Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/04/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Quite right about the masking, and the 135 frame is pretty tiny, but
the prices are still reasonable. I have been amazed at the prices of
the Nikon and Zeiss viewfinders! 200-500 is WAY out of my price
range for a finder.
How is the accuracy on these "off brand" (ha ha) finders? Do they
represent the actual picture area, or are they closer to the M finders
85% of actual field. (I am guessing at this number)
I really like having an accurate representation available when it is
needed.
Thanks
Dan
>From: Stanley E Yoder <syoder+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
>
>Excerpts from mail: 20-Apr-99 [Leica] Leica Users digest .. by Leica
>Users digest@mejac
>> I have recently purchased a scruffy but mechanically decent imarect
>> variable focal length finder. IT IS WONDERFUL! I highly recommend
it
>> for people who,like myself, love the M viewfinder, but wish it more
>> accurately represented the actualy image area. Also, it shows a
more
>> realistic 35mm "perspective" than the standard viewfinder.
>
>I believe the Imarect is not vari-focal. Rather, it is vari-FRAME.
The
>view and therefore perspective are fixed. It simply masks down
(crops)
>this fixed field as the finder is adjusted for longer focal lengths.
>
>I find the resulting tiny field at, say, 135 to be unsatisfactory.
For
>their RF cameras, N---n ("wash your mouth out with soap, son!") made
a
>true vari-focal finder, which I use instead. But best of all, IMHO,
is
>the Z---s ("you're on thin ice, son!") turret finder for the Contax
(or
>USSR copy): while it is not a continuous- zoom-type, it has other
>virtues: the framing is sharp to the eye, and you can see outside the
>frame (circular field within which is the rectangular frame.)
>
>My two yens' (or pfennigs') worth.
>
>Stan Yoder
>Pittsburgh
>
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com