Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/08/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] M6 0.75 v. M6 0.85
From: chucko@siteconnect.com (Chuck Albertson)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 10:51:15 -0700

I own one of each (M6 and M6H). The absence of a 28mm frame line in the M6H
is not a big deal for me. Since I wear glasses (pretty thick ones at that)
the 28mm frame isn't all that visible in the viewfinder of the M6, so I use
the hot-shoe viewfinder for the 28 on either body. I prefer to use the 28mm
hot-shoe viewer anyway -- it's bright, uncluttered, and since the lens has a
lot of depth of field, checking focus with the rangefinder isn't that
critical. If I'm using both bodies at once, I tend to use the M6 with a 35mm
lens, and the M6H for either the 28mm or 90mm lens -- the M6H really gives
you a bigger frame line to work with for the 90mm lens.

Chuck Albertson
Seattle, Wash.

Disclaimer: Sender does not represent that this communication (including any
files attached) is free from computer viruses or other faults or defects.
Sender will not be liable to you or to any other person for any loss or
damage (including direct, consequential or economic loss or damage) however
caused and whether by negligence or otherwise which may result directly or
indirectly from the receipt or use of this communication or any files
attached to this communication. It is the responsibility of any person
opening any files attached to this communication to scan those files for
computer viruses.
>
>
> I am considering returning after 10 years to Leica rangefinders.  I have
> read the literature on the differences between the above.  Can anyone
> kindly comment on their experience of the  advantages of the larger
> viewfinder of the 0.85 version?   It sounds exciting, but entails not
> having the 28mm frame, which might be important  - I do not know whether I
> may eventually buy a 28mm lens.  In short, does the larger viewfinder
> adequately compensate for the loss of versatility?
>
> Many thanks.  JH
>
>
>