Re: [Leica] New M6

[Dennis Painter <dwp@deltanet.com>]

A S Jordan wrote:
> 
> Do any of our photographic historians know why Leitz selected 0.72 for the
> M4 magnification to cover the  view of the 35mm lens? Afterall, the M3 had a
> magnification of about 0.9. In other words  why did we have to wait for
> thirty years for the M6/0.85 viewfinder?

The M4 finder is optically the same as the M2 finder, it only has
different frameline masks.

The 0.72 magnification is likely a result of the requirement that the
finder fit within the physical constraints of the M3/M2 body size.  A
higher magnification with coverage for 35mm framelines would have likely
been too large to fit.

I think the M4 'inherited' the M2 finder for two reasons.  

1. To have a 35mm frameline without use of goggle lenses, since the
introduction of the M3, the 35mm was quite popular thus Leica chose to
not keep the 'duplicate' M3/M2 cameras in the product line and
concentrate on a single model.

2. I think the M3 finder was quite a bit more costly to manufacture.


Optically, the M3 and M2 finders are quite different.  Its not "just" a
matter of magnification.  What the M6HM finder is like optically I don't
know.

So now we are back with two models in the product line which differ only
in the viewfinder magnification, very similar to the days of the M3/M2.

Dennis

- -- 
Experience is a tough teacher. It gives the test before the lesson.
- -unknown