M6 frame-line mask replacement

[mukul_dube]

<p>Is it possible to replace the finder mask in a 0.72 M6 with one from an M4 or M4-2? Simply masking the 28 and 75 frames won't do. What I want is less inaccurate frames, which I think came about because of the addition of a 28mm frame in a finder that was originally 35mm at its widest.</p>

[Troll]

<p>Even the M4 framelines aren't really very accurate (just less inaccurate than later models). The only way that you're going to get virtually 100% accuracy is to use an Imarect finder.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>I am told that the masks for the meter-less Leicas do not have the cut-out for the M6's meter display.<br>

Bill, the VIOOH is accurate, but I have come across more than one example whose adjustment for parallax (distance) was off. Besides, an external finder negates one of the big steps forward taken with the M3.</p>

[Troll]

<p>Mukul, since I grew up with Barnack Leicas it is quite natural for me to shift my eye from the RF to an axillary finder.My only thought is that if you really want accuracy, the only way to go is TTL such as nikon F3, or most of the current "mirrorless" cameras.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Bill, I sold my film SLRs a decade ago and since then have used only RFDR cameras (apart from a couple of digital SLRs). There are other things besides framing accuracy that I want from my cameras. As I no longer use slide film, dead accuracy is not essential. I shall be content if I get the sort of accuracy my M3s gave me. The 50mm frame of my M6 is wildly inaccurate.<br>

I am no stranger to "Barnack" type cameras: I still use, even in professional work, a Nicca 3-F with a Tewe finder. Moving the eye is not a problem: I am old enough to have grown up with that. My point was that the multiple frame lines in the VF of the M3 were a considerable advance over earlier Leicas. I wouldn't want to put a petrol engine in a carriage and then tie a horse to the front of it.<br>

By the way, wouldn't an "axillary finder" be mounted in one's arm-pit? Never seen one of those.</p>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>Mukul, if I recall it right, "(simply) masking the 28 and 75mm frames won't do" is rightaway impossible, because the three different masks make a diagonal shift to achieve the framelines, it's more complex than one imagines; I wanted this to be done time ago for my classic M6 0.85 and my very reputable repairman said it can only be done with a new set of masks from Leica at $$$ if available at all. Anyways, the M6 masks are certainly tighter than in previous Ms (like 1m FOV vs 3m FOV), but I can live with that. Hope that helps.<br>

Best, <br>

Knut</p>

 

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Knut. Always good to know that a modification is not simple, even when one does not want it. Unlike you, I cannot easily live with loosely framed photos. Fifty years ago I was taught that negative area is precious because it is directly related to the magnification possible when making enlargements. It is decades since I made a 30" x 40" print, but the idea is firmly fixed. I later got spoilt by slide film, which I used mainly in SLRs but also in a Leica M3. Why, you may ask, do I not compensate for the tightness of the 50mm frame when I work with that focal length? Fact is, I just don't remember at the time. Maybe I shall learn.</p>

[Troll]

<p>IMO, it's a rare image that can't be improved by a little judicious cropping. (We ain't all HC-B.)</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Yes, of course: but, first, that is not what my post was about; and second, if framing is tight to begin with, we lose less negative area to cropping. My late friend Al Kaplan made me aware of what happens to photos that are sold: "Editors will crop anyway, even if the pictures are already cropped -- so it's best to give them loosely framed photos" [paraphrase from memory].</p>

[rgerraty]

You have my sympathy Mukul, although I never really noticed I had any trouble with the M6. I hate the 50 frame lines in

the digital Ms and when I want to achieve inner peace, a lower heart rate, and lower blood pressure, I get out my M2 and

look through its VF.

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Richard. Indeed I needed less blood pressure medicine when I had an M2.</p>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>cool wit, Mukul!</p>

<div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Knut, are you showing us where you keep your medicines?</p>

[jonathan_reynolds]

<p>Mukul, my sympathies, I went through all this too. I couldn't understand how photographers like HCB, Erwitt, etc could achieve compositional accuracy to the extent that they printed the film surround as a black border. Left to itself, my M6 squandered film area profligately. Both the afore-mentioned photogs used external viewfinders; but not always, and Erwitt currently uses an M7. This is a revealing but still puzzling documentary about Erwitt: <a href="http://www.themastersofphotography.com/the-project/">http://www.themastersofphotography.com/the-project</a><br>

I too rejected an external viewfinder because it undermined the integrity of the M6. In any case, there is always some movement within the flash shoe, and dialling in a distance setting would slow you down quite a bit. Getting the finder mask replaced is apparently possible but for me unthinkably expensive.<br>

There is some helpful information on Andrew Nemeth's site here: <a href="http://leica.nemeng.com/006ba.shtml">http://leica.nemeng.com/006ba.shtml. </a>In the end I have come to accept that advice, and I have gravitated towards a 35mm lens anyway, so I just do my best and tell myself I am developing total familiarity with my equipment. It's a kind of bovine acceptance rather than peace of mind; but I'm not sure the Leica M can ever be 100% satisfactory.<br>

I gave up on black lines around my prints.</p>

<p> </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Jonathan. There will always be inaccuracy in a finder like that of the M Leica. The question is, how much inaccuracy? Some deviation from precision is acceptable, too much is not. I have had two M3s (at different times) for a total of 19 years. Their framing was satisfactory. So was that of the M2 I had for a couple of years. The only other M Leica of which I have experience is my present M6: and this wastes much negative area with a 50mm lens mounted.<br>

I never went in for the black border business, given that in my kind of photography framing inaccuracy in the camera is hardly the only reason for a badly framed photo. Perfect framing is difficult when both subject and photographer are moving and the camera is not on a tripod. I also find any claim to perfect framing more than a little presumptuous.<br>

I started with a box camera which made 6 by 6 cm. negatives, and then for several years used a Rolleicord with the same format. Only contact prints were square, while enlargements were seldom that. Thus cropping was pretty much a way of life. However, in the interest of sharpness and low grain, we tried to frame tightly so that we needed to crop little.</p>

[Troll]

<p>My problem with the inaccuracy is that my "natural vision" is 50mm. With an accurate viewfinder i could easily subsist on "one camera, one 50mm lens." Wouldn't THAT be nice. (Particularly nice if it was 1:1 viewing.)</p>