Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
- ----- Original Message -----
From: John Collier <jbcollier@home.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Leica AF camera
> The Leica M finder is an amazing bit of optical engineering that has not
> been replicated to date. The Hexar RF finder is low mag and, according to
> reports on this list, noticeably dimmer than the Leica finder. The Canon 7
> models are substantially larger than an M body and the finder is no where
> near the quality of the Leica. The Nikon SP is dimmer yet and the 28/35
> frame lines do not have parallax correction. Leica had to increase the
size
> of the body 2mm just to accomodate TTl flash cicuitry. I do not think that
> the finder you wish could be accommodated with out a substantial increase
in
> body size. The present finder has all the disadvantages which we are all
> aware of; but, it is bright, contrasty and offers unequaled low light
> focussing ability which I prize above all else. I can focus swiftly and
> accurately in light I would have trouble walking in. When someone makes a
> better rangefinder I will be very impressed.
There are patents filed in the US for a viewfinder that could improve on
Leica's (at least as far as lens lengths are concerned) rangefinder. The
company? Pentax believe it or not... It uses an LCD image for the
rangefinder "patch". The advantage of this is that it may be possible to use
the ariel image of the taking lens instead of using a separate rangefinder
window. If anyone is interested, I can post the link to the patent...Let me
know...
Isaac
>
> Mr. Lal wrote:
> > Not so - even back in the 1950's outboard zoom finders
> > for 35 mm format having a 6 x range were freely
> > available. No reason to expect less today. The trick
> > is, of course, to make it all fit under the M 6 top
> > plate.
> >
> > As a last resort, although I do not believe it is
> > necessary, a two or three range system can be
> > implemented. A two range system might be, say, 15 - 75
> > mm in the wide range, and 40 - 200 mm in the tele range.
> >
> > Note that the VF's of both the Canon 7 & the Nikon SP
> > offered a wider range of focal lengths, albeit no zoom
> > finder, than any M until the M4 P.
>
>