50mm Framelines, M2, M3, M4

[mrbutterworth]

Is 50mm frameline coverage in the M2 and M4 the same as in the M3? In other

words, are they equally accurate aside from the greater magnification of the

M3 finder?

 

This assumes that the 50 frames in the M2 and M4 are the same - correct?

 

Also, what is the proper way to use the wide M3 50mm framelines? Does the inner

edge correspond to 1 meter, and outer edge to infinity?

 

Thanks much,

[furcafe]

FWIW, there have been a bunch of threads on this, e.g.:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002pVo

[jay_.]

1) All Leica framelines are accurate only for the lens' closest focusing distance and 2m (inner and outer edges of the framelines, respectively). Beyond that, it's a matter of experience. This is a stupid design which could easily have been rectified years ago: make the framelines for infinity, and place small, unobtrusive tick-marks inside the corners for the closer distances.

 

2) The 35-50-90 framelines in the M2, M4 and M4-2 frame a slightly larger angle of coverage than in the M4-P and subsequent models. This was because some people had trouble assimilating into their brains that at the closest distance you needed to crop a little loose with the older models. Personally I find it a *lot* easier to stay a little inside the borders of a frameline than to mentally visualize how much outside of them the actual framing is.

[r_quan]

Other rfdr cameras I've used e.g. Canonet and even Polaroid 360 have framelines that not only shift but also contract while focusing closer. I was suprised that Leica M's don't do this. I don't understand why Leica couldn't incorporate this more advanced design.

[cabophoto]

R.,

 

>>Other rfdr cameras I've used e.g. Canonet and even Polaroid 360

 

>>have framelines that not only shift but also contract while

 

>>focusing closer

 

my Canonet QL17 G-III doesn´t. In fact I have never seen an RF camera where the framelines contract. What I did see were cameras that move only the upper and the left bar of the framlines which gives the impression of contracting, but doesn´t provide for true parallex correction.

 

Carsten

[al_kaplan1]

I think that the contacting/expanding frame lines were use on the Koni-Omega 6x7 cameras as well as the pro 110 series Polaroids.

[jay_.]

The Fuji GS/GSW 670-680-690 rangefinders contract for field size as well as move down and right for parallax. So too I'm told does the Mamiya 7 but I don't recall seeing it do that when I handled one.

[mrbutterworth]

Chris - I read that thread and it refers to M3 versus M6 framelines... and the M6's are

suppose to be smaller due to the 28mm framelines. I am curious about the M3

versus the M2 or M4, which are suppose to have more accurate frames.

 

Jay - You are absolutely right! I would love the frames to show infinity, and have tick

marks for a closer distance.

 

 

Please - if somebody has both an M3 and an M2 or M4, look through both finders

from the same position and tell me if the 50mm framelines have the same coverage.

 

Thanks,

[m m]

The QL17 frameline does indeed contract as you focus closer, but only horizontally. It's a simple design. The right side of the frame-where you read the aperture-is stationary, while the rest of the frame moves.

[feli]

>Jay - You are absolutely right! I would love the frames to show >infinity, and have tick marks for a closer distance.

 

I was thinking about doing a custom modification to a framemask and having someone like DAG install it. Standard Leica frame for 1 meter and custom elbows in the corners for infinity.

 

 

feli

[furcafe]

Nick, if you read the thread closely, folks voiced their

impressions of the M2, M4-P, & M4-2 50mm framelines in

relation to the M6. To quote Jay:

 

"The framelines (all of them, but it's particularly noticeable with

the 35 and 50) in the M2, M4 and M4-2 also show a little greater

area than the M4-P and M6. When the 28mm frameline was

added, Leica arbitrarily shrunk the other framelines."

 

FYI, I don't have any version of the M4, but can say that the 50mm

framelines in my M2 show an area close in size, but slightly

smaller than my M3--both show an area noticeably bigger, &

closer to the actual amount captured film, than that in my 0.85 M6

TTL.

[cabophoto]

>>The Fuji GS/GSW 670-680-690 rangefinders contract for field size as well as move down and right for parallax

 

fascinating. I once had a GSW 690 III and didn´t even notice.

 

BTW I don´t miss this feature on my Leicas.

 

Carsten

[mrbutterworth]

"FYI, I don't have any version of the M4, but can say that the 50mm framelines in my

M2 show an area close in size, but slightly smaller than my M3--both show an area

noticeably bigger, & closer to the actual amount captured film, than that in my 0.85

M6 TTL."

 

Chris - Finally... this is exactly the response I was looking for! I read the thread that

you gave earlier, but there whas no comparison between the M3 and M2 (or M4). All

comparisons seem to focus on comparing the M3 (or M2, M4, etc) to the M6.

 

Thanks,