Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:06 PM 8/31/01 -0400, CHRISTOPHER.CHEN@customs.treas.gov wrote: >However, I would still say, that even the cleaned IIa's >viewfinder is not as bright to my eyes as either my M2 or M3. Perhaps >it's more a function of the physically larger size of the M2/M3 VF >openings, the greater magnification of the M3 (maybe the same reason why >the VF on my II seems brighter than the IIa's), & the more pronounced >green tint of the Contax VF. Ah, I might agree with you a bit on the Postwar Contaces. I was thinking more of that magnificent VF/RF on the II and III, something Leica has still not equalled. The various magnifications, by the way, work out along these lines: camera baseline magnification ebl early Contax I 103mm 0.9X? 92.7mm? later Contax I 93mm 0.9X? 83.7mm? Contax II/III 93mm 0.75X 69.75mm Contax IIa/IIIa 73mm 0.66X 48.18mm Leica II 38mm 1.0X 38mm Leica III - IIIg 38mm 1.5X 57mm Leica IV 60mm 0.9X 54mm Leica M3 69.25mm 0.92X 63.71mm Leica M2/M4/M6 69.25mm 0.72X 49.86mm Leica M6J & M6HM 69.25mm 0.85X 58.86mm Kodak Ektra 104.775mm 2.2X 231mm Kodak Retina RF ? ? ? Voigtländer Prominent 40mm? 0.55X? 22mm? The Ektra seems to be the king, but I have never used one, so what do I know? But nothing Leica ever marketed approached the magisterial 69.75mm effective baseline of the Contax II and III. Yes, the Postwar Contax IIa/IIIa VF/RF does seem a bit of a let-down after the magnificence of that Prewar unit! Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!