Viewfinder magnification

[cameron_sawyer]

Sometimes it seems that there are just a few real questions which

get discussed over and over again on this forum in minute detail.

But this may just be a reflection of life: my grandfather, who was

a journalist and photographer, used to say that all great literature

can be boiled down to no less than a dozen main themes, endlessly

recycled.

 

And so again I have a question about viewfinder magnification. I do

really need your advice, guys. My M6 is an 0.58, which I find just

perfect for use with 28's and 35's. But I have rediscovered the

50mm point of view, and am using 90mm a good bit, too. The 0.58,

even with the viewfinder magnifier, is not so great for these, so

I'm thinking of adding a body.

 

So here's my question: do you think the 0.85 is ideal for 50 and

90? Can I use the viewfinder magnifier with the 0.85 to get a

nearly finder-filling 90mm view? If the viewfinder mag plus 0.85 is

stupid, then maybe the 0.72 would be better (adding the magnifier

for 90mm)?

[christian_hilmersen1]

I am using the Hexar RF with 0.60 magnification for 50mm. I really like it as I can see what is happening outside the frame - for me that seems to be one of the main advantages with using a RF camera. For 90 0.72 would be good. (For absolute sharpness 0.85 is probably the best - but there is more to life than sharpness).

[lee_shively]

Personally, I've never had a problem with the .72 finder with any lens from 28mm to 135mm and I wear glasses. I'm sure the .58 would be more appropriate for the wider lenses and the .85 for the normal to long--especially the long. But the .72 just seems to be the right compromise. Having specialized cameras for different focal lengths puts too fine a point on it for me.

 

But I mainly use 35mm and 50mm lenses and I don't own any lenses faster than f/2.

[alain_besancon]

IMHO if you use from 28mm to 90mm, the best combo would be 0,58 and 0,85, principally if your 90 is a 'Cron: wide open at closed distances with a 0,85 and a 'Cron 90 Apo Asph ... I must recognize some shots out of focus ... but not all (here, 1/50 with f:2,0 and a narrow DOF!)

Alain

[vic_.]

Cameron, I've had a chance to use all the three magnifications, so I can give you my experience. The 90mm frame lines will NOT fill the 0.85 viewfinder, the 50mm comes the closest to filling it. If you use the 1.25x with the 0.85, you've got the best setup for the 90mm. The 0.85 as like a metered M3.

 

If you intend to be a long term 50/90 user, the 0.85 is as good as it gets. So my vote is to get the 0.85. I assume it's even better with the 1.25x (I've never used one).

 

Erwin Puts has some advice on selecting cameras (80 percent down the page):

 

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/choosem.html

 

This Leica site shows the framelines on the various magnifications. I don't know how accurate it is, but it will give you a fair idea:

 

http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/images/leica/produkte/msystem/kamera/54.jpg

 

Best of luck!

 

PS. I have only 0.72 since I use mostly 35 and 50, with rare use of the 90. I'm very happy.

[greg_pratt4]

I use .85 and have no need for any other magnification. I do use 135 but rarely, other sizes being mostly used. I have a 24 but again its fished out only when 35 won't cut it. Apart from flair I have no probs with .85. The 24 has its own finder but in a pinch I can visualise the frame limits by kind of looking around (?) the extream edges of the viewfinder. It's very close. I have used a .72 but would much rather stay with the .85 and couldn't see any avantage re. wide lens' etc. Being one to over capitalise on equipment I did consider if I was missing out on something but no the .85 is fine. I've even considered the MP but I'm not interested in the .72 There is a supposed focusing advantage, I don't know, but I wouldn't want the focusing ease(?) to be any less than it is now. Regarding the above response I treasure the sharpness etc.etc. of leica, that's why I bought it, so to me focus is paramont.

 

I recon you won't need the magnifier but it can be fitted. I saw little gain in it's use so the wallet is still shut on that one. -- Otzi

[jim_a]

Cameron, let me throw this into the mix...

 

Like you I have a .58 finder M for the 35 and 28. That body is not my preference when using the 50. One thing that drives me crazy about the M6's on up is how much smaller the framelines are for the 50mm lens compared to the earlier M's. While I concede that RF shooting with an M is not an exact science, I find that my M4 shows a more realistic view of whats going to appear on film. I recently compared an M4-P to my M6 and it appeared the M4-P framelines were more akin to my M4. Another nice benefit of the M4 is a clean single 50 frameset. When I had my M6 in for a CLA I had Don Goldberg remove the 75mm framelines making the 50mm more enjoyable user experience. When I'm out doing dedicated shooting I like to take both cameras, using the 50 on the M4 and the 35 on the .58 body. A .85 body seems less versatile since a .72 body is more useable when it comes to using a 35.

[jay_.]

Cameron your conundrum and the fact you're considering buying a second body to cover all bases is exactly why Leica makes the 0.58 and 0.85 magnifications--to sell twice as many cameras. Two bodies are fine, but make them both 0.72's and use the second: a)to avoid constant lens changes, b)to use a second type of film, c)as a backup

[Rob F.]

Cameron: I use .58, .72, and .91. The latter is of course an M3. I find the 50mm frame is large enough with a .72 finder. I do like the M3 with its .91 finder for shooting with the 90. Shooting the 90 is not a problem with the .72 finder, it's just a pleasure to use it with higher magnification. Composition becomes easier.

 

The limitation is that when you have film only in the 0.85 body, you won't be able to shoot your 28mm on it; and the 35mm frame is hard to use on a .85. There will be times when you want to shoot only a couple of frames, not enough to put film in the other body. If that's not going to be an issue for you, then I think you will like the 0.85 for your 50mm and 90mm.

 

BTW, the 135 frame is too small no matter what finder you have! I still keep my 135 Tele-Elmar though, because sometimes I need it, whether the frameline is a pleasure to use, or not. The same can be said of shooting my 90 Tele-Elmarit on the 0.58 body. It's not ideal, but I get the picture.

[stephen_w.]

0.72 was just fine for 35 odd years, ans still fine. Now, with the existence of the VF magnifier, 1.25, there is no need for the 0.85, IMHO.

[stephen_w.]

That should be 40 or so years, ~1958 - ~1998.

[furcafe]

I have the 0.85 M6 TTL & find it ideal (among the metered Ms) for use w/lens 50mm & over (isn't that what it was designed for?), but those focal lengths account for about 75% of my shooting. YMMV. I'm sure the VF magnifier works for many, but w/my focal length preferences, I'd rather save my money & not have to carry around a separate device (that also darkens the VF). I only wish Leica made a metered M3 (i.e., w/the original 0.91 RF/VF)!

[m_.]

I second Jay's recommendation.

[stephen_w.]

In theory the 1.25 mag. would darken the VF "slightly", in practice, I don't see much of a difference: 1,25 on the M-7 (0.72), and a 0.72 M-6 sitting sitting here. Maybe my eye compensates automatically and opens more (?).

[cameron_sawyer]

Thanks, everyone, for all the input, and thank you all for being tolerant of the fact that the question has been asked many times before. The question is impossible to answer objectively, and so I find the discussion helpful.

 

Jay, you're right of course about Leica's marketing ploy, but we're their accomplices, aren't we? They make the toys, and we happily buy them. They're just giving us what we want -- a good excuse to buy another body. I last worked as a pro more than 20 years ago, so I don't need any backup (I've got a Bessa anyway which would do in a pinch). If I really want to change films in the middle of the roll, I just rewind short of losing the leader in the film can and write down what frame I stopped on. The Leica loading is so consistent, that you only have to skip one frame when you reload a partially used roll. So I don't need another body for this. And I don't like the MP ergonomics and I don't need the bells and whistles of the M7. So the only good reason for another body is to have a different VF magnification.

 

Over the course of this year, I have really fallen in love with my M6 and have almost stopped using all my other cameras. I have burned at least 50 rolls this year; probably the most shooting I've done in 20 years. But I just can't quite make peace with the framelines, so I'm searching for something which will work better. I guess I'll try an 0.85 finder and see how it works.

 

By the way, to all of you speculating about how the 1.25x magnifier affects the brightness of the finder image: it doesn't, at least not more than the very slight transmission loss through the magnifier's two elements. The effective f-stop falls with higher magnification since the optical aperture stays the same, but this is true with different finders as well. The absolute quantity of light from a given image is always the same, in any case. So an 0.72 with the magnifier is really almost precisely the same view as an 0.85 without.

 

And this brings me to the one part of my question which no one answered -- is the 0.85 plus magnifier stupid, or is it good with the 90mm? Because if it IS stupid, then there probably really is no good reason for the 0.85. Anyone?

[Rob F.]

With the 1.25 magnifier, the 90mm frame will appear to be 69.4% the width of the 50mm frame, the comparison being made on any given finder.

 

With the 1.25 magnifier on a 0.85 body, the 90mm frame will appear 82% of the width of the 50mm frame on a .72 body when the magnifier is not used.

 

With the 1.25 magnifier on a 0.85 body, the 90mm frame will appear

slightly larger (by 1.7%) than the 50mm frame on a .58 body without the magnifier.

[Rob F.]

The first example should be stated more clearly. The 90mm frame, used with the magnifier, will appear 69% of the width of the 50mm frame without the magnifier. This will be true for a comparison made on any one given body.

 

I think the third case is the one that addresses your question, though.

[stephen_w.]

The 1.25 on a 0.85 is not stupid. I use it on an M-3 on occasion. The result is a HUGE RF patch, and the 50 lines out to the perifery of the VF.