Exactly. Because I know, for a fact, that you don't need to have your other eye opened to get all the rangefinder accuracy that is there.
The myth of smoothness of leicas
-
A
- Thread starter Radost
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Kodak's 1947 Sensitometric Step Table
- Started by Gaston 012
-
For Sale Photronix Mod 73 Transmission densitometer with instructions
- Started by Gaston 012
-
For Sale Eseco and XRite densitometers
- Started by gmikol
-
For Sale Speedotron 202 VF Flash Head and accessories
- Started by spoolman
-
Want to Buy Sekonic L208
- Started by RoboRepublic
Forum statistics
Exactly. Because I know, for a fact, that you don't need to have your other eye opened to get all the rangefinder accuracy that is there.
Smoothness is actually a good parameter.
When the 553ELX came to me, I initially struggled with its vibrations. Same for different kind of E12 and A12 magazines and their resistance.
When the 553ELX came to me, I initially struggled with its vibrations. Same for different kind of E12 and A12 magazines and their resistance.
Where did I say that?
There is a “.” between. And yes nothing focuses longer lenses like the m3.
Having your other eye open helps with seeing your environment and framing. Framing with m2 is a lot harder.
That's the Ikon on the bottom and the M3 on top for comparison. I notice a difference in color, perceived sharpness, and of course size. The patch works just fine.
Yep, big, fat finder 
The accessory finders they made for the wider lenses for that camera are very expensive but the view is amazing. My favorite camera.Yep, big, fat finder
Ikon looks like a winner.
Although nothing against the big fat 6x6 Acute-Matte in a 553ELX.
Although nothing against the big fat 6x6 Acute-Matte in a 553ELX.
Because I know the answer to my question. Let's say it is more a figure of speech that anything else but maybe you are allergic to rhetoric.
Clearly gear a definitive impact on the technical aspect of photography but it has zero influence on the content of a picture. By content, I don't mean just the representation but how the picture "speaks" to you.
On that I couldnt agree more Dali.
On the viewfinder department yes. On the film swing (the concern of this post), it getsa pretty bad knowout vs M3. Bessa's winding sound/feels like a nut cracker vs M3. Not a bad thing though (would prefer a Bessa R3 over a M3 anytime, but thats just me and my shooting habits/preferences).
Radost, I'm glad you love the M3, leaves all those M2s & M4s for the rest of us to love...
I prefer the M2 viewfinder when using a 50mm lens. It's an advantage to see more of what's going on outside the frame lines.
That said, in terms of rangefinder magnification and accuracy the old screw mount Leica is better than the M3 with its 1.5x magnification. Combine that with a good quality shoe mount viewfinder and you're in business.
That said, in terms of rangefinder magnification and accuracy the old screw mount Leica is better than the M3 with its 1.5x magnification. Combine that with a good quality shoe mount viewfinder and you're in business.
MattKing
Moderator
One never sees so much wax as when we have a thread where the Leica lovers wax eloquent over their Leica joys.
And when "myth" gets added in - oh the wonder!
And when "myth" gets added in - oh the wonder!
Bessa focus accuracy is not as good with fast and long lenses.
True about the accuracy. but small viewfinder sucks. ALso can not use M lenses on it
One never sees so much wax as when we have a thread where the Leica lovers wax eloquent over their Leica joys.
And when "myth" gets added in - oh the wonder!
Actually, I’d never heard any myth of Leica winding before this thread. Not really my priority when choosing a camera. It’s tempting to invent some more myths and see if they gain any traction.
Difficult to compare viewfinders between 35mm and MF, especially rangefinder vs SLR. The Ikon is brighter and more clear than a hassy but is small in comparison, naturally.
You must not have spend time on photography forums. The ”silky smooth” wind is praised everywhere.
My experience is limited to only a few cameras, but winding film on my M6 takes appreciably more effort than on my previous Nikon FE, even though the geometry of the spools is similar. With no film in the camera, the Leica mechanism is equally light and easy. So I attributed this difference to the back of the Leica being more rigid, and the pressure plate being more strongly sprung. In all honesty I can’t say for sure that it does a better job, but overall I do get crisper negatives since I made the switch (when I haven’t messed up in other respects).
Without doubting your observations, of the film wind feel and the crisper negatives, I just don't think they are related through the pressure plate. Look at the depth offset of the two sets of rails, There's enough room for film to slide, but not enough for it to buckle substantially. (Except in weird cases like 120 folders where the film may get sucked forward by air when the bellows is opened.) You can also waste a frame on a removable-lens camera and look at the film flatness - hold the shutter open on B and look through the front.
If film flatness is a problem, it should show sharpness varying over the frame, with it getting better quickly as the lens is stopped down. If offsets in the focus system are a problem, the image should be sharp at some distance offset from the nominal, again improving quickly with stopping down. Other issues like say a loose lens or body (for ex damaged by a drop) that causes a tilt or offset in focus have their own manifestations.
Film wind feel can come from a variety of mechanisms, including the tightness of the gearing, the friction on the takeup and supply spools, etc. For ex, some of my cameras feel different in the wind even without film loaded, just due to the tolerance (slop) or lack of it in the mechanism. By the way, I think the mechanical advantage (or gear ratio) of most 35mm systems works out about equivalent, since they typically use about the same angle of lever wind to pull the same length (7 sprockets) of film.
I'm glad that you now understand the point I was trying to make with my first post (there is more to rangefinder than magnification).
(btw, there is no problem focusing a fast 50 on a Bessa R2x that would be the result of a shorter baseline and I speak from actual experience with the camera)
We are talking about M3 magnification. Not the concept of rangefinders.
For me magnification of the M3 is the most important thing. Aids the clarity and focus precision with longer lenses. And the fact that it looks like reality does not throw me off like .72.
About the rangefinder size. With m3 i nail focus with my 50mm sumilux 99% of the time. WIth m2 is close but not as much. And with CLE it’s kind of hard to see. I have done it on the beach with CL but in dim light it’s impossible
I can hear what you are saying so no need to repeat. I just don't understand how a camera with even greater magnification and real 1:1 view (that is the most important thing to you) is then somehow less suitable for you. You mentioned accuracy, so I thought that this is more important for you (which would make sense if you were using really long lenses), but you then reiterated that it is in fact magnification that you value the most.
At this point I feel like I'm too dumb to understand what you are trying to tell me, so no need to waste time with me anymore...
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |