What are the exact dimensions of a Leica negative?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by troll, Aug 30, 2013.

  1. I know that 24x36mm is just an approximation.
     
  2. There's a bit of variation depending on the lens, at least with older M3s. Wider angle lens produce a slightly larger exposed area than longer lenses.
     
  3. +1. With my 12mm Voigtlander the frames are almost touching each other.
     
  4. SCL

    SCL

    I'm guessing there is probably some minor variation from the production of the 1st Leica to the present time...so it would be useful to specify a particular model, as well as the lens in question.
     
  5. My MP: 36mm X 24.5mm. With 35mm Summicron ASPH.
     
  6. Stephen, let's specify an M3 with 50mm lens.
     
  7. SCL

    SCL

    Bill - probably Gus L will jump in with the wealth of his experience. But here are my thoughts (not scientific facts) - The M3 had a couple of variants, such as the one for postal service which I think produced a half or 3/4 frame type negative around 24x27mm. But assuming the normal consumer M3, besides possible light spreading from lens choice, I recall that earlier production models used a glass film pressure plate (thru 1957 or around #854000) to hold the film flat against the rails...I would think that possibly there might be some light spread at the edges in some circumstances, or even with the use of the metal plate, if the spring holding it to press the film against the rail had weakened with age. Other than that, I would stick with the published negative dimensions of 24 x 36mm. Out of curiosity, what is the nature of the question...are you encountering difficulty (like spill over) in printing with a standard negative mask?
     
  8. I too would like to know what prompts your question. To my knowledge, 36 x 24 is accurate enough for most users.
     
  9. First of all let me apologize for taking up your time -- frankly I'd forgotten that I could just drop the back of my CL and measure the film aperture directly (I must be getting old). 36mm is correct.
     
  10. The frame size seems larger on my IIIc than my M6.
     
  11. Yes, the space between frames on my IIIF is significantly narrower than on M6 or M2
     
  12. Maybe that's where I got the impression that 24x36 wasn't exact.
     
  13. Although the LTM negative framing is also 24x36, the spacing between exposed images is indeed greater for the M series bodies. If carefully loaded, it was sometimes possible to get image #37 out of a 36 exposure roll from an LTM body. But not always.
     
  14. You might get that 37th shot with an M body, too. The actual length of the roll differs a bit with different films. With Tri-X, I will probably get 37 shots. With an Ilford film, probably not. Kodak seems to make the roll a little longer.
     
  15. I noticed that difference in size when I started printing with a 25x37mm carrier. Depending on the lens I got thicker black margins.
     
  16. Lining up two uncut rolls of developed film, one from each camera, would clarify the issue. Frankly, I think the no. of frames per roll would be the same. Mounting of slide film like Kodachrome would probably have been partly automated fairly early, and then D&P for colour print film, likewise. This would have relied on a certain no. of sprocket holes per frame, and sprocket holes on 35mm have always been the same.
    I never had a problem with D&P for a Leica II. In more recent times, however, the frames from an M3 almost met when I used a 12mm Voigtlander and did confuse the machine.
     
  17. Very Interesting question... Question was about dimensions exposed on film, not space between the frames.
    I just measured the size of the frame of some random cameras.
    Minolta SRT, XE and XG got exactly 24x36mm window.
    Voigtlander Vito BL, Agfa Super Silette, and Konica FS-1 got little smaller window.
    Yashica Electro GT's window is little smaller and it's 23.7x35,45mm.
    By the way, I would really love to have the frames scanned from A to Z, that means with all the borders produced naturally by the camera...
    Still don't know why scanners don't scan 100% of the image with some of that black area around the frame... I don't think it's because of prints in mind, professional scanner costs fortune and are designed for professionals... I asked at three laboratories and they can't do anything about it...
    Any thoughts on that?
     
  18. ...please see this very helpful thread another forum - it is the best explanation I have come across. Hope you find it useful.
     

Share This Page