jbf
||||||
Hey all,
A few years back I purchased a mint M6 TTL 0.58x camera from ebay from a (at the time) big camera store / reseller based out of Minnesota. Today I made a realisation that my camera is not actuall a 0.58x viewfinder. So hear me out...
This being my first Leica, I had never had any prior experience. I came across this graphic for differences between 0.58, 0.72, and 0.85 viewfinders and framelines today and realized my supposed 0.58x viewfinder does not look like the 0.58x viewfinder in the graphic. The 35mm framelines also have 135mm framelines, which the 0.58x viewfinder did not have at all.
Now the real kicker, my camera's got a 0.58x window, but I can barely see the 28mm framelines with and without glasses. Without glasses I have to almost move my eye around to see the framelines. I checked another 0.72x camera quickly this evening and it looks to be the same as mine.
So the camera seller either knowingly or unknowingly sold me a camera that was not as advertised at all. I still got receipts. I wonder, is it worth it now many years later to try to get the retailer to pony up money to have my viewfinder magnification swapped by DAG?
What is everyone's thoughts?
A few years back I purchased a mint M6 TTL 0.58x camera from ebay from a (at the time) big camera store / reseller based out of Minnesota. Today I made a realisation that my camera is not actuall a 0.58x viewfinder. So hear me out...
This being my first Leica, I had never had any prior experience. I came across this graphic for differences between 0.58, 0.72, and 0.85 viewfinders and framelines today and realized my supposed 0.58x viewfinder does not look like the 0.58x viewfinder in the graphic. The 35mm framelines also have 135mm framelines, which the 0.58x viewfinder did not have at all.
Now the real kicker, my camera's got a 0.58x window, but I can barely see the 28mm framelines with and without glasses. Without glasses I have to almost move my eye around to see the framelines. I checked another 0.72x camera quickly this evening and it looks to be the same as mine.
So the camera seller either knowingly or unknowingly sold me a camera that was not as advertised at all. I still got receipts. I wonder, is it worth it now many years later to try to get the retailer to pony up money to have my viewfinder magnification swapped by DAG?
What is everyone's thoughts?
Attachments
pvdhaar
Peter
It's obviously possible that the finder in your camera is indeed an 0.72x one. But the pictures in the attached graphic do not represent what you actually see in the finder; they're an idealized representation aimed to help you choose a finder.
astrosecret
Recovering rollei snob
A few YEARS ago? No. Enjoy the camera as you have been for years. No one will help you unfortunately and honestly it’s wrong to ask a shop to do so after you were blissfully unaware and using it for several years.
Nitroplait
Well-known
You'll have to look up your consumer rights in the country/jurisdiction where you live.
In the EU you have the right to complain over problems that were present at the point of sale in a period of 2 years post sale. (some people call it warranty - although it isn't quite that).
The caveat being that after 6 month the obligation to prove the problem in fact was present is reversed to the consumer.
How would a customer in this case prove or even justify that he/she really got a camera with a 0.72 finder when he/she didn't even notice during a reasonable period post purchase?
I would say it is a lost cause and you may as well move on.
In the EU you have the right to complain over problems that were present at the point of sale in a period of 2 years post sale. (some people call it warranty - although it isn't quite that).
The caveat being that after 6 month the obligation to prove the problem in fact was present is reversed to the consumer.
How would a customer in this case prove or even justify that he/she really got a camera with a 0.72 finder when he/she didn't even notice during a reasonable period post purchase?
I would say it is a lost cause and you may as well move on.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
I've never heard of this before.
Is there a little 0.58 in the bottom right of the viewfinder when you look at it from the front of the camera? Does your camera's serial # match a 0.58 batch?
Is there a little 0.58 in the bottom right of the viewfinder when you look at it from the front of the camera? Does your camera's serial # match a 0.58 batch?
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
It may be the case that it was an 0.58 finder originally and a previous owner had the finder swapped out for the 0.72 finder, as some Leica users are wont to do.
As for rectifying the mistake, you can reach out, explain the problem and ask them nicely. But as far as I know, you’re well outside the eBay return window, and likely outside the camera store’s own return/warranty period. Consumer protection laws are weak in the US compared to, say, the EU. But as others have pointed out, even EU consumer protection laws wouldn’t cover this. So there’s no guarantee the store will do anything about this and no way to make them. You made a mistake and will very likely have to live with the consequences of that. If the 28mm frame lines matter that much your options are to either sell your current Leica and buy one with a real 0.58 finder or to try and have it converted by a third party repair outfit. Or buy an external finder.
It’s never fun to be in a situation like this and you have my sympathy.
As for rectifying the mistake, you can reach out, explain the problem and ask them nicely. But as far as I know, you’re well outside the eBay return window, and likely outside the camera store’s own return/warranty period. Consumer protection laws are weak in the US compared to, say, the EU. But as others have pointed out, even EU consumer protection laws wouldn’t cover this. So there’s no guarantee the store will do anything about this and no way to make them. You made a mistake and will very likely have to live with the consequences of that. If the 28mm frame lines matter that much your options are to either sell your current Leica and buy one with a real 0.58 finder or to try and have it converted by a third party repair outfit. Or buy an external finder.
It’s never fun to be in a situation like this and you have my sympathy.
jbf
||||||
It does have a 0.58 window on the front which is why Injust assumed Leica viewfinders sucked for 28mm. The serial number as far as I can find (on l-camera-forum’s wiki page) lists it as just M6 TTL. Do you know of a more comprehensive list of serial numbers?
Andy Kibber
Well-known
I'm sure I've seen a list with finish and (I think) VF magnification somewhere. I remember finding the serial # range that included my chrome M6TTL 0.85. I take it you've Google'd around? I just checked and didn't find such a list immediately.
Your situation seems very strange to me. I find it hard to believe that a 0.72 VF with a 0.58 window would leave the Leica factory. That leaves someone modifying the window or VF before it came to you. Maybe if the prior owner made the magnification modification (from 0.58 to 0.72) on the cheap, the repair person didn't change the window to match the magnification. Seems unlikely. The other possibility is that the window (not VF magnification) was altered from 0.72 to 0.58 to chisel a few bucks out of a buyer on resale, but that seems like a longshot to me.
Did I see on another forum that you sent the camera to DAG? Did he mention that the VF magnification didn't match the 0.58 window? I would have thought he would have mentioned it. But then others here on the form have had problems with DAG in recent years. Maybe DAG switched the VF magnification for some reason? But why would he do that? And if he did, wouldn't you notice a difference when you got the camera back?
I don't know you and I haven't seen the camera, but all this makes me wonder whether you're just mistaken about the amount of real estate around 28mm frame lines in a 0.58 VF. Seems to me that's the simplest explanation. Obviously you would disagree.
I'd be very interested to hear what you eventually find out.
Most likely a prior owner preferred the .72 finder and had a tech change the .58 finder to .72 finder - an expensive investment.
Its not worth the cost to have it changed back to .58 --
ie changing it back to .58 will not increase the value of the camera enough to cover the cost of repair.
Its not worth the cost to have it changed back to .58 --
ie changing it back to .58 will not increase the value of the camera enough to cover the cost of repair.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
I agree, changing a 0.58 finder to 0.72 would be expensive. Unless there's some sentimental reason to keep the same camera, I don't know why an owner would do that. Especially considering you could sell a 0.58, and likely pick up a 0.72 for a little less $$$. All very strange.
another possibility is the .58 finder was damaged.
rather than waiting for a special order .58 finder from Leica, the tech installed an in stock .72 finder
rather than waiting for a special order .58 finder from Leica, the tech installed an in stock .72 finder
jbf
||||||
So I carefully checked the camera against .72 camera back and forth again yesterday. Turns out the finder is ever so slightly wider, maybe 8 degrees or so. However, the framelines themselves match exactly a .72 camera (size, spacing, etc).
I spoke to DAG about it and he thinks maybe what has happened is somewhere in the cameras history the frameline set (2 pieces internal to rangefinder) somehow got mixed up with a .72 camera. That would explain why they have the 35/135 framelines. He said the parts are two totally unique parts for the .72 and the .58 cameras and might be why framelines look like a 0.72, but he would have to test and see.
I spoke to DAG about it and he thinks maybe what has happened is somewhere in the cameras history the frameline set (2 pieces internal to rangefinder) somehow got mixed up with a .72 camera. That would explain why they have the 35/135 framelines. He said the parts are two totally unique parts for the .72 and the .58 cameras and might be why framelines look like a 0.72, but he would have to test and see.