feli Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 The error isn't too bad with a 35, but noticable with anything longer. The 50 markings in my M6TTL are less accurate than the ones on my M2. Both of them are off by maybe 15% at infinity. I have started to use a VIOOH finder for when I shoot at infinity and have experienced a noticeable improvement in framing accuracy. Oddly enough if you flip through one of the big Magnum books you will see not only HCB using a VIDOM or VIOOH on his camera, but several other Leica shooters... Adding compensation to the finder could be a huge mechanical nightmare, when you take into account that most Leicas show more than one frameline at once (35/135, 50/75 etc)... This whole issue annoyed me to no end when I started to shoot with an M. Several years later I was shooting at a peace rally in Hollywood, using a mix of Leica M and R. It was fast moving, crowded and confusing. When I sorted though the negatives I realized that the extra margin of error with the M finder often worked in my favor, giving me JUST that extra bit of negative I needed so that something wasn't cut off. Many of the R shots that in the heat of the moment I thought had been framed properly, turned out to sometimes be just a little too tight. Is that an excuse? No, not really, but what I realized was that the M got into trouble when it was pressed into doing something that should be done with an SLR. The M is a reportage camera and it does one thing better than any other camera I know; shooting people and subjects at close to medium ranges in any light. So now I carry Ms and a R6.2. feli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hall1 Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 Kevin, I'm one of those who "whine about flare", still I don't think Jay deserved to be attacked publicly, whatever private grudge you both have towards each other. To me, Jay's "tirades" usually have at least some factual basis. I even got one of his typically sarcastic response to my recent post on flash trigger voltage, and I don't mind a bit. To me, most of his sarcasm is directed at Solms, some at fondlers (whose existence you can't deny), while others are usually jokes in the form of wise cracks. No offence to you, but I think it's better to settle your scores privately. BTW, note Kamol's response to this thread. Obviously we don't always need to be trolled to get into flame wars. 8^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johann_fuller Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 My viewpoint; The 50mm frames after the M4-P are the worst - not just a bit out but massivley undersised - my calculations show a greater than 30% loss of film area at infinity!- no SLR is anywhere near this bad. No matter how good Leica glass is you simply can't afford to loose this amount of film area on 35mm film due to the enlargement of grain. If people accept this - would they also accept similar errors in the accuracy of the RF?, the meter? and the shutter? This is a damning shame on leica designers who should have addressed this problem long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 All the frames in the 6-frame finders are smaller than in the 3 and 4-frame finders, not just the 50. I could explain the shrinkage of the 50 on the basis that starting with the 11817, the close focusing distance was decreased from 1m to 0.7m thus the frame needs to be a bit smaller. But I can't fathom why the other framelines were shrunken, other than--and this is pure speculation--Leica thought their customers could use a little extra margin of safety so not to cut off objects at the outside of the frame. That said, I've learned easy workarounds that give me pretty accurate framing, and at this stage I'd almost prefer status-quo to a new and undoubtedly problem-prone more complex design. A digital M back would solve the problem of course, if it has an LCD monitor, but in that case the back would need its own digital "shutter" so the M's shutter could stay open. And of course a digital M back is even less likely than a redesigned rangefinder, for the reasons I posted earlier in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 <<I also suspect that it's mostly people weaned on SLR's who do most of the complaining. -- Al Kaplan >> Al brings up a great point. I use Nikon FTn's and Canon EOS 1V's as my 35mm SLRs, which have 100% finders. But when I used Leica SLR's it was exasperating to find that these so-called "pro" bodies don't have 100% finders. At least in the M's you can see outside the frame or call up a different frameline, and work around the inaccuracy. With the R bodies you're sh*t out of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 I like Jay's posts. I read them even if I have no interest in the subject. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 I geuss all those wonderful images taken over the last 65 years is just due to happenstance! My god, with all the problems in the world, it's no wonder that non-Leica users think we're a bunch of idiots when they read this drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted August 18, 2003 Author Share Posted August 18, 2003 >>>I geuss all those wonderful images taken over the last 65 years is just due to happenstance! My god, with all the problems in the world, it's no wonder that non- Leica users think we're a bunch of idiots when they read this drivel.<<< I posted the question because, while I had always known that the M6 frames were not accurate, the degree of inaccuracy floored me when I saw my friend's Fuji 6x9 and how the frame line gorws and shrinks as you go through the focusing range. And having read all the above informative comments I am still amazed that Leica has done nothing about this in forty years. It's obvious that a more accurate framing system can lead to a larger proportion of better-framed shots, or at least to less need for cropping. And it is not drivel to want a better framing system as it is possible technically. Insteas, as Jay would say, we have the MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 Just one question Mitch. You state that you knew of the innaccuracy of the M's viewfinder, but were floored after looking at your friends Fuji. So did it regularily interfere with your photography beforehand? Does now? I suspect not. I would rather Leica concentrate their limited resources (check their published financial statements...they make less money than some 'mom & pop' business's in the US) on lens improvments and durability, than on that 'silly millimetre' in the viewfinder. I can look at just about anything I own (you can too I suspect) and find that other people own items that are 'better' (and cost be damned...I've been told on this forum how crappy my B&O stereo is, though I like it fine)...I've said it before and I'll say it again...Leica ain't perfect, and I defy you to find me one product, no matter the cost, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted August 18, 2003 Author Share Posted August 18, 2003 Bob: You have a point in that the lack of more accurate framing has not significantly interfered with my photography, but more accurate framing would still be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johann_fuller Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 If only it was a 'silly millimetre'<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 This is a simulation of how it looks if you use my technique of backing your eye from the eyepiece (glasses-wearers just don't squash into the eyepiece)and using the (sort of)rectangular eyepiece cutout to frame outside the 50 frames for normal shooting distances. Works very well.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furcafe Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 Douglas, I guess our experience w/Noct is very different, but it's done exactly what I bought it for, i.e., enabling me to get shots I normally wouldn't be able to get. Also, sure the Noct is expensive, but I wouldn't compare it a $150 Japanese optic, I would compare it to it's only equivalent, the Canon EOS (?) f/1, which I believe cost a lot more than $150. ------- "[Ditto for the Noctilux: if such image quality came out of a $150 Japanese optic, no one -- NO ONE -- would carry on about its "unique optical signature;" they'd just call it a piece of shit.]" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 I'm not really knocking the Noct, Christopher...Rather, I think that instead of carrying on about its "unique optical signature" or "fingerprint" or "bokeh" perhaps we should just acknowledge that its imaging qualities, particularly at or near f1, are really pretty atrocious -- severe vignetting, wicked coma and spherical aberrations (I think that's what they're called -- one person posted a Noct picture that reminded me of watching water swirl down a drain, such were the edge and corner effects), etc. My point is that when people spend huge money on gear, they sometimes then try to turn the flaws into virtues because it's too painful to admit "Yeah, that Noctilux cost mucho bucks, and the picture quality blows, but at least I've got f1 when I need it." And if you need f1, well, fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 I'm a Jay fan. If he was talking about bootlaces it would be interesting. Kevin, i like too. Chill out Kevin, see, you have made me agree with Spirras, what a worry. Kamol, you have nicked my ;) on it's own. Use it for Spirras when he starts bellowing. Second thought,carry on.Fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_moth Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 I'm also a Jay fan. I've learned a lot from him. I can always tell, though, when he has a bee in his bonnet. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now