My 1.25x view magnifier finally arrived, and for the benefit of those who haven't tried one, or have been sitting on the fence, I thought I'd share my initial impressions.

As shown in this image, it comes with a neatly made little pouch that fits nicely on the strap, and includes a small tab inside the pouch and a retainer cord with miniature clips. The clips allow the retainer cord to be easily removed from either the magnifier or the pouch tab. You might, for example, prefer to attach the retainer cord to the strap ring directly. No caps are provided - they'd be far too easy to lose, anyway, so keeping the pouch on the strap may be a good idea.

For me, with a 0.72 viewfinder, the magnifier fills the portion of the frame visible without moving eye position with the 50mm frame lines. The 75mm frames are correspondly large, making focusing and framing noticeably easier with the 75mm lens. The 90mm frame lines fill about half the visible frame area. The 135mm frame lines fill about 1/3 of the visible area, becoming about the same size as the 90mm frame lines absent the magnifier.

Although still a pricey accessory, I'm confident that the extra ease and accuracy of focusing will justify the expense. Keeble and Shuchat in Palo Alto, CA sold it to me for $199 today, although their box price shows $279.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), May 31, 2002

Answers

Are these prices ludicrous or what? I bought mine 5 months ago for $ 250. At first I thought this was the dawn of a new era for me (I have a pretty bad case of farsightedness.) Today, even though it's always neatly stored in the cute little pouch attached to the strap, I keep forgetting to put it on when using 50 mm and up.Below that, you will lose too much frame. Expensive little gadget. Makes your camera look cool, though.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 31, 2002.

The 2x adapter for my Nikkormat cost me something like 50 or 60 bucks 27 years ago..Maybe this would be 150 in todays dollars?..Maybe I'll superglue the old 2x adapter to my extra M3 diopter eyepiece and have a 1.8x finder!

-- Kelly Flanigan (Zorki3c@netscape.net), May 31, 2002.

That's almost what I was doing for 20 years...handholding an old Minolta 2x finder magnifier up to the eyepiece of my M's for critical focusing on a tripod.

As for the 1.25x magnifier, it is typically Leica: purposely and stubbornly ignore proven technology and come up with something completely awkward and inconvenient just so as not to validate anyone else's ideas. Viewfinder magnifiers for SLR's have been made for decades which flip up on a hinged bracket attached to the finder, and Leica's could easily have been designed as such. As it is, the only way the 1.25x is truly useful is if a body is dedicated to it. I removed the chain and case the moment I got mine, and the 1.25x has remained on one of my 0.72's since then. I use that body for 90 and 135 and the 21 and 15 which use separate finders. My other 0.72 is used for the 35, 50 and Tri-Elmar.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 31, 2002.

I forgot to ask, Ralph. I love the rich tones and the smoothness of your photo. Mind telling us what camera, lens, film? Thank you.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 31, 2002.

I've been considering the purchase of one of these nifty gadgets. Personally, I'm glad it doesn't flip up out of the way. I like to keep things simple, and it doesn't sound difficult to add or remove the magnifier when you change lenses. Having said that, I don't change lenses often. I normally shoot with 1 body and 1 lens, or 2 bodies and 2 lenses. I'm most interested in the magnifier to use with my 75 'lux on my M6 .85.

Anyway, my question to those who have used it, is about the optical quality of the magnifier. Does it darken the VF at all? And does it add any noticeable distortion or other optical degredation? Thanks.

-- Noah (naddis@mindspring.com), May 31, 2002.

It does darken it a little, but not too badly (at least for me). If you wear glasses you won't be able to see the 75 frames in an 0.85 body as the magnifier keeps your eye another 5mm or so out from the finder. If you don't wear glasses you shouldn't have a problem.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 01, 2002.

I have also used it successfully with the 35mm F1.4 lens as well. When framing you just have to "look down" a bit to make sure the bottom line is where you want it. This is a minor pain at first but you will rapidly get used to. The advantages? Better focusing especially ( and obviously) when the lens is opened up.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), June 01, 2002.

It does darken the viewfinder, and especially the frame lines. The latter is distracting when you are using the thin 75 lines, indoor in poor light. If you are concentrating on the image the frame lines sort of disappear from your mind's eye. But outdoors, or in good light, its not much of a problem.

As for me, short of squashing my eyeball against the 1.25x there is no way I can see the 35mm frame. In any case, the field of view is too wide for me to be able to compose the picture in any kind of integrated way.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), June 01, 2002.

Olivier - it was just a quick studio setup for a digital shot with a Nikon D1 w/ 60mm macro lens, as I hadn't seen anyone actually post a picture of this expensive little devil.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), June 01, 2002.

Thank you, Ralph. Just for those who look down on digital as sooo inferior to film, hey? And in B&W at that.

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), June 01, 2002.

Olivier; the fine photo image is actually a digital file in color as an RGB image..In Photoshop it opens up into a file size of 481k uncompressed from 49k....If the image was greyscaled it would be a 161k uncompressed size.. (one third the file size if a true black and white digital file..The photo below is the great photo greyscaled; and compressed to 24k size; which will load faster...

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), June 01, 2002.

I might get one, but this is an example of M users attempting to do something that really needs to be done with an SLR, or if not an SLR then a 0.85 M. It works, but it strikes me as a Rube Goldberg type of invention - not exactly fine tuned to its purpose.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), June 04, 2002.

I've already been waiting 6 months for one. Seems Leica has no ambition to sell more of these gadgets, although I understand there is quite a backlog of customer orders. I've given up trying to understand those guys!

When/if I finally receive it, I plan to keep it permanently attached to my .72 body, which I think of as my "portrait" camera, for use with 50 Summilux and 90 Elmarit lenses. My other body, a .58, is dedicated to my Tri-Elmar. Obviously, I can use my 15mm Heliar with either body.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), June 04, 2002.

Is it just me or is that camera wearing a monacle? :)

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), June 05, 2002.

Karl - it's not just you. That's exactly what I thought when I attached it. I'm working on a bowler-shaped housing for the SF-20. ;-)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), June 05, 2002.

It is an unusual item that looks like an aftermarket gadget but is sold by Leica. It is strange that they underestimated the demand for this item because I can imagine they would make a significant profit at the price they are selling. I'm still waiting for mine.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), June 06, 2002.