ptpdprinter
Mentor
Yes, some people don't mind being limited on the wide angle side to using a 50mm lens and so select a Leica M3. Or they use a 35mm goggled lens or an external viewfinder. Leica addressed the viewfinder limitation three years after the introduction of the M3 (1954) with the M2 (1957) followed by the M4 (1966) et seq. Obviously some people won't mind the Pixii II's wide-angle viewfinder limitation of a 42mm equivalent, which is why I prefaced my comment with: "Perhaps it is just me...".
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
The bigger issue for me would be sourcing "crop sensor" external viewfinders. I have absolutely no issue with using an external viewfinder for anything 28mm and wider, but trying to get APS-C FOV viewfinders for my lenses would be a pain.
I'm sure it isn't just you, but rangefinders are always limited to only a few focal lengths that truly work well with the internal VF. This being a 1.5x crop APSC, of course it was going to go against it having a wide angle VF. Probably the reason that Leica had to use a 1.33x (instead of 1.5x) crop sensor and a 24mm frame line just to be able to use 35mm FOV lenses (well, 32mm) on the M8.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
As with the M3, you just add a accessory viewfinder when needed. It's not a big deal at all, unless your specific desire is to primarily use wider angle FoV lenses. Then I suggest you get an M with a FF sensor, and add the Leica Visoflex or optical Universal finder if you want to use shorter than 28mm lenses.
These are some of the standard limitations of any camera that has an optical tunnel viewfinder. That's why RF cameras with optical tunnel viewfinders were pretty much replaced by SLRs in the 1960s, and now by the EVF equipped cameras.
G
aizan
Mentor
It boils down to whether you prefer the Leica CL or Minolta CLE.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
ptpdprinter
Mentor
The Minolta CLE has 28mm framelines which the Leica CL lacks. Minolta CLE: 28mm, 40mm, and 90mm. Leica CL: 40mm, 50mm, and 90mm.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Ah. I suspect that may have been one reason I was never very interested in the CLE. Fitting 28mm frame lines in would require them to reduce the viewfinder magnification, where I found the Leica CL viewfinder very comfortable to view with most of the time. When I fitted a 28 or 15mm lens, I just slipped an accessory finder into the accessory/hot-shoe mount.
G
G
ptpdprinter
Mentor
The Minolta CLE has a .58x viewfinder. The Leica CL has a .60x viewfinder. Virtually no difference. Newer Leica Ms came in .58x, .72x, and .85x versions. I don't recall if Leica still offers the .58x and .85x models. The M3 was .91x which is one reason why 50mm lens users like them so much. Of course, that meant a 35mm lens required goggles. The Pixii has a .67x viewfinder.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
All of my Leica Ms, other than the M3 (which I wasn't that enamored of for various reasons), have had the .72x viewfinder, which works very nicely for me. The smaller RF image size on the .58x makes them a bit harder to focus accurately, for me. The CL's slightly greater magnification and simplicity of just 40-50-90 frame lines always just worked nicely for me, and it has better eye relief.
My early M4-2 has the .72x finder magnification and the M4 spec 35-50-90-135 frame line set, which is simple and perfect for my eyes.
I find a 28mm accessory finder MUCH easier to work with than the later M4-P/M6/etc 28mm frame lines in the .72x finder ... the latter don't have enough eye relief for me to see the 28mm frame lines clearly with my glasses on. Same goes for the CLE.
The fact that I tend to prefer the 35 to 50 mm FOV range anyway on RF cameras is kinda reinforced by the viewfinder limitations.
G
ranger9
Well-known
Yes, being restricted to specific finder framelines is a traditional limitation of rangefinder cameras that have combined range/viewfinders with multiple framelines, and it's basically unavoidable because the finder magnification is fixed (with a few exceptions such as several Canon film rangefinder models that had switchable magnifications.)
It's a tradeoff: higher finder magnification gives you more focusing accuracy (because you can see the coincidence of the rangefinder patch more easily) but also limits the wideness of lenses the finder will accommodate.
There have been a few attempts to market a modern rangefinder camera specifically for wide-angle lenses, the most serious one being Cosina's Bessa R4a (auto exposure) and R4m (metered manual exposure.) These were Moses-format (36x24mm) film cameras, which had a viewfinder that would take in a horizontal width of 80 degrees; this allowed them to provide a finder frame that covered lenses with a marked focal length of 21mm (along others for 74°/25mm, 66°/28mm, 54°/35mm, and 40°/50mm.)
This was handy for wide-angle lens enthusiasts, but it limited the camera's flexibility because the finder's magnification was only 0.52x (per the chart on the Head Bartender's website) so if you also wanted to use longer-focal-length lenses, you also needed to buy a Bessa R3a or R3m, which was exactly the same (excellent) camera with a beautiful 1.0x-magnification viewfinder and framelines for lenses with 49°/40mm, 40°/50mm, 27°/75mm, and 23°/90mm.)
At the time this wasn't a popular solution, and Cosina was phasing out its Bessa film cameras anyway, so the R3/R4 twins didn't enjoy a long production life... with the result that you'll now pay a couple of grand in US $ on eBay for a clean example of either model. But if you like to shoot film with a rangefinder camera and your favorite lenses are wide angles, it's still worth the splurge because it spares you the need to track down auxiliary viewfinders.
Most RF cameras adopt an intermediate finder magnification in the interest of covering a more useful range from moderately wide to moderate tele, or else fudge on the visibility of the widest frames. For example, the Epson R-D 1 -- which shared the rangefinder optics and basic chassis of the Bessa R3a -- had the R3a's beautiful 1.0x viewfinder and a Super 35-size sensor of 25x17mm. This combination allowed it to cover a useful range of view angles: a semi-wide 48° (obtained with a lens having a marked focal length of 28mm), a normal 40° (with a lens marked 35mm) and a mild portrait/tele 28° (with a lens marked 50mm.) The kicker: The normal and portrait framelines were fine, but the semi-wide frame was so far out toward the edges of the viewfinder that it was just barely visible to the naked eye, and eyeglasses wearers basically had to imagine where it was.
The Pixii makes a different and arguably more useful compromise. It has the same Super 35/25x17 sensor size as the Epson, and covers the same 48°, 40°, and 28° view angles (plus throwing in a longish-normal 35° frame that services lenses with a marked focal length of 40mm.)
But the Pixii drops the finder magnification down from the R-D1's 1.0x to a much smaller 0.67x. That means images seen through the finder are significantly smaller -- but the semi-wide frameline is easy to see even with glasses, making it much more usable.
This sensible compromise does mean that if you want to take in a wider view than 48° on the Pixii, you'll need to use an auxiliary viewfinder. Back when the Epson R-D1 was new, Cosina made several wide-angle viewfinders specifically for its 25x17 format, so if you can locate one of these you can simply buy the one that matches the marked focal length of the lens you want to use.
If you want to use an auxiliary viewfinder marked for the Moses format, you'll need to do some simple arithmetic. Multiply the marked focal length of your Pixii lens by 1.53 to find out what Moses-format viewfinder you need to look for: for example, your 103°/10mm lens will need a Moses-format viewfinder marked "15mm" and so forth. Reminder: You are NOT "calculating equivalent focal lengths" or any such nonsense -- 10mm is 10mm is 10mm. What you're doing is the same kind of conversion you'd need to do if you have a thermometer marked in degrees Fahrenheit and you need degrees Celsius -- you're just converting from the marks you've got to the marks you need.
It's a tradeoff: higher finder magnification gives you more focusing accuracy (because you can see the coincidence of the rangefinder patch more easily) but also limits the wideness of lenses the finder will accommodate.
There have been a few attempts to market a modern rangefinder camera specifically for wide-angle lenses, the most serious one being Cosina's Bessa R4a (auto exposure) and R4m (metered manual exposure.) These were Moses-format (36x24mm) film cameras, which had a viewfinder that would take in a horizontal width of 80 degrees; this allowed them to provide a finder frame that covered lenses with a marked focal length of 21mm (along others for 74°/25mm, 66°/28mm, 54°/35mm, and 40°/50mm.)
This was handy for wide-angle lens enthusiasts, but it limited the camera's flexibility because the finder's magnification was only 0.52x (per the chart on the Head Bartender's website) so if you also wanted to use longer-focal-length lenses, you also needed to buy a Bessa R3a or R3m, which was exactly the same (excellent) camera with a beautiful 1.0x-magnification viewfinder and framelines for lenses with 49°/40mm, 40°/50mm, 27°/75mm, and 23°/90mm.)
At the time this wasn't a popular solution, and Cosina was phasing out its Bessa film cameras anyway, so the R3/R4 twins didn't enjoy a long production life... with the result that you'll now pay a couple of grand in US $ on eBay for a clean example of either model. But if you like to shoot film with a rangefinder camera and your favorite lenses are wide angles, it's still worth the splurge because it spares you the need to track down auxiliary viewfinders.
Most RF cameras adopt an intermediate finder magnification in the interest of covering a more useful range from moderately wide to moderate tele, or else fudge on the visibility of the widest frames. For example, the Epson R-D 1 -- which shared the rangefinder optics and basic chassis of the Bessa R3a -- had the R3a's beautiful 1.0x viewfinder and a Super 35-size sensor of 25x17mm. This combination allowed it to cover a useful range of view angles: a semi-wide 48° (obtained with a lens having a marked focal length of 28mm), a normal 40° (with a lens marked 35mm) and a mild portrait/tele 28° (with a lens marked 50mm.) The kicker: The normal and portrait framelines were fine, but the semi-wide frame was so far out toward the edges of the viewfinder that it was just barely visible to the naked eye, and eyeglasses wearers basically had to imagine where it was.
The Pixii makes a different and arguably more useful compromise. It has the same Super 35/25x17 sensor size as the Epson, and covers the same 48°, 40°, and 28° view angles (plus throwing in a longish-normal 35° frame that services lenses with a marked focal length of 40mm.)
But the Pixii drops the finder magnification down from the R-D1's 1.0x to a much smaller 0.67x. That means images seen through the finder are significantly smaller -- but the semi-wide frameline is easy to see even with glasses, making it much more usable.
This sensible compromise does mean that if you want to take in a wider view than 48° on the Pixii, you'll need to use an auxiliary viewfinder. Back when the Epson R-D1 was new, Cosina made several wide-angle viewfinders specifically for its 25x17 format, so if you can locate one of these you can simply buy the one that matches the marked focal length of the lens you want to use.
If you want to use an auxiliary viewfinder marked for the Moses format, you'll need to do some simple arithmetic. Multiply the marked focal length of your Pixii lens by 1.53 to find out what Moses-format viewfinder you need to look for: for example, your 103°/10mm lens will need a Moses-format viewfinder marked "15mm" and so forth. Reminder: You are NOT "calculating equivalent focal lengths" or any such nonsense -- 10mm is 10mm is 10mm. What you're doing is the same kind of conversion you'd need to do if you have a thermometer marked in degrees Fahrenheit and you need degrees Celsius -- you're just converting from the marks you've got to the marks you need.
ranger9
Well-known
Incidentally, the fact that limiting finder magnification also limits rangefinder accuracy is also while we old-timers tend to figure that it's best to use a rangefinder camera only with lenses up to portrait or mild telephoto focal length. For example, classic-era film RFs such as the Leica M4 and Canon 7s had finders with magnifications in the range of about 0.75x and with framelines that covered a range from about 54° (35mm marked focal length on those cameras) down to 15° (135mm focal length on those cameras)... but hardly anybody used the 15-degree end because the frameline was pretty dinky and by that point you were approaching the limit of RF focusing accuracy.
The Pixii's framelines cut you off at a mild portrait angle of 28°, which you get with a lens with a marked 50mm focal length. Still, although I don't recommend it, it's possible to go longer. Today, out of sheer cussedness, I took the Pixii to work along with a Canon 100mm f/2 lens made for their 36x24mm film cameras of days of yore ("yore" ending in 1967 when the 7sZ went out of production.) Since this is twice as long as the longest focal length the Pixii's finder frames cover, I also had to add a Tewe variable viewfinder in the accessory shoe.
On the Pixii, this lens covers an angle of 14.3° on the long side of the frame, and this much image magnification (relative to a normal lens) means that focusing accuracy is a crapshoot, especially at distances closer than about 20 feet; exact framing is even more dicey, since the Tewe finder's parallax compensation is only approximate; and getting sharp results hand-held would have required a faster shutter speed than the 1/250 I was able to use. See why people like mirrorless cameras with in-body image stabilization so much?
Still, I was able to get a few usable results (normal framing | tight crop)...
The Pixii's framelines cut you off at a mild portrait angle of 28°, which you get with a lens with a marked 50mm focal length. Still, although I don't recommend it, it's possible to go longer. Today, out of sheer cussedness, I took the Pixii to work along with a Canon 100mm f/2 lens made for their 36x24mm film cameras of days of yore ("yore" ending in 1967 when the 7sZ went out of production.) Since this is twice as long as the longest focal length the Pixii's finder frames cover, I also had to add a Tewe variable viewfinder in the accessory shoe.
On the Pixii, this lens covers an angle of 14.3° on the long side of the frame, and this much image magnification (relative to a normal lens) means that focusing accuracy is a crapshoot, especially at distances closer than about 20 feet; exact framing is even more dicey, since the Tewe finder's parallax compensation is only approximate; and getting sharp results hand-held would have required a faster shutter speed than the 1/250 I was able to use. See why people like mirrorless cameras with in-body image stabilization so much?
Still, I was able to get a few usable results (normal framing | tight crop)...
ptpdprinter
Mentor
Ralph Gibson has taken up using a 135mm lens with his new Leica M11. With it, he is using the new electronic Visoflex 2 ($740). So, effectively a mirrorless camera.
Laurent B
Newbie
Hello. First of all, thank you very much for this post and especially for the interventions of Ranger9 : competent, documented and above all useful.
For me, who has been photographing for more than 30 years with a rangefinder camera, the "basic" focal length is 35. I use my Pixii with many lenses, from 15 to 90, but you will understand that my favorite is the Elmar 24. From there two pieces of information:
1. I called Pixii to ask them if it was possible to have a frame for the 24th... they answered me and said that it would be done with the next release!
2. In the meantime I frame by "overflowing" around frame 28 and when I want to frame precisely ... I have installed an SBOOI viewfinder on the hot shoe. It is both aesthetic and very rewarding. Seeing in a SBOOI is an experience that I recommend to any photographer!
For me, who has been photographing for more than 30 years with a rangefinder camera, the "basic" focal length is 35. I use my Pixii with many lenses, from 15 to 90, but you will understand that my favorite is the Elmar 24. From there two pieces of information:
1. I called Pixii to ask them if it was possible to have a frame for the 24th... they answered me and said that it would be done with the next release!
2. In the meantime I frame by "overflowing" around frame 28 and when I want to frame precisely ... I have installed an SBOOI viewfinder on the hot shoe. It is both aesthetic and very rewarding. Seeing in a SBOOI is an experience that I recommend to any photographer!
ptpdprinter
Mentor
A 35mm equivalent view in the finder is an excellent step forward.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I hope it proves useful ... meaning enough eye relief to see the frame comfortably with glasses on..
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
My Pixii is now on order.
G
G
aizan
Mentor
What's "Moses" format?
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Pixii should offer some kind of discount for RFF members..I would think a lot of us would buy at say a 10% to 20% discount. Lets round it off..15%..
That would bring an estimated price 3K cam to around $2500..which would make the purchase more inviting..maybe even..a no brainer..
That would bring an estimated price 3K cam to around $2500..which would make the purchase more inviting..maybe even..a no brainer..
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If you look up thread a ways, you'll see some notes that suggest the 24x36 format was invented by someone named Moses. I forget the details...
G