a la carte M2 framelines

[michael j hoffman]

This question is for those who've purchased/viewed the M2-style

frameline set being offered in the current a la carte program on the

MP and M7.

 

Do these framelines offer the same coverage in relation to the whole

viewfinder that those on the M2 did, or are they the slightly

narrower set that are seen through the viewfinders of the current

crop of off-the-rack (damn that sounds pretentious) Leica M's?

 

If the 50 frameline in particular offers the same coverage in

relation to the whole viewfinder as my M4, I would gladly pay the

inflated price over and above the off-the-shelf variety of MP.

Besides, I'd also ge the M4 style rewind crank, so it isn't just the

frameline set. If not, I'll happily stick with my M4.

 

Michael J Hoffman

 

P.S. I realize that on equal magnification viewfinders the 50

frameline should remain constant, but it looks narrower through a

colleague's M7, and we both have 0.72x viewfinders.

[john_layton]

Pardon my possibly sounding oblivious, but its been awhile since I've looked through an

M4 or an M2. I do seem to remember that Leica changed the overall coverage of the

viewfinder slightly, to accomodate the 28mm framelines. The (.72) magnification

remained unchanged, but the slightly larger field of view made the remaining framelines

somehow look smaller, which they indeed were relative to the viewing field but in fact

remained the same as the M2/M4 version in terms of relation to the subject being viewed.

Is this in fact the case? Has anyone out there compared the actual subject-related field of

view in these cameras?

[howard_roarke]

This is going to sound a little facetious, but I assure you I'm serious. Bear with me. Leica actually increased the size of the hole you look through a bit ... the viewfinder dimensions of the M6 and later are actually larger than those of the M4 and M2 despite the identical .72 magnification. So the newer makes actually seem roomier. The next thing they did was change the dimensions of the framelines. So there are really two things going on. I haven't seen the a la carte M2-style framelines, so I can't comment beyond that. I would suspect (and hope) that one could still use the edge of the viewfinder to approximate the field of view of a 28mm lens. The real question then would be whether Leica made the a la carte frames cover the same field as the original M2 frames, or if they are M6 size.

[howard_roarke]

Actually, John ... you are working off one misconception ... Leica did make the viewfinder dimensions larger, but they ALSO changed the size of the framelines. As I said earlier, there are two things going on ...

[jtdnyc]

<Has anyone out there compared the actual subject-related field of view in these cameras?>

 

I have.

 

Around 1990, I owned simultaneously an M4, M4-P and M6. The framelines in the later cameras definitely covered less of the subject area than did the corresponding framelines in the M4.

 

There are two theories why Leica did this. The first is that Leica squeezed all the framelines a little in order to make the 28 lines visibly different from the 35 lines. The second and in my opionion more likely explanation is that Leica downsized the framelines so that they would be accurate at the closest focusing distance of most modern lenses (.7m) rather than that of the older lenses (1m).

 

I know that Leica now offers, a la carte, the 35/50/90 frame set, but I have never read any suggestion that these have been upsized to their prior dimensions, as in the M4 and earlier cameras. In fact, I consider it unlikely that Leica would do so, since the framelines would then fail to include the entire subject area of modern lenses at their closest focusing distance.

 

But it's Leica, so you never know.

 

I suspect that the definitive, authoritative answer could be had by e-mailing Leica directly.

[clayh]

The MP-3 frame lines are larger than the same frame lines on the M7/M6/MP. I checked this out, and it is a fact.

[emanuel_lowi1]

The 50mm frame on the MP3 (only) shows 100% of the image

recorded on film at a given distance (sorry, forgot exactly what

that distance is).

 

On previous M cameras made after the M4, the 50mm frame

was shrunk so as to better replicate what is recorded at close

range and, as someone above suggested, possibly to

differentiate from the 28mm frame.

 

The 35mm & 90mm frames on the MP3 are unchanged.

 

The 3-frame a la carte set for the MP has the reduced 50mm

frame size. Not the same as the MP3.

 

Because the MP3 has the M3 style look up front, in fact the main

viewfinder window is less tall than on M2/M4/M6/current MP

cameras. As a result, on the MP3 there appears to be less

'space' visible outside the 35mm frame.

 

Not so on the a la carte 3-frame configuration.

 

Lastly, note that the frames on an M7 are not exactly the same as

the frames on a stock MP. Because of the expanded LED

display, the M7 has briefer bottom framelines than an MP. The

MP3 has M7-style frames too.

 

All things considered, of the current offerings I like the stock MP

frames best.

 

In an ideal world, I'd like the M2/M4 frames back, or even the

greatest of all, the M3 finder. But it is impossible to have those

frames together with LED meter readouts on the bottom of the

viewfinder.

[jtdnyc]

Emanuel, thanks for the thorough explanation.

 

One question, however, remains in my mind: is it possible to get the MP3 50mm frame in an MP -- in particular, retrofitted into a previously purchased MP?

 

I can live with the shrunken framelines for the 35, since I usually don't frame as precisely with wide angle lenses. And I never really noticed a difference with the 90. (Maybe there isn't any, as the closest focusing distance of the 90s didn't change from 1m until the introduction of the Macro Elmar, I believe.)

 

But the inadequacy of the 50mm framelines at common shooting distances is such an an annoyance that I'm thinking of getting a Voigtlander auxiliary viewfinder. I'm aware of the work-arounds, such as adding two or three framelines widths, depending on the distance...but I also remember the pleasure of greater framing accuracy with the M4 I used to have.

 

I don't think we should have to buy a special commemorative model just to enjoy using a normal lens under common conditions.

[malcolm_tentt]

{I don't think we should have to buy a special commemorative model just to enjoy using a normal lens under common conditions.}

 

Leica do.

[emanuel_lowi1]

In time, I believe Leica will sell the MP3 frameline mask as a

part. But at a frightful price, at least the cost of an entire

Cosina/Voigtlander body, plus the installation.

[feli]

Here is my theory.

 

The old 50mm framelines showed what you will get at 1 meter on the inside and 5m on

the outside edge of the markings.

 

The new framelines show what you will get at .7 meter (70cm) on the inside and LESS than

5m on the outside edge of the markings.

 

The new markings appear to be about 15% smaller. People have reported that the 50 lines

are now about 20% off, when working at distances beyond 3-5 meters. Basically at infinity

they show the area of a framed slide.

 

This is my pet peeve about the current M series. I refuse to shoot a 50 on the newer

bodies, unless I absolutely need the built in meter.

 

Now, I am not expecting 100% framing accuracy from a rangefinder. That's what a Nikon F

is for. BUT, there is a big difference between being off by an acceptable margin (as the old

markings were) and being wildly off the mark, as the new markings are.

 

If the MP3 frameline mask is identical to the old M2/M4 size, I will pay whatever price is

necessary to have my M6TTL and M7 'fixed'.

 

 

feli

[michael j hoffman]

"If the MP3 frameline mask is identical to the old M2/M4 size, I will pay whatever price is necessary to have my M6TTL and M7 'fixed'."

 

I'm seriously considering getting an MP3 - stop reading HERE collectors - to use. Is this considered heresy? The way I figure, its a tool for life and if I'm fortunate enough to live til I'm 75 that breaks down to just over $100 per year to have exactly the camera I want. I like the "real" 50mm framelines so much more than those on the post-M4 Leicas that I'm willing to shell out the extra money to get what I want.

 

Michael J Hoffman

[emanuel_lowi1]

Feli & others:

 

Just make sure you understand the bargain you are making.

 

First, Leica may charge you more than $700 for the frameline

mask made for a special edition camera.

 

Second, while you'll have a more accurately sized frame for your

50mm lens, you'll loose most of the bottom line for that lens

frame too.

 

Check out a .72 M7 (not an MP) and you'll see what I mean.

 

At close range, in my usage I have more need for a bottom line

indicator, not full framing accuracy. Your purposes may be

different..

[feli]

Feli & others:

Just make sure you understand the bargain you are making.

 

>First, Leica may charge you more than $700 for the frameline mask made for a special

>edition camera.

 

I doubt that. An entire rangefinder costs about $300-400.

 

>Second, while you'll have a more accurately sized frame for your 50mm lens, you'll loose

>most of the bottom line for that lens frame too.

>Check out a .72 M7 (not an MP) and you'll see what I mean.

 

>At close range, in my usage I have more need for a bottom line indicator, not full framing

>accuracy. Your purposes may be different..

 

Ok, I am sitting here looking through an M7, M6TTL and M2/M4 (all .72). I don't see what

you mean. The 50 markings are smaller in both the M6 and M7 and there is about the

same amount of space below to bottom frameline, in other words it looks like the bigger

framelines would not intrude on the LED lights in the metered bodies. When I focus all of

them to .7 meters, the frames appear to shift the same amount. If anything the mask

in the eyepiece of the M7 appears a little tighter, than on the older cameras, but that

is something which could be fixed quite simply.

[emanuel_lowi1]

If an entire Leica M rangefinder costs anything like $300 new, I'll

take a dozen.

 

There's a lot of bafflegab that passes for fact about Leica here

and elsewhere. I'll leave it to time to sort out the truth from the

nonsense.

 

My advice: stick to the stock .72 MP frames for most work, and

maybe consider the 1.25x magnifier OR get a .85 body for

ultra-critical 50mm & 90mm work if you really must.

 

Don't sweat so much about the inaccuracy of the framing

coverage. Shoot shoot shoot and move with the flow of the action

as it develops around you. Be a photographer, not a calculator.