Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I'd like to check one out with my 75 - does any of the Chicago contingent have one?
Turtle
Mentor
Ken,
I am the other side of the world but now have all three magnifications and so can comment on them if you wish. I do not wear glasses.
Rgds,
Tom
I am the other side of the world but now have all three magnifications and so can comment on them if you wish. I do not wear glasses.
Rgds,
Tom
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Tom, sure - I'd still like to get my hands on one, but opinions are welcome!
I'm trying to eventually get a second M6 in .85 which would mostly be used with a 75mm lens. (My existing .72 M6 would normally wear my 35mm.) I've been using my 75mm on the .72 M6 with a Leica 1.25x magnifier, and I'd like to see what it's like on a .85 with no magnifier - I'm not overly fond of the tunnel vision effect I get with the 1.25x.
I'm trying to eventually get a second M6 in .85 which would mostly be used with a 75mm lens. (My existing .72 M6 would normally wear my 35mm.) I've been using my 75mm on the .72 M6 with a Leica 1.25x magnifier, and I'd like to see what it's like on a .85 with no magnifier - I'm not overly fond of the tunnel vision effect I get with the 1.25x.
Turtle
Mentor
The 0.85 is a lovely finder, but quite different to the 0.72 in feel - let me explain. With a 0.72,(without glasses) I find the 35 frames wonderful, the 28 OK but annoying and the 50 OK, but a touch on the small side, so in essence all are OK but only the 35mm bang on (as expected as this is the largest one to go close to the edge of the finder but still leaving a touch of space. With the 0.85, the 35 is right on the edge like the 28 on a 0.72 but the 50 is still quite well in (i.e there is quite a gap between the 35 at the edge and the 50 is well in from the edge... kinda like it would be perfect with a 40-45mm lens! however, the 50 and 75 lines are appreciably better with the 0.85 compared to the 0.72. This is especially obvious if you switch between the cameras to compare side by side. However, as a specialist for the 50mm and longer it is still not long enough to be ideal, but had it been any longer the 35 frames would have gone out the window making the camera a bit too inflexible.
Will the 0.85 be better for the 75mm? Yes. Will it be miles better - night and day? No. Will it be better enough to make it more of a pleasure and feel more intuitive (allowing you to feel the FL rather than be remote from what is going on? Yes, I think so. I find that the 0.85 makes the 5o more intuitive and makes the 75mm lines look OK. on the 0.72 I find anything longer than 50 feels pretty desperate and remote.
A hands on would tell you everything, but it is clearly better than the 0.72 and workable for 35mm, just a bit tight. The nicest finder of all is the MP-3 IMO, because the frames are a touch bigger to reflect more accurate use at distance as well as being uncluttered. A 75mm frame line along those lines would be perfect for you on a 0.85 if only they did one - and of course the M3 has no 75 lines! anyone know if 75 lines could be put in the M3? If possible this could be a solution for the best possible finder as long as you can live without a meter.
Will the 0.85 be better for the 75mm? Yes. Will it be miles better - night and day? No. Will it be better enough to make it more of a pleasure and feel more intuitive (allowing you to feel the FL rather than be remote from what is going on? Yes, I think so. I find that the 0.85 makes the 5o more intuitive and makes the 75mm lines look OK. on the 0.72 I find anything longer than 50 feels pretty desperate and remote.
A hands on would tell you everything, but it is clearly better than the 0.72 and workable for 35mm, just a bit tight. The nicest finder of all is the MP-3 IMO, because the frames are a touch bigger to reflect more accurate use at distance as well as being uncluttered. A 75mm frame line along those lines would be perfect for you on a 0.85 if only they did one - and of course the M3 has no 75 lines! anyone know if 75 lines could be put in the M3? If possible this could be a solution for the best possible finder as long as you can live without a meter.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Too bad the P isn't M mount. That 1.0 finder would be handy. (Granted you'd have to guess at framing between 50 and 100... )
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Thanks, Tom.
Picking up an M3 opened my eyes to how nice a high magnification finder can be, but for me the M3 is more of a body for occasional casual shooting rather than a serious photographic tool. In my old age (ha!) I've developed a real preference for metered bodies, strange when you consider I had a pronounced aversion to them for so many years!
So, to sum up...
I prefer running a pair of functionally identical bodies with the same emulsion but different lenses. For RF, I've found a 35/75 kit works well for me as a standard, with the possible future addition of a 21 which would require an external VF anyway. Thus, my theory is a .72 for the 35mm plus a .85 for the 75mm would be an ideal kit.
Or at least that's what I'm thinking this week.
Picking up an M3 opened my eyes to how nice a high magnification finder can be, but for me the M3 is more of a body for occasional casual shooting rather than a serious photographic tool. In my old age (ha!) I've developed a real preference for metered bodies, strange when you consider I had a pronounced aversion to them for so many years!
So, to sum up...
I prefer running a pair of functionally identical bodies with the same emulsion but different lenses. For RF, I've found a 35/75 kit works well for me as a standard, with the possible future addition of a 21 which would require an external VF anyway. Thus, my theory is a .72 for the 35mm plus a .85 for the 75mm would be an ideal kit.
Or at least that's what I'm thinking this week.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
We could try adding frame lines to your P - I can bring the black paint, a small brush and my 75 to our next meeting if you care to try.