Just received my 1.25x Viewfinder Magnifier. It is a nice piece of workmanship, comes in a very tiny leather case with "Leica" embossed. The case itself has a snap-around attachment to the neckstrap and inside the case a black-anodized chain is attached to a leather tab and secured at the other end to the Magnifier in such as way that it rotates freely around so the magnifier can be screwed into the camera's eyepiece without removing or twisting up the chain. The magnifier itself screws into the diopter threads on the M eyepiece (you don't remove the camera eyepiece), and has its own threads for correction lenses, as well as a rubber ring similar to the camera eyepiece, to protect eyeglasses.

When screwed onto the eyepiece, the magnifier increases the viewfinder magnification by 25%, making an 0.58 into an effective 0.72; an 0.72 into an effective 0.85; and an 0.85 into an effective 1.06. The magnifier also increases the effective baselength of the rangefinder and therefore the focusing accuracy. However, the magnifier protrudes about 1cm outside the standard eyepiece, therefore precluding the viewing of the outermost framelines. Inside the box (huge in comparison to the tiny magnifier case!) is a multilingual instruction booklet, which outlines those framelines Leica believes can be seen with eyeglasses, without eyeglasses, or not at all, on the various magnification M's. Therein lies the makings of another body of mis-information (as if we Leica users didn't have enough already!)which I will outline in a moment.

My intended use is on 0.72x M's, which are all I own or ever intend to own. I normally carry 2 bodies: one equipped with a Tri-Elmar or 35/1.4ASPH; another with a 90 or 135. The 1.25x (after I un-clip the un-needed chain and case) will live permanently on the 90/135 body unless that body must be pressed into service as a backup for the 35/Tri-Elmar body. For this use, the 1.25x is just what the doctor ordered. With my glasses on, I can see the 90 and 135mm framelines, BUT CONTRARY TO WHAT THE OWNER'S MANUAL STATES THE 50/75 FRAMELINES ARE IMPOSSIBLE for me to see. Even WITHOUT my glasses, I need to roll my eyes around to see the 50mm frameline.

So, if anyone (regardless of wearing glasses or not) was contemplating purchasing this accessory for an 0.72 (or 0.85 for that matter)to use with a Noctilux or 75 Summilux, better think again, or at least try one of these puppies out before buying.

For the 90/2 and 135/3.4 lenses, though, the 1.25x is probably the best accessory Leica could have made. Could they have made it better? Not for me, but for someone who only carries 1 body the chain-link affair is kind of clumsy. A better way would have been to make it flip-up on a hinge. But I'm nitpicking on this point, I'm just happy it finally arrived.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 04, 2001

Answers

With my glasses on, I can see the 90 and 135mm framelines, BUT CONTRARY TO WHAT THE OWNER'S MANUAL STATES THE 50/75 FRAMELINES ARE IMPOSSIBLE for me to see. Even WITHOUT my glasses, I need to roll my eyes around to see the 50mm frameline.

How do you shoot with Tri-Elmar on 0.72 body then? I wear glasses and can't even see 35mm frame without moving my eye around. I actually would be much more interesting in similar DE-magnifier that would make 0.58 out of 0.72.

-- Alexander Grekhov (grekhov@wgukraine.com), October 04, 2001.

Jay, where did you get it?

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), October 04, 2001.

I knew it was too good to be true. Sigh...

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), October 04, 2001.

It sounds like a winner to me! I use a .58 with either 3E or 35/1.4, and a .85 dedicated to the 90 and 135. I have great hopes for adding the magnifier to the .85.

I love the idea of a demagnifier, too. There doesn't seem to be any obvious technical impediment, so maybe they'll give it a shot. Turning my currently little-used .72 into another .58 would have me smiling from ear to ear.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), October 04, 2001.

When I read Erwin Put's Newsletter about this item, I sent him a note asking him if it wouldn't be possible to have a device that reduced the magnification. He never answered. I would love to be able to use the 50mm frame on an M3 for the 35 (or even the 90 frame for the 75).

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), October 04, 2001.

Bud asks:

"...if it wouldn't be possible to have a device that reduced the magnification..... I would love to be able to use the 50mm frame on an M3 for the 35..."

This is exactly what the old "bug-eye" lenses use to do. I had several versions of the Summaron, and they also had Summicron and the rare Summilux 35mm lens. In actual use, these eyes made the whole package a bit bulkier, and had some distortion while viewing, (just when viewing, the actual on-film performance was just as good as the non-eyed lenses). These should be readily available on the used market.

They do work, but I never found them fun to use, and just upgraded to an M2 so I could use a regular old 35mm Summicron.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), October 04, 2001.

I believe Al is right, that for a change to a wider angle finder you would need to have something on the front of the finder like the bug eyes of old.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), October 04, 2001.

I did have an RF Summicron but replaced it with a pre-ASPH Summicron a couple of years ago. I just use the outer edge of the M3 viewfinder which works pretty well. If I hadn't traded a nearly new M2 for a Nikon Ft, I wouldn't be having a problem:-)

Why don't I buy an M6? I don't like the cluttered viewfinders although I did try to get my wife to accept a new M6 to replace her AF-C1. Since the M6 wouldn't fit in her purse, she opted for a Minilux....big mistake:-)

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), October 04, 2001.

Alexander asked how I use the Tri-Elmar on the 0.72, and states he can't see the entire 35mm frame with glasses on. Well, my glasses (- 4.25 Rx) are the "ultra-thin" lenses set in small flexible wire- rimmed frames. I can smoosh my eye into the finder enough to see the entire 35mm frame. I use an accessory finder for 28mm. Even on my Hexar, which I can see the 28mm frame, I prefer the accessory 28 finder because it "looks" more like a 28mm.

Jim asked where I got the 1.25x magnifier. Rich Pinto at The Photo Village in NYC.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 04, 2001.

Alexander asked how I use the Tri-Elmar on the 0.72, and states he can't see the entire 35mm frame with glasses on. Well, my glasses (- 4.25 Rx) are the "ultra-thin" lenses set in small flexible wire- rimmed frames. I can smoosh my eye into the finder enough to see the entire 35mm frame.

That could be a ticket for me. I need new glasses anyway. However my prescription is much stronger (around -8) -- that could be a problem.

-- Alexander Grekhov (grekhov@wgukraine.com), October 04, 2001.

Hi Jay,

Thanks for the review. I picked up mine today and my mileage is substancially different. I do not wear glasses and I have no problem seeing the 35mm framelines in my 0.72x with the magnifier attached. With my RayBan Wayfarers on (medium lens), I can see all the frames from 75mm and on with the magnifier attached. I guess different nose and forehead shapes will result in everyone having different results.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), October 04, 2001.

Hmmm, I wonder about stacking magnifiers! If I had another one I could have a 1.125 finder! And then a 1.4...

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), October 04, 2001.

I wear glasses, have many of the same problems that you all have. I suppose that by the time we have the dough to get into Leica, we are old, and have all of the infirmities that old folks have, like lousy eyesight and thick glasses. Thanks Jay, as always, on topic and ready to help others. P Nelson

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@comswest.net.au), October 04, 2001.

Thanks for the detailed review Jay. Much appreciated.

A question to you regarding when you view your .72 WITHOUT the new magnifier, can you see the 35 framelines whilst you are wearing glasses?

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), October 05, 2001.

By the way, 0,72 X 1,25 = 0,90. Closer to the M3 magnification (0,92).

-- Lucien (lucien_vd@yahoo.fr), October 05, 2001.

On the issue of demagnifiers, the reason the old 35mm lens needed bug- eyes on the front was to change the angle of view that would be displayed by the frame lines. Remember, the 50mm frame line had to show a 35mm angle of view, and this required a lens on the front of the VF to accomplish. That change also required a change to the magnification of the secondary RF patch in order for the two patches to line up, so a lens was needed in front of the RF window as well.

The current magnifier or the proposed demagnifier don't need to do that - they simpley change the apparent size of the entire VF image, without rearranging any of its angular relationships. So a demagnifier ought to be a simple reverse-telescope kind of optic, and should work just like the magnifier.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), October 05, 2001.

Unfortunately, Leica has no motivation to build a de-magnifier. Why would they care about us guys that keep on using old cameras rather than buying new M6's? I couldn't blame them. What I do blame them for is making the M6J a collectable.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), October 05, 2001.

FYI, as I just mentioned in another thread, the rubber eyeglass protector is something like a little o-ring which fits into a channel that runs round the magnifier. My experience is that the action of the camera hanging around your neck while walking for an afternoon in Venice is enough to loosen the o-ring. Fortunately I do not wear eyeglasses.

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), October 22, 2001.