.85 Owners--35mm Framelines Visible?

[richard_fulco2]

To all .85 viewfinder camera owners(esp. those that DO NOT wear

glasses)--Are the 35mm framelines visible in the .85 viewfinder

cameras? TIA.

 

Richard

[steve_hoffman]

Yes indeed.

[gary_lagnese]

Yes. You have to have your eye close. You cant see the whole frame without moving your eye back and forth though.

[wayne_murphy8]

Sorry, I disagree. I am left eyed (no glasses) and cannot see both sides of the

35 framelines. When I use my right eye, then yes I can, just. I find the 0.72 by

far the best for the 35 lens. Of course, the 0.85 is much better for the 90.

Incidentally, I have tried the 1.25 magnifier with a 0.85 body to get an even

better view with the 90 and did not find it a success. It seemed to make the

framelines faint/difficult to see. Don't know why.

[mark-j]

Richard:

 

I wear glasses manufactured by Coca-Cola. I can not see the entire 35 frame lines in EITHER the .85 or .72 without moving my face in relation to the camera. If I take my glasses off, I can see all of the 35 frame line without moving the camera. My eye must be very close to the camera, and I can not focus, BUT I can see the frame lines. FWIW.

 

Cheers.

[kens]

Seeing the 35mm framelines in a .85 viewfinder is similar to seeing the 28mm lines in a .72 finder. A little bit of a stretch, but usable for most.

[john_collier2]

A great deal depends on the shape of your face. Some people have no trouble while

others, like me with my Neanderthal shaped head, do have to shift the eye around to

see it all. TRY BEFORE YOU BUY. If you can only try a 0.72x finder then look at the

28mm framelines in that as it is located at about the same position as the 35mm

framelines in a 0.85x

[vic_.]

Richard, a good friend of mine has a one body, one lens combo consisting of a 0.85 M6TTL and 35mm f1.4 Asph. He loves this setup. He wears contact lenses, so cannot put his eyeball too close to the camera.

[owen w.]

Yes, but only just. I got an M6ttl .85 about 4 years ago after 20 years with a pair of CLEs (which are essentially a .58 viewfinder). In the process, I also got several new lenses. Ironically, I started using my new 35/2 asph MUCH more than any other lens. Kinda odd, but I liked getting in close with that viewfinder. But, you rarely have the entire view in your eye unless you're smashed against the eyepiece. I now own an M7 .58. I still love my .85, tho. Contrary to Wayne, I DO like the 1.25X converter on the .85, BUT only when I know I'm bonding a 90 to the body for some extended period. For a 50, it's overkill. Taking the thing on and off, and being attentive to the little sucker, is more often more nuisance than it's worth. I love the .85, and having a .58, too, is an ultimate luxury. One black, one chrome. Can tell 'em apart in a glance.

[andrew_hall1]

My experience parallels those of Ken and John.

 

I'd rather have framelines too big than too small (like the 90mm on my 0.85.)

[andy_piper2]

Richard: I DO wear glasses. I prefer the 35 frame on the .72x - but can use the 35 frame on my .85 when needed.

 

Obviously this varies a lot from person to person, as the responses indicate. You really will have to try them for yourself.

 

The 35 frames in the .85x are just about exactly the same size 'box' as the 28 frames in a .72x, and equally hard or easy to see.

[tom_bryant]

I <b>do</b> wear glasses, and I can see most of the 35 frame in my 0.85 M7. The problem with the 0.85 is the rangefinder flare, not the frame visibility.

[james_h]

I have an M6TTL in both .72 and .85. Bought the .72 first with my

first lens, a 35mm. this was/is a good combination. I bought the

.85 when I bought a 90mm a few months later. Pretty much used

them like this; 35mm {and 21mm} on .72, 90mm on .85 until

recently buying a used 50mm. Having used the 50 for a few rolls

on each body I think that either is good for the 50 (common

knowledge), with my personal preference being the higher

magnification .85.

 

To expand on what Tom Bryant said:

 

While I have preferred the .72 with my 35mm, I use the Lutz

shade to reduce rangefinder flare, which dims the framelines. In

low light I have had trouble finding the frame lines (50 or 35)

when photographing some subjects. Using the 50 recently, I had

to move the camera around until I could pick-up the dim frame

lines in the dark and then re-frame the shot as I wanted it. But if I

had been using a 35mm lens on the .85, I know that the whole

viewfinder is very close to the 35 framelines, and there would be

little reason to have to pick-up the lines.

 

From 35mm I jump to a 21, which makes things flexible

regrading which body I use. If I had a 28mm to complicate my

choices (I�m trying to avoid buying one) then the answer is

simple, the .72. for the wider lenses.

 

I don�t wear glasses or contacts: When using the .85 and a

35mm I can usually see all sides of the frame lines when

looking straight/forward and catching the edges in my peripheral

vision. When I look to the right or left to focus on one side of the

frame, I loose the other side of the lines, and can�t see all sides

at once.

[lacey_smith4]

I can see both with right eye, haven't tried left. However, I do not use them as much as when composing in the 0.72 -- the 0.85 is a quick to eye and take what is in the view, quicker, etc. If I have to study the frame lines for composition, they are there (and, I can closely approximate the 28 field by doing the peer left/right exercise). But, I do not nomrally spend time searching for the 35 frames. Perhaps this is the same for 28mm users on the 0.72 (I confess, marginal experience here).

 

I gave the 0.85 with 35 on to a nurse in the Delivery room for a group shot -- she had two other family cameras to contend with, including one SLR and one digital P&S, thrust at her. Her comment on the Leica was that "Wow, this one is easy to see with", and her framing was remarkably good (she did not center our heads, at least).