Leica M2 and M4 viewfinder comparison for glasses wearers

[bucs]

I AGREE (10 characters)

I suspect if people are finding differences between M2 and M4 finders, it's more likely to be camera-to-camera production variability rather than a difference between models; they should be the same.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[splitimageview]

Or individual condition decades after they were first sold...

 

[sepiareverb]

Another option, albeit expensive, is a 0.58x Finder. Should be able to go into an M4 or M2. Or can be found in an MP or M7. Not exactly what you're asking, but vastly better 35 frameline visibility.

 

[rogue_designer]

M4 with glasses works for me. I cannot see 100% the corners of the 35mm frames, but I'm ok with that. I like that if I can see it, it's in frame.

If I need absolutely precise in-frame composition, I'm not going to be using a rangefinder in the first place.

 

[Mute-on]

I have an M2 and a 0.58 MP. I don't wear glasses. Nevertheless, I far prefer the 0.58 finder of the MP for the 35 frame lines. I can comfortably see around them, much like a 50 on the M2. A 35 on the M2 is pretty well jammed into the corners of the viewfinder at a normal viewing distance. If I really squash my eye into the eyepiece I get a bit more relief.

I would suggest that you get an M2 or M4 if you favour a 50, and will be happy with a goggled 35, all of which will be older lenses.
However, if you favour a 35, and hope to use a more modern non-goggled version, such as a late Summicron or Summilux, I would look for a 0.58 M6 TTL or M7, as others have mentioned.
You will find a 50 eminently useable on a 0.58 finder, and you can always add a magnifier if you feel the need.

All the best.

J 🙂

 

[mooge]

I have an M2 and I removed the viewfinder mask. To my eye, it made no difference at all. But come to think of it, the limiting factor is that wearing glasses spaces out the camera too far from my eye to see all of the 35 frame.

 

[Rob-F]

I have not noticed anyone else mentioning this, but when I need to see the full frame with the 35mm on my M2, I simply take my glasses off for the final framing. I focus with glasses on, frame with them off. This, of course, only works for stationary subjects; not for tennis matches! Probably not for street photography, either. Well, maybe for street photography; you can use zone focusing.

Framing a 35 while wearing glasses can also be successful. It just requires some intuition to know where the edges and corners are. I did it for years until I got my .58 bodies. Now, "intuitive framing" is only needed with the 28mm! Try it. It works!

 

[bayernfan]

my solution: -3.0 diopter.

 

[Rob-F]

my solution: -3.0 diopter.

Well, that too; except i need a -4.0 diopter! It can be a nuisance to take your glasses off to see through the finder. Contact lenses are another solution. But then I'm nearsighted, so I would have to wear reading glasses to see my shutter speed settings, and my distance settings for shooting with DOF. And I have to remove them again to see through the finder.

Of course, there is always monovision, wearing a contact in one eye for distance, while leaving the other uncorrected in order to see close up. My wife has that setup.

Other options: 1) Switch to a Nikon F3 with high eyepoint prism and leave eyeglasses on. 2) Switch to a Rollei or Hasselblad. Eyeglasses can stay on for those, too.

 

[thomasw_]

I prefer my M4 over my old M2 although the finders are almost identical. One thing I loved about the M2 were the DOF markings inside the RF patch. I wish I had those in the M4 but prefer it for the loading and rewinding.

Phil Forrest

Indeed, the M2-R might be the synthesis for you?

 

[bayernfan]

Indeed, the M2-R might be the synthesis for you?

i own an M2-R and and M4. very similar. i prefer the M2-R for the clean 35mm line, yet prefer the M4 for the ergonomic wind lever.

 

[Richard G]

I have always worn glasses and don't really have a problem with the 35mm frame lines in M2 or M6 (or M5.) You don't need perfection. The view through the M2 with a 35 is truly magnificent, even with glasses on. It will make a huge difference if you can shoot with your right eye in the viewfinder. I taught myself to do that in my thirties when I first acquired a 35 Summicron.

The goggled lenses might be better, but it's not a solution that would ever have interested me. The form of the camera is so integral to the enjoyment of it. And the initial fussing over whether you can see all four edges of the frame lines, having given up quickly any hope of seeing beyond those lines, should soon give way to just enjoying using the camera and almost always near enough is good enough. I now use a 28 without an accessory finder, and I just know what I'll get and don't obsess but the actual view I happen to have though the finder.

 

[steveyork]

They're pretty much the same in my experience. In the past I've owned both. Now I only have a couple M2's, but one of them has an M4 mask. Can't tell the difference. Wear glasses and shoot pretty exclusively the 35mm focal length -- no problems. There are after market eye piece protectors made from plastic or rubber that will save your glasses from scratches. I prefer the older M2, but my advice would be to go for the one with the best price/condition. Definitely though get an older M (e.g., M2, M4) as the frame lines are more accurate at typical shooting distances. Really though, they're all good.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I've used many different models of M with the exception of the M3 and M7. My favourites over decades have been the M2 & M4. I often used them together. I wear glasses, and as a mountain and ski guide, i'm most often wearing sunglasses. The M cameras have been my favourites over any other (for 35mm). Like Richard, the handling of the camera is important to me, and with the exception of the dual-range Summicron, I abhor the way the goggled lenses change the weight and balance of the M camera.
Like the OP i use the 35mm lens most often, and in a perfect world, i'd buy back the black paint M2 i sold.... The 35/50/90 viewfinder is ideal for me. At times i also use the Voigtlander or SBL00 accessory finder. If buying, i'd choose an M4 or M2 entirely based on condition and think about it no further. While it would be nice to see the entire frame, many many successful photos have been made with M cameras by eyeglass wearer. By comparison, most SLRs, with the exception of pro Nikon F series and a few other brands....show less than 100% of what appears on the negative. A Leica M or any SLR is a usable tool even if you wear glasses.

 

[Rob-F]

Frameline "clutter" --the presence of a frameline for a lens not presently in use--is one thing I don't seem to have to fuss over, except for the presence of the 75mm frame within the 50mm. It is distracting when using the 50mm. And once I made the mistake of using the 50mm frame when shooting with 75mm lens. Bit of a surprise when I got that slide back. But in general, I seem to just ignore the superfluous frame. I just tune it out. When I pick up my M2 or M5 after using a five or six frameline model, I may like the clean look of only one frame at a time; yet having two at a time doesn't bother me. I suspect some prospective M owners may be discouraged from buying, by our talk about frameline clutter. They probably should not worry: I believe the eye and brain learn quickly to ignore what isn't relevant.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

The M2 is cleaner with individual 35-50-90 frameline sets.

Forgive me as I don't currently own an M4 to compare with my M2, but if memory serves, the framelines between the two are identical (with only the 135 framelines mated with the 35 in the M4).