FE2 Upgrade - Which M6 Viewfinder for 50mm?

[michaelstevens]

I'm planning to upgrade my Nikon FE-2 to an M6 to use exclusively with a 50mm lens. There are plenty of x0.72 versions out there, but the x0.85 seems rarer and hence pricier.

Obviously the 0.85 would be preferable on paper (easier and more accurate to focus) but I have no practical experience with either. Can someone with knowledge of both let me know if the difference is all that great in real life use? How would the size of the 50mm framelines compare in size to the viewfinder in my FE-2 (my only real reference point)?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mudman]

I own a FM2n, an F, F100, a M3 and a M6 TTL .85. I think the 50mm lines in the M6 really depend on if you're using glasses or not. With glasses on, they take up the whole viewfinder, like a FM2n would look like. With out them on, the 35mm lines are clearly visible and the 50mm are a bit smaller. It's kind of comparing apples to oranges really. If I were to buy another, I'd probably just go with a .85 again because I tend to be a normal to tele kind of fellow. If you like wides (including 35mm IMO) I'd look at a .72

 

[Livesteamer]

Also consider what you are shooting. If you are using a fast lens wide open you may want the .85, if not the .72 would be fine and be better if someday you got a wide angle lens. Beware also that some .85 finders need the MP upgrade or they will flare a lot. Joe

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I'm not sure you're going to find it to be an upgrade : )

I went from M7 to FE2+50/1.8 Series-E and finally found the imaging characteristics i had been looking for for years....

But, if your heart is set on trying a rangefinder, consider the Zeiss Ikon. I had an Ikon after two M7s, and preferred the Ikon's viewfinder...and loading... and 1/2000th shutter speed. And, i certainly prefer the Ikon (or M7) metering to what the M6 offers.

I also had .72 and .85 M7s. I had them at different times, so i can't speak with great accuracy, but i don't remember feeling any different about how each was able to focus a 50mm lens. That is, i don't remember feeling that the .85 was easier than the .72. I DO remember, though, being very frustrated with the framelines on the .85 when i occasionally wanted to use a 35mm lens.

 

[sparrow6224]

To me the difference between how you use and see through the VF in a rangefinder camera and how you use it and see through it with an SLR is so radical that the two cannot really be compared. Even when you have a 50mm frameline taking up the whole VF window in a .85 VF, you're not seeing what you'd see looking through the viewfinder of an SLR with a 50mm lens on it.

 

[kzphoto]

The .85x finder has been good to me with 50mm lenses. Really easy to focus and compose. My only problem has been that I like to see a bit more outside the frame lines, which the .72x finder will let me do.

Alternatively, you could get a .72x and a magnifier when you want to use a longer lens.

 

[John Lawrence]

I have .85 finder and find it excellent for all my lenses (35, 50 & 90mm).

The best advice I can give is to try out the different viewfinders and see which suits you best. Places like Aperture Photographic http://www.apertureuk.com/ and most good dealers are quite happy to let you do this.

John

 

[michaelstevens]

CK Dexter Haven,
Well that's got me doubting again! I'm using the same combination: FE-2 with E Series 50mm. It's nice and compact and great to use but I really want to be able to use all those great M lenses.
I thought about the Zeiss Ikon but it's pretty hard to come by secondhand in the UK. How do its 50mm framelines compare to the .85 M6/7 and the FE-2?

 

[Vilk]

as someone said above--i'm not sure it will be a great upgrade. of course, "upgrade" often means we want something...

😎

if you need change, put a B3 screen in your nikon and be amazed. then get yourself a longnose 50/1.8 and be amazed even more

ps. as CK above, speaking from long and current experience on both types

 

[Rob-F]

I own three M6 and two MP. That said, I would not switch to any of those--or an M7, either, for the purpose of using a 50mm lens. The 50mm framelines on any of these models are excessively undersized. Rangefinder framelines tend to be undersized in general, and for good reason. But on the M6, MP, and M7, they actually cover the same width and height as my 60mm Elmarit on the R5.

Let's look at what that means: the framelines only cover 80% of the width, and 80% of the height. This means that the proportion of area covered is 0.8 times .8, which is 0.64. With the 50mm framelines on the cameras, you only see 64% of what the film sees at medium to long distances.

You really only want to use a 50mm lens only? Get an M3. The 50mm framelines are quite visible to me, even with eyeglasses. I just did a little quick test. My M3, with the 50mm lens, shows a little more in the framelines than my 55mm Micro-Nikkor on my FE2, at the same distance. Switching to a 50/1.4 on the FE2, I then see a tiny bit more width than with the M3 50mm framelines.

Conclusion: An M3 will provide a close match for image width to that you have become accustomed to with the FE2. All these remarks apply to scenes photographed at medium to long distances, not extreme closeups. I used a distance of around 18 feet for these comparisons.

Are you sure you want to do this? I liked what I just saw in the FE2 finder!

 

[Ronald M]

If you wear specs, .72. If you want a 28 or 35 ever, ,72. If you want to see area around the frame, .72.


If you want a bigger image, .85. For 90 or 135, .85 or better yet, an M3.

FWIIW, all mine are .72 except a couple old M3`s.

 

[raid]

Some users of the 0.85 have complained of flare in the VF.
I have the 0.85, and I love it. I mainly used 35mm and 50mm lenses

 

[anitasanger]

I'm not sure you're going to find it to be an upgrade : )

I went from M7 to FE2+50/1.8 Series-E and finally found the imaging characteristics i had been looking for for years....

But, if your heart is set on trying a rangefinder, consider the Zeiss Ikon. I had an Ikon after two M7s, and preferred the Ikon's viewfinder...and loading... and 1/2000th shutter speed. And, i certainly prefer the Ikon (or M7) metering to what the M6 offers.

I also had .72 and .85 M7s. I had them at different times, so i can't speak with great accuracy, but i don't remember feeling any different about how each was able to focus a 50mm lens. That is, i don't remember feeling that the .85 was easier than the .72. I DO remember, though, being very frustrated with the framelines on the .85 when i occasionally wanted to use a 35mm lens.

Could you please explain what you preferred in regards to the Ikon's metering? (over the m6) Is it more precise? Is the m6 considered somewhat subpar?

thank you,

Luke

 

[semilog]

I went from multiple FE2s to an M6 0.85 about a dozen years ago. I shoot 35 and 50mm with it. I shoot without glasses. I am very, very happy with the combination. I recently had the RF optics on the M6 upgraded to the MP optics since Sherry Krauter was digging into the camera anyway. There's a bit less flare but honestly, before the RF upgrade I very, very, very rarely had any problems with flare that actually interfered with shooting.

That said, I'm in the minority and my impression is that most M shooters prefer 0.72x, even with the 50.

Currently I often carry the M6 with a 35, and an FE2 with an 85mm. It's a great combination.

For what it's worth, I long ago switched my FE2 screens to matte or matte/grid screens, and I prefer them that way. And the Nikon 50/1.8's are GREAT lenses.

The FE2 is a great camera. The major reason to switch to an M is (in my opinion) the rather different way of seeing and composing. I can't lie, though. When I got an M my pictures *did* improve, largely for this very reason.

If you do make the switch to an M6, expect: (1) an initially steep learning curve to master RF focusing; (2) no magic in the 50mm optics. The Leica 50's are very, very good lenses. Great lenses. But so are the best Nikon 50's, particularly the 1.8's and the 55 Micro's. And the Nikon stuff is a *lot* less expensive, particularly if you already have an FE2.

If you do get an M, and you intend to shoot B&W mainly, I suggest either the dual-range Summicron or the Verison 3 Summicron — if you get a Leica lens.

Now, this is slightly heretical, but I like the look of pictures from the Zeiss ZM 50mm Planar even better than the Leica Summicrons. And it positively *shines* in color. Killer lens. I use a version 4 Summicron 50mm because I got a great deal on it, but in practice I mainly shoot 35mm lenses, anyway.