Leica M2 and M4 viewfinder comparison for glasses wearers

[lrochfort]

Hello all,

I want to buy a Leica M, principally for use with a 35mm lens and occasionally 50mm. I don't anticipate using any other focal lengths.

I wear glasses and would like your feedback on the viewfinder and rangefinder on the M2 and M4. What are the general pros/cons and what are the specific pros/cons for glasses wearers?

I'm a fair way from anywhere I can handle these cameras, so your feedback is much appreciated.

I added poll in case that helps people later.

Cheers,
Laurence.

 

[Blind_spark]

The M2 and M4's finder magnifications are the same - .72x. The only real difference is that the M4's VF exit masking is enlarged compared to the M2. Some M2 owners have this modified to the M4 type during CLA. I think the M4 I own now if the brightest one I've ever owned, so it gets my vote.

As a glasses wearer, I find it difficult to see all four corners of the 35mm frame all at once on either camera. I have the same issue with the M3's higher magnification/50mm frame. I have to shift around to check all four. Bothers me more than others, I'm sure. I primarily shoot a 50mm as a result, despite enjoying the final framing of the 35mm when I do use one.


The best experience I've had with using a 35mm lens on the M2/M4 was with the "goggled" versions of said focal length. Yes, it does dim the VF a little, is a bit unwieldy, lowers the RF accuracy, and there is some ghosting. But for me the trade off was worth it to be able to properly use the 35mm frame. It uses the 50mm frameline and modifies the magnification of the finder to be about .58x (vs the normal .72x), therefore approximating a 35mm frameline FOV. You have more room around the frame to see subjects coming in and out of the image...also, slightly closer minimum focus distance (.6-.65m instead of .7m). In this option, you would be restricted to the 1950's lenses.

That set up - sold the lens, to much regret


You could also consider an M6/M7/MP with a .58x VF. Less bulky - potentially better as a glasses wearer. Never owned one, so can't really say beyond that.

 

[lrochfort]

The only real difference is that the M4's VF exit masking is enlarged compared to the M2.

Thanks very much.

Could you expand a bit more and what you mean by the exit masking?

 

[Blind_spark]

In this video, at the 6:55 mark, he shows the difference between them.

 

[Duchy Original]

Another possibility would be to attach a dioptre lens to the viewfinder of either the M2 or M4 and take your glasses off while shooting (or put them on top of your head as I do). This is the only way I can make the 35 framelines on my M2 usable as a glasses wearer (sadly can't wear contacts any more). It works well though dims the viewfinder ever so slightly and perhaps makes the view less crisp.

If money were no object and I shot film a lot I would be tempted by a 0.58 finder; an M6 TTL is probably the cheapest way to get one.


Graham

 

[sojournerphoto]

Agree, 35 framelines are a challenge on M4 with glasses. I use mine as a 50 camera. The Zeiss Ikon, or a smaller magnification viewfinder (Leica 0.58 or Voigtlander R4 at 0.5) are the answer.

Mike

 

[ForestCap]

I'm a glasses wearer too and like you I prefer shooting with glasses on to removing/putting on the glasses all the time. With glasses I can just see the 35mm frameline on the M4 without struggling. Forget about the areas outside the frameline though. Haven't handled an M2 so I can't compare.

I find the 35mm frameline on Bessa-R (x0.68) much more comfortable to use. Even the one on Canon-7 (around x0.8) is slightly better than M4.

 

[Chromacomaphoto]

+1 on Blind Spark's comments. Used M's for years as a glasses wearer who likes to use a 35. Never good results and lots of guessing, although you get better with practice. I only ever really got successful with it when wearing contact lenses instead. The older goggled lenses (I prefer a summaron 35 2.8 for street and on the fly walkaround stuff myself) are really the best bet and you can use them on most film m's old or new...not sure about digital ones as I have zero interest in digital Leica but I'm sure somebody else knows. M3 finder with a 50mm is heaven for glasses wearers. Summaron on an m2 was my last rig like this.

 

[presspass]

There are other Leica options. The M6TTL has a .58 finder as do the MP and the M7. I wear glasses and these finders are far superior to the M4. I've never shot an M2, but I suspect it's the same as the M4. Having said that, if you don't want to spend Leica money, consider the Bessas or, if you don't mind battery-dependent, the ZI. That has the best finder going for clarity.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

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

 

[madNbad]

With either the M2 or the M4 the eyepiece is metal. Spend a few dollars and get a plastic cover from DAG camera, it'll save a lot of scratches.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

With either the M2 or the M4 the eyepiece is metal. Spend a few dollars and get a plastic cover from DAG camera, it'll save a lot of scratches.

Or replace the eyepiece altogether with one from an M6.

Phil Forrest

 

[Dez]

Lots of good answers here, but mostly not to the original question. The M2 and M4 VFs are the same, except you also get 135 mm frame lines in the M4, and as was mentioned, the mask in the M4 opens a bit wider, which is a small advantage when wearing glasses. All in all, the M4 is a more convenient camera, but more expensive than the M2.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[splitimageview]

I too am a fan of the goggles. Previously, I found them rather odd.

But I came across a perfect 35/2.8 Summaron at a bargain price and have changed my mind. Yes, they still look goofy, but the close focus and framing are excellent. And they don't add much weight in spite of what may appear.

These should work well with any M if you can see the standard 50mm frames with glasses.

 

[maddoc]

Any of the goggled 35mm lenses (Summilux, Summicron, Summaron) are your best bet when wearing glasses and going to use a Leica with 0.72x VF.

The older M4 VF have the M2 style eye pieces. Leitz changed that later when they also changed from balsam to some synthetic glue for the prism.

 

[Doug]

Agree that the goggled Leica 35s make a good solution. I got my M2 and 35 Summicron back in the 60s and could never see any two opposite sides of the frame, wearing glasses, and it wasn't much better with contacts. Though one's face shape will make a difference here.

When I got a goggled Summaron 7 years ago it was a revelation to see not only all 35mm framelines at once but more real estate around the outside too. This works as well on the M9 and M240 etc also, though lens corner performance suffers a bit visibly. On the M8 it works but is unnecessary.

And, the goggled lenses work on the Konica Hexar RF as well, since it has the same window positions as the M cameras. But its viewfinder is 0.6x anyway, making it an alternative to a .58x Leica body.

 

[Chromacomaphoto]

Never knew that about the Hexar RF being able to use goggled Leica lenses, you learn something new every day. Makes sense I guess.

 

[StayFrosty]

Just adding for reference, I am a glasses wearer who has an M2 and shoots only with a 35mm. Although I can just see the the 35mm framelines with my glasses on, I prefer to wear contacts when I shoot. Being able to see outside of the framelines is part of the reason why I bought a RF.

 

[iphoenix]

I wear glasses.

I've had an M1,2and 3 and currently have an M4, 4P and 6.

I've found the finder of the M4 was superior (clearer and easier to use) to that of the earlier ones, and was intending to use that camera on an impending cruise. However, of the lot the easiest to see the frames and to focus whilst wearing glasses is the M6, plus it has a soft eyepiece to protect my glasses.

You may have guessed that I will now be using the M6 (finally swayed by the soft eyepiece).

 

[Dez]

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