Sony RX1 FF Mirrorless (fixed lens)
/forum/topic/1147292/150

1       2       3              150      
151
       152              190       191       end

douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5740
Country: United States

Hi, Tariq. I was wondering the same, and it is apparently also .68x. link

I've owned a couple of the plastic viewfinders before, and I'd definitely go with the metal OVF, assuming the optical quality is similar. The metal versions feel solidly built, and the round profile seems more sleek. Stephen Gandy seems to be pretty complimentary about the 35mm metal on his site, fwiw.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 9903
Country: United States

Thanks Douglas, particularly for the link. Since they are both .68x, I will probably go with the metal one. I previously owned the metal Voigtlander 28 finder and it was very well made. The only negative I guess is if the rear of the finder does not project out from the RX1, as some finders do, which would maybe cause ones nose to rest on the LCD screen.



millsart
Registered: Apr 29, 2009
Total Posts: 4242
Country: N/A

Eye relief on the OVF is just enough that for me, I don't need to smash my nose against the back of the camera to get my eye close enough to make it useable.

It was a concern I had as well, and one thing I do like about side mounted VF's as they do work better for those things most humans have, noses, lol, but in this case, the center mounted OVF worked out and the LCD is smeared with nose prints.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5740
Country: United States

I can confirm that the Voigtlander OVF doesn't project out, so it requires a bit of a head tilt. The back of the eyepiece is even with the back of the camera's top plate. It would take quite a rearward OVF protrusion to actually clear the LCD completely with my nose.

The good news is that, without a hood attached, the top of the lens sits RIGHT below the Voigtlander OVF's bottom frame lines, but doesn't actually impede the frame at all. This is a compelling reason to use a 49mm->37mm stepdown ring as a hood, since it doesn't get in the frame.

It looks to me, in pictures, that the Zeiss OVF is taller than the Voigtlander. If this is the case, it would be not only a little more difficult to pack (plus it has square edges,) but it would also have a bit more parallax. The Voigtlander is as close to the axis of the lens as possible, without impeding the actual frame with the lens.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5740
Country: United States

millsart wrote:


It was a concern I had as well, and one thing I do like about side mounted VF's as they do work better for those things most humans have, noses, lol, but in this case, the center mounted OVF worked out and the LCD is smeared with nose prints.


Not if you like shooting left eyed. I switched back to right eyed shooting with the M9, since it was so much better ergonomically, but I'm glad to be back to my left eye with the RX1, since it is my better eye. Plus, since my right eye is blocked by my shutter finger, I can leave both eyes open all of the time. I sometimes get headaches from squinting with one eye too much.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 9903
Country: United States

millsart wrote:
Eye relief on the OVF is just enough that for me, I don't need to smash my nose against the back of the camera to get my eye close enough to make it useable.

It was a concern I had as well, and one thing I do like about side mounted VF's as they do work better for those things most humans have, noses, lol, but in this case, the center mounted OVF worked out and the LCD is smeared with nose prints.


Looking at the shoe placement on the metal Voightlander 35 vs the Zeiss 35 finder, it looks like the Zeiss might project out a little further from the rear of the camera. The plastic Leica X2 36mm finder (which I have read is not as good as the metal voigtlander finder) also protrudes out pretty far, which would be a plus with regard to the Cyrano de Bergerac challenged among us.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 9903
Country: United States

douglasf13 wrote:

It looks to me, in pictures, that the Zeiss OVF is taller than the Voigtlander. If this is the case, it would be not only a little more difficult to pack (plus it has square edges,) but it would also have a bit more parallax. The Voigtlander is as close to the axis of the lens as possible, without impeding the actual frame with the lens.


The stock photo of the RX1 with Zeiss finder shows it actually in the cold shoe of the thumb grip making it even higher.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5740
Country: United States

Tariq Gibran wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:

It looks to me, in pictures, that the Zeiss OVF is taller than the Voigtlander. If this is the case, it would be not only a little more difficult to pack (plus it has square edges,) but it would also have a bit more parallax. The Voigtlander is as close to the axis of the lens as possible, without impeding the actual frame with the lens.


The stock photo of the RX1 with Zeiss finder shows it actually in the cold shoe of the thumb grip making it even higher.


Yeah, I was referring to other pics that I've seen without the Zeiss in the thumb grip, like here, but it's hard to say without seeing it in person. link



millsart
Registered: Apr 29, 2009
Total Posts: 4242
Country: N/A

I haven't had the Zeiss 35, but when I had my Leica I did have the Zeiss 18mm and it was very bright and good quality, as I assume the 35 is, but I can see now way that it would be worth 3, much less even 2 times as much as the VC OVF.

Okay, maybe if they could make it also display some shooting info, AF point etc, then yea, that I might be wiling to spend $600 on, but when its just a "dumb" optical, no way.

It doesn't even look good on the camera IMHO. Just too boxy looking, while the VC I rather like the look of, its more compact and the rounded shape compliments the camera well. I wouldn't spend $200 just to make the camera look cool of course, but liking the looks certainly don't hurt.

I tried the Leica 36mm when I had a X1 and didn't really find it to be anything special either, not for $400 so I never even considered that one either.

I think Ricoh or Olympus makes a tiny little one for one of their compacts or m4/3 cameras, but those are still pretty pricey and while the size is nice, I would have to guess the usability suffers, probably like looking through a soda straw.

VC is really the only real game in town as far as Im concerned and is a good product for a 'reasonable', cost, as far as photo accessories go.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 9903
Country: United States

The Sony Zeiss 35 is seriously over priced. You can get it at the auction site for under $500 but still, that's a hell of a lot of bones for what it is.

Has anyone tried the original 3.5cm metal Leica SBLOO finder?



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5740
Country: United States

It looks like the other Zeiss viewfinders (which are still pricey at around $400) seem to have a shorter stem than the Sony version. I imagine that they had to make a longer stem to get up over the lens, since there is essentially no thickness to the camera's top plate, and the lens is a little large. The Voigtlander just so happens to still work (just barely,) but I wouldn't be surprised if some other 35mm viewfinders actually have the lens protruding into the bottom of the frame a little.

It looks like the back of the Leica OVF doesn't protrude backwards like the Zeiss. Either way, I imagine that your nose will still hit the LCD with the Zeiss. It would take quite a protrusion backwards to completely clear it. It could be a little more comfortable, though.

edit: I take that back. The other Zeiss OVFs may not be any shorter than the Sony/Zeiss, after all.



joe88
Registered: Oct 23, 2009
Total Posts: 2206
Country: United States

Tariq Gibran wrote:
The Sony Zeiss 35 is seriously over priced. You can get it at the auction site for under $500 but still, that's a hell of a lot of bones for what it is.


Can you PM me the link for the Sony Zeiss 35 finder on the auction site? All I could find were the Zeiss 18 or 21/25mm versions at lower prices. Thanks!

The Sony Zeiss 35mm provides better eye relief and it has a nicer view compared to the CV metal finder (but I am comparing to my CV 28 metal finder which has a different focal length and probably different mag ratio, so its not apples to apples) - the eye opening on the Zeiss finder is larger and the view is brighter, but definitely not worth 3x the price of the CV 35mm finder, but again when we compare what its worth, its always subjective. I actually didn't like the boxy and largish look of Zeiss finder before purchasing, but after using it, I like it because optically its great, except for the price and the parallax. If it had AF and metering confirmation, I would pay $2000 for it, seriously.

I'm still trying to get used to using an OVF with the RX1. Need mental adjustment at closer distances for parallax.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 9903
Country: United States

joe88 wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The Sony Zeiss 35 is seriously over priced. You can get it at the auction site for under $500 but still, that's a hell of a lot of bones for what it is.


Can you PM me the link for the Sony Zeiss 35 finder on the auction site? All I could find were the Zeiss 18 or 21/25mm versions at lower prices. Thanks!

The Sony Zeiss 35mm provides better eye relief and it has a nicer view compared to the CV metal finder (but I am comparing to my CV 28 metal finder which has a different focal length and probably different mag ratio, so its not apples to apples) - the eye opening on the Zeiss finder is larger and the view is brighter, but definitely not worth 3x the price of the CV 35mm finder, but again when we compare what its worth, its always subjective. I actually didn't like the boxy and largish look of Zeiss finder before purchasing, but after using it, I like it because optically its great, except for the price and the parallax. If it had AF and metering confirmation, I would pay $2000 for it, seriously.

I'm still trying to get used to using an OVF with the RX1. Need mental adjustment at closer distances for parallax.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/141000742010?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

Tempting for me given what they normally sell for.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5740
Country: United States

joe88 wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The Sony Zeiss 35 is seriously over priced. You can get it at the auction site for under $500 but still, that's a hell of a lot of bones for what it is.


Can you PM me the link for the Sony Zeiss 35 finder on the auction site? All I could find were the Zeiss 18 or 21/25mm versions at lower prices. Thanks!

The Sony Zeiss 35mm provides better eye relief and it has a nicer view compared to the CV metal finder (but I am comparing to my CV 28 metal finder which has a different focal length and probably different mag ratio, so its not apples to apples) - the eye opening on the Zeiss finder is larger and the view is brighter, but definitely not worth 3x the price of the CV 35mm finder, but again when we compare what its worth, its always subjective. I actually didn't like the boxy and largish look of Zeiss finder before purchasing, but after using it, I like it because optically its great, except for the price and the parallax. If it had AF and metering confirmation, I would pay $2000 for it, seriously.

I'm still trying to get used to using an OVF with the RX1. Need mental adjustment at closer distances for parallax.


Yeah, the mag ratio of the Voigtlander 28mm is .5x, and the Voigtlander 35mm is .68x, so I'd imagine that to be a noticeable difference.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 9666
Country: United States

has anybody used the olympus one that was offered with the 17.2.8? it's only like $80 bucks and looks quite compact.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 9903
Country: United States

sebboh wrote:
has anybody used the olympus one that was offered with the 17.2.8? it's only like $80 bucks and looks quite compact.


It would have the wrong aspect ratio with regard to the projected frame lines.



douglasf13
Registered: Apr 09, 2008
Total Posts: 5740
Country: United States

Yeah, the Olympus OVF also doesn't have parallax frame lines.



joe88
Registered: Oct 23, 2009
Total Posts: 2206
Country: United States

Tariq, thanks for the ebay link!! This might just make me want to keep keep the Zeiss finder. I might need to return my copy from Amazon. Paid full price

On the Oly 35mm VF, from everyone I have heard who tried it, its not even worth $10. Optics are pretty bad compared to Voigtlander ones.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 9666
Country: United States

Tariq Gibran wrote:
sebboh wrote:
has anybody used the olympus one that was offered with the 17.2.8? it's only like $80 bucks and looks quite compact.


It would have the wrong aspect ratio with regard to the projected frame lines.


true, but it's a surprisingly small difference and it's not like the frame lines are super accurate anyway. i imagine it would be more useful than using a 28mm finder.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 9666
Country: United States

joe88 wrote:
Tariq, thanks for the ebay link!! This might just make me want to keep keep the Zeiss finder. I might need to return my copy from Amazon. Paid full price

On the Oly 35mm VF, from everyone I have heard who tried it, its not even worth $10. Optics are pretty bad compared to Voigtlander ones.


ah, good to know.



1       2       3              150      
151
       152              190       191       end