Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,055   Posts: 1,561,341   Online: 1120
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    657

    MP viewfinder magnifications?

    If you have an MP with a .58 or .72 mag viewfinder and you live in the Denver metro area could you please PM me? I need to make a decision soon and need some empirical evidence.

    Many thanks,

    s-a
    I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
    - Garry Winogrand

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    740
    0.58 Rocks!

    If someone has a 0.58 MP and wants to swap it for a EX++ MP 0.72, I'm all ears.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    304
    Hello,
    the 0.58 is good for wide angle lenses, not suitable for tele lenses (accuracy of RF is too low), especially not for high speed types. 0.72 is for moderate wide angles up to 90 mm tele. For 135 mm the RF is not exact enough at all, here you should better take an M 3 with 0.92 or a SLR.

  4. #4
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    I would never consider .92 for a Leica. I wish they were all made with .58's.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  5. #5
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,095
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    I would never consider .92 for a Leica. I wish they were all made with .58's.
    I shoot a decent amount with 90's and an old 135 Nikkor on my MP. It's a 0.85 version and perfect for that.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Peak District, Derbyshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    292
    The .58 viewfinder is pretty well a specialist wide angle camera, not much good for anything else because focusing accuracy is diminished on the very lenses that need accuracy, 50mm and above. It gets worse if you use fast wide apertures in low light. The lure of a great big image of the world soon wears off if you have a regular .72 camera as well. The .58's are less popular for good reason's, and not because wide angle lenses aren't used much on Leica's.

    Steve
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/

    book
    wood, water, rock,
    landscape photographs in and around the Peak District National Park, UK.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    740
    To me, a 0.58 was a revelation. Especially in use with a 50.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Peak District, Derbyshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    292
    If you are happy with a 50mm at f/1.4 in low light, then very well done. I can't do it with the .58 viewfinder, the already low hit rate at that aperture with an even slightly moving object becomes impossible. But as a camera is just the body, a box loaded with film, and therefore the longer term fiscal decision, it shouldn't be forgotten that people migrate between lenses more than bodies. So the great idea to use wider lenses becomes somewhat tempered when you find that what you really want for a good portrait is a 90mm, unless you want to be a 'one trick pony'. But I'm prejudiced, I'll admit it, I have never been an advocate of photographs where the subject matter looks like a pea on a plate, where sweeping perspective substitutes for revealing content. So I am a anti .58 viewfinder bigot, but only after experiencing all those available from Leica. I would say the same about the .85 viewfinder, but coming from the other direction of course

    Steve
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_barnett/

    book
    wood, water, rock,
    landscape photographs in and around the Peak District National Park, UK.

  9. #9
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,095
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by 250swb View Post
    If you are happy with a 50mm at f/1.4 in low light, then very well done. I can't do it with the .58 viewfinder...

    Steve
    I doubt anyone can. And frankly I've found zone focusing for anything 28mm or wider works 98% of the time for me, but I rarely shoot my ultra wide lenses at wide open apertures or with main subject very close up...
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  10. #10
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    I've only ever had a .72 w/ 35mm lens on a Leica. I'd love to use a .58 w/ a 24mm or so, though.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin