What magnification do/would you use?!

[BJ Bignell]

For the same reasons as Peter and Brian, I would pick the M3 0.92x first, with an M6/7/P 0.85x as a next-best alternative.

Currently, though, I'm using the Bessa R 0.68x and it's more than good enough at 75mm. And besides, I can't afford a Leica right now anyways! 😀

 

[Doug]

I too need to visit a stocking Leica dealer and do some eyeballing! I do not wear glasses, and can barely see the full 35mm frame in my M2 (.72x of course). Nothing around the outside at either end, though a bit is visible above and below. I cannot imagine seeing any 28mm framelines in a .72 finder. Since 28 and 35mm is of major importance to me, my choice in Leica would be .58x. My CLE has a really nice .6x finder and I can see well enough around the outside of the 28mm frames to even manage a 25mm with it.

 

[peter_n]

Doug I can see the 28mm framelines in my 0.72 M - just. Can't see outside them of course... Wouldn't the new Zeiss be a better choice for you than a Leica?

 

[Doug]

Doug I can see the 28mm framelines in my 0.72 M - just. Can't see outside them of course... Wouldn't the new Zeiss be a better choice for you than a Leica?

Hi Peter, yes I think the new Zeiss-Ikon looks really promising! But if I were to ever get an M7, say, I'd probably prefer the .58x magnification.

On the .72x Leicas, though, I wonder if it's true what I heard, that the finder frames in later models are smaller for the same focal lengths vs the M2 and M3. That they show a lesser % of the image on film, more margin for user framing error, indeed inducing more framing "conservatism" to ensure the user gets everthing he sees inside the frames, and much more!

Still, hard to imagine any 28mm framelines in a .72x finder being any further out than the 35 frames in my M2! Of course there may be optical changes in the later Leica finders to see a wider view with the same magnification, this being the trick Zeiss is using with their .74x finder!

 

[peter_n]

Doug I haven't heard about this issue of the relative size of framelines on older and later M's. All I can say is that I haven't noticed any problems with my own stuff, but then I am not too particular about framing. My new 0.85 mag body should arrive tomorrow and I am looking forward to a slightly different experience! 🙂

 

[Doug]

My new 0.85 mag body should arrive tomorrow and I am looking forward to a slightly different experience! 🙂

A major item to anticipate! That should be ideal for a 50mm (mmm Summilux ASPH?), and fun to work with. 🙂

 

[peter_n]

Well, I do plan to use it with a 50 (I actually love my Elmar-M 🙂 ) but I really got it because of my heavy use of a 90 and a 135 on a project that will last another two years. I have no problems with the 90 on my 0.72 mag, but the 135 is a bit dodgy to focus (just a bit) on that camera. I'm really looking forward to using the 135 on this 0.85 mag most of all! 🙂

 

[scottmcl]

I don't wear glasses and I love my .58 mag M6TTL and use it for 28mm and 35mm lenses. I really like this body with a 35mm lens, but it mostly wield's my loverly 28/2. It's even serviceable for a 50mm lens.

But I have another .72 M6TTL outfitted with the 1.25x magnifier that I use with 50mm and 90mm lenses. Nice big 50mm frame lines and not too bad for shooting a 90mm.

 

[eloquentlight]

I own a .58 and love being able to see the 35mm frames really well. I really don't find shooting with a 90mm a big problem at all with this viewfinder magnification. But, yeah - go somewhere and try them out is what I'd reccommend.

 

[Doug]

Yeah, I don't much care to use my 90 TE on the Minolta CLE, but it's fine on the M2...

 

[aizan]

another option: get a low or high mag body, and then use accessory viewfinders for the opposite end. the most logical would be a high mag body and wide angle viewfinders since it's more accurate for longer, faster lenses, and scale/zone focusing is easier with wide angles.

 

[Doug]

Yes, that's one approach! I think I like the idea of choosing the magnification most useful for the focal lengths I use most, and reserve the accessory viewfinders for the rarely used ones... For instance, I mostly use 28 and 35/40mm so a parallax-compensated low-mag viewfinder seems most sensible for me. I rarely use 50mm or longer, so accessory VFs are more acceptable there. I'm also stuck with external viewfinders for 15-24mm...

 

[Fred]

If you use the 28 a lot, the clear choice is the .58 or the .72 and move your eye around a bit as I do when I have specs on.
I have a .72 which is fine for 35mm (with specs) and OK with 28mm using contact lenses. I also use the 1.25 magnifier for my 90mm stuff. So far no probs.

 

[scottmcl]

I really like shooting a 28mm lens, and I use an accessory finder in addition to using a .58 body with my 28/2.

I've been using the CV 28/35 minifinder, which is nice and small. But I also just ordered the CV metal bright line 28mm finder, which is purportedly superb. Shipped today, so I can't wait to try it out.

The external finder gives one a visual representation of the "near/far" relationships when shooting with a wide angle lens. The built in VF frame lines give one (typically) the most accurate framing.

Scott

 

[suzums]

Now I see the decision lies between the .58 and .72

Right now with my Contax I do use the 28 as my standard lens. I've found my focal length!

 

[JonasYip]

I'm coming to this thread a little late, but wanted to throw in my vote for the 0.58 . I had both a 0.58 and a 0.85 and recently sold the latter because it didn't see any use... basically I did not feel hampered using longer lenses on the 0.58 (well, except the 135 for which there is no frameline), so that became the body of choice.

My default lens is a 35, and with my glasses the 0.58 is perfect. The 28mm framelines I can barely see, but it's perfectly useable.

j

 

[suzums]

I'm coming to this thread a little late, but wanted to throw in my vote for the 0.58 . I had both a 0.58 and a 0.85 and recently sold the latter because it didn't see any use... basically I did not feel hampered using longer lenses on the 0.58 (well, except the 135 for which there is no frameline), so that became the body of choice.

My default lens is a 35, and with my glasses the 0.58 is perfect. The 28mm framelines I can barely see, but it's perfectly useable.

j

No worries! I'm still keeping up with this thread! 🙂

Thank you for your suggestions!

 

[aizan]

if 28 is your normal lens, .58 is *it*. that, or maybe the upcoming zeiss ikon.

 

[x-ray]

.72x not accurate with 28mm frame

.72x not accurate with 28mm frame

I have the M6 with the .72X viewfinder. I also wear glasses and find that I can see the 28mm frame OK but the frame is a tighter crop from what the 28mm is actually seeing. I generally like the suplemental finder rather than guessing what the actual crop is from the in camera frame lines. I've always liked the lower magnification VF of the M2 over the M3 because I favor shooting with the 35mm and 90mm. The 35mm frames are excelent in the .72x and the 90mm is large enough for me to be comfortable with too.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

 

[peter_n]

Those pics in your RFF gallery are excellent, x-ray! 🙂