Finder frame accuracy

[mukul_dube]

<p>I took this picture with a 50mm lens on an M6 0.72 body. When framing, I had tried to exclude -- though not completely -- the young woman on the right. Clearly the 50mm frame encloses much less than is recorded on the film. The 0.72 finder came in with the M2, whose widest frame was for 35mm lenses. Starting with the M4-P, a 28mm frame was shoved into the very same finder. For obvious reasons it and the necessarily reduced 35mm frame would have to show much less than 100 per cent of the recorded image. It seems that this reduction of frame size went on to the 50mm frame. For nearly a quarter of a century I had worked with M3 and M2 bodies and not faced this problem so severely. Certainly their finders were not so accurate as those of my SLR camera, but their inaccuracy was not unnerving either.</p><div></div>

[SCL]

<p>Mukul - Occasionally when I encountered similar issues, I usually discovered that my eye wasn't centered in the eyepiece and I either was including more than I expected or once in a while cutting something out. However, in your case, I just wonder if the actual focal length of the lens is exactly 50mm or perhaps, as often occurs in older lens manufacturing (including Leica lenses), there is a variance from the stated focal length - perhaps slightly wider than exactly 50mm - in which case the 50mm framelines might indicate that you had substantially excluded the person on the right, but the lens was wider so she was included. Just a guess in any case. For me it usually isn't an issue, as I grew up with RF bodies and generally assumed the inherent inaccuracies and the occasional need to crop.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you, Stephen. In my early years in photography, I worked mostly with a Rolleicord but did from time to time use RFDR cameras, either fixed lens or screw Leicas. I did not use slide film then, and did my own printing: so cropping was not out of the ordinary. It was in the 1970s, when I began to use slide film in SLRs, that framing accuracy became a matter of concern. When I acquired my first M Leica, an M3, in 1985, I had come to expect accuracy in framing: and the M3 did not disappoint me although I knew that a finder of the M kind cannot be too accurate. Thus I was not prepared for what my M6 is giving me.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Mukul - I sold my M6 about a year after acquiring one (in the early 2000s) and brought my trusty M4 back out of the closet, and recently acquired an M2. The later VFs were just too cluttered for me. I'm presently experimenting with a screwmount (horrible for framing, especially with eyeglasses), but put a 50mm briteline finder on top for framing purposes....haven't yet finished my first roll of film...but what a difference at least from the dummy behind the camera!</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Twice I've had an M3 with a permanently fitted 35mm finder. I'd call that combination better than the M2. I made the mistake of not asking Don Goldberg, when he sorted out the flarey finder of my M6, to remove the 28mm and 75mm frames. The 135mm frame (M4 onwards) is really small but still usable.</p>

[christopher_junker1]

<p>From experience I've found Stephen's comment about keeping the eye centered very helpful. As for the Leica LTM rangefinder/viewfinders, the IIIg has a parallax corrected bright line 50/90 viewfinder that is vastly superior to the earlier LTMs, framing seems accurate and is usable with glasses.</p>

[Troll]

<p>The Leica framelines are calculated to show 90% of the actual image with the lens set at it's minimum distance (one meter on most lenses before the 1970s). They were significantly decreased in size after the M4, when the standard lenses began to focus closer, making it even worse.<br>

The IIIg is just as bad. The other pre-M cameras are pretty iffy.<br>

If you want virtually perfect coverage, get an Imarect or Universal finder, (like Cartier-Bresson did). </p>

[john tonai]

<p>I would check to see if the finder selector is working properly. That is quite a bit of finder error (if the woman on the right is supposed to be barely in the frame).</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Bill, I do not know if the 90 per cent coverage at closest focus applies to all focal lengths. My thinking is that adding a 28mm frame to a finder whose magnification permits 35mm at the widest would need at least those two frames to be made smaller than they should be.<br /><br />The VIOOH finder is accurate, but using one slows down the picture taking process because of the three separate adjustments that must be made. One reason for the success of the M3 and its successors is that external finders are not needed for the commonly used focal lengths.<br /><br />Nothing the matter with the frame selector, John. There's no way to mistake the 50mm frame, because the 75mm frame shows inside it.</p>

[Troll]

<p>Unless you're really snippy about printing whole-frame with the black borders showing, (like Cartier-Bresson), the best approach is to just use the frame lines as the already exist, and crop the final image to suit.</p>

[baisao]

I've never had this issue with my early M6 Classic, apart from the typical approximation expected with rangefinders. I've

rarely cropped an image because what I see is almost always what I get. What cropping I do is only to remove the ugly

black border, not to correct the composition. Mukul, I suspect there's something wrong with your sample (lens and/or

frsmelines). I'm sorry it's been such a nuisance.

[mukul_dube]

<p>Hardly the <em>best</em> approach, Bill: it's the <em>only</em> thing I can do. There is no option. Trouble is, I was taught early that negative area is a valuable resource which should not be wasted. For that reason, I try to frame somewhat tightly. While I no longer make 30"x40" prints (made those from 120 size negatives), habits more than half a century old have a way of sticking.</p>

[tiffany_namm]

<p>Somehow it also depends at which distance from the subject you are. Finders are calibrated for a certain distance. That being said, I would agree that they are not 100% accurate for framing. I recently acquired a Leitz SBOOI external bright line finder, and it's a marvel.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>The SBOOI is a fine finder, Tiffany, which is why so many use it on screw mount Leicas. You will find, of course, that it too is not accurate at all subject distances.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>The last M I know of that still has a properly sized 50mm frame is the early M4-P. I wish I hadn't sold mine. (How many times do we say this?) I just sold one of my M6s, planning on getting an M5. It's the only way I can think of to get accurate framelines plus a meter! Although my M8.2 has a generously sized 47mm equivalent frameline when used with a 35mm lens!</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>I too would like an M5 in place of my M6. The fact that the set shutter speed is visible in the finder is another major advantage.</p>