M8 Framing Lines

[jfaier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am a relative Leica newbie with the M8 and I have a question on framing lines. How precise are these framing lines? I have tried a number of tests where I frame and then chimp and the actual shot always is a bit larger - left and right, than the framing lines suggest. I have tried this with the 28mm ASPH, the 50mm, and the 90. I have manually adjusted the framing lever to see if the lenses were pulling up the wrong lines but this just makes it more extreme. What accounts for this discrepancy. Maybe I have been lookign thru a 4"x5" too long.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[marknorton]

John, I think the move to digital allows us to see more clearly that the framelines are conservative - you get more in the image than you might expect.

 

They're set to give most accurate results at closest focus and that inevitably means - because the effective focal length of the lens changes as the subject distance changes - that they will be off at infinity.

[jfaier]

After I posted I saw another thread on Framign Accuract - and I may have answered my own question. Sorry, didn't mean to create forum noise. Any thoughts would be helpful.

[jfaier]

Mark that's a bummer - the overage on the chip, e.g., that the framing is tighter than what the chip records, amounts to wasted pixels.

[ho_co]

John--

Remember, a rangefinder camera is quite different from an SLR in that respect (and certainly from 4" x 5").

 

Since the frame lines have a fixed size, the frames cannot be accurate at all distances.

 

Therefore Leica has designed the camera so that you always record at least what you see in the finder frames. You can always crop the edges if you don't want them. You say 'wasted pixels'; I think you could as well say 'extra pixels.'

 

It's just a difference in the way a rangefinder camera works; not better, not worse, just different.

[stunsworth]

Hi John, this has always been the case from the M3 to the M8

 

As Howard says the coverage change acording to the focused distance. To get accurate framing you'll need an SLR I'm afraid, and even then most of them show more in the file than you see through the viewfinder.

[steve_l]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Although, for the M8, Leica changed its 100% accurate framing distance from medium (a few feet) to closest focus, so a typical picture does have more uncovered frame area than on film M's...perhaps that is theoretically better, there is never more in the finder than you get, but much less practical at normal shooting distances.

[ho_co]

Although, for the M8, Leica changed its 100% accurate framing distance from medium (a few feet) to closest focus, so a typical picture does have more uncovered frame area than on film M's...perhaps that is theoretically better, there is never more in the finder than you get, but much less practical at normal shooting distances.

I feel the same way personally.

 

It was interesting to see S Reid lauding the change as increasing the accuracy of the frame lines while at the same time E Puts was complaining that the new framing was less accurate.

 

Either way is a compromise; neither is as accurate at all distances as an SLR; and depending on what an individual shoots, one or the other might seem more reasonable.

 

(Actually, considering the size of current SLRs, do you suppose Leica should consider reintroducing the Visoflex? )

[JGW]

I collected my black M8 last Saturday, and hadn't really had time to charge the battery and try a couple of lenses on it until today. Immediately I've noticed a major flaw in its design: frame line inaccuracy. There is no reason why the frame-lines have to be so inaccurate for middle distance composition, which is the usual shooting distance for rangefinder cameras. I'm not so bothered about accuracy for closer shots, I'd probably use an SLR for those anyway, and wide establishing shots wouldn't suffer much from 'more' image than you see during composition, but for middle distance, they should be 100% or as near as damn it. I just find this a real disappointment, and totally unexpected from a Leica M, and I don't understand why so few people seem bothered by this.

Now I know some of you will think that previous film Ms always showed a little less than you got on the negative/slide, but they certainly were not as inaccurate as this M8. I've been a photographer for over 20 years and used M cameras (and Olympus OMs) for all that time and I know this to be so; as any photographer should know, when you rigourously compose for the full frame, you know what you are going to get when you see the final image no matter how much time has gone by since you took the picture.

The camera is so beautiful and inspiring to use, it makes it all the more disappointing that this problem exists. I've even got use to the unusual sounding clunk of the shutter, which actually sounds much louder to the photographer than to the subject; have someone use your camera from a few feet away and listen. If they are taking a picture of people, and they're not keen photographers, they'll still have a chance of getting the heads in the shot with these 'generous' framelines too!

[gurtch]

I collected my black M8 last Saturday, and hadn't really had time to charge the battery and try a couple of lenses on it until today. Immediately I've noticed a major flaw in its design: frame line inaccuracy. There is no reason why the frame-lines have to be so inaccurate for middle distance composition, which is the usual shooting distance for rangefinder cameras. I'm not so bothered about accuracy for closer shots, I'd probably use an SLR for those anyway, and wide establishing shots wouldn't suffer much from 'more' image than you see during composition, but for middle distance, they should be 100% or as near as damn it. I just find this a real disappointment, and totally unexpected from a Leica M, and I don't understand why so few people seem bothered by this.

Now I know some of you will think that previous film Ms always showed a little less than you got on the negative/slide, but they certainly were not as inaccurate as this M8. I've been a photographer for over 20 years and used M cameras (and Olympus OMs) for all that time and I know this to be so; as any photographer should know, when you rigourously compose for the full frame, you know what you are going to get when you see the final image no matter how much time has gone by since you took the picture.

The camera is so beautiful and inspiring to use, it makes it all the more disappointing that this problem exists. I've even got use to the unusual sounding clunk of the shutter, which actually sounds much louder to the photographer than to the subject; have someone use your camera from a few feet away and listen. If they are taking a picture of people, and they're not keen photographers, they'll still have a chance of getting the heads in the shot with these 'generous' framelines too!

I noticed it also while shooting a fleet of moored commercial fishing boats. I framed tightly, and when I looked at the rear screen, there was a lot of empty space on one side. By trial and error (about 3 shots) I got the framing I wanted. Focus distance was about 15 or 20 feet.

Dave

[sean_reid]

I feel the same way personally.

 

It was interesting to see S Reid lauding the change as increasing the accuracy of the frame lines while at the same time E Puts was complaining that the new framing was less accurate.

 

Either way is a compromise; neither is as accurate at all distances as an SLR; and depending on what an individual shoots, one or the other might seem more reasonable.

 

(Actually, considering the size of current SLRs, do you suppose Leica should consider reintroducing the Visoflex? )

 

I didn't laud it, I just explained that Leica set the frame lines to be accurate at a close focusing distance. There's no perfect solution for this because photographers like to work at different distances. I try to get used to how a camera "sees" with a given lens so that I can know where the picture edge's will actually fall (outside the frame lines).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[thrid]

With the introduction of the M6, Leica shrank the amount of coverage that all frame-lines show. The 50mm position suffered the most and the 90 didn't fare much better.

 

As an example:

 

The old style frame-lines for 50mm showed the coverage at 1 meter. Starting with the M6 they show coverage at 70 cm, reflecting the ability of modern Leica 50's to focus that close. Another way to think of it is that the new markings show what's on a slide with some of the negative cropped by the cardboard frame and the old markings show a full 135 format negative.

 

Now, that's dandy if you are shooting at 70cm (or only slide film), but things get very inaccurate at distances beyond 3-5 meters. Of course that begs the question "At what distance is the average photo taken?" With a 50 it's probably around 5-10 meters, not 70cm. When focused at infinity things are really off and you end up with 15-20% more on your negative than you expect. A while back I read an article where a chap had figured out that the new 50mm markings actually show the coverage of a 60mm lens at working distances (5m to infinity)

 

Obviously no one expects a range-finder camera to show 100% accurate coverage. That's what an SLR is for. But we have gone from the old frame-lines being reasonably accurate, to the new ones being wildly off the mark. That's a bad thing. I've tried to explain this to a few Leica reps, but all I got was a blank stare or was told that they are mathematically accurate. My answer has always been that while it may sound great on paper, it stinks in the real world.

 

In light of that I refuse to shoot anything from a 50 up on a modern metered body and instead use my M2/M4. The metered bodies get the 35, which still works well enough.

 

(The reason why there is this discrepancy in coverage, between close-up and infinity is that the lens changes it's focal length ever so slightly as it is focused. So close-up it truly is a 50 and at infinity it may turn into something like a 47mm.)

[jaapv]

I noticed it also while shooting a fleet of moored commercial fishing boats. I framed tightly, and when I looked at the rear screen, there was a lot of empty space on one side. By trial and error (about 3 shots) I got the framing I wanted. Focus distance was about 15 or 20 feet.

Dave

That hits the nail squarely on the head. It is just a question of getting used to, after some time it is a second nature. Old Leica users like me predicted these posts as soon as the M8 was announced:p And the lack of time lag between shooting and seeing makes it a lot easier to learn than it used to be with film.

[cocker]

Mark that's a bummer - the overage on the chip, e.g., that the framing is tighter than what the chip records, amounts to wasted pixels.

 

On the contrary, I'd rather "waste pixels" than find that part of my subject was missing!

[JGW]

With the introduction of the M6, Leica shrank the amount of coverage that all frame-lines show. The 50mm position suffered the most and the 90 didn't fare much better.

 

As an example:

 

The old style frame-lines for 50mm showed the coverage at 1 meter. Starting with the M6 they show coverage at 70 cm, reflecting the ability of modern Leica 50's to focus that close. Another way to think of it is that the new markings show what's on a slide with some of the negative cropped by the cardboard frame and the old markings show a full 135 format negative.

 

Now, that's dandy if you are shooting at 70cm (or only slide film), but things get very inaccurate at distances beyond 3-5 meters. Of course that begs the question "At what distance is the average photo taken?" With a 50 it's probably around 5-10 meters, not 70cm. When focused at infinity things are really off and you end up with 15-20% more on your negative than you expect. A while back I read an article where a chap had figured out that the new 50mm markings actually show the coverage of a 60mm lens at working distances (5m to infinity)

 

Obviously no one expects a range-finder camera to show 100% accurate coverage. That's what an SLR is for. But we have gone from the old frame-lines being reasonably accurate, to the new ones being wildly off the mark. That's a bad thing. I've tried to explain this to a few Leica reps, but all I got was a blank stare or was told that they are mathematically accurate. My answer has always been that while it may sound great on paper, it stinks in the real world.

 

In light of that I refuse to shoot anything from a 50 up on a modern metered body and instead use my M2/M4. The metered bodies get the 35, which still works well enough.

 

(The reason why there is this discrepancy in coverage, between close-up and infinity is that the lens changes it's focal length ever so slightly as it is focused. So close-up it truly is a 50 and at infinity it may turn into something like a 47mm.)

 

Thank you thrid, I've learnt something here. I've only ever used my trusty M2 and M3 cameras, so it seems I had the luxury of reasonably accurate frame lines at middle distance with 35 and 50mm lenses, without realising later Ms were any different. I call middle distance around 2-6 mts; I used these cameras up until around 5 years ago for my work, before I had to move on to digital. Though my colleagues were using M6s and probably M7s, I never saw any advantage in updating my old cameras, as they were reliable, inconspicuous and accurate.

Its all very good getting to know where a camera 'sees' we all do that, but during fleeting moments of capture, the camera goes to your eye and you compose and press the shutter often instinctively and often instantaneously. I don't want visually inaccurate framelines to be part of this process, and I don't want the conjecture they would introduce at that time. I admit that I might be different in that this bothers me so much, I wish it didn't, but I think we all have to be who we are to work to our strengths. This camera is so widely off the mark for me, that I'm seriously considering sending it back. I'm so disappointed. I was going to send for the new 28 Elmarit 2.8 lens from Germany. Could someone please tell me whether the framelines for this wider lens are any closer to the truth of what would be recorded. I've tested only 35 and 50mm lenses so far, and they're both way off what I would have expected.

 

Jeffrey.

[thrid]

Hey Jeffrey -

 

I own the M2/M4/M6ttl/M7 and a dead M4-2.

 

On the M2/M4/M4-2 all markings frame as expected. No problems there.

 

On the M6ttl/M7 the 28 and 35 are reasonably accurate.

The 50 is way, way off to the point of being useless.

The 75 is pretty good.

The 90/135 markings are pretty far off compared to the old ones.

 

I shot the M8 briefly at a Leica Day, but need to spend some more

time with it. Off the cuff the 28 felt pretty good.

 

Here is something interesting. This is ASSUMING that the M8 has the M6 frame set and not one that was re-calculated for x1.33. I have no idea what is really in there.

 

28mm x 1.33 = 37.24 - This should work out pretty good with the 35mm framelines. It may actually be more accurate than a 35 on an M6/MP/M7.

 

35mm x 1.33 = 46.55 - This could be a disaster, IF the M8 framelines are still showing the same coverage as in an M6/MP/M7 (approximately 60mm).

[ho_co]

I was going to send for the new 28 Elmarit 2.8 lens from Germany. Could someone please tell me whether the framelines for this wider lens are any closer to the truth of what would be recorded. I've tested only 35 and 50mm lenses so far, and they're both way off what I would have expected.

Jeffrey--

All the frames have been adjusted to be accurate at closest focus distance on the M8, while they were previously set for 2 m.

 

That is to say, the 28 frames should show the same relative accuracy as those of the other lenses.

 

 

The reason why there is this discrepancy in coverage, between close-up and infinity is that the lens changes it's focal length ever so slightly as it is focused. So close-up it truly is a 50 and at infinity it may turn into something like a 47mm.

More correctly, the lens is its defined focal length at infinity and effectively becomes longer as focused closer.

 

--HC

[thrid]

Jeffrey--

All the frames have been adjusted to be accurate at closest focus distance on the M8, while they were previously set for 2 m.

 

Sorry, but this isn't accurate. Even in the pre-M6 cameras the framelines never showed the coverage at a distance greater than 1 meter. In post M6 cameras they show considerably less.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jrc]

I may be wrong, but I think the problem that Leica had is that their newer lenses are quite close-focusing, and you really wouldn't want to have *less* in the photo than is shown within the frame lines. Then you really would be at sea -- the option to crop only runs one way. The good thing about the LCD screen is that with any given lens, a little chimping will get you a fairly good idea of where you're at, even if you never get it quite exactly.

 

JC

[carstenw]

Like Howard, I have also read that for the M8, the framelines have been designed to be accurate at the closest focus distance. The new philosophy is that you should never get less than you think you will get using the lines. This means that they are significantly less accurate at distance. I can confirm that this is the case (both up close and far) with the 50 Lux Asph, which close is very accurate, and across a street (maybe 15-20m) has an extra roughly 10% across the frame (I shot exactly this kind of shot tonight, and was surprised at how much extra there was).