Leica M framelines not so accurate

[gl5]

i was recently shooting some landscapes with my M7 and

Summicron 50 and noticed that some things made it onto the

negative that were outside of the framelines when i took the

picture.

 

i know that i can crop them out in printing, but it is a bit annoying

to not be able to get accurate composition at the time of

exposure.

 

has anyone else experienced this?

[i want my photo.net histor]

Framing accuracy is not a strong point for rangefinders. I would look at a SLR for a task such as this.

[joe_pelizza_salusso_di_vol]

of course! For a 50 mm about the 10% of the image comes into the negative from outside... and moreover it depends on the inclination of the camera during the shooting. There is a marvellous explanation about this point in Osterloch's book.

Joe

[john_collier2]

http://nemeng.com/leica/006ba.shtml

[albert_smith]

Since lenses change in focal length as you move through the range of minumum to maximum focusing distances, the framing would also change. In the Leica M, the choice was made to make the framing display for the closest distance rather than for infinity, and so there is more taken on the film that you saw in the finder when your lens is focused at longer ranges. I have some books that have a visual trick for longer distances, (double the frame-line width added to the outside of the frame at infinity), but in dynamic situations, it is hard to actually use this trick.

 

Basically, this is rangefinder photography, and for all of its strenghts, I still keep and use my F class Nikons for those times I want absolute framing accuracy.

[jesse_hutton]

I read here once before that it's only a problem at a distance. For example, if you're close to the subject--as in 2 feet--the actual coverage of the negative will correspond to the inside edges of the frame lines. But if you're shooting something at > 100 feet, the negative will show things outside of the frame lines.

 

My own experience seems to confirm this, and I've just adjusted by hugging subjects that are far off with the frame lines a little more.

[jay_.]

With an 0.72 M6/7 and your eye about 2cm (approx 0.75")behind the eyepiece (such as is usual for those who wear glasses)if you use the black outer border delineated by the rectangular cutout just inside the M's eyepiece (it will be a bit fuzzy--don't try to focus your eye on it, just "perceive" it while looking straight through the finder)it will quite admirably frame what the 50mm will give you on film.

[bobtodrick]

All of the above plus the fact that retrofocus wideangles let some light 'creep' in under the film gate (the reason why the gap between negs is less with w/a than teles), and no, the rangefinder is not an extemely accurate camera in this respect. But remember, all but the top end pro SLR's guarantee 100% viewfinder accuracy (at the moment I think the only ones are the F5, EOS 1hv, and the Contax N1). So I don't really see the problem here.

[charles_stobbs2]

I am no expert but have read on several occaisions

thet SLR's also show less than 100% because of the

tolerance buildup in mirror angle and location, prism

errors and location errors and creep as the mirror pivot

and mirror stop wears.

[john15]

This, too, is the problem that keeps me going back to the bulkier SLR. I have read, in a previous thread, that the Rokkor 40mm designed for the CL can be adapted to the M so that the 35mm framelines will quite accurately show the area covered by the 40. But I will first practice with Jay's method. I use my M6 as a travel camera and I favor the 50 Elmar for its compactness but I need more than the roughly 80 percent coverage that I seem to get except at close distances. John

[Troll]

Only about 80% of the actual image is shown. It really sucks!

[Sanford]

If you want accurate framing with a "rangefinder" camera the only way to go is the Contax G2 where the finder moves down and to the right and gets smaller as you focus closer.

[john_collier2]

There is no problem with framing with a rangefinder camera. You just have

learn your equipment. Practice, practice, practice and you will know what you

are going to get on the film.

[harry_soletsky1]

Most SLRs do not show the full frame in the finder. The Nikon F series does, I believe, show the full frame. That is not true of other Nikon SLRs from what I understand. I think 85% of image is common in SLRs.

[guy bennett]

Gotta admit I never gave it much thought.

 

I shoot mostly b&w neg film and make my own prints. The negative carrier inevitably masks a tiny part of the image, which is masked ever so slightly more by the easel blades.

 

Ah, you say: but what if you print full frame?

 

Admittedly I don't very often (which is why I've probably not been bothered by this before). On those occasions when I have, I haven't noticed any extraneous content there around the neatly blackened edges of the image.

 

My suggestion to the inaccurate: don't print full frame and crop, crop, crop!

[andy_piper2]

TT: see this post for reference and further discussion.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003vlm

 

As already mentioned, the effective focal length of lenses changes slightly when focused from far to near, and RF makers (including Leica) opt to make sure that you at least get everything you framed on the negative (no cropped-off heads, e.g.) even if it means you get a bit extra focused near infinity.

 

At close distances the 90/135 frames, for example, are almost TOO tight - I have to be fairly generous in framing to avoid cutting off things!

 

According to at least one forum member, the 50mm lines seem to be especially inaccurate. I don't shoot 50's so I wouldn't know.

 

If you want to print full-frame it's not ideal - but for images that end up as machine prints, or being scanned, or in slide mounts, it's better to have a bit extra on film. There are times when my Nikon F 100% negative pictures are almost impossible to scan, because things near the edge of the frame get hidden by the film carrier or slide mount.

 

The Contax G2 does correct framing size as well as parallax to some extent - but still leaves some wiggle-room, since there will always be a 2-inch discrepancy between the viewfinder's point of view and the lens's point of view.

 

Makes you wonder how Henri Cartier-Bresson could shoot Leica for 60 years and yet invent the idea of perfectly-composed black-border prints.

[ray_moth]

The following words, taken from Andrew Nemeth's Leica Q&A web site, are attributed to Jay: "FYI, with internal-focusing lenses (not found on the Leica M), the focal length remains constant as the lens is focused (since there is no extension); however the maximum aperture changes slightly, eg. with the 280/2.8 at its 2.5m closest range, the effective aperture is actually about f/2.2."

 

As I understand it, Jay, the Tri-Elmar has internal focusing and the length of the lens remains constant. Does this mean that the Tri-Elmar at 50mm doesn't give the framing problems of other 50mm lenses?

[joel_matherson]

on the Leica CL frameline coverage is 85% for 40mm lens and only 82% with the 90 frameline.

[victor_randin]

TT:My tests of the M3� VF show: 100% of the VF / film-gate coincidence at closest distances (0.7-1.0m) and 86,6% at infinity;

 

The M6�VF shows about 80-82% of the coincidence of the VF-frame /film-gate fields at closest distances, and 66-68% at infinity

 

FWIW, the film gate of the Nikon F/F2/F3 is 24 X 35.5mm. That�s why it is fully covered by the VF.

[victor_randin]

.... the above concerns a 50mm lense.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Can any one share what Joe Pelizza mention before about Osterloch's book, or the name of the book, I have at hand a book by Osterloch, but it is in German.

[albert_smith]

Roberto,

 

This is from the Osterloh "Leica M Advanced School of Photography" book. It describes how to estimate the actual framing using the Leica M's framelines fro various distances.<div></div>

[ross_wilson1]

What is accurate!? NOT the G2, I had one and bought an N1 because it was so inaccurate, the G2 is about 90% accurate, what's worse it's not symetrical around the frame, it's off to an angle. The N1 is still actually only 95% field of view and only the RTS3 top end Canon and Nikon's are 100%.

 

I like the rangefinder size though so I got an M6. But remember this; you can't see out side the finder in an SLR, you have to wriggle the camera to get an idea about what else might be in your shot. With a rangefinder, you see EVERYTHING that might be in you shot at once, so you just have to imagine your own frame lines.

 

To me that's a lot better than having to move the camera in a little circle to see what you might get and then forget as you recompose all over. That said SLR's are very different ways of shooting altogether, so dropping one for the other isn't always the right answer.

 

At the end of the day as of yet and god only knows why, you can't get a small camera with a bright finder (not like the G2 pin hole) and 100% of the frame or 100% accurate frame line. Yet I can retreive and send masses of information all over the world from my lap in an instant, create a vast virtual universe for with free 3D software on a magiazine that cost ?5 and put hundreds of hours of music into something the size of a note book. Hmmmmm.