Can I trick my M6 finder into showing the 35 framelines?

What am I talking about? Well, I have a beautiful 1954 Summaron 35 (pre eyes) that I want to use on my M6. Problem is, the 50mm framelines come up when I attach the lens. Don't really want to use my old M3 aux. finder, so is there any way to "trick" my M6 into showing the 35 framelines? Thanks and Happy New Year to all!!

Don't quite click it into locked position when you mount the lens.

And be careful!

I wouldn't try incomplete mounting of the lens, that's pretty risky.

If simply holding the preview lever doesn't satisfy you, nor can you

estimate the 35 frame by memory, you might try contacting Don

Goldberg or Sherry Krauter or Jon VanStelten to see if they could

replace the bayonet mount on the lens with one meant for a 35 or 135

lens. Unfortunately the 35/135 cam is *longer* than the 50 or 28/90

so it isn't practical to modify the existing mount as it would

require soldering onto the cam and re-machining it.

Yes, you can easily modify the bayonet "ear" that selects the

framelines. The 35/135 framelines are the default framelines, present

when no lens is mounted, so you just have to remove material from the

bayonet ear until it does not move the internal frameline linkage.

Look closely at your lens as you mount it and it is easy to figure

out where the material needs to be removed. A small file will do the

trick but make sure the filings do not get into the works!

 

<p>

 

Cheers

PS: It is the 90/28 framelines that require a long ear. The tricky

lenses to modify are the old 28mm, which brings up the 50 frameline,

and the 28mm for the CLE, which brings up the 35 (I think). You have

to remove the lens'mount and solder extra material on; not

impossible, but tricky.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

Steve,

 

<p>

 

I am a bit confused. I had both the eye'ed and standard Summarons

from the 1950s and '60s, and only the eye'ed version brought up the

50mm frameline, so the M3 could represent the full 35mm frame through

the optics of the eyes. My non-eye'ed lenses, ( I had both the f/2.8

and f/3.5 models), brought up the correct 35mm frame. The first

integrated 35mm frameline was in the 1958 M2. With your lens being

from 1954, could you have an M3 lens without the eyes? Another

thought, could it be a screw mount lens with an M adapter mounted?

When Leica introduced the first Summicrons, they simply converted the

existing screw mount lenses by adding the adapter and using a set

screw to keep it in place. If it is, you could just get the correct

adapter for the 35mm frame.

 

<p>

 

One other thing... If an eye'ed lens is used with the eyes removed,

the focus will be off due to the cam having a different curve to

adjust for the rangefinder viewing through the optics of the eyes.

When I got my M2, I tried to use the M3 lens by removing the eyes.

No luck, the focus was off and the 50mm lines came up.

Early 35/3.5 lenses brought up the 50mm frame even though they had

no "eyes". They were meant to be used with a seperate viewfinder in

the accessory shoe. Then came the "eyes" version, which still brought

up the 50mm frame of course, and the more familiar M2 version.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

Another confusing factor is that many of the early non"eyed" 35/3.5s

were modified as Steve is considering doing. Very easily done.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

Yup, John's right, the 35/135 cam is the shortie, the 28/90 the

longest. I modified a 90 so it brought up the 50 (actually, for the

75 framelines, which show almost exactly what the 90 really gives on

film at distances greater than about 10m).

Jay, in your last post are you speaking of the full frame with the

90, or the amount showing in a slide mount? Your observation is

really interesting. I didn't realize the field size relative to the

finder changed significantly with distance, in normal photography.

At very close distances, like in the macro range, I could see that

the extended lens would deliver part of the image outside the frame

boundaries, in effect limiting the angle of view. But would this

change still amount to anything between, say, 3 feet and infinity?

In other words, at rangefinder-relevant distances?

Bob,

 

<p>

 

I have a couple of books on the Leica M, and they all say that there

is a discrepancy between the minimum and maximum focus of about the

width of three frame lines. The frames are set for minimum focus, so

at infinity, you can assume more information will be rendered on film

than what is represented in the finder. The books say you

could "imagine" the width of the frame line multiplied by three on

the outside of the actual frame,,, this would be closer to the actual

picture taking angle on film.

 

<p>

 

While I have been reading this for as long as I have been using Leica

M's, I can't say that it has weighed heavy in my mind. Most SLRs

today have a similar disparity... so much for that WYSIWYG rhetoric.

When I am composing for the utmost accuracy, I use my Nikon F, F2 or

F3, and enjoy a real 100% viewfinder.