Help me fight my GAS once and for all.

[38Deardorff]

The short answer is no, and this isn’t about coverage, it’s about eyepoint/eye relief. It’s about 17mm for the OMs; too short to see the whole frame with glasses. You need 22-25mm of eyepoint to see the whole frame with glasses (and yes the Nikon F3hp has this but not the regular F3 which has higher magnification).

in the end it is about what ends up on the edges of the film frame though isn't it?
Say you can see the entire 95% coverage with a Pentax MX....& you still have stuff on the film you didn't want there....

 

[Freakscene]

in the end it is about what ends up on the edges of the film frame though isn't it?
Say you can see the entire 95% coverage with a Pentax MX....& you still have stuff on the film you didn't want there....

No. The question was if you can see the edges, not if the edges are the same as the film frame. It’s an entirely different consideration. If you can’t see the edges because you wear glasses and the eyepoint is too short to accommodate the eye relief you need, the coverage is irrelevant because you can’t even vaguely compose.

 

[38Deardorff]

No. The question was if you can see the edges, not if the edges are the same as the film frame. It’s an entirely different consideration. If you can’t see the edges because you wear glasses and the eyepoint is too short to accommodate the eye relief you need, the coverage is irrelevant because you can’t even vaguely compose.

yes.....& you've pointed out the downside of SLR....

 

[splitimageview]

I would pick a CLE and the 28/2.8 Voigtlander Type II. Super light, camera is reliable but repairable and has a great 28mm view. Can't answer as to eyepoint!

 

[Richard G]

No. The question was if you can see the edges, not if the edges are the same as the film frame. It’s an entirely different consideration. If you can’t see the edges because you wear glasses and the eyepoint is too short to accommodate the eye relief you need, the coverage is irrelevant because you can’t even vaguely compose.

And this is an SLR issue more than a rangefinder issue. With SLR you want WYSIWYG operability. When you see the beautiful ground glass view you want all of it, and need it. With the rangefinder your brain is operating differently: you know the image will not be what you are seeing in the viewfinder and you don’t mind because you’ve already seen it, independent of the machine. I met a Leica I user the other day. He doesn’t use the viewfinder much. I put the Zeiss 28 finder on the M9 maybe once only when I first got a 28. Occasionally I look for one frame line in the VF, but with glasses I’ve never seen them all at the same time.

 

[trix4ever]

I saw the title to this thread and my first reaction was that I couldn't possibly help anyone else with GAS. Hell, I certainly can't help my own GAS...

I reckon the CLE has the best 28mm viewfinder, but I sold mine as I prefer my film cameras to be mechanical and the lack of manual metering was a pain. I would almost rather have no meter than auto only.

 

[Alpsman]

it is ironic that the Leica’s wonderful rangefinder focussing may not be the essence of Leica photography. On the baseplate of my Leica II is expertly scribed in tiny even writing in the black lacquer:

8m Bl 9 4 - ∞

4 9 2,8 - 7,7

Bl is Blende - aperture. 9 was between 6.3 and 12.5.

View attachment 4883993

I like these little individual modifications to older cameras.
On one of my Nikon F cameras, the previous owner filed a small notch into the film gate, similar to the small notches on Hasselblads.
This way I know that this film was shot with that exact camera.
It's really not essential, but a nice little detail.

 

[Wenge]

GAS is not real. You always forget the last purchase, confusing it with the one before.
But you have to do it to figure out if new purchase is sharper than last one. And it always is.
then the old things are better again

 

[Richard G]

I like these little individual modifications to older cameras.
On one of my Nikon F cameras, the previous owner filed a small notch into the film gate, similar to the small notches on Hasselblads.
This way I know that this film was shot with that exact camera.
It's really not essential, but a nice little detail.

My chrome M5 is mint except for a pinpoint subtle dent in the front of the top plate. I figure that’s deliberate to distinguish this camera of the original owner from her other one.

 

[valdas]

When I could not see well 28mm frames on my M6, I simply went for Bessa R4M 🙂

 

[Streetmaniac]

And this is an SLR issue more than a rangefinder issue. With SLR you want WYSIWYG operability. When you see the beautiful ground glass view you want all of it, and need it. With the rangefinder your brain is operating differently: you know the image will not be what you are seeing in the viewfinder and you don’t mind because you’ve already seen it, independent of the machine. I met a Leica I user the other day. He doesn’t use the viewfinder much. I put the Zeiss 28 finder on the M9 maybe once only when I first got a 28. Occasionally I look for one frame line in the VF, but with glasses I’ve never seen them all at the same time.

That is a very good point. It takes some time to really get to know a focal length very good and be able to visualise it. I really dont care much about the edges if they are built like that, for example canon p where i couldnt see the 35mm framelines but no one could because of the 1/1 magnification. It nerves me a lot though great cameras like nikon fm2, fe, pentax mx not having thought of this to me huge problem. And of course another huge problem is the accurate focus. On the nikon f3hp i struggled to get 80 of the photos somehow sharp with 50mm lens. The 28mm is very different story but its because of the physics of the focal length not that i focused better with it.