.72 finder to .58?

thats an odd little trinket. I am trying to get my hands on a 58 but this is kinda neat, although I have to say, that eye hole is awfully small, i wonder what it would do to the overall clarity of the finder...
 
These thingies have been around for some time now. I have yet to hear about any working properly. How could it? Just think about the optics, the reason one doesn't get the view of a .58 on a .72 is because it simply is not there. How could any little contraption create what isn't visible except by bending lightrays around a corner? The only thing it can do is shrink your framelines and shorten your RF base in the process without adding any field of view. A waste of money.
 
Last edited:
Jaap is right, to properly change the angle of view you would need to have a lens in front of both the viewfinder and rangefinder windows, like the goggled 35mm lenses for the M3 did. These would add a lot of weight to the camera. There are occaisionally 0.58X M6 TTLs and M7s for sale on Ebay, or in shops, so a second body might be the way to go if you can spring for one. I have a 0.58X M7 for wideangle use and a 0.72X M7 for longer lenses.
 
"I read somewhere that..."? Before making statements like these you should at least provide some basic references.

For things "that cannot possibly work" they seem to work well enough for a lot of people to be happy with them.

If anyone wants to do a qualified and independent review on them please contact me.
 
I believe the 0.85x gadget merely produces a smaller finder-image so that existing framelines can be seen with better eye relief. It does not offer, nor should you expect, a wider field-of-view.

This is the same way how the Nikon F3 HP finder worked: reducing finder magnification for a longer "eyepoint." Of course, the Nikon also had an enlarged eyepiece to further the goal.

I'm more interested in the 1.15 and 1.35 magnifiers. The 90mm framelines are too small even on my 0.85 M6TTL.
 
I bought one for someone while I was in Japan. To put it kindly, I would never, ever use one. It is a good idea that simply does not deliver. The Leica Magnifier on the other hand works well, if you don't mind the extra fuss. I have not used the MS-MAG magnifiers, so for all I know they could work well, but the .85x one is not what I would choose. That is my neutral evaluation. I bought it for someone else, tried it out, and came to that opinion. Megaperls sells them, so please talk to him for a more positive evaluation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Megaperls said:
"I read somewhere that..."? Before making statements like these you should at least provide some basic references.

For things "that cannot possibly work" they seem to work well enough for a lot of people to be happy with them.

If anyone wants to do a qualified and independent review on them please contact me.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I think there has been enough qualified and independent research into the basic laws of optics over the last 300 years. Unless somebody has found a way to bend light before it enters an optical system by adding a lens after the optical system, which would be an amazing discovery in quantum mechanics and a sure Nobel prize, it is not difficult to rate the claim that this turns a .72 VF into an .58 as snake oil.
That a number of peolple bought it and a some didn't bother to complain is hardly surprising, as that is exactly the way that Tell Sell TV makes money. Magic slimming pills anybody?
If the selling point were merely "it reduces the maginification of your viewfinder, whilst at the same time reducing your measuring base,without adding to your field of view" which could conceivably be helpful for some eye conditions, I would have no problems with the product, as that is exactly what it does.
 
Last edited:
Jaap,

let me start off by saying that I find your aggressive and offensive tone rather unpleasant. Perhaps it is normal for you to burst into tirades at the slightest disagreement, but let's just say in some parts of the world those -including where I am writing from- those who shout loudest are considered as those with least to say.

Moving on. I honestly don't understand what you are so upset about. Where has it been said that the minifier changes the angle of view? Not on this thread anyway. While the suggestion that the accessory turns a .72 into a .58 is technically not correct, we all know what's meant. Just like when it is said that a 1.x digital sensor turns your lens into a "longer focal length". Also technically not correct (like your own statement "it reduces the maginification of your viewfinder" -- it only demagnifies the VF image that your eye sees) and very clumsily expressed, but certainly not malicious or fraudulent as you totally inappropriately suggest. And we all know what is meant.

My main criticism was about someone saying "I read it's no good, don't buy it". I won't even repeat why. Like almost all retro-fit accessories that try to do something what is available natively at much higher cost, the minifier has its limitations. At the fraction of the cost of a Leica camera and only marginally more expensive than a Leica lens hood, I think the minifier is a very decent Leica M accessory. It aims to imitate something that isn't actually there and that is what some people like. I can't see a problem with that. If someone does not like it, that's OK too as one cannot please everybody.

Regards

Dirk
 
Dirk,
I don't think I'm unneccesarily agressive or offensive. I think that if you read my post carefully you'll find I do not object to the minifier as such but to the argument used to sell it. If you choose to call it "technically incorrect" that is your privilege, but ( to borrow your term,) in my part of the world that is called misrepresentation and is regarded as fraudulent.
And your argument as "we all know what is meant" is disproved by the very first post of this thread alone. KGB32 clearly believed the claim that it would turn his .72 into a .58. So if the seller -I have a feeling that is you- changes the way it is advertised, I will be more than happy to be more friendly.
 
Last edited:
Your "feeling" is correct, I am the seller. My handle is the same as my shop name. The link to my site is in my profile. Is this what your "feeling" is based on? How much more open and obvious do want things to be? Any more verbosity like a signature with my site on all my posts and I will be accused of spamming this place.

The poster assumed "it reduces the view". What does that mean? Does a wide angle lens reduce the view of the world? I cannot see how KBG clearly assumed it actually converts your VF.

I honestly don't know how I can be more obvious and clear. Do you want me to list all the properties this thing does not have so you can be really sure other people are not misled? This is absurd. For what it is worth I updated the description of it on my site.

I have never had anyone made any hint that they are displeased with this item. I received comments like "I received the magnifier [referring to the minifier] today. I like it already! It will be permanently mounted to my M6." And you are accusing me of fraud (!) having never even seen it. Absurd it is.
 
I note that you have "does not change the field of view" in the product description now. Had you said so in the first place it might have saved a lot of acrimony. That removes any objection I had
violent-smiley-011.gif
. I don't quite see why you can't mention in a discussion that you sell the stuff. I have seen that happen on this site before and nobody objected. Anyway I repeat for the third time that I never said anything negative about the product itself. I was not the one that called it names you may recall, on the contrary, I was the one that suggested it might be useful, for instance for users wearing glasses.
smilie_brille.gif
 
Last edited:
Jaap and Dirk. I was not looking for something that changed the angle of view. If this item helps me to see the edges of the 28 finder frames without me jamming my eye into the finder, than I would say it is a successful product. I ordered the finder reducer and once it arrives, next week, I will give it a test and report on it here at RFF. Please, no harsh words. I will give an unbiased report as soon as I can.
 
Keith, if you are like me, you will not find it easier to see the 28mm framelines. For me, the .85 minifier did not change how easy it was to view the framelines, it only made the finder slightly dimmer, distorted, and required that your eye be perfectly centered to see anything. I am sorry to say that that is my honest evaluation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
Buying on eBay: A Savvy Guide to the World’s Top Online Auction Site
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
WoodallP
WoodallP
J
  • Article Article
(Almost) Everything you wanted to know about Black Paint Leica Rangefinders
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
14K
Photar
Photar
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
865
Jason Schneider
J
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
J
  • Article Article
A Leica Lover’s Guide to Acquiring a Digital M:
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
ranger9
R
Back
Top Bottom