Frame Lines again, sorry

Sorry I didn't ask this the last time we went round on the frame lines but does anybody know, for each of the lenses, exactly what distance the frame lines will show what the film sees? I was advised, before, that the 50 summicron, focused at infinity provides an image larger than roughly three frame line widths around what the viewfinder shows. My question, at what distance will the frame lines be accurate? While I've got you, does the noctilux (or anyother lens for that matter) intrude further into the viewfinder with a .85 than the .72.

Thanks.

The frame lines aren't accurate at any distance (Thanks a lot, Herr

Leitz)!! They are said to show 90% of the field of the lenses at

their closest focusng distance, which, IMHO is a disgrace. You want

accuracy, get an Imarect (or a top of the line

Nikon/Canon/Contax/Minolta SLR).

The frame lines aren't accurate at any distance (thanks a lot, Herr

Leitz)!! They are said to show 90% of the field of the lenses at

their closest focusng distance, which, IMHO is a disgrace. You want

accuracy, get an Imarect (or a top of the line

Nikon/Canon/Contax/Minolta SLR, but not a Leica R).

Jim, just trying to visualize this, my guess is that the intrusion of

a given lens must be about the same with the two finders, for a given

frame line. I think so because the angle of view from the finder,

would necessarily have to be the same regardless of magnification.

The greater magnification will of course exclude the 28mm lens, but I

don't visualize it as changing what is included in the remaining

frames.

<p>

The only problem with my conclusion is that I arrived at it in the

absence of any actual observations, except for what I can visualize.

In other words I did what Einstein called a "thought experiment"; and

the problem with that is I'm not Einstein. But I imagine the frame

lines for both cameras incorporating the same amount of area,

including extraneous stuff.

<p>

Now we'll see what the big guns say . . .

The inside of the 50mm framelines show 93% of the film area at

closest focus. This is 23mm x 35mm which is the area of a

mounted slide. The outside of the framelines shows the same

93% film area when the lens is focus at 2 metres. The infinity

coverage you have already explained.

<p>

So all the framelines are for closest focus but the amount the

field of view increases varies with the focal length.The 21mm to

28mm lenses change less than 10% in field of view from closest

focus to infinity while the 135mm lens changes almost 20%. A

50mm lens changes about 15%. This is why some people use

the 75mm framelines when using a 90mm lens focused to

infinity (or close to infinity).

<p>

Cheers,

The framing on most SLR is no more accurate. Accept for the top

level pro cameras (F5, EOS1hv), most SLR's state in their manuals

that they show (depending on the model) anywhere between 86% to 93%

of the actual image. Usually they say this is the area a slide mount

covers (a lame excuse to me). What it really amounts to is

this...all of the manufacturer's (Leica included I'm sure) could make

their viewfinders 100% accurate, at an added cost to the camera of

only $400.00 or $500.00. I for one will take the slight inaccuracy!

I guess if one is going to have inaccurate frame lines this is the

kind of inaccuracy one wants. At least you know that what's in the

lines is in the picture, but so is a little bit more. As I do most

of my composing in the camera rather than in the darkroom, and as I

long ago learned that a picture is something other than an object of

emotion that you put in the middle of the frame, I have always paid a

lot of attention to the edges to avoid, for example, distracting

highlights. But, a certain amount of unwanted and unplanned stuff in

the picture is to be expected when on the run and it's part of the

charm of street photos, candids, and so on.

John is correct about the % of change in coverage angle increasing

along with focal length. However the finder discrepancy in the Leica

M with the 135mm is actually less than with the 90. There are 2

reasons for this. First, the 135mm lens' closest focusing distance

(for which the lines are computed) is already 1.5m, versus 1m for the

90 and 0.7m for other lenses. Second, the 135mm frame is the

smallest of the lot, so 20% of it is much less perceptible than say

10% of the 35mm frame.

As confirmation of the 85% figure at about 20 meters - the 90

framelines of the M4/6 and the 90mm view through a G2 both box exactly

the same rectangle as a 105 on a 100%-view Nikon F. (This courtesy of

the test that led me to Leicas in the first place.)