bill Posted October 22, 2009 Share #21 Posted October 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well in that case the M9 is not calibrated the way film Leicas (M6, M7, MP) are calibrated, which will be a bane to anyone who intends to shoot them together. Pity. Rubbish. The M7 and MP certainly are optimised to 1 metre. The M8 was the evolutionary dead-end. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Hi bill, Take a look here framelines. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
noah_addis Posted October 23, 2009 Share #22 Posted October 23, 2009 I'm aware that by 'removing' frames, it is a negative space that must be masked or filled in, unless the entire frameline mask is replaced. Nonetheless, the net effect is of removing lines in the finder. I know 3rd party shops may do the masking on film bodies, but I'm not risking voiding the warranty of a new M9 so at some point I'll see if Leica can do the work for me. I may be wrong, but I also thought that the framelines in current film M cameras were calibrated for 1 Meter, as were those in the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 23, 2009 Share #23 Posted October 23, 2009 Rubbish. The M7 and MP certainly are optimised to 1 metre. All the published literature from Leica and learned others such as Gunter Osterloh says the M6-7-P are optimised for the close-focus limit of each focal length. That would indeed be 1 metre for the 90 (and 75?) but 1.5m for the 135, and 0.7m for the rest. So I think you should CC Leica and those other authors and direct your "Rubbish" at them matey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 23, 2009 Share #24 Posted October 23, 2009 Your original point... Well in that case the M9 is not calibrated the way film Leicas (M6, M7, MP) are calibrated, which will be a bane to anyone who intends to shoot them together. Pity. My response: Rubbish. The M7 and MP certainly are optimised to 1 metre. In other words you were asserting incorrectly that they were not optimised to the same distance. I pointed out your error. Oh, and from the from the consistently arrogant and confrontational tone of your posts, I for one am delighted not to be your "matey". Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 23, 2009 Share #25 Posted October 23, 2009 In general the framelines on the M9 seem to be outside the image so if one crop closely, there will not be missing anything, but there will be a little extra to crop away later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 23, 2009 Share #26 Posted October 23, 2009 In other words you were asserting incorrectly that they were not optimised to the same distance. I pointed out your error. Oh, and from the from the consistently arrogant and confrontational tone of your posts, I for one am delighted not to be your "matey". Regards, Bill And I pointed out that what you call "my error" that I was "asserting incorrectly" is in fact substantiated in print in numerous books by well-respected authorities on Leica, not to mention Leica themselves. So if anyone is being "consistently arrogant and confrontational" it seems to be you. I'm not the one saying Leica and Osterloh and a half dozen other authorities don't know what they're talking about when it comes to Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 24, 2009 Share #27 Posted October 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) And I pointed out that what you call "my error" that I was "asserting incorrectly" is in fact substantiated in print in numerous books by well-respected authorities on Leica, not to mention Leica themselves. Now, Mr BurrellPhoto, firstly I am grateful to you for encouraging me to spend a little time on a trip down memory lane. I have spent a little time this morning in the convivial company of Messrs. Osterloh, Bower, Newcombe, Benser, Laney, Hunecke, Eastland, Landt, Puts, Scheerer, Matheson and of course Morgan and Lester. I have browsed various Leica publications too, un-attributed though they are. The strange thing is - and maybe you can help me out here - I can find nothing in all that reading to support your assertion that "All the published literature from Leica and learned others such as Gunter Osterloh says the M6-7-P are optimised for the close-focus limit of each focal length." Feel free to quote directly here from any one of "...Leica, Osterloh and a half dozen other authorities..." to whom you refer in your post. For my part, I suspect that you are getting confused with EBL, which is a totally different concept. Not to worry - it happens to us all. If you don't want to admit you are wrong - and I do appreciate that middle-aged men have that problem in spades - you can always claim the politician's favourite defence of "mis-remembering". Have a splendid weekend. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 24, 2009 Share #28 Posted October 24, 2009 The strange thing is - and maybe you can help me out here - I can find nothing in all that reading to support your assertion that "All the published literature from Leica and learned others such as Gunter Osterloh says the M6-7-P are optimised for the close-focus limit of each focal length." Feel free to quote directly here from any one of "...Leica, Osterloh and a half dozen other authorities..." to whom you refer in your post. Gladly... Osterloh, Gunter Leica M: The Advanced School of Photography, Umschau Verlag, 1987. p.28 "The luminous frame in the viewfinder of a Leica M6 is designed to outline the subject area covered by the respective lens when it is set at its shortest focusing distance...Therefore a lens set at any distance greater than its closest focusing distance will always record a little more of the subject within the full 24x36mm format on the film than outlined by the respective frame in the viewfinder...." If you don't want to admit you are wrong - and I do appreciate that middle-aged men have that problem in spades]NB I added the boldface for your benefit, as I do appreciate and sympathise with the issues that confront men who are well past middle-age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 24, 2009 Share #29 Posted October 24, 2009 It says the same in the 2002 German edition. I am not sure if it is true though. When I used my M8, I always got much more in my photos, or at least that was my impression. I also tested the M8 with various lenses at various distances and found it to have as much as perhaps 25% more than the frames showed, depending on distance and focal length. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/31212-frameline-accuracy-comparison.html Now if the M8 is more inaccurate than the M6, the question is what it was tuned for? There is nothing more inaccurate (while reasonable) than the closest focusing distance of each lens, at all distances. This leads me to think that the M8 was actually tuned for the closest distance, but the M6, while it was documented in Osterloh that way, was not actually tuned that way. Others have confirmed this suspicion. Various people talking to Leica have been told that the film cameras were traditionally tuned for a 1m distance for all lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 24, 2009 Share #30 Posted October 24, 2009 Excerps of Instruction manuals: M8 (page 135): "The size of the bright-line frame corresponds to an image size of 18x27mm at the shortest setting distance for each focal length." Was the same with film Ms aside from image size if memory serves. At least with M6J (French manual page 132), M7 (ditto page 71) and MP (ditto page 50). M8.2 (page 163): "The size of the bright-line frame corresponds to the sensor size of 18x27mm at a setting distance of 2 meters." M9 (page 175): "The size of the bright-line frame corresponds exactly to the sensor size of approx. 23.9x35.8mm at a setting distance of 1 meter." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 25, 2009 Share #31 Posted October 25, 2009 Gladly... Osterloh, Gunter Leica M: The Advanced School of Photography, Umschau Verlag, 1987. p.28 "The luminous frame in the viewfinder of a Leica M6 is designed to outline the subject area covered by the respective lens when it is set at its shortest focusing distance...Therefore a lens set at any distance greater than its closest focusing distance will always record a little more of the subject within the full 24x36mm format on the film than outlined by the respective frame in the viewfinder...." NB I added the boldface for your benefit, as I do appreciate and sympathise with the issues that confront men who are well past middle-age Now how can that be true:confused: Some lensese of the same focal length have different closest focussing distances, 0.7 or 1.0 meter. How can the camera vary the framelines with the lens mounted???? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 25, 2009 Share #32 Posted October 25, 2009 How can the camera vary the framelines with the lens mounted???? Obviously it doesn't and this is where the present disagreement may stem from. For example, the 50mm framelines in the M6 may have been set to then common closest focussing distance of 1m (I think only the Summicron at the time focussed to 0.7m?). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 25, 2009 Share #33 Posted October 25, 2009 Now how can that be true:confused:Some lensese of the same focal length have different closest focussing distances, 0.7 or 1.0 meter. How can the camera vary the framelines with the lens mounted???? It can't, and that's my simple point. I notice incidentally that we are now down to mulling over a single ambiguous statement from Herr. Osterloh - a far remove from "All the published literature and learned others..." "I've told you a million times not to exaggerate..." Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 26, 2009 Share #34 Posted October 26, 2009 Now how can that be true:confused:Some lensese of the same focal length have different closest focussing distances, 0.7 or 1.0 meter. How can the camera vary the framelines with the lens mounted???? I never said it was true, just that it was published in literature by both Leica and independent authorities. Just as my own experience with the M8.2 clearly convinces me that the framelines are not "set" at 2m at all. The best way to handle a Leica IMHO is to experiment, not simply accept Leica's word. It can't, and that's my simple point. I notice incidentally that we are now down to mulling over a single ambiguous statement from Herr. Osterloh - a far remove from "All the published literature and learned others..." "I've told you a million times not to exaggerate..." Regards, Bill Geesh, and you have the cheek to say others can't admit being wrong "LCT" above quoted from the M8 manual which corroborates Osterloh. There are indeed many other references, however given it's obvious you're in this for the sake of combat and not constructive discussion, I don't see the point in wasting time researching and quoting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 26, 2009 Share #35 Posted October 26, 2009 Not sure what corroborates whom or vice-versa but the "approx." of the M9 manual could have been used for the M8 and film Ms as well i guess. The "1 meter", "2 meters" and "shortest distance" referred to in the manuals are just approximations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 26, 2009 Share #36 Posted October 26, 2009 I absolutely agree. However, regardless of the approximation what's essential if these cameras are used for photography vs forum argument, is consistency. Before Bill gratuitously hijacked the thread, the point I made initially was that if one were to buy an M9 thinking it will be an ideal partner for, say, an M7, one might be disappointed if the framelines were not calibrated identically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 26, 2009 Share #37 Posted October 26, 2009 Hardly see any hijaking here. Erfahrener Benutzers never hijack threads anyway, they just enlighten them by their knowledge and wisdom, you should learn this by heart if you want to stay alive on this forum. Seriously i could understand your concern about the M8.2 but why about the M9? One meter is so close to the shortest focus distance of most lenses that i would be surprised if there were significant differences between the M9 and 0.72x film Ms as far as framelines accuracy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 26, 2009 Share #38 Posted October 26, 2009 Erfahrener Benutzers never hijack threads anyway, they just enlighten them by their knowledge and wisdom, you should learn this by heart if you want to stay alive on this forum. Aha, so it's like that on this forum too, eh? Pity. I would've hoped for a higher standard, in keeping with the auspiciousness of Leica. Duly noted, and many thanks. Seriously i could understand your concern about the M8.2 but why about the M9? One meter is so close to the shortest focus distance of most lenses that i would be surprised if there were significant differences between the M9 and 0.72x film Ms as far as framelines accuracy. I never made a study of it, but whatever the discrepancy is, manifests itself at all distances since the framelines are fixed in size. Therefore--and again this is based on conjecture--a difference in FOV that results in a few centimetres length/width at close-focus would translate to a difference of many metres at infinity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 26, 2009 Share #39 Posted October 26, 2009 Aha, so it's like that on this forum too, eh? Pity. I would've hoped for a higher standard, in keeping with the auspiciousness of Leica... A good sense of humour could be useful as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 27, 2009 Share #40 Posted October 27, 2009 Yes, but somehow it's always the newcomer admonished to have a sense of humour (defined in this case as an ability to smile like the village fool whilst submitting passively to rude disrespect by resident bullies). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.