Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I wear glasses so YMMV.
On my M6 (0.72) the 1.40X makes my finder into a huge 1.00 for use with a 75/1.4 Lux. I can still see the 50mm framelines, but the 50mm requires scanning, and the corners seem to be more cut off than the sides. Since the 75mm framing is minimally partial, I find this ideal.
What I love is that the focusing is snappy. Some people say the 75/1.4 is slow to focus, but not anymore. I am able to focus in conditions that were impossible before: extreamely dim lighting; irregular textured patterns; objects that lack edges...The magnifier really accentuates the sharpness of the 75/1.4. The sharpness kinda pokes you in the eye. No more racking back and forth, and the all guessing that I'm in focus is gone.
Also there is no magnification, nor minification, when compared to your normal vision, so two eyed shooting is something new to explore.
The view and the look is like the eye opener of when I tried a Nikon F3HP with the oversized veiwfinder. Although I still own my Nikon F2AS, it seldom gets used.
Seems like the 1.40X was optimatly designed for 75mm and 0.72finder; or a 90mm 0.85 combinations, for the fullest frames. Kinda like a 0.72 finder and the 35mm framelines.
The bad: price was $349.00 plus tax; I feel the storage system supplied is not secure and it is the Leica accesory that has the highest probability of being lost; and I would be compelled to buy another one immediately because there is no going back.
The compromise: I originally wanted to maintain a two lense (35/2.0 & 75/1.4) single body kit for mobility and budget, but now I have to win the lottery so I can get a second body to permanantly locktite the magnifier so I don't loose it. This seems to be the only long term solution. Leica marketing at its best.
Cal
On my M6 (0.72) the 1.40X makes my finder into a huge 1.00 for use with a 75/1.4 Lux. I can still see the 50mm framelines, but the 50mm requires scanning, and the corners seem to be more cut off than the sides. Since the 75mm framing is minimally partial, I find this ideal.
What I love is that the focusing is snappy. Some people say the 75/1.4 is slow to focus, but not anymore. I am able to focus in conditions that were impossible before: extreamely dim lighting; irregular textured patterns; objects that lack edges...The magnifier really accentuates the sharpness of the 75/1.4. The sharpness kinda pokes you in the eye. No more racking back and forth, and the all guessing that I'm in focus is gone.
Also there is no magnification, nor minification, when compared to your normal vision, so two eyed shooting is something new to explore.
The view and the look is like the eye opener of when I tried a Nikon F3HP with the oversized veiwfinder. Although I still own my Nikon F2AS, it seldom gets used.
Seems like the 1.40X was optimatly designed for 75mm and 0.72finder; or a 90mm 0.85 combinations, for the fullest frames. Kinda like a 0.72 finder and the 35mm framelines.
The bad: price was $349.00 plus tax; I feel the storage system supplied is not secure and it is the Leica accesory that has the highest probability of being lost; and I would be compelled to buy another one immediately because there is no going back.
The compromise: I originally wanted to maintain a two lense (35/2.0 & 75/1.4) single body kit for mobility and budget, but now I have to win the lottery so I can get a second body to permanantly locktite the magnifier so I don't loose it. This seems to be the only long term solution. Leica marketing at its best.
Cal
horosu
Well-known
How about the brightness of the viewfinder/RF patch?
I have a 1.15x magnifier and the brightness of the viewfinder is severely reduced. I have read that the same can be said of the other magnifiers 1.25x, Leica or not.
Best, Horea
I have a 1.15x magnifier and the brightness of the viewfinder is severely reduced. I have read that the same can be said of the other magnifiers 1.25x, Leica or not.
Best, Horea
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Last night, I was playing around with my new toy under "controled" situations. The contrast on the fake million dollar bill on my desk was more defined and was easier to focus. If anything is seemed like the viewfinder was brighter.
Also there is this sticker that is kinda glossy. In the past it regularly flared (my M6 does not have the flare patch yet) with my desk light on. I imagine that something has changed dramatically. Perhaps the stray light that nomally bounces around to cause the flare is somehow blocked out because it doesn't reach my eye. Seems overall there was less flare. THe conditions were strong lighting in a dark room for extreame contrast.
Also was able to clearly focus on my translucent reflection on a darkened window. In the past the focus was foggy at best, but not last night with the magnifier. Focus was just a guess in the past.
Overall I believe the viewfinder appears brighter. Kinda counterintuitive to your experiance and others. ????
Cal
Also there is this sticker that is kinda glossy. In the past it regularly flared (my M6 does not have the flare patch yet) with my desk light on. I imagine that something has changed dramatically. Perhaps the stray light that nomally bounces around to cause the flare is somehow blocked out because it doesn't reach my eye. Seems overall there was less flare. THe conditions were strong lighting in a dark room for extreame contrast.
Also was able to clearly focus on my translucent reflection on a darkened window. In the past the focus was foggy at best, but not last night with the magnifier. Focus was just a guess in the past.
Overall I believe the viewfinder appears brighter. Kinda counterintuitive to your experiance and others. ????
Cal
ferider
Veteran
Thanks for the review, Cal. I've been playing with the idea of getting one ... Maybe for Xmas.
Consider an M2 as a dedicated 35mm body
Roland.
Consider an M2 as a dedicated 35mm body
Roland.
horosu
Well-known
Thanks for your review.
Yes, to me the viewfinder and patch are noticeably dimmer using the current magnifiers. It would be nice to know that the 1.4x is not like that.
Horea
Yes, to me the viewfinder and patch are noticeably dimmer using the current magnifiers. It would be nice to know that the 1.4x is not like that.
Horea
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Please take note that this review is advanced because I've only had the magnifier for less than 24 hours. I will post further updates as a response to return of all the help, guidance and info offered to me as a newbie to Leica.
BTW I had the opportunity to compare the Leica 1.25X against the 1.40X yesterday at B&H, but didn't. I wish I wouda. The 1.40X imediately blew me away. Even without the harsh lighting in my office at night I knew right away. As long as the 75mm framelines were clearly viewed without scanning I dismissed the 1.25X.
As a referance I used my decade of experiance with a F3HP or F3P with my 105/2.5 and 180/2.8. At B&H I saw the same pop in the sharpness in the viewfinder with the 75/1.4.
Roland, your threads kinda led me to the 35/2 and 75/1.4 and my two lense kit. I feel like I'm a very lucky guy. Thanx.
Cal
BTW I had the opportunity to compare the Leica 1.25X against the 1.40X yesterday at B&H, but didn't. I wish I wouda. The 1.40X imediately blew me away. Even without the harsh lighting in my office at night I knew right away. As long as the 75mm framelines were clearly viewed without scanning I dismissed the 1.25X.
As a referance I used my decade of experiance with a F3HP or F3P with my 105/2.5 and 180/2.8. At B&H I saw the same pop in the sharpness in the viewfinder with the 75/1.4.
Roland, your threads kinda led me to the 35/2 and 75/1.4 and my two lense kit. I feel like I'm a very lucky guy. Thanx.
Cal
mirrored
Established
1/0,72=1,3889
1,4*0,72=1,008
Yes, it is very close 1:1. M3 have 0,91x and it is little annoying both eyes open. Thus some people adapt to it very quickly, some not. Brains can correct view, but I feel true 1:1 very lovely and restless when first time look.
Earlier thread for magnification lens: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67187
"Leica eventually 'forgot' WHY the M3 had a 0,9x magnif. finder and switched to lower magnification in later models, which makes shooting with both eyes difficult or impossible"
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=000083
Last edited:
Mackinaw
Think Different
I didn't even know that Leica made a 1.4X viewer. I have the 1.25X viewer, and like it, but have often wished for something with a bit more reach. Maybe this will be my X-mas present to myself this year.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Ken Shipman
Well-known
Leica recommends the 1.4x for "75 lens and above". I think this is based on the standard .72 finder. Calzone's comments about 50 framelines support this.
I'm using a 1.4x on the .68 finder of the M8.2 (effectively a .95 finder). On that finder the 50mm framelines are very much still within view and focusing the Noctilux is much improved. It just "snaps" into focus even in dim light. Obviously a big help with the 75 and 90, too.
I think there's a very small falloff in viewfinder light, but it's so slight as to be barely noticeable, even in fairly dim light.
In direct comparison to the 1.25x the only difference I see is the magnification itself and the physical size. The 1.4x is about 2mm larger in diameter, and about 4mm larger in thickness. Not really apparent unless you have them side-by-side.
BTW, stacking them doesn't work very well. Things get a little fuzzy, negating the increased magnification.
I'm using a 1.4x on the .68 finder of the M8.2 (effectively a .95 finder). On that finder the 50mm framelines are very much still within view and focusing the Noctilux is much improved. It just "snaps" into focus even in dim light. Obviously a big help with the 75 and 90, too.
I think there's a very small falloff in viewfinder light, but it's so slight as to be barely noticeable, even in fairly dim light.
In direct comparison to the 1.25x the only difference I see is the magnification itself and the physical size. The 1.4x is about 2mm larger in diameter, and about 4mm larger in thickness. Not really apparent unless you have them side-by-side.
BTW, stacking them doesn't work very well. Things get a little fuzzy, negating the increased magnification.
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
I also use the 1.25x and I'm thinking of getting the 1.4x, I use 75, 90 and 135mm lenses. Thanks for the review Cal, it looks very interesting.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Last night, I was playing around again, and I tried to address your question further about focus frame dimming.
At my desk again is a post card on glossy white card stock. I framed the post card with the focus frame. The postcard is mounted about an inch proud of the white wall via a shelf bracket. I removed and replaced the 1.40X dozens of times to see its effect.
There is some definate light loss, but it is so small that if it weren't for your probing question I might not ever realize there is any loss of light. I really had to concentrate to perceive any change and wondered if there was some other way to explain a perceived loss in the focus frame.
When I looked outside the focus frame I made a profound observation: although the subjects (a flat wall backgrond and flat card) were not spread very far apart, my viewfinder displayed more three dimentionally through textured shadows, defined edges, and other subtle details that I described in an earlier post as pop and snap.
Now the GAS gets more complicated. Somehow, in the future, I need a M body with a 0.85 finder for use with a 90/2.0 and the 1.40X. Also will need a 1.25X so that the 75/1.4 can be used with the 0.85 finder. Leica marketing at its best; those guys are so clever. The Leica kit grows.
Cal