Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/10/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>The bottom line..... > >If you can not see the 35 framelines with the .85 model.. >You will not see the 28 lines in the .72 model. > >And the .58 model IS the solution, but the frame lines for 50mm are really >quite small..... like the 90mm lines in a .72 body. > >It is a tradeoff... I'm always a little perplexed by the confusion caused by attempting to translate FRAME LINES between different mag bodies. If you own a .72 body and are wondering where the frame lines will fall in a .58 body (without further enriching the House of Saud), a little math will solve your problem. For instance, for a 50mm lens, divide by 58 and multiply by 72, which equals 62. So, the frame lines on the .58 mag body will be about where a 62mm frame would be in your .72 body (not 90mm). In this example you have to use your imagination. But the .58 mag starts to make logical sense when you look at this comparison: the frame lines for a 28mm lens on a .58 body fall (almost) exactly where the 35mm frame lines on your .72 are (28/58*72=34.76). An aside: at my local Leica dealer I was never impressed by the purported advantages offered by the .58 mag. The problem there is that the Leica counter is hemmed in closely front and back and there really isn't any sense of scale available - all you can see are glass-fronted cabinets, nothing is further than 7 feet away. It wasn't until I applied the mathematical logic to my .72 bodies in the great outdoors that the .58 body started to make enough sense to want to own one. Best, - ---Peter (damn I hope my math is right) - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html