I am going to be buying an M6 within the next few weeks. Because I wear eyeglasses and because I don't plan to use the M6 with lenses longer than 90mm I am leaning towards getting the .58 model. I find I have great difficulty seeing the framelines for 28mm on the .72 model. However, I am wondering if the focusing accuracy with the lower magnification model is a problem especially with faster lenses like the 50/1.4 or the 90/2? I know that this is theoretically a problem in view of the shorter rangefinder baselength. Has this proven to be a problem in reality?

-- Steve Rosenblum (stevierose@yahoo.com), August 26, 2001

Answers

no, prob bro. I use .72 & .58 and wear glasses, same. in very low light, all m's are hard to focus, just set focus on barrel. But in comparison to other rangefinder cameras, the m is a dream machine to focus, the image is contrasty, light and crisp, compared to say the hasselblad X-pan in low light. I also use the new finder for 28mm on .58 and it looks good, but does a half ass job.

-- bart (bart@hotmail.com), August 26, 2001.

Bart: which new 28mm frame does "a half-assed job" the built-in or clip on?....................

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), August 26, 2001.

I have no problem focusing the .58 at distances of less than 12-15 feet. Beyond that *seems* more difficult/less precise, but I have no hard evidence of that since most of my M photography is done at eight feet or less. The 90 frameline is pretty small on the .58; I would only use it in a pinch. If you're going to do a lot of photography with a 50 and a 90, while only occasionally using a 28, I recommend a .72 body with an auxilliary 28mm finder. If the 28 is your lens, then by all means go for the .58; the 28mm frameline is great.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), August 27, 2001.

the clip one one, david. The area covered by the finder for the 28 is only an estimation, of what will be in the frame.

-- bart (bart@hotmail.com), August 27, 2001.

The .58 is great!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 27, 2001.

I now wear glasses full-time, and the .58 has become my preferred finder. I have used the 90 on it, but not wide-open, so I can't comment on its ultimate accuracy with that lens. For 28, 35 or 50mm lenses of any speed the .58 is the cat's pyjamas. I prefer the .85 finder for 75, 90 and 135 lenses, and my .72 sees very little use any more.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), August 27, 2001.

I don't own the .58 but I have now tried 3 in stores, and I've seen the same problem in all three - the rangefinder double-image moves around if my eye is just slightly off-center in the viewfinder. It is possible to focus the lens, shift you eye a little, and have the images split apart again, indicating out-of-focus, even though neither the lens nor the subject has moved. The error looks to be about +/- 6 inches at 10 feet, which is probably OK for 35mm and wider, but definitely too much for even f/2.8 with a 90.

I consider this far more worrisome than the lower magnification - you can always look harder at a low-mag image that is correctly aligned, but if the image actually wavers in and out of alignment with eye movement, there is no way to correct for it.

The .60 Hexar RF does exactly the same thing, so I've decided that this is just something inherent in the optics required for the wide- angle view, not a defect from one manufacturer or the other. But I wouldn't trust either rangefinder with anything longer/faster than a 35 f/1.4 - 50 f/2

I wear glasses, but isn't the the .58 supposed to be designed expressly for eyeglass-wearers?

I hope some of the .58 users can take a look through their finders and see if they see this, too (and may do some 50/90mm tests wide open?)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 30, 2001.