like the 50 and 90 lenses. The down side is the 0.85 does not have framelines for the 28, but this does not appear to conflict with your lenses. I appreciate the larger view and easier focusing.

 

On the other hand you can just use your 21VC and crop for a 50 or 90 and not bother carrying your other lenses;>)

 

Cheers.<div></div>

[al_kaplan1]

Odds are your eyes won't be getting any better as you age! Leitz/Leica never seemed to think that focussing a 90/2 or 135/3.4 was a major problem with the .72 and I've had an 85/2 Nikkor which I try to use on my M3 when I'm carrying more than one body, but it's probably seen more use on my M2 bodies and is OK wide open with the .72 finder. A 90/2.8 should be no problem at all.

 

The .85 finder is fine for the 21, 50 and longer but is a bit tight with the 35 frame line. If you get to the point where you need glasses when using the camera you won't be able to use the 35 frame line very easily. Framing with the 90, or a 135 should you get one, would be a bit easier with the .85.

[david_chananie]

I believe I have the M6J installed in my M3. Works nicely. All best.

[andy_piper2]

IMHE, the .72 finder has generally worked OK with most lenses. But the .85x sure snaps the RF images together more distinctly. It sometimes seems like just breathing on the focus ring will make the images separate visibly - this is a good thing!

 

I absolutely prefer the .72 for use with a 35mm lens, but for practically anything else the .85 is very nice. The ONLY times I've gotten sharp pictures with a 75 f/1.4 under 2 meters was when using a .85x, and it improves the odds with a 90 f/2.

 

For the 50 f/1.4 the .72 is adequate - the extra 'snap' of the .85 is nice, but more accuracy than you really have to have with a 50. You'd probably see a small improvement in your focus percentage with the 90 f/2.8.

 

The size/area of the 50/90 frames in the .85x is only 18% larger - not a huge advantage. But the .85x is close enough to life-size that I can shoot with both eyes open, which I find makes the 35 frame almost comfortable.

 

Much as I prefer the .72x for 35mm work - if I actually had to limit myself to one body I personally would go with the .85x, having tried it.

 

I shoot 15/21/35/90/135 lenses, FWIW. I generally shoot the 35 on a .72 and use the .85 for everything else.

[jay_.]

<<I am going to buy a second Leica M body to go with my M6TTL 0.72, and would like to know how much difference a 0.85 viewfinder would make in actual use with a 90/2.8 and 50/1.4. Would focusing and framing be appreciably more easy?>>

 

The 0.85 magnifies any of the frames' area by 15%. So the smaller the frame, the less actual sq mm's it will increase. That means that you get the least pronounced enlargement of the frames you most need bigger: 90 and 135. And, with the 0.85 you give up the 28mm frame entirely and also diminished ability to see the 35 frame in one glance even if you don't wear glasses. All my bodies are 0.72x, and when I shoot with 2 bodies the second one wears the 1.25x magnifier and I use this for 90 or 135.

 

I wear glasses and find it impossible to use even the 50 frames in an 0.85 (or an 0.72 with the 1.25x). Oh I can see the frame ok, but I can't see enough outside the 50 framelines to get an accurate framing for distances over about 1m.

[peter_white2]

I wouldn't buy a 0.85 camera. The viewfinder magnifier works great, and gives you the same functionality as the 0.85 finder. Plus, when you want to put on a wide angle lens, you just take off the magnifier.

 

PJW

[ralph_barker]

<p>My suggestion would be to think about how you are going to use the second body. If, for example, you want to load color film in one, and B&W in the other, you might opt to have both with the same viewfinder magnification. That's what I did, opting for 0.72 on both bodies for maximum flexibility (black body for B&W, chrome for color film), along with one of the (over-priced) 1.25x magnifiers that I can move between bodies as needed. The 1.25 magnifier gives you 0.90 on the 0.72 viewfinder, so it's slightly better than the 0.85 for focusing the longer lenses.</p>

<p>If your plans for the second body are more focal-length related, your choice might differ, however.</p>

<center>

<img border=2 src="http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/m6/125ViewMag19-500.jpg">

</center>

[george_b1]

Bobby- As a certified "Old Fud," let me say that the .72 mag body should fill your needs- - - IF you get the 1.25 magnifier as an essential accessory. At my advanced age, I have macular degeneration, and I find the magnifier essential for focusing with my M4 and M7, especially with a 50mm and 90mm. Wider angle lenses can hide focusing faults due to DOF; however, IMHO, from 50 mm on up, the magnifier is essential for critical work.

[feli]

I have two Ms, a M2(.72) and M6TTL (.85)

 

I would get a .85 for the longer/faster leghts (50/90/135).

 

35mm - The .72 is more comfortable to use with this lenght. There is a generous free

area surrounding the framelines. Focus is accurate, although I haven't shot a lot with

a 35/1.4; but the 35/2 works fine. With the .85 the frame lines are at the edges of

the viewer and I have difficulty seeing them without glasses, especially the bottom

and right one. On vertical shots I have noticed that my composition tend to drift on

the right side of the frame, because the line is hard to see (using the .85).

 

50 - The 50 is perfect on the .85 and works very well on the .72. My fastest 50 is f2,

but I bet that the extra magnification would make a difference with a Summilux or

Noctilux. Frankly if I owned a Noctilux I would get a M3 (.91) or the 1.25 magnifier.

 

75 - Don't own one. A friend of mine shoots a 75/1.4 Summilux with a .58 and get's

sharp pictures. Maybe he doesn't show me the ones that aren't.

 

90 - The .85 wins. I notice a difference, not much, but it's there. I am curious to try

either camera with the 1.25 magnifier. Should be great on the .85.

 

135 - No contest, the .85 wins. The M3 is even better (.91) Again the 1.25 magnifier

would make a big difference.

 

I put the 35 on the M2 and the 50/90/135 on the M6TTL .85. Works pretty good. If I

get another M body, it will be a new .72 with 28mm framelines, because someday I

would like a Tri-Elmar. I may add the 1.25 magnifier to help with the longer focal

lenghs. That's the great thing about the ,72. You can add magnification, but can't

subtract any from the .85.

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

feli