Re: [Leica] Re: R help

[Mikiro <arbos@silva.net>]

At 10:13 PM +0100 29/2/00, Doug Herr wrote:
>David Rodgers wrote:
>
>>>>
>While there are things that I don't like about the SL -- primarily
>antiquated metering -- it is a great camera to use because the  viewfinder
>is exceptional, even by today's standards.
>
>I have a problem with many modern SLR viewfinders. First, they tend be
>information centers first, and framing devices second. I find it a bit
>ironic, since modern cameras do most of the thinking for you. Conversely,
>in years past, when camera's didn't "think", we could have used the
>information. Today we really don't need it.
>
>Secondly, with all the technological advancements, viewfinders haven't
>improved a whole lot in relation to brightness. The R8, for instance, is
>remarkably bright compared with other modern SLRs. But is it really any
>brighter than the SL? I don't think so. In fact, I have yet to look through
>a viewfinder that is brighter than my SL.
>
>I wonder if bright viewfinders held a greater premium in the 70s. Sure we
>all want a bright viewfinder today. But with fast lenses and particularly
>with AF, it's not as critical as it once was.
>
>I hadn't given much thought to viewfinder brightness before a recent
>experience. I was in a low light situation.  I switched from to my 80-200/4
>to my 90/2 on my R7. The two stops made a huge difference. It was like
>somebody turned the lights on. It brought home the importance of being able
>to see well, as simple as that sounds.
>
>Isn't a bright viewfinder one of the biggest attractions for rangefinders?
>It doesn't matter if you use an f 1.4 lens, or an f3.5 lens. The viewfinder
>brightness is always the same.
>
>Back to the SL, I often use it with a 90/2 or 35/2, and b/w film.  I also
>use the SL with studio lights, since it has a PC connection, whereas the R7
>does not. Unfortunately, the latest lenses -- such as my 80-200/4 -- will
>not fit the SL due to the ROM contacts on the lens.
><<<
>
>David,
>
>I think you're on to something - "It brought home the importance of being able
>to see well, as simple as that sounds."  This more than anything else in my
>humble (HA! not a chance!) opinion is what has been lost in the
>N****/C****/M****** contest to provide ever more features.  At the BALUG
>gathering in Monterey I had the opportunity to compare the R8 viewfinder
>brightness with the SL.  The R8's viewfinder provides a wealth of information,
>unobtrusively, with a bright view, but it's still not quite as bright and easy
>to focus as the SL.
>
>BTW if the ROM conbtacts on the 80-200 isn't important to you, look in to
>getting the lens retrofitted with SL cams and mount.  Several ROM lenses can
>be SL'd.
>
>Doug Herr
>Sacramento
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt

David and Doug,

I agree with you two.  SL has the brightest veiwfinder among the whole Leica
SLRs.  I assume that its brightness is a result of high quality silvering on
the prism rather than a character of the screen.  As far as I remeber, the
only non-Leica body that can rival it is a Contax S2/S2b.  I would also
point out high magnification of the SL viewfinder.  R8 has much lower
magnification probabaly because of the need to provide information outside
the screen with full view of it.  Unfortunately, I do not expect a
possibility that we will enjoy bright and high-mag viewfinders in future SLR
bodies.  They will be further optimised for information centres with
intervention by liquid crystal membranes or even with liquid crystal
monitors.

Cheers,



Mikiro
Strasbourg, Europe
http://arbos.silva.net