Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Honestly, as a life-long glasses wearer, I've always preferred the IIIf over the M series Leicas; yes, the 50mm viewfinder is a squinty peep-hole, but at least I can see all of it without issue, and don't have to move my eye all over the place to see the full frame. The high magnification (1.5x) rangefinder of the later III-series Barnacks is also easier for me to focus than any combined VF/RF I've tried, and there's so many different external VFs out there that I don't have to feel frustrated. If I don't like the VF, I just use another.
Personally, I use the VIOOH for 35mm (round corners be damned), the Voigtlander 28/35 mini-finder for 28mm (the 35mm lines seem to disappear too easily to be reliable for me, but it works in a pinch if I just want the most compact kit), the collapsible SGVOO for 90mm (as it folds into a tiny package but pops up to produce a perfect 1:1 frameline for 90mm with an accurate parallax compensation dial), and the included viewfinder for Voigtlander's 15mm Super Wide Heliar (which always seems brighter and clearer than real life somehow).
I also just accidentally picked up a pre-war Zeiss 28mm finder (it was sold as a 35mm one) which, after cleaning, makes for a beautiful way of shooting 28mm. Unfortunately it doesn't quite sit right in a Leica accessory shoe due to the way Leitz chamfered one corner, so I'm considering modifying the foot to match the Leitz accessory shoe to make it work.
All of this might mean more stuff to buy/carry/swap over, but having played with M2s, M4s and M6s, I've never had much luck with the wide-angle framelines, so I'd rather have the smaller body and an accessory finder than deal with the larger M body and have to use accessory finders anyway.
Personally, I use the VIOOH for 35mm (round corners be damned), the Voigtlander 28/35 mini-finder for 28mm (the 35mm lines seem to disappear too easily to be reliable for me, but it works in a pinch if I just want the most compact kit), the collapsible SGVOO for 90mm (as it folds into a tiny package but pops up to produce a perfect 1:1 frameline for 90mm with an accurate parallax compensation dial), and the included viewfinder for Voigtlander's 15mm Super Wide Heliar (which always seems brighter and clearer than real life somehow).
I also just accidentally picked up a pre-war Zeiss 28mm finder (it was sold as a 35mm one) which, after cleaning, makes for a beautiful way of shooting 28mm. Unfortunately it doesn't quite sit right in a Leica accessory shoe due to the way Leitz chamfered one corner, so I'm considering modifying the foot to match the Leitz accessory shoe to make it work.
All of this might mean more stuff to buy/carry/swap over, but having played with M2s, M4s and M6s, I've never had much luck with the wide-angle framelines, so I'd rather have the smaller body and an accessory finder than deal with the larger M body and have to use accessory finders anyway.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
So....nobody's mentioned the TUVOO 28mm attachment for the VIOOH yet?
Jonathan R
Well-known
Hahaha! You are helping enormously but at the same time not helping at all! Now I simply have to try a late screw-thread Leica, otherwise I shall never rest easy.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I've often been tempted to try one of those but considering the asking price (about £130 for the attachment alone at Red Dot at the mo!), I'll give it a miss. It is gloriously ridiculous, though.
The IIIf is pretty cheap and easily findable in good shape. The IIIc is functionally the same (it just doesn't have the flash sync), but a lot of them have heavily pitted chrome.
The IIIg, on the other hand? Oof. Expensive. Mine is a heavily used one that had been owned and used by a photographer at a local paper - it's seen so much use that the knurling on the wind knob is actually brassed and smooth. It's also had the self-timer removed professionally at some point, and I got it for a steal as a result. I don't see them come up often but they're usually about 3x the price of a IIIf in similar condition and half the price of an M3. Is the improved viewfinder over the earlier Barnacks worth the extra cost? It might just be if you really love 50mm lenses. And I think it's a bargain when compared to the M3, personally.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Its awkward shape and size certainly make it unpractical. And if you want to maintain a pocketable sized camera it's definitely better to have a smaller dedicated 28mm finder. (For this Komura I do actually have the matching one).
Personally I'm not a big fan of the VIOOH. It has 4 internal prisms, which causes a reduction in image quality. Plus the fact that the VIOOH often develops haze.
There are only 3 in the VIDOM, making it only a little better, at the expense of a horizontally flipped viewfinder image.
Dralowid
Michael
I found a VIOOH in bits once, cleaned the old cement off the prisms that had fallen apart and re-cemented them. It was OK but never great.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I don't think the VIOOH is bad if you get a clean one. It is an overcomplicated mess internally, though. Getting all the haze out is a nightmare. Mine's considerably better when when I first got it, but I'm sure a proper deep clean would do it wonders.
The VIDOM, on the other hand? Urgh. It doesn't help that the prisms on mine are crooked, so the view is always slightly wonky. The screw I think I'd need to remove to get into the back is corroded up so badly that I'm not convinced I'd be able to remove it without drilling it out, so I'm not sure how best to fix it - or even if it's worth bothering. I noticed that removing one screw on the underside effectively allows the internals to move around freely until you tighten it back down, so I had a fun game of "bash the prisms around" to try to improve it a bit the other night before putting it back on the shelf.
Honestly, having stripped and cleaned both the VIOOH and the Zeiss 28mm finder I mentioned earlier (the 432/3), I find it hilarious how Leitz and Zeiss seemingly flipped behaviour on the finders; while a Leica is painfully simple and a Contax is ridiculously overengineered, those two finders are very much the opposite way around. The Zeiss one is basically just two pieces of curved glass with a slide-apart box holding them away from each other, with the internals coated in some sort of flocking that has now broken down considerably. Cleaning out all the loose mess was a pain in the ass.
Malcolm M
Well-known
This thread seems to run and run from a simple original question, so I’m going to weigh in again. I get on well with the VIOOH. The great advantage of a universal finder is that you don’t have to dig around your gadget bag for a dedicated finder whenever you change lenses. I find it entirely usable at 90mm, although 135mm is hard work (but possible). It’s bulky, but that’s a talking point to explain to the curious, and the protrusion of the eyepiece slightly gets in the way of the camera’s viewfinder (which may be why I catch myself using it with the 9cm Elmar on the IIIg). Scratching specs is no problem, as I don’t need them to look through the camera, although reading numbers on the controls is another matter.
The VIDOM has raised its ugly head. Mine came with the 9cm Elmar, and is just about useable on a static subject. Trying to track anything moving is an impossibility.
And don’t complain about difficulties using a Barnack. It it’s an easy life you’re after, don’t take photos with an 85 year old relic.
The VIDOM has raised its ugly head. Mine came with the 9cm Elmar, and is just about useable on a static subject. Trying to track anything moving is an impossibility.
And don’t complain about difficulties using a Barnack. It it’s an easy life you’re after, don’t take photos with an 85 year old relic.
Jonathan R
Well-known
Don't worry, Coldkennels answered my question brilliantly early on. Since then, while also plumbing the thoughts behind my question, you have all been reminding me one by one of the reasons why I settled for an M6 about 20 years ago. Of course I'd prefer it to be as small as a Barnack, and for the same reason I don't really want to use accessories. I like a 50mm lens, with the option of a 35mm. But I don't want a never-ready collapsible lens and I insist on a rigid lens hood, so pocketability is actually a hopeless dream. Reasonably precise framing matters to me (I admire photos with good geometry; and I hate discarding any of my precious film area). Accurate framing is difficult enough with the M6 and 50mm lens. The added necessity of wearing glasses means 35mm is becoming a difficult option, and even the 50mm framelines of the built-in finder are hard to see in their entirety. But the M6 still seems the least worst option, since I have no intention of switching to digital.
Still going to have to buy a LTM though!