Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dante, I just meant that there is an optical reason (not a CEO preference!), related to eye relief and the slightly increased body thickness that the magnification is .68 rather than .72. The actual viewfinder is unchanged from the M7 but the new eyepiece has a slight negative magnification. You certainly can go to a higher magnification (currently only externally) as you know but at the expense of the wider frame-lines and eye relief too. Otherwise you need a new larger and different viewfinder mechanism. I use the 1.25 with the 50 and up and find it very helpful especially with fast aperture settings. 2009/10/31 Dante Stella <dstella1 at ameritech.net> > Of course, there has also been "the final word" from Hans Peter Cohn (no > digital M) and Steven K. Lee (upgradeable digital M) on many issues. So if > you don't like what you hear on some issue now, wait for the next CEO. > > Dante > > > On Oct 30, 2009, at 11:12, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> wrote: > > Frank its been hashed over a lot elsewhere and the final word is from > Stefan > Daniel. About 20 'enthusiasts' nearly coming to blows trying to put their > optical theories forward to each other! The optical reality is .68 in the > marginally thicker M8 and M9 bodies. You might like to watch the interview > with Stefan Daniel to see why this is so. > If you've owned the M6 in .85 you'd see that the 35 frame is really the > limit there. Personally I found the 35 marginal . I don't wear my glasses > when photographing and do scrunch my eye in there too. 28 frame visible and > usable (if you don't have glasses) in the .72 and .68. Magnifiers useful > with the longer lenses certainly. External 28 finder works well for zone > focus grabs or infinity shots. > > > On 30 Oct, 2009, at 13:36, Frank Filippone wrote: > > If you can put either a 0.85 finder or a 0.72 finder in the same sized > M6TTL, I see no reason that the .72 finder could not have accommodated in > a > M8 or M9 as a 0.72 finder, thicker body or not. > > If they had put in the 0.85 module, the finder would have been .... ( Math > time out...) .68/.72 *.85= 0.80 > > Maybe the M8/M9 issue was time to market, and getting it done quickly, > using available finder designs and mechanisms, therefore the shortened .68 > finder.. > > Maybe the Elves will offer different finder options in the future. > > Frank Filippone > red735i at earthlink.net > > The M9 finder is the good old 0,72 in a deeper body = 0,68. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > -- > Cheers > Geoff > The new LEICA M9 > Passion for perfect pictures. > http://www.m.leica-camera.com > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/ > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Cheers Geoff The new LEICA M9 Passion for perfect pictures. http://www.m.leica-camera.com http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/ http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman