M Framing Accuracy

Am I correct in my understanding that the only time the image

within the bright line frame of the Leica M is identical to the

image on the negative produced is at the closest focusing

distance of the lens being employed? For instance, my 11817

50mm Summicron's closest focusing distance is 0.7 m, or 27.5".

When I focus at exactly 0.7m, will everything (nothing more or

less) within the bright line frame appear on the negative (nothing

more or less)? I realize this is preschool for some on the forum,

but for some of us (maybe only me) it is postgraduate. Thanks,

as always.

Max, the M framelines are supposed to be sized correctly (in general) for a distance of 2 meters. At greater distances you get more on the film than in the finder. You are saying that you get an exact frame at only 0.7 meter. I might guess that you are using an M6, or M4P, or other M fitted with the M6 type finder frames. I say this because the 50mm frame of that set is very small, so that it might very well be most accurate at closest focus. The smallness of the 50mm frame in the M6-type finder is a common complaint around here!

This is the official Leica line (pun intended) on the frame lines as they relate to distance. Many feel that this is not even close in real life, but after years of shooting with my Ms, I am very rarely surprised by what shows up on film. If I am, it is basically somethng that can be cropped, versus something that didn't make it on to the frame.

 

In a dynamic situation, I don't thinks too many people are really mentally adding three frame line widths to adjust for infinity.<div></div>

This also is not an issue w/ the wider lenses - only 50mm and beyond.

<<Am I correct in my understanding that the only time the image within the bright line frame of the Leica M is identical to the image on the negative produced is at the closest focusing distance of the lens being employed?>>

 

Not exactly. It shows less of the image that will appear on the full slide or negative by an amount that *suposedly* will be masked by a standard slide mount.

 

<<Max, the M framelines are supposed to be sized correctly (in general) for a distance of 2 meters>>

 

Absolutely false.

 

<<I am very rarely surprised by what shows up on film. If I am, it is basically somethng that can be cropped, versus something that didn't make it on to the frame.>>

 

How do you crop transparencies, custom mounts?

 

<<In a dynamic situation, I don't thinks too many people are really mentally adding three frame line widths to adjust for infinity.>>

 

I don't think too many people are doing it, period. Most people don't remember by the time they get the film developed, what exactly they framed in the first place. People who just use the Leica to pretend they're HCB (in the manner Snoopy pretended to be the Great WWI Flying Ace)aren't as concerned with the background. People who shoot only prints are willing to crop and not care how much image quality they lose by enlarging, vs how much a UV filter might degrade their shots. Still other people feel that if Leica put those framelines there they must be perfect always. And then there's just me so it seems, who does compensate always for the field size discrepancy, as it does not take any time at all. 50mm: use black outline from finder eyepiece with eye back from the eyepiece so it frames those 3 thicknesses; 90mm, use 75mm frames. There is absolutely *no* reason why Leica could not make the framelines sized for infinity with little crop marks in all 4 corners for the 1-2m framing. It would not require any redesign of anything and would not clutter the frame appreciably.

Max, shoot a few scenes close-up, a medium distance and at infinity, making notes as to what the framelines is saying is in the picture. Then you will have a better idea of what you will get in your pictures.

Just get used to framing tightly knowing that you won't be cutting anything off. If you want perfect exact 100% framing get yourself an F series Nikon, but then how do you figure what you might be losing from your slide mount? Your negative carrier? The printer at the One-Hour Lab? Scream loudly, take a deep breath...

Interestingly enough, I ran a test shooting slides of my wife's

paintings just the other day. The distance was about 3 feet. I used

an M2 with 50mm Summicron and an M6 with TriElmar on 50mm. I composed

the pictures to include the minimum amount of mat on the edges. Those

shot with the M2 were right on whereas those with the

M6 showed quite a bit of unwanted mat area. The margins with the M6

were equal however, The M2 was superior to Nikon F3HP insofar as

getting what I wanted, The bottom line, therefore, is to run tests to

determine the individual characteristics of the camera and compensate

accordingly in the future. By the way, both bodies have had CLA's by

Sherry Krauter who does a meticulous job of adjusting the view finder.

"This also is not an issue w/ the wider lenses - only 50mm and beyond"

 

So, does that mean that the frames lines are perfectly accurate at all focusing distances with lenses wider than 50mm?

 

i.e. No adjustment needs to be considered when using my 35mm lens on a .58 body?

It's never identical. It can't be, since the viewfinder is displaced from the taking lens. Even if the parallax correction were perfect, it would only be perfect for the distance at which the lens is focused. Anything in front or behind that would be misframed.

 

If you want accurate framing, get an SLR.

I have a 101 question of my own in regard to the 50mm and

framelines: Is there one M series body that is better for a 50mm

than others, i.e., the largest framelines? A friend called me the

other day who was in posession of a loaner M3 with a Summilux,

and she didn't have a clue about loading it. I hadn't handled one

in a long time, and I was struck by how single purpose the

viewfinder was and how much area the framelines occupied. Is

this the best of the breed for a 50, or is there something like an

M6 / .85 that's larger? Frankly, I've never been too keen on

composing on a postage stamp with a $1,500 lens, and the

concept of 90mm lenses and miniscule framelines is lost on

me.

Some people just aren't designed to feel comfortable with M cameras. Others considered it a huge improvement over the screw mount body viewfinders. If you cut your teeth on SLR's there's a bit of a learning curve. The Leica is a special tool ideally suited for certain kinds of photography, adaptable to some others, and very much the wrong tool for many tasks. If you want a reliable fast handling quiet camera that makes it easy to focus wide angle lenses in low light an M Leica is ideal. If you insist on composing and recomposing, moving an inch this way or that for precise composition of static subjects you need an SLR.

 

As for the 90mm frameline, and the 135 too, for many things it works just fine. Sports comes to mind. With portraits you can tell if the subject blinked. You always know if your flash fired. There are many advantages to a rangefinder camera.

The 50mm framelines on my M2 are more accurate than on my M6TTL.

A SBOOI finder has the same framelines as a M2.

My VIOOH finder is more accurate, with the lens focused at infinity, than either camera. Just make sure it sits parallel to the lens axis

 

Yeah, its a real annoyance on the M6, but after a while you get used to it. The 35mm framelines seem the most accurate.

 

One of these days I plan on modifying the frameline mask on my M6

to have small corner marks for infinity.

 

 

feli

I hope that my question wasn't misconstrued as an attack on RF

cameras or Leicas, as I use my Hexar AF just about every day.

And one thing I appreciate about it is that, as a fixed lens camera

the framelines occupy a decent amount of real estate. I've never

been overly concerned about whether or not the framelines give

me +or - a few RCH's. Only that the viewing doesn't constrict or

interfere with my ability to react and compose quickly, which to

me seems to be the major point of these cameras. Although I

think a fancy modern invention such as a built in light meter is

sometimes quite handy, if the M3 has the largest framelines for

50mm I might go there as a next step. But is the M3 the largest,

or are they all more or less equal, which was really my question?

1. <A HREF="http://nemeng.com/leica/006ba.shtml">

http://nemeng.com/leica/006ba.shtml</A><P>

 

2. The 50mm framelines on the M3 are much thicker than on any other M. Easily 3x

thicker, and there are no other frames cluttering the view either.<P>

 

So if you are a 50 kind of person, then provided you don't wear glasses (or

sunglasses!), the M3 VF is v.good for 50mm work.

<<I hope that my question wasn't misconstrued as an attack on RF cameras or Leicas>>

 

Only a few people around here might take it that way.

 

 

<<as I use my Hexar AF just about every day.>>

 

And those people will take offense at that too ;>)

This can only be an issue for photographers who point their camera close to something interesting in the first place, and somehow I think those people likely figure out how to work with the quirks of the camera and don't whine about its imperfections endlessly.

Would you complain/whine if the RF missed by 30% - or would you put up with it?

I shot alot of film (chrome) and got used to it. I now automatically account for it: no

surprises, no worries. Any camera is a compromise that either suits you or it doesn't.

M cameras suit me just fine though YMMV.

I have no idea what percentage it misses. I still manage to make photographs I'm very happy with, and if I don't it's not the camera's fault.

What makes you so sure perfect control and knowledge of the frame edges to the NTH degree results in an interesting photograph anyway? You can micromanage the thing to death. Part of what photography is about is chance.

You missed the point Ray - the RF is very accurate, so is the exposure sytem and the shutter and the aperture etc - it's a precision instrument designed to put the maximum information on to 35mm film emulsion via very high quality optics. If you are not exploiting the full area of the frame you are wasting these qualities. When I shoot 5x4 I can afford to be a bit rough with the framing as I know I have enough film area to do this and not suffer in the final output. The same with my Hassleblad which routinely gets cropped to make a portrait or landscape final output. With 35mm film -even with the finest Leica glass you just can't be that careless with film area. Leica messed this up and no amount of workarounds with estimating frame line widths or holding the VF an inch away from your eye is an excuse for bad design. As I said I'm using 40 and 90 lenses with 35 and 75 frames - I get full frame coverage and it's intuative when I'm shooting -it's a compromise because I realy want to shoot with a 50 most of the time.

use the 40mm summicron lens. damn good lens in my opinion. sharp enough and contasty. very compact and cheap. anything inside the 50mm framelines will appear in your negs. framing is a guesswork? but isn't everything else a guesswork with leica? so you might as well embrace this state of doubt and stop worrying about what you lose in 0.7m or exact frame in whatever meters or what is added in infinity. as al kaplan says, if you don't print it yourself, they will crop the damn thing anyway. just my early morning opinion from my skull-splitting hangover brain.

"but isn't everything else a guesswork with leica?" - my point (if you care to read my previous posts) is that everything else is NOT guess work with a leica!!!!! - it's a precision tool in all respects

except the damn framing!!!! and you cannot afford to loose film area on the small 35mm film format.

"use the 40mm summicron lens. damn good lens in my opinion. sharp enough and contasty. very compact and cheap. anything inside the 50mm framelines will appear in your negs."

 

I think that the 35mm lines are the best match for the 40mm lens. Has anyone reached a different conclusion?

 

"<<Max, the M framelines are supposed to be sized correctly (in general) for a distance of 2 meters>>

 

 

Absolutely false."

 

- - - What's the problem, Jay? As the red queen said to Alice, "What would you have it?"