Rich at Photovilla has kindly posted an information sheet on the new M viewfinder 1.25 magnifier. I now have one on order from my dealer.

http://www.photovillage.com/html/news.html

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), September 09, 2001

Answers

John:

Thanks for the link! I am intersted in one of these, as I really like my .58x M6... However, am I the only one that thinks they should have brought this out in a 1.5x model also, so as to take the respective M finder up two magnification steps? When I'm using my .58 body, the only time I feel under-magnified is with the 90 (or 75 if I had it) and up. Hence, having the ability to jump 2 steps to a .85 or even 3 steps to a 1.06 would have a lot of merit, as I'm pretty sure the 75 framlines would still be easily visible. But I guess Leica does not want to obviate any demand for their .85 bodies... yet.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 09, 2001.

OK, so when does the .8 magnifier come out so I can use a 35mm lens on my M3 without eyes (just kidding)

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 09, 2001.

Thanks John.

I am still a bit lost as to how an eyepiece magnifier can increase the accuracy of the rangefinder, (point 2 from the description sheet on the website). I can see how you will have a better view for composition due to the enlargement of the frames, but it seems to me that the rangefinder is not effected if the two front windows remain the same. The triangulation of the rangefinder occurs laterally and to the front of the camera. How can the effective RF base be increased 25% without altering the front of the camera?

The three M6 versions, (.58, .72 and .85) have different effective RF bases in part because of the front window of the finder. It is hard for me to understand how simply holding a magnifying glass up to my eyepiece does anything to increase RF accuracy, other than seeing everything more clearly.

Maybe I'm just dense.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 09, 2001.

Yes, let's get some answers here. Can someone tell us that lengthening the rangefinder base and increasing the magnification of the viewfinder window both increase our ability to focus accurately? The M3 is recommended by some for critical focusing with the Noct. and 75 at full aperture. The CL has a short rangefinder base and this makes critical focusing difficult (do I have that right?). Does simply magnifying the rangefinder patch do the trick?

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), September 09, 2001.

>Can someone tell us that lengthening the rangefinder base and increasing the magnification of the viewfinder window both increase our ability to focus accurately?<

1) Lengthening the rf base increases accuracy because of trigonometry - The increased base-length of the triangle allows for more accurate angualr discrimination of the rf arm at the end of said base -- reduced triangulation error, if you prefer. Inreased angular discrimination (reduced triangulation error) translates into increased accuracy of focus in an rf system.

2) Magnification plays an equally important role because it allows the viewer increased visual discrimination in alignment of the two windows. This again translates into increased focus accuracy in an rf system.

Note: An SLR's focus system improves over the Leica M with lenses over about 90mm because of the increased magnification the lens provides to its rf system. Also, the rf base-length in an SLR system is essentially equal to the maximum optical diameter of the lens in use; hence faster SLR lenses provide more rf focusing accuracy over their slower counterparts in an SLR system.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 09, 2001.

Al: Look at it this way. There is no physical baselength diffence between the .58, ,72 and .85 M6 bodies (or the M3 for that matter). Stick a ruler across the front and the distance between the centers of the RF windows is the same on all four (69mm plus/minus). The .85 does NOT have a longer physical baseline and the .58 does not have a shorter physical baseline.

Point the three bodies at a subject 6.9 meters away. The rangefinder mechanism in ALL THREE BODIES will be measuring the exact same triangle with the exact same angles, and hence the exact same raw accuracy.

BUT, that RAW accuracy is affected by how well YOU can see the RF split image and determine whether the RF is actually aligned. The higher the magnification, the easier it is to see whether the images are aligned or not (but the harder it is to see the whole picture).

That's all the .85 viewfinder does - magnify the image (or actually, MINIFY it less) so that your eye can more accurately determine if the images are aligned.

That is also exactly what the 1.25x eyepice does, magnify the .72 image (or reduce the built-in MINIFICATION) so that your eye can more accurately detemine if the images are alinged.

The 1.25x eyepiece actually does it a tad better, since the .85 is (relative to the .72) only a 1.18x magnification.

(BTW, the triangle in the example above has two sides of 69mm and 6900mm. For extra credit, what is the length of the third side?)

A. 7000mm

B. 6900.34mm

C. 6920.34mm

D. 6969.69mm

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 09, 2001.

Andy:

I did not bother to consult Pathagorus or my calculator, AND I'm on my second apple martini -- yes, I realize it is not my traditional Sunday single-malt, however it iss verry good... 2 parts Kettle-one or Skye, 1 part sour apple schnapps, plus a splash of sweet&sour, yummmmm -- and since you have given no "E None of the above" I'll have to go for an educated guess of "B"... BUT something about "D" iss sounding very good to me right now too, just can't quite put my finger on it ;^)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 09, 2001.

tangent of what = .001?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 09, 2001.

Gotta be what, .2 degree?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 09, 2001.

Pythagoras?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 09, 2001.

Heck, I dunno, 'nother martini...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 09, 2001.

Forget the Leica magnifier, send me a Sun Yellow Hasselblad!

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), September 09, 2001.

Andy, it's 6,900.34499138. The angle is 0.57293870 degrees. I used the rectangular-to-polar button on my h-p 32S. So it's B.

What do I get?

Dan, I like that Sun yellow Hasselblad myself!

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 09, 2001.

OK, Bob wins the sun yellow Hasselblad. "B" it is.

Jack wins consolation prize for "Most Creative Martini recipe."

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 09, 2001.

Actually, I can't wait until Jeff Spirer gets a load of what Hasselblad believes defines the 'sophisticated' photographe.

You see that, Jeff? - it has nothing to do with the quality of our images or our ability to see 'photographically'. It all comes down to the color of our vulcanite/rubber/vinyl.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 09, 2001.

I'm sorry, I can't talk about this right now, I'm using Photoshop to remove that miniature Leica so I can see everything behind it.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 10, 2001.

Don't blame you....

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 10, 2001.

So in my M3 what would I get from a 1.15 magnification finder, a bigger frame for my 90 OK, and will I still be able to see my 50 frame?

Thank´s for sharing this information John, I woudn´t think it would be so easy to have another finder.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), September 10, 2001.

Nobody has mentioned the fact that higher magnification with a fixed aperture means a dimmer image, which decreases low light focusing ability in practical situations.

I believe this one reason people find the .58 finder so gorgeous-its brighter.

The 1.25 (can't wait to get mine) will dim the image, albeit slightly.

Slightly, but not imperceptibly.

A ton of complaints in LUG about dimness when the original M6 HM .85 came out, and my own very definite reaction to the .85 viewfinder over the .72 I was used to, lead me to believe that the 1.25 will elicit similar responses.

Also the ergonomics are such that one will have to hold the camera further away from the face, perhaps leading to a loss in stability (?).

On the other hand, it definitely will be useful with the 90 and 135. Anyone who has used a brightline finder with the 90 or the (rarer) 135 will attest to the usefulness of both the higher magnification, and the utility of integrating focusing with a high magnification viewfinder.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), September 10, 2001.

Precious Metal

Does this gizmo weigh a mere 7 grams, about a quarter oz, as the spec sheet says it does? Surely this is a misprint? At current prices, that would make it about cost three and a half times as much as pure gold, gram for gram. But with Leica, you never know...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), September 10, 2001.

How is this, more valuable than gold, gizmo different than a diopter?

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), September 10, 2001.

Jim: It's most a question of degree.

A diopter is a very slight corrective lens similar to the lens in a pair of glasses - depending on the prescription it may magnify OR reduce things very slightly but its main purpose is to correct vision WITHOUT much magnification or reduction (except, possibly, for reading glasses).

A magnifier is optically similar but designed intentionally to make something bigger and easy to see close up. The Leica 1.25x has 2 elements and is .7 inches long, so it would seem to actually be a tiny (and very mild) telescope that magnifies the middle of the M6 viewfinder - subject, frames, RF patch and all. It wouldn't surprise me if the viewable area barely includes the 50mm frame and excludes the 28 and even 35 frames on a .72 viewfinder.

It would require one hell of a prescription for a diopter to do that.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 10, 2001.

Is this accessory for real? Not a practical joke?

Are we really expected to take seriously a monocle on a string? As others have observed, the wider framelines will not be visible and we would have to screw this thing on for longer lenses and then unscrew it when we change to "wider" lenses, leaving it to dangle on its string. Where does the dioptre correction lens go? Before or after the magnifier?

I await the all-new Leica ear trumpet or steam powered motor drive.

I can just see the Contax designers wetting themselves with mirth.

-- wayne murphy (wayne.murphy@publicworks.qld.gov.au), September 11, 2001.

I have to say that the phrase "Leica Ear Trumpet" made me laugh harder than I have in a couple of days (although since there hasn't been much to laugh about, that isn't as big of a deal as it seems). But hey, it was really funny.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 13, 2001.