viewfinder

[jay_nowakowski4]

I have used Nikon SLR and with the F-100 basically what you see is what you

get. With the rangefinder, in particular the .72 that is not the case when

using a 35 or 50mm lens. It seems you get more than what is in the

framelines. Using this viewfinder and the corresponding lenses how does one

compensate so that the image you want to capture is the one that you do?

[john_shriver]

Get an earlier Leica M. The framelines used to correspond to the field of view at a distance, but that led to less than the framelines being captured at close distances. So they made them accurate at close distances, and thus generous for long distances. Either way, you have to learn how to correct.

 

But, accurate framing isn't part of the rangefinder experience. Only a very few fixed-lens rangefinders have viewfinders that correct for both parallax and image size. Plus, you're still viewing at an offset, so the relative positions of foreground and background items aren't right.

 

Leica could have used electronic framelines in the M8 to have accurate framelines at any distance, but didn't get that innovative. It would be very easy to make the framelines be a small electonic display...

[jerry_kirkwood]

<i>Get an earlier Leica M. The framelines used to correspond to the field of view at a distance, but that led to less than the framelines being captured at close distances. So they made them accurate at close distances, and thus generous for long distances.</i></p>Poopycock. Read through older Leica literature, the framelines were always corresponded to close focus framing and always "generous" at longer distances. The rule of thumb with the M3 circa 1954 was to add one thickness of framelines to the 50 frames at infinity. Later models have thinner framelines so more of them have to be added (three I believe). <p><i>But, accurate framing isn't part of the rangefinder experience. Only a very few fixed-lens rangefinders have viewfinders that correct for both parallax and image size. Plus, you're still viewing at an offset, so the relative positions of foreground and background items aren't right.</i></p>Where is it written you have to blindly go by the framelines and repeat the same disappointment after you get the film back? With a little effort I'd think someone who shoots often enough would get the knack of compensating down pat.

[Ed_Ingold]

Accurate framing is NOT part of the rangefinder experience, including the Leica experience. It is sufficient to frame well enough to not cut off parts of the image you wish to keep, then fine-tune the cropping in the darkroom. If you want/need accurate framing in the camera, use an SLR or view camera.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Generally, I shoot everything a bit tight. It seems to work fine. I can't remember ever looking

at a Leica frame and complaining that it didn't frame the way I wanted it to frame. Sometimes

I get a little more, other times a little less. It doesn't matter. Either the photograph works or it

doesn't. If it doesn't, move on and look at the next frame. Remember you're taking the

picture, not the camera.

[SCL]

FWIW the darkroom is where minor adjustments are traditionally made...that's why in the dslr world the "crop" function is so popular...to get the perfect framing. Few of us get it perfect in the shot, with either film, including slides, or on a sensor, with a slr or a rangefinder.

[dougmiles]

Not many SLR viewfinders will display all of what is captured on film; usually around 90-95% and sometimes even less. One justification was that a slide mount covered part of the transparency image, so it came out about the same as seen in the viewfinder. Not applicable to print film of course, and I think the reason was to keep the prism and other viewfinder optics smaller, and to give a margin for framing error.

 

As indicated, the rangefinder is just a different kind of viewfinder experience with its own set of advantages and drawbacks that you can either like or not.

[jerry_kirkwood]

<i>Accurate framing is NOT part of the rangefinder experience</i></p> Might not be part of <i>your</i> rangefinder experience, or anyone else who can't be bothered taking 3 test shots with each focal length he owns, at 6ft, 25 ft and infinity, and commit to memory how far outside the framelines you'll get on film. Even easier with the M8 because the LCD shows 100% right away. If you can remember your login and password on this forum you've got sufficient brainpower, and in the long run will be easier and quicker than whining about inaccurate framing. At least the Leica gives you a look outside the framelines. All the DSLR's today except the Canon 1DS (not sure about the Nikon D2X) show less than 100% and you can't see outside the black box.

[asher]

<i>how does one compensate so that the image you want to capture is the one that you

do</i><p>

Practice.

[jerry_kirkwood]

Hey better watch it, you could get banned using a word like that around here. ROFL! "Feisty bunch of guys believing a $5000 camera can't frame accurately because it doesn't automatically do it for them".

[dg1]

With enough practice you shouldn't need any viewfinder. And if you get too anal about framing "accuracy" (as if there is a right or wrong answer), it can lead to choking up on the shutter, rather than just taking the damn picture. WYSIWYG is not automatically a good thing. It's like getting what you deserve, might not be always what you want.

 

I'm all for tight viewfinders so I know I at least will get everything I think I saw, and if I'm lucky there'll be some happy options to consider and whittle away at later that I might not have considered in the moment (or half in the bag as the case often is).

[jerry_kirkwood]

Why do you assume what suits you should suit everyone? Some people don't want the loss of fine detail and the magnified grain caused from enlarging a cropped section of a 35mm negative. With your philosophy we might as well all shoot everything with a 21mm and crop.

[dougmiles]

Jerry, please be a friend rather than a combatant. :-)

[jerry_kirkwood]

Expressing a viewpoint makes me a combattant only to those who hold the opposite viewpoint. Par for the course.

[jerry_kirkwood]

As a matter of fact I'm saying if you want accurate framing you can get it easily with a Leica if you use your head a little. They're saying, if you wan't accurate framing, a Leica is no good. They're the ones going to drive potential Leica users away <wink>.

[dg1]

Mr. Kirkwood,

As your response followed mine I would think you are talking to me. Why do you assume that I'm assuming that what suits me, suits everyone? I thought the purpose of a discussion was to present varied opinions, throw ideas around. I posted a certain attitude toward the question and it doesn't necessarily work for everyone. I don't recall saying it did.

 

I can only speak from my own experience, and for me,IMO,in my particular case, I find it often counterproductive to spend too much time analyzing my framing. That doesn't mean I am ignoring it. There's also no reason to assume on your part that I or anyone else has not spent some time learning the characteristics of their camera in order to be able to predict the outcome. I was not advocating a haphazard shooting style that relies on cropping either. I make my best estimate and move on.

 

IMO sometimes a little "play" in the works can be one's friend. YMMV

[jerry_kirkwood]

<i>Why do you assume that I'm assuming that what suits me, suits everyone?</i></p>Here's what you said:<p><i>

 

With enough practice <b>you</b> shouldn't need any viewfinder. And if <b>you</b> get too anal about framing "accuracy" (as if there is a right or wrong answer), it can lead to choking up on the shutter, rather than just taking the damn picture. WYSIWYG is not automatically a good thing. It's like getting what <b>you</b> deserve, might not be always what <b>you</b> want.</i></p>I guess if you normally refer to yourself in the second person I owe you an apology.

[runkel]

Is it not generally accepted that the 50mm frameline became less accurate through a combination (a) standard close focus changing from 1m to .7m and (b) the addition of the 75mm frameline?