Leica M6 TTL Viewfinder Comparison*L@@K*

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Leica M6 TTL Viewfinder Comparison (0.58 vs. 0.72 vs. 0.85) http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/m6ttl/sucher/beispiel/index.html

-- NHP (sn4396@prodigy.net), November 29, 2000

Answers

Interesting. And I'm sure they're "accurate" representations in a strictly geometric sense. But these don't convey the true feel of the viewfinders in real life. I've tried all 3, and all are tighter than these representations lead you to believe. Probably has to do with "eye relief". The 35mm lens on the .58 viewfinder, for example, feels perfectly sized in reality, whereas the representation leads you to believe that the 35mm frame line is very small in the viewfinder.

Also, remember that the wider the viewfinder, the shorter the effective rengefinder base, meaning less accurate focusing.

I like the .58 viewfinder very much, but nothing longer than a 50mm lens will work on it for me. Similar with the .85 viewfinder - nothing shorter than a 50mm for my taste.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), November 30, 2000.


Had they made the .58 viewfinder with 21 & 24 framelines I would have bought one sight unseen. Even if it just had 24 lines (with the outside edges of the viewfinder getting close to 21) I probably would have bought one. But since I can see the 28 lines on my m6 just fine, .58 isn't that big of a deal to me as I had hoped it would be. It's tempting, but not enough to make me want to ruch out and plunk down the cash.

I'd rather use the money to go to the beach that is pictured in their comparison shots.

-- Josh Root (Rootj@att.net), November 30, 2000.


>I like the .58 viewfinder very much, but nothing longer than a >50mm lens will work on it for me. Similar with the .85 viewfinder - >nothing shorter than a 50mm for my taste.

They sound like a perfect pair, don't they? I'm using a Hexar RF and a .85 in just such a configuration. It works like a charm.

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), November 30, 2000.


I personally prefer the 0.72 because it covers the widest gamut of lenses and as I carry two bodies I don't have to think about which is which. I also have a Hexar, and have used the 0.85 Leica. I don't find the lower or higher magnifications significant save for the framelines they eliminate, which to me is a disadvantage. All the different magnification viewfinders give the same "look", so I find the accessory finder for 28mm and wider gives a more realistic view of what the shot will actually look like. The 90 and 135 frames in the 0.85 are really not much larger than in the 0.72 (the 13% increase is less evident the smaller the frame). I think the various magnifications are a way Leica Camera can, at very little cost to them, appear to be in motion. My hope is that they will not decide the 0.72 is superfluous and discontinue it. Then again, that would probably only drive up the value of the "classic" M6!

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 02, 2000.

I went to Adolf Gassers the other day in San Francisco and they didn't have any M6's out of box to handle. I did peer into a Bessa-R and the Hexar RF (heavy!). The man behind the counter, tho' admitting he couldn't afford a Leica, merely sniffed at these 'pretenders.' Yeesh! If and when I get a Leica, I hope I don't come across so snobby!

Why couldn't he ditch the attitude and just say, "Well there are a lot of reasons why a- they cost so much and b- people are willing to pay the price." Instead he sounded defensive and was in snob-mode.

Ahem, anyhow, I wonder if anyone knows what the VF magnification on the Hexar (classic) is (which I do have and adore)? I haven't been able to find it here or on photo.net. Or how the VF magnification of the Hexar RF and Bessa-R are? Erwin Puts seems to advocate the .58 as the single all-around body, contrary to what some people have said here. He says the eye relief can be important for people who shoot a lot in a day, and that it'd work well with the 75/1.4 and even 90/2. Anyone know if the original Hexar's VF is close to 0.6?

Thanks.

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), December 07, 2000.



The Hexar is 0.6. Of course, before Leica had the 0.58, Puts didn't consider this adequate viewfinder magnification, particularly for the 90/2. That changed with the new Leica model.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 07, 2000.

Jeff,

The Hexar is 0.6.

Hm. Compared to the graphic at the site with the views of .58 through .85, I find my Hexar's finder looks closer to the .72. The 35mm FL framelines seem to match those of the .72 better than the .58.

Of course, before Leica had the 0.58, Puts didn't consider this adequate viewfinder magnification, particularly for the 90/2. That changed with the new Leica model.

I don't follow. Puts placed the lower theoretical limit above 0.6, but was proven wrong when he got his hands on a .58 M6?



-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), December 07, 2000.


Konica and everyone else shows 0.6 so I assume that is the spec.

Puts said on the LEG (Leica group on topica) that 0.6 was inadequate for properly focusing 50/1.4 and 90/2.0. Magically, when Leica brought out a lower magnification rangefinder, these limits disappeared for the Leica. When I questioned him on the LEG on the discrepancy, he failed to answer.

It's what's called "marketing."

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), December 07, 2000.


On this topic of VF mag., is there any way to convert VF magnifications to what you see looking though an SLR with a lens of a certain focal length?

E.g., is 0.6 similar to what you see through a 28mm lens?

Is the M3's finder as close to a 50mm lens?

I realize that not all VF's of SLRs are the same (92% vs 100% coverage).

Tse-Sung

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), December 09, 2000.


how can you tell what magnification you have...my m6 is used, and probably from the 80's....theres no mag #'s on the front finder...

-- grant (g4lamos@yahoo.com), December 10, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ