Question: How Are External Finders Handled ???

dcsang · 09-14-2006

Ya know, as many of you here may have seen me write in the past; I belong to the Digital Wedding Forum as well and there was an interesting comment made regarding external wide angle finders for the new M8.

Well.. hmm.. we know the M8 is a 1.3x crop; and maybe I missed it somewhere in amongst all the text and posts that have been going on today/lately but my question is....

How do you "apply" said crop to an EXTERNAL finder??

This one has me scratching my head in the "but if I'm from the future and I go back into the past and mess with the timeline how do I know I'm the same person that came back in the first place" sort of way

Curious as always,
Dave

FrankS · 09-14-2006

Hi Dave, the way I've got it figured, on the M8 or on any camera with a crop factor, you need to use an external finder for a longer focal length than the lens used on this camera. eg. When using a 35mm lens on the camera, you would use the 50mm finder. To be precise, you'd need to factor in the degree of crop factor of the camera.

Is that what you wanted to know?

dcsang · 09-14-2006

Sort of Frank.. I'm just wondering; for the 15mm you're going to have to find a 19.5 mm (or 20mm) finder. The closest thing is a 21mm finder. Not exactly accurate imho.

Using "standard" lenses (i.e. 21mm onward) you can sort of "get away" with the built in viewfinder - if it is actually cropped in the finder - but the uber wides are going to be difficult to accomodate.. that is... unless (and I'm sure this will be the case if it's as you suggest) Mr K at Cosina sees fit to fill that niche with new finders to accomodate his lenses on the M8.

Dave

FrankS · 09-14-2006

Sorry Dave, I guess I was just stating the obvious and you wanted a more more precise answer.

dcsang · 09-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS

Sorry Dave, I guess I was just stating the obvious and you wanted a more more precise answer.

No no.. not really. I'm more "thinking out loud" to see if anyone would actually be able to know if the external finders could be used "as is" (as you suggest) or if it's going to have a completely different f.o.v. aspect.

Like I said... I'm curious

Dave

rvaubel · 09-14-2006

As an RD1 user, I can tell you matching finder FOV with lens FOV is a bit of a crapshoot. Epson's idea of what their framelines should be matched with is, at best, an inexact science. The most popular idea is the lens should show about 15% more than the viewfinder so you don't miss anything,,,,,,or is it the other way around??

I hear tell that Leica has always done a better job of having the FOV of the framelines match the actual results at the focal plane. But being an epson user I have learned to take with a grain of salt what purports to be a 35mm FOV.

If you expect the viewfinder to accuretely represent what you will get at the film plane, you should be using a SLR.

Rex

OldNick · 09-14-2006

On the LUG, one member who has used an early M8 says that the internal finder will provide lines for a 28mm, but that is as wide as it gets. To use a 21mm lens, he used the CV 28/35 minifinder, in which the 28 film view matches the view of the 21 on the M8. To go wider than 21, you would have to do as you proposed, calculate the angle of view on the M8, and match it to the film finder with the closest matching angle of view.

Jim N.

Jungle Jim · 09-14-2006

The height of the M8 (and M7 and M6ttl) is higher than the standard M bodies. Any leica external viewfinder would require you to use the dotted lines in the viewfinder to compensate for the additional height when framing your subject. Same with the CV viewfinders, I think.

FrankS · 09-14-2006

JJ, do you realize that you're talking about a few mm's difference in height in the cameras you mention?

AndyPiper · 09-14-2006

"....for the 15mm you're going to have to find a 19.5 mm (or 20mm) finder. The closest thing is a 21mm finder. Not exactly accurate imho..."

Generally speaking Leica finders are only about 85% of the image area, leaving lots of elbow room for parallax, lab cropping, slide mounts - and just space to make sure you don't cut people's heads off.

15% of 20mm is 3mm - so a 21 finder actually shows a 24mm field of view (and a 24mm finder shows about a 27.5mm field of view)

So if you're worried about 19.5mm vs. 21mm - you are being far more precise than Leica is.

21 finder works just fine for a cropped 15mm lens, 28 accessory finder works just fine for a cropped 21mm lens, etc. etc.

The internal viewfinder diagrams at dpreview also make it nicely clear that the WHOLE finder - outside ALL the lines, will frame a cropped 21 very nicely - so I'll only need my compact 21 finder to use with the C/V 15mm. Whee!

rvaubel · 09-14-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyPiper

"

The internal viewfinder diagrams at dpreview also make it nicely clear that the WHOLE finder - outside ALL the lines, will frame a cropped 21 very nicely - so I'll only need my compact 21 finder to use with the C/V 15mm. Whee!

Yes, the improved viewfinder situation is one of the greatest advantages of the M8 over the RD1. I may try CV 25 finder for the 21mm lenses since I wear glasses. But if it works good, I would just leave it on all the time. No fiddeing with finders...wheeeeee!!

Rex

Jim Watts · 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by rvaubel

Yes, the improved viewfinder situation is one of the greatest advantages of the M8 over the RD1. I may try CV 25 finder for the 21mm lenses since I wear glasses. But if it works good, I would just leave it on all the time. No fiddeing with finders...wheeeeee!!

Rex

I agree. My top item on my wish list for the M8 was that it should at least cover the field of view of a 24mm (x1.33 = 32mm) while wearing glasses, which it seems it will do and it also looks like a 21 (28mm) will be possible at a push using the area outside the framelines, although probably only possible without glasses. This makes it a perfect compliment to my R-D1 that with its 1:1 finder is best for me with the 35mm (53mm) and 50mm (75mm).

I am curious about what to expect with a 40mm lens though. Tom Abrahams mentions using one successfully, but does not comment on the framing. I assume an unmodified 40mm VC Nocton or Leica Cron would bring up the 50mm frame. This would be the equivalent to 66.5 (x1.33) where the lens is covering the equivalent of 53mm, 20% more. Workable, but much more than I would like. A 40mm modified to bring up the 35mm frame would show a field of a 46.5mm, a bit over 12% less, at first this seems less workable, but if we factor in a 15% safety margin (does anyone know what it actually is) into the M8 finder this is possibly the better bet?

Tim Gray · 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by rvaubel

If you expect the viewfinder to accuretely represent what you will get at the film plane, you should be using a SLR.

Minus the bit that's not actually shown in my SLR viewfinder...

Alm3000 · 09-15-2006

i think leica wants everyone to buy brand new 6-bit lenses to match the frame lines in the onboard finder. That way there wouldn't need to be all this hassle of buying new accessory finders.

Ps. I read on another thread lastnight that hermes was selling off it's shares of Lieca. Maybe now that it's not partially run by a 5th ave. new york, overpriced trendy, butique giant, the prices could come down.

Or Not.

M8 is still a cool cam to have. Use of great lenses, small and easy to carry around, no more hassel of carrying and developing and waiting for film. the one thing i do worry about it not that fact that it will be outdated, because it will be eventually. i worry about the stress that i will go through when they come out with a 20mp version and kick myself in the butt about buying the 10mp to soon. that's the problem with digital now one (only the rich) can compete by buying every new model.

Sorry for getting off subject..

rxmd · 09-15-2006

Quote:

Maybe now that it's not partially run by a 5th ave. new york, overpriced trendy, butique giant, the prices could come down.

Leica was never cheap. When it wasn't run by the boutique giant, they were expensive and broke. Now they're only expensive.

rvaubel · 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Watts

I am curious about what to expect with a 40mm lens though. Tom Abrahams mentions using one successfully, but does not comment on the framing......

Well you only have two choices, the 35 or 50mm framelines. The 35mm will frame loosely and the 50mm will maybe be too tight. But I have learned to accommadate the framelines available with the lenses I have. The only option is to get a dedicated 40mm finder (cameraquest has one) but even then you may still prefer the built in framelines. Its all a matter of what you like best. There is really no science to what works best for you. I always use the camera framelines whenever possible. In fact on long telephotos I use the focus patch!

The only time I use an accessery eyepiece is when the FOV is just too darn wide.

Rex

traveller · 09-15-2006

Would this one help you

rvaubel · 09-15-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by traveller

Would this one help you

No!! Universal finders are the worst. They are big, ugly, snag on things, and generally take away from the rangefinder esperience. I don't know what Leica was thinking on this one.

Precision framing in a rangefinder camera is not required!! It may not even be desirable (philosophical interlude later). Rangefinder cameras are different than SLRs.

Rex

phototone · 09-15-2006

You guys are aware that Leica is also introducing a new multi-focal-length viewfinder for use on the M8 and M7 aren't you? This would be the ideal choice, as it should encompass the differences. It has precisely adjustable parallex compensation. Covers 16,18.21,28 focal lengths. While taller than a Voigtlander mini-finder, it is certainly not the beast that the "turret" FSU finders are. But....as stated in previous post, shooting "wide" on a rangefinder is not really a precise issue, as traditionally one shoots "loose", and parallex with an ultra-wide lens is hardly much of an issue, unless close-up, which is not a RFDR cameras forte.

Here is a link to press release:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06...nsesfinder.asp

Jim Watts · 09-16-2006

I'm not keen on ANY form of external finder, especially the Universal ones. I do have a Turret one and others. I use them, if I have to, on my M4 & RD-1, but prefer built in framelines (or using the whole area of the finder) so am more likely to use the camera that will give me the field of view with those built in. This is why the M8 would make a good a addition to the RD-1. I seldom feel the need to go wider than 28mm, which the full area of the finder would accomodate and my focal length of choice is 35 or 40mm on full frame 35mm film.

Jungle Jim · 09-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankS

JJ, do you realize that you're talking about a few mm's difference in height in the cameras you mention?

Sorry Frank, couldn't answer right away, I had to go to work. The information came from Andrew Nemeth's website at http://nemeng.com/leica/027ba.shtml. Scroll about 2/3rds down and he has a warning about how the few millimeters height difference between the old M's and newer M models will affect framing accuracy. I haven't tried this yet since I don't have an external viewfinder or one of the newer M's.

(Although I am working on it!)