I looked through a 1.25X VF magnifier on my M .58, trying to enlarge the 50mm frame (I do not have this focal length at present). Underwhelming. Why has this small magnification been chosen by Leitz? Is it due to optical limitations to its construction or perhaps because the light meter diodes would become invisible with a higher magnification?

-- Peter Mackay (pm@novonordisk.com), February 14, 2002

Answers

At last someone who does not like that gizmo !

I agree with you that the thingy is far less spectacular than its price. However, you will find that its visual effect is more spectacular on the larger frames of the viewfinder than on the small ones or on the rangefinder patch itself.

In other words, on the 0.72, it really blows up the 50/75 frames (but hardly affects the perception of the 90/135 frames), and really blows up the 75/90 frames of the 0.85 (but not so much the 135 one).

So, on the 0.58, it might be perceived as rather useless (blows up the 35mm frame).

But these are the perceived visions (and personal perception at that). In reality, it seems from other users experience that this small magnification does improve focusing accuracy, even if you do not necessarily visually notice the improvement in the viewfinder.

It also darkens the viewfinder somewhat.

I tried it a few days, and did not buy it. My 0.72 classic does just fine as it is with all the lenses I have attached to it (including 75 'lux)....

Maybe best for people who have a 0.85 exclusively dedicated to longer lenses, IMHO (75 'lux, 90'cron or that 135 gadget).

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), February 14, 2002.

i guess they chose this magnification to step up your camera exactly to the next model and finally the .85 to nearly the m3 viewfinder. i have the .58 and tried the magnifier for my 50mm lens. it wasn't such an improvement to justify this steep price.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002.

The greater the magnification the more frameline sets you would lose. This especially true if you wear glasses. I am puzzled by the comments that it only works on the wider frames as I only use mine with the longer lenses. It takes my 0.72x to 0.9x and I find this to be helpful. It makes for faster focusingwith my 90/2AA.

If I am only using one body i do not use it but if I am using multiple bodies then I do. Handy but not an essential accessory.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), February 14, 2002.

In defense of this overpriced thingy, I find it not that great on either .58 or .72; however, on the .85 it is super in improving the super-imposed images in the rangefinder. I wear glasses and have seen my images as being in good focus when printed. Most of my stuff is captured at f5.6-11 on 35mm-21mm, so who couldn't get it right. Now with 50mm-90mm I seem to do a lot of photography at f2-5.6 and some stuff was not as crisp. On the .85 with the 1.25 X gadget I had to add a dioptor corrector to get sharp image seperation in rangefinder and MUCH sharper results on paper, it really works/helps. I'm a beleiver and still look at usefulness in .58-.72 M's.

My $$$ Steven Alexander

-- Steven Alexander (alexpix@worldnet.att.net), February 14, 2002.

"It takes my 0.72x to 0.9x and I find this to be helpful". But it would be even more useful to have a selection of magnifiers to suit different needs. For example, to bring any frame up to full viewfinder size. That's why I ask if there are fundamental limitations to the construction. I realize it may be a question only Leitz can answer. Cheers,

-- Peter Mackay (pm@novonordisk.com), February 14, 2002.

I've been using an old Minolta SLR viewfinder magnifier for years, just holding it up to the eyepiece of my tripod-mounted M's. It's a 3x and the entire frame is filled by the rangefinder patch. So there are no contraints against other magnifications, other than the higher the magnification the less of the finder you'd be able to see. I think the ideal would be a magnifier allowing just the 90 and 135 frames to be seen with glasses. Ostensibly one could screw one 1.25x into another (1.56x)and that would probably do it, though the finder brightness might suffer too much.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 14, 2002.

Hello Peter. I think the magnifier has primarily been designed and is most effective for M .72 cameras using the 50mm. up to 135mm focal lengths.This combination will give a close effective magnification to the M3,while still allowing use of 35mm and 28mm lenses without need for external finders.

However, nothing will replace the M3. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), February 14, 2002.