A bigger eyepiece posible? I think so!

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
2:40 AM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
From this photo, Leica can give us a wider eye piece for greater eye relief. Why don't they do this? It would be a better camera if they made this change.
 

Attachments

  • M-SERVICE-WARRANTY-EXTENSION_teaser-480x320.png
    M-SERVICE-WARRANTY-EXTENSION_teaser-480x320.png
    142.7 KB · Views: 0
Leica's circular eyepiece helps to center your eye in the viewfinder, thus making it able to very quickly align itself with the focusing patch with few parallax issues.
Other cameras (like my Fuji GW690III, the Zeiss Ikon) allow a larger viewfinder but the trade off is that you have to move your eye around a bit to correctly align the focusing patch.
 
Having tried the larger ZM finder and the smaller Leica, I much prefer the compromise chosen by the Germans.
 
As mentioned earlier, the Zeiss ZM had a larger viewfinder. Zeiss was founded 3 years before Leica. Does that mean Leica should follow whatever Zeiss does because Zeiss has been doing it longer?

Personally, I prefer the Zeiss RF in every way. It can be harder to align your eye with the patch, but after some use it's not an issue. I imagine Leica doesn't offer different sizes because it would cost a lot to manufacture different sizes of top plates.
 
aeturnum said:
As mentioned earlier, the Zeiss ZM had a larger viewfinder. Zeiss was founded 3 years before Leica. Does that mean Leica should follow whatever Zeiss does because Zeiss has been doing it longer?

Personally, I prefer the Zeiss RF in every way. It can be harder to align your eye with the patch, but after some use it's not an issue. I imagine Leica doesn't offer different sizes because it would cost a lot to manufacture different sizes of top plates.
Click to expand...

First off, I will preface this by saying I wish Zeiss (Cosina?) would make a digital rangefinder camera. The more options out there, the better.
That being said:

1/ Zeiss no longer offers a rangefinder camera. The fact that the market favoured Leica can be an argument as to who was/is doing it right. And who has been doing it longer.
2/ The Zeiss viewfinder IS harder to align to. Sure you can get used to it, but that is the whole point of the Leica design.

You want a really large viewfinder AND no eye alignment issues? Leica M3.
 
I just wish the M cameras had an adjustable diopter. Over $100 each for screw in diopters is robbery. And, I would appreciate it if I could see the whole 35mm frame on my M4-2 without shifting my eye around.
 
Perhaps people that like the Zeiss design better are simply ignorant of how one "should" make a camera and need to be educated. :p

Or it could be that Leica and Zeiss designers make difference compromises between VF size and RF patch alignment, both of which have ups and downs. It's still possible to mis-align your eye with the Leica design, especially when holding the camera vertically.
 
eleskin, hang in there! yours is a valid point.

i personally know many who struggle with the issue you raise, and many who have in fact turned away from rf shooting for that single reason. i too struggle with it. The observation about 'centering' definitely added to understanding the issue in a certain context, but obviously there are many ways to skin a cat.
 
I didn't get used to the larger CV viewfinder. Prefer the Leica's. Really liked the Mamiya 7 and Bronica RF645 though.
 
froyd said:
Having tried the larger ZM finder and the smaller Leica, I much prefer the compromise chosen by the Germans.
Click to expand...

Germans designed the ZM finder. The Cosina just built what Carl Zeiss AG (Headquarters, Oberkochen, Germany) told them to build.

So, which Germans were you referring to?
 
Having owned the camera with the largest eye relief offered (Ikon) and now an M240 I have to favour the M240 personally. I can appreciate that glasses wearers need plenty of eye relief but the Ikon was a pita until I got used to it.

In short ... Leica has it exactly right IMO.
 
The ZI has no align problem, it has a larger and brighter VF than any other RF camera...there must be many many reasons why leica doesn´t make larger VF´s...secret reasons buried in ancient wisdon reavealed just to happy few....:D
 
Keith said:
Having owned the camera with the largest eye relief offered (Ikon) and now an M240 I have to favour the M240 personally. I can appreciate that glasses wearers need plenty of eye relief but the Ikon was a pita until I got used to it.

In short ... Leica has it exactly right IMO.
Click to expand...

Amen. Just because you can, it does not mean you should.
 
willie_901 said:
Germans designed the ZM finder. The Cosina just built what Carl Zeiss AG (Headquarters, Oberkochen, Germany) told them to build.

So, which Germans were you referring to?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, point taken. Leitz wins, in my book. Good to have a large viewfinder option in the ZM, though, for those who prefer going big.
 
Funny thing about this thread is, even though I prefer the Leica viewfinders, I now want a Zeiss Ikon ZM.
GAS attack..
 
'I want, I need, why don't they....?' which just about sums up the technical arguments put forward so far.

As any engineer will know, whether they build bridges or design cameras, knowing how to do something is closely linked with knowing when not to do something. Choices are made by understanding the negatives just as well, or better than, understanding the positives.

I doubt Leica are being personally spiteful to the OP, but if the ZM Ikon is so fabulous try Ebay.

V
 
A useful opinion here would be from someone familiar with Leica's viewfinder when the top cover is off.

A couple millimeters increase in diameter might indeed lead to center patch disappearance as can happen with the ZI.

The question is how much more viewfinder real estate can be bought w/o being any worse than a ZI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom