When I posted my review yesterday, I had received the magnifier at my office and put it on my M4, which was the only M body I had at hand. (My M4 has an M6 rubber-coated eyepiece). I was unable to see the 50mm frameline at all with my glasses, and needed to do a lot of scanning to see it without glasses. When I got home I put the magnifier on its permanent host, my 1989 M6 Classic. On that body, I could just make out the 50 frameline with my glasses on, just as I do the 35mm frameline without the 1.25x. Without glasses, the 50 frameline was indeed quite well visible. (I still couldn't see the 35mm frame with magnifier but without glasses, as John can though).

My curiosity piqued, today I brought my M6s (both) to the office and did a careful cross-comparison. Lo and behold, either the framelines in the M4 are slightly larger than in the M6, or else the finder magnification is slightly higher, because I can (without any magnifier) clearly see the 35mm frameline in the M6s with my glasses on, yet I must squash my face tigher and look around a bit to do so on the M4. Very interesting, as Leica texts always refer to the M2-4-4x-5-6 as differing only in the number of framelines, not their sizes. I wonder if anyone else who owns M4-P or later 0.72x bodies as well as an M4, M4-2 or M2 and wears glasses notices the difference.

As it stands, with an M4-P or M6 0.72x and the 1.25x, I now conclude that using a Noctilux (and certainly a 75 Summilux)is certainly possible with (and definitely without) glasses. Users of M4-2 and M2 or M4 may still have a problem.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 05, 2001

Answers

Well, what do you know...there is a difference.

I don't think it's a magnification difference, though. The actual subject images seem the same.

But the M4-P 35 frame is about 1 frameline width smaller than an M4-2, and the 50 frame is about 2-3(!) frameline widths smaller. I'm comparing a 1978 M4-2 with a 1983 M4-P.

I suspected this after a thread about 3 months ago on VF magnification, because Leica had to do SOMETHING to squeeze in the 28 frame on the -P. But I couldn't see any difference when I checked that time.

Certainly the M4-P finder was new, adding the 28/75, some brightness and contrast, and the dreaded RF flare in the process.

FWIW, while I'm looking, the size of the 90 frames is the same, but the 135 frame is about 1/2 a frame thickness smaller in the M4-2.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 05, 2001.

Hi Jay,

Today I put the magnifier on my M2 and had trouble seeing all the 35mm framelines.The magnification is definitely the same but the 35mm framelines cover just a bit bigger area in the M2 as you noticed with your M4. I think that Leica squeezed the framelines a little when they added the 28mm frameline. I can still use the 35mm framelines with the magnifier on the M2 but I cannot quite see all of the framelines as I can with my TTL.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), October 05, 2001.

I've always thought the 50mm frame in the M2 was bigger than the Classic M6. Thanks for the update Jay. I was disappointed with the idea that this gizmo wasn't going to help me.

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), October 06, 2001.

has any one try it on a M3?, for the 90, it mainly is my question for, I belive leica came up with this as a response to newer finder magnifications and lenses like the 135/3.4; well obiously.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), October 06, 2001.