bwcolor
Veteran
I've a limited sampling of Leica cameras and none of recent vintage. M3, M4 and M6TTL ('MP' viewfinder upgrade), but none of these finders match my Ikon, or Mamiya 7II viewfinders... especially when wearing glasses. This is one person's opinion and I know that the Leica rangefinder split-image is more easily viewed off-center, but I rarely use any of these cameras with eccentric viewing of the rangefinder. I know that the new 'M' sports LED framelines, which sounds great, especially in low light environments, but have there been any advances in finder size, or brightness? I ask because it seems that as much as Leica 'M' depends upon love of the rangefinder experience, Leica hasn't really tried to enhance that experience.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The new M includes LED illumination of the frame lines, the mechanism remains the same. The LED setup can automatically adjust brightness to accommodate ambient illumination and can shift from white to red per user preference.
Otherwise, it's the same VF as the M9. Which I like, as I can see the 35-135 framelines and focusing patch easily with my glasses.
The ZI VF is good too, of course, but I prefer the Leica. The first series M4-2 has my favorite M VF however. A little simpler.
Otherwise, it's the same VF as the M9. Which I like, as I can see the 35-135 framelines and focusing patch easily with my glasses.
The ZI VF is good too, of course, but I prefer the Leica. The first series M4-2 has my favorite M VF however. A little simpler.
Pioneer
Veteran
I am certainly not a Leica expert but my ZI viewfinder is very nice and it is one of my favorite rangefinders.
V-12
Well-known
No? It seems like Zeiss only had ingenuity enough for four viewfinder frames, and Mamiya only three, two of which are woefully inaccurate. Of course it depends on where you place your priorities. If you want a big bright viewfinder and little else then yes both Ikon and Mamiya are great. If on the other hand you want to use a wider selection of lenses more effectively, and without adding accessory finders, then I can't see why you think Leica aren't helping you out much. And then their are the variations of the Leica finder in their film cameras like the M6 TTL, MP, and M7 that give .58, .72, .85 magnification. Are these not enhancing the experience for photographers?
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
I have a DS M3. The finder was "hazy" to put it mildly. luckily our leica repairguy had a factory new M4 finder that fit. I enjoy the M4-P and M3 to have now a same size finder, easier to pre visualize the image and super bright.
bwcolor
Veteran
Yes, I like that I use a 0.58 finder for my 35mm and .85 for my fast 50s and 90mm. I don't mean to suggest that there are not advantages to the Leica. I'm just suggesting that a larger/brighter viewfinder would be appreciated.
I prefer the ZI to any M.
Favorite M is M3.
Not to imply the others are not excellent, just that those are my preferred finders.
Favorite M is M3.
Not to imply the others are not excellent, just that those are my preferred finders.
froyd
Veteran
I think your point was very clear and well stated. But it'll be 1 in 10 replies that actually addresses your point directly, kinda the trend on RFF these days. I was surprised as well to discover that the RF and VF on the Leicas did not surpass all major competitors on ALL fronts. However, I imagine some compromises had to be made where no two features could be top.
Also, I think Leica is commendably committed to keeping all Ms compatible with the back catalog of lenses and accessories that demand a standardized size of VF window and RF spacing (e.g. goggled lenses).
bwcolor
Veteran
I believe that compatibility is their strategy given the history, but the real reason that they haven't upgraded the finders in a major way is that Leica people don't demand that they have an improved viewfinder. Everyone fixates on the image, as it should be, but it would be nice to have a larger/brighter viewfinder. It would make the cameras more enjoyable to use. Every time I shoot with my Ikon, or Contax RTS III, it reminds me that as much as I love my M6TTL, I really don't like the keyhole experience.
I'm considering selling a lot of gear to fund the 'M', but it is hard to believe that at such a price I must accept a viewfinder little changed over the years. I do think that the LED frame lines will be an improvement and they have attempted to improve framing accuracy. I'm also thinking that I might not be so worked up about this if I didn't wear glasses.
I'm considering selling a lot of gear to fund the 'M', but it is hard to believe that at such a price I must accept a viewfinder little changed over the years. I do think that the LED frame lines will be an improvement and they have attempted to improve framing accuracy. I'm also thinking that I might not be so worked up about this if I didn't wear glasses.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The problem is that "improvement" in this case is very subjective. Bigger is not always better, brighter is always good but might increase the size and cost of the mechanism and optics (never mind the size and shape of the camera) unacceptably. Magnification ... Depends on what focal lengths a person uses most as to what's best.
The optical viewfinder is a highly developed, very mature technology. All choices are ultimately compromises. Good ones like these in the M or ZI are ferociously expensive optics.
If I were to change the Leica M finder, I'd look to giving it a larger exit pupil and more eye relief to allow more glasses wearers to see all the frames. No one I know wearing glasses can see the M9's 28mm frame without shifting their eye around a lot ... I just consider it isn't there and frame approximately or use an accessory finder, which is approximate anyway.
But to belabor the point is a bit of a rathole. The Bessa III everyone touts as having a superb finder .. Well, it is but it's also FAR less framing accurate than any frame lines in a Leica M or Zeiss Ikon. You just get to know it and use it for what it is.
The optical viewfinder is a highly developed, very mature technology. All choices are ultimately compromises. Good ones like these in the M or ZI are ferociously expensive optics.
If I were to change the Leica M finder, I'd look to giving it a larger exit pupil and more eye relief to allow more glasses wearers to see all the frames. No one I know wearing glasses can see the M9's 28mm frame without shifting their eye around a lot ... I just consider it isn't there and frame approximately or use an accessory finder, which is approximate anyway.
But to belabor the point is a bit of a rathole. The Bessa III everyone touts as having a superb finder .. Well, it is but it's also FAR less framing accurate than any frame lines in a Leica M or Zeiss Ikon. You just get to know it and use it for what it is.
whitecat
Lone Range(find)er
The viewfinder on the Zeiss is much better than the Leica. I have had both.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
LOL ... You like it more. Define "better" please. ;-)
sahe69
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
From our review of the Zeiss Ikon on http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zeiss.html : Then you look through the viewfinder. Again, it's superb: at least as good as an M-series Leica, and probably better.
The question is, though, is it enough better to warrant completely redesigning the M finder? I don't think it is. Nor, presumably, does Leica.
After all, we're not looking at mass-produced consumer electronics here, the sort of thing that can be updated every year, with the R&D costs of the redesign spread across a million cheap cameras.
Could it be better? No doubt. How much do most Leica buyers care? Not very much.
Cheers,
R.
The question is, though, is it enough better to warrant completely redesigning the M finder? I don't think it is. Nor, presumably, does Leica.
After all, we're not looking at mass-produced consumer electronics here, the sort of thing that can be updated every year, with the R&D costs of the redesign spread across a million cheap cameras.
Could it be better? No doubt. How much do most Leica buyers care? Not very much.
Cheers,
R.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Try the combined view/rangefinder of a serviced - I mean very clean and adjusted - Zorki 4 / 4K. Apart from the fact that it lacks frames, I like it better than the others mentioned.
Beemermark
Veteran
I don't understand the fixation over little details like this. The VF does it's job and that's all I require. I have seen nicer ones but they didn't entice me enough to even really notice, or move away from Leica.
V-12
Well-known
This thread is all about 'tits and tinsel', looking at the great things flashing you in the face without looking at the bottom, errm,..... line. Kids ask similar questions as well, 'Daddy Daddy can I have....' without them knowing it will rot their teeth. I am really surprised that after nearly sixty years people still don't think that Leica have trod a line that pleases as many people as possible, rather than gearing their products at just a few people who are happy enough to compromise on everything else. I have little doubt that Leica could make the biggest and brightest optical viewfinder ever made, but presumably they see a downside. So who is the expert, the guy with the optical bench and a budget to bugger about with viewfinder optic's, or the guy with the Christmas present list of personal wants and needs? I'm happy to join in with the rest of Leica users who can make it work. Leica don't make a camera for me, they make a camera for everybody.
The thread is not a 'fixation' it is observation. Viewfinders are obviously an important part of the process otherwise no one would care about parallax or accurate frame lines or contrasty RF patches. Oh, no biggie, those are just nit picky 'details.' lol
The expert is the customer of course. 
Leica has always gone their own way regardless; case in point: baseplate removal on digital Ms.
Leica has always gone their own way regardless; case in point: baseplate removal on digital Ms.