M9 versus M8 Framelines

[mitchell baum]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a M8 and am contemplating a M9.

 

I have 28, 50 and 90 lenses.

 

I often like to shoot at the long end. Yesterday, and other times I wish I had a longer lens, and wonder about getting a 135. But, it seems like it would show very small framelines in the viewfinder.

 

Would a 135 be better in the M9? In other words would the 28 be squeezed in the viewfinder and the 90 and 135 be improved?

 

On the other hand, I guess I loose magnification by going to the larger sensor?

 

Is a 135 on a M9 more magnification than a 90 on an M8?

 

Thanks for any help with this.

 

Mitchell

[Advertisement]

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

[zlatkob]

Is a 135 on a M9 more magnification than a 90 on an M8?

Yes, but just a little ...

90 x 1.33 = 119.7

135 x 1.0 = 135

[Shootist]

A 135 on a M9 would be just longer then a 90 on the M8. As described in the post above.

A 135 on the M8 gives you a 180mm lens, 135 * 1.33.

 

Although with the M9 you get more pixels and can crop that image down to M8 size, pixel count, and get the same result as the 135 on the M8.

 

As to frame lines the 28mm lines on the M9 are very tight, from what I've heard and I'm not sure if the M9 includes lines for the 135.

[lars_bergquist]

As to frame lines the 28mm lines on the M9 are very tight, from what I've heard and I'm not sure if the M9 includes lines for the 135.

 

The M9 has a frame for the 135. Cropping the image down to M8 size would give you the equivalent of 120, not 135mm.

 

And yes, the 28mm frame is barely visible, and nearly unvisible if you wear glasses.

 

The old man from the Age of the M3

[Shootist]

The M9 has a frame for the 135. Cropping the image down to M8 size would give you the equivalent of 120, not 135mm.

 

And yes, the 28mm frame is barely visible, and nearly unvisible if you wear glasses.

 

The old man from the Age of the M3

 

Lars I meant to crop out, that's what crop means (Not resize), the extra pixels you get with the M9. Doing that give you the same image, pixel count and dimensions, as what is capture by the CROPPED M8 sensor. And the 135mm lens on the M8 is equivalent to a 180mm lens on a full frame camera. Not sure where you got the 120 figure you used.

It's just like the 50 on a M8 gives you a image equivalent to a 66.5mm lens on FF and a 28 = 37 on FF.

[Jeff S]

For the OP, keep in mind that you can of course use a viewfinder magnifier, e.g., 1.25 or 1.4, for your longer lenses. Both the M8 and M9 have .68 magnification as is.

 

Jeff

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mitchell:

 

1) The 135 will capture a tighter image on an M9 than your 90 did on an M8 - by 10% or so.

 

2) The framelines reflect this - the 135 lines are a smaller "box" in the M9 than the 90 lines are in the M8 - again by 10% or so.

 

3) The M9's 135 lines are different from the M8's 90 lines in that instead of drawing the sides of the image area, with missing corners, they draw the corners of the image area, with missing sides (See diagram)

 

4) I find the 135 lines in the M9 (or film bodies) to be fine - others think they are too small for composition. IMHO if you were OK with the M8's 90 lines, there won't be much difference.

 

5) As is often mentioned on the forum, the lines for the longer lenses in the M cameras define the area covered at close-focus distances. If you are shooting a 135 for scenics or anything beyond 2 meters or so, you will get more in the final image than you expected.

 

If you crop for the exact framing the lines showed you, you will get about a 150mm view. If you crop by 1.33x, you will get exactly what the M8 would produce with a 135 lens - an effective "180mm" image and 10.3 Megapixels.

 

Put another way - I shot with a 50 and 90 on the M8, and have found that a 75 and 135 on the M9 are pretty much an exact match in terms of the shooting experience.

 

However, the 135 lenses are either slower than the 90s (f/4 or f/3.4) or substantially bigger and heavier (the 135 f/2.8 with goggles). The extra stop in higher ISO performance in the M9 helps alleviate that to some extent, though. I can generally shoot my 135 f/4 in the same light for which I used a 90 f/2.8 on the M8, bump the ISO up a stop to keep the same shutter speed, and get no more noise.

[Jeff S]

Except if you use a magnifier...post #6. A 1.25 magnifier, for instance, effectively changes your magnification from .68 to .85, the same value as some film M's designed specifically to use with long(ish) lenses.

 

Jeff

[adan]

??? - Jeff, not sure what/who you're responding to? You can use a magnifier on the M9 to enlarge the 135 lines - but you can also use a magnifier on the M8 to enlarge the 90 lines. The relationship still remains the same.

[ho_co]

Mitchell--

Some intrepid people actually used the M8 with the 135 by simply figuring the 135 covered slightly greater f.o.v. than the rangefinder patch.

 

As for the M9, the frame is small but usable. Andy pointed out elsewhere that some of the frame-line diagrams in the M9 instructions are wrong, but this one seems to agree with his diagram.

 

[ATTACH]198151[/ATTACH]

[Jeff S]

??? - Jeff, not sure what/who you're responding to? You can use a magnifier on the M9 to enlarge the 135 lines - but you can also use a magnifier on the M8 to enlarge the 90 lines. The relationship still remains the same.

 

Andy, I was not disputing your observations, which are quite correct (as usual, I might add...your posts are among the best on the forum...thanks).

 

Rather, I was emphasizing for the OP that all frame lines, notably for longer focal lengths (which matter most for the OP) will become larger and easier to see with the magnifier. So, the relative sizes of frame lines (on the M8) remain the same, but the absolute sizes will increase.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Jeff

[mitchell baum]

Thanks everyone. Very complete and useful info. Especially Andy for the framelines. I've been out of town without a computer so couldn't answer til now.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell