Assaf
Well-known
Hi there,
Being a beginner in the Leica business, I currently have an M6 with only a single lens of 35mm (having both for only a month).
I chose to start with a 35mm lens because I like this angle, and also since it fits really nicely with the 0.72 magnification. The 35mm framelines are actually the entire field of view that I see through the VF (wearing glasses and can hardly see 28mm).
I don't think I'll use a different lens for the time being but I was wondering how other people use this canera with 50mm lenses.
Do you feel comfortable to frame 50mm on a .72 M6 or do you use a magnifier or another camera like M3 or .85 M6?
thanks for your answers
Assaf
Being a beginner in the Leica business, I currently have an M6 with only a single lens of 35mm (having both for only a month).
I chose to start with a 35mm lens because I like this angle, and also since it fits really nicely with the 0.72 magnification. The 35mm framelines are actually the entire field of view that I see through the VF (wearing glasses and can hardly see 28mm).
I don't think I'll use a different lens for the time being but I was wondering how other people use this canera with 50mm lenses.
Do you feel comfortable to frame 50mm on a .72 M6 or do you use a magnifier or another camera like M3 or .85 M6?
thanks for your answers
Assaf
Last edited:
martin-f5
Well-known
I'm wearing glasses too,
so I also can't see 28 frames,
even I can hardly see the 35 framelines.
My favorit lense is the 'cron 50mm.
A perfect sharpness and nice bokeh.
Also you have les dof so shoting portraits is much better.
I'm feel very comfortable with it and I don't use some magnifier or something else.
My MP has is also a 0,72 version.
so I also can't see 28 frames,
even I can hardly see the 35 framelines.
My favorit lense is the 'cron 50mm.
A perfect sharpness and nice bokeh.
Also you have les dof so shoting portraits is much better.
I'm feel very comfortable with it and I don't use some magnifier or something else.
My MP has is also a 0,72 version.
nobbylon
Veteran
initially I thought that the frame line square would be too small but after a while you really don't notice it and it does help to be able to see things which may be moving into shot. Elmar old version is what I settled on for compactness and value.
oscroft
Veteran
I find the 50mm frame to be ok on my 0.72 M6, but it's about at the limit and I'd really like a bit more magnification (in fact, I'll probably get a 1.25 viewfinder magnifier).
Never Satisfied
Well-known
I have the M6 with the .72 and it is fine for most 50mm's but I have trouble getting it right with my 50mm f1.2, at f2.0 and onwards it's fine. Andrew
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I hate using a 50 on an M6/M6ttl/M7 or MP and it has nothing to do with the magnification of the viewfinder, but with the area of coverage indicated by the 50mm markings.
Starting with the M6 Leica shrank the area of coverage that the 50mm markings indicate to .7 meters. Basically you end up with about +15% more on your negative than you expect to get. The markings show the equivalent of a 60mm lens, not a 50.
Therefore I shoot a 35 on my M6ttl and M7.
The 50 goes on the M2/M4. The older cameras have 50mm markings that show the minimum coverage at 1 meter and frame the 50 far more accurate.
ps: I was able to accurately focus my Noctilux at f1 with a .72
Starting with the M6 Leica shrank the area of coverage that the 50mm markings indicate to .7 meters. Basically you end up with about +15% more on your negative than you expect to get. The markings show the equivalent of a 60mm lens, not a 50.
Therefore I shoot a 35 on my M6ttl and M7.
The 50 goes on the M2/M4. The older cameras have 50mm markings that show the minimum coverage at 1 meter and frame the 50 far more accurate.
ps: I was able to accurately focus my Noctilux at f1 with a .72
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
I think it all depends on how you view the world..
Most of the time, I really appreciate how the 50mm framelines on a 0.72x finder provide generous amounts of context that help me in anticipating how events unfold. At other times though, especially in a more controlled or confined environment, there's not so much point in having all the context present, and it's more a case of precisely balancing the composition within the frame. That's when I like having a 1:1 finder, even when it's an assecory one..
Most of the time, I really appreciate how the 50mm framelines on a 0.72x finder provide generous amounts of context that help me in anticipating how events unfold. At other times though, especially in a more controlled or confined environment, there's not so much point in having all the context present, and it's more a case of precisely balancing the composition within the frame. That's when I like having a 1:1 finder, even when it's an assecory one..
alexz
Well-known
I used to have my 50mm "cron on my M6 pretty much "glued on" until acquired my M3 lately. At the beginning I was also concerning 50mm frames in M6 to appear a bit small, but got used to it pretty quickly and find it comfortable to be able to wathc outside of the frame. Now it appears natural and often helps to obtain a desired framing watching subject as it enters the frame.
On M3 it does occupy nearly entire field of view, kind of 35mm in M6, which is also convenient considering considerably larger RF patch area in M3. I'd say for static objects I think I'd prefer M3 observed field of view, while fo dynamic one (kind of hunting for a framing with a non-static subject), the added out of frame field of view of M6 (or other x0.72 bodies) is an asset (I with Leica would make larger RF patch in x0.72 bodies, the one in M3 is just perfect...)
I'm now on the market for 35mm lens, and this one will be perfect match on M6 indeed in most situation (probaly will still leave my prerefence to 50mm for streets...)
Alex
On M3 it does occupy nearly entire field of view, kind of 35mm in M6, which is also convenient considering considerably larger RF patch area in M3. I'd say for static objects I think I'd prefer M3 observed field of view, while fo dynamic one (kind of hunting for a framing with a non-static subject), the added out of frame field of view of M6 (or other x0.72 bodies) is an asset (I with Leica would make larger RF patch in x0.72 bodies, the one in M3 is just perfect...)
I'm now on the market for 35mm lens, and this one will be perfect match on M6 indeed in most situation (probaly will still leave my prerefence to 50mm for streets...)
Alex
Assaf
Well-known
Thanks for the answers!
The "seeing the context of the frame" in 50mm is a new thing to me and it makes perfect sense. Mr. Welles, your point of view is interesting, I wonder how many people noticed it.
Alex, if you settle for non-Leice glass I'd be happy to give you a test drive on my
Ultron 35/1.7.
What a forum!
Good night
Assaf
The "seeing the context of the frame" in 50mm is a new thing to me and it makes perfect sense. Mr. Welles, your point of view is interesting, I wonder how many people noticed it.
Alex, if you settle for non-Leice glass I'd be happy to give you a test drive on my
Ultron 35/1.7.
What a forum!
Good night
Assaf
jack palmer
Well-known
I use my 50mm Summicron on my .85 MP and like it much better than the .72 M6 that I had before. For 35, 50 and 90mm the .85 is near perfect.
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
I used a 50mm on a 0.72 mag M for 2 years perfectly happily, then got a 0.85 mag body and now use that instead for the 50. But if I had never gotten the 0.85 I would have been happy with 0.72, which is the most versatile magnification that Leica makes.
Assaf
Well-known
jack palmer said:
I guess you're right, but also that you don't wear galsses. I understood that on .85 the 35mm framelines are as marginal as 28mm on .72 and very hard to see for people with glasses.
Am I right?
peter_n
Veteran
Yes you are Assaf. From memory they may be ever so slightly smaller than the 28 on a 0.72 mag, but the difference if there is any is tiny. The 0.72 M is the best magnification if you have one body and a range of lenses from wide to mild telephoto. If you have the luxury of a 2nd or 3rd body the 0.85 mag is a good choice for lenses =>50mm and the CV R4 is a good choice for lenses =<28mm.
Assaf
Well-known
Thanks Peter,
And I'll stay with a single .72 body for the time being....
And I'll stay with a single .72 body for the time being....
peter_n
Veteran
You will be fine Assaf. As I said in a previous post, the 0.72 mag body is very versatile and copes well with different focal lengths. If you want to experiment you can try a Leica 1.25x magnifier that gives you an effective mag of 0.9. A heck of a lot cheaper than a new M6... 
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
To take off at a tangent, Assaf, you might find that a 75 mm will be good paired with your present lens.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
payasam said:
I agree - I've found 28-35-75 to be a wonderful kit for my .72 M6. I do use a 1.25 magnifier with the 75.
Assaf
Well-known
Ken Ford said:
Well, for the time being I use only 35mm.
When I bought the M6 one of the things I had in mind was to use only normal lenses, and shoot only black and white. What I'm doing now is trying to find my prefered normal lens.
I'll continue using only 35mm till I feel I know it thoroughly, and till I start seeing the framelines without lifting the camera and the exact look of every aperture. Don't mind if it take months.
I'm not interested in lenses out of the 35-50mm range for the same reason I don't shoot color film - I can do those on my dSLR.
Well, maybe I'm just playing in being a purist, maybe I'm just trying to find excuses for spending a lot of money on a camera system when already I have a state of the art one, Canon made. Maybe I'll sell the Canon....
Don't know
Last edited:
oscroft
Veteran
Hi Assaf,
I think that's an excellent approach - I wish you well with it.
alexz
Well-known
Assaf said:
Thanks Assaf, in line with that, I'll be glad to offer you a test drive with my 50mm 'Cron...but as a matter of fact, I have already set my mind for 35mm 'Cron ASPH (or probably Lux ASPH...God knows...)
Alex