Framelines difference between CL and M3?

[Will Inoue]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

I'm a new member - thanks for having me!

 

I have an issue I would love some input on. I hope this is the correct forum. If not, I apologize.

 

I have a Leica M3 and a Leica CL. I have had the M3 for a long time, but the CL is a recent addition.

 

What I'm noticing is a fairly large discrepancy between frameline interpretation between the two cameras. On the CL, the 50mm framelines appear to be much tighter (zoomed) than the exact same scene viewed through the M3's 50mm framelines. For example, if I focus on a grid of bricks, more bricks show in the M3's 50mm framelines than the CL's 50mm framelines. It appears to be about 5mm worth. The M3 framelines would fall right in between the 40mm and 50mm CL framelines.

 

I'm not refering to finder magnification. I know the finders are different that way. And I'm not referring to what shows on film - just finder framelines to finder framelines. (not shot film w/ CL yet)

 

Is this an issue with the CL? I can't imagine Leica letting something like this pass - to me 5mm is a huge difference! Or perhaps do I have a camera with something out of adjustment? Thanks much in advance. -Will

[Advertisement]

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

[aesop]

...framelines are not absolute (even on the Ms). If framing is critical to your work, I recommend carrying out proper testing with both bodies to clarify the situation.

 

I suspect you will find very little difference but, having not done the specific comparison myself, I am in no position to proffer real-world advice. Perhaps some other members can help.

[Will Inoue]

...framelines are not absolute (even on the Ms). If framing is critical to your work, I recommend carrying out proper testing with both bodies to clarify the situation.

 

I suspect you will find very little difference but, having not done the specific comparison myself, I am in no position to proffer real-world advice. Perhaps some other members can help.

 

Hi Aesop,

 

Thanks for your reply. I understand the inherent inaccuracies of the rangefinder camera having used them for years. But not being familiar with the Leica CL, I am hoping that someone in this group has the two cameras and can confirm or not whether this is unique to my CL and whether this is the way CL's are designed - or if there is an issue with my CL (damage, bad repair, etc). 5MM doesn't sound like a lot, but when composing at 25' that is something like an extra foot of subject all around and this goes beyond just general frameline vagueness imo . -Will

[aesop]

...and lest I forget, Will, welcome to the forum. I am certain there are members qualified to comment on this matter.

[Will Inoue]

...and lest I forget, Will, welcome to the forum. I am certain there are members qualified to comment on this matter.

 

 

Thanks!

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Will,

 

Welcome.

 

I think it is quite possible you have measured/observed properly adjusted mechanisms/framelines working correctly.

 

I think, I'm not sure, others please correct me if I am wrong, various M cameras place frame lines @ different distances from the film plane and therefore the images within them are different angles of view. This would be why the equivaqlent frame in different cameras might enclose different scenes when measured from the same distance from the camera.

 

These measurements are always from the inside of the frame lines AFAIK.

 

I think the measurements are the closest the lens in question would focus @ the time the camera was built. Example: M-3: 50 mm lens focus is to 1 meter. 90 mm lens focus is to 1 meter. 135mm lens focus is to 1.5 meter. 35mm lens w/ Goggles focus is to 65cm.

 

@ the time the CL was built (M-4/5) the 50 mm lens would focus to 70cm but the CL itself w/ 40mm lens would only focus to 80cm. Possibly the 50mm frame is set @ a focus distance of 80 cm, not 70. I don't know.

 

Back to your original test: A brick wall or building, if properly laid out + built, is a good choice. Most older red bricks all over the world are pretty much the same material they have been for thousands of years. Basic construction brick was almost always locally produced.

 

Interestingly, I live in an intact historically recognized firehouse from the Ninteenth Century made of local brick. It has a number of various types of decorative brick. Some are yellow speckled brick which came from Denmark thousands of kilometers away. Decorative brick can be from anywhere.

 

Now to the test: You will need a solid support on which you can place or to which you can attach both cameras w/ their respective lenses. A sturdy tripod w/ large ball head is one good choice.

 

Film in a 35mm camera produces an image with a proportion of 2 X 3. Bricks w/o mortar are usually 2 X 4. Mortar changes that a little depending on thickness.

 

Now pick one brick in the center of the wall. Put some removable (ie: Painters) tape of a different color on that one brick. Always center the image in the frame left to right and top to bottom on this piece of tape after focussing in each of the following photographs below.

 

With 50mm lenses in both cameras photograph the wall @ 10 meters, 3 meters, 1 meter, 80cm (if possible) 70cm (if possible) with both cameras (some M-3's have been adjusted to focus to 70cm).

 

While you are doing the photographs in the paragraphs above please count the # of bricks horizontally in each frame + write it down. Including fractions as a guess.

 

All of the steps in the above 3 paragraphs to be done after focussing.

 

Process the negatives (no prints) and view with a magnifier. Count the bricks across in each negative.

 

Taking the previous count of the bricks @ 70cm, 80cm and 1 meter and comparing them to the negatives will tell you which frame most closely correctly defines which distance.

 

Now do the same for 3 meters and 10 meters. Counting in the negatives again and comparing to what you counted in the focussed frame will tell you how much extra you have as a margin for error @ the longer distances.

 

Whew!!!

 

A lot of work. Pretty much what Oskar Barnack must have done when he helped start all of this.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Will Inoue]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Michael, Thanks for the reply.

 

I have been shooting film through my CL but have not processed it yet. So I will have some answers soon. I'm still hoping for someone that has a CL to chime in :-).

 

I have noticed that the CL's framelines are unique - at least my example. I have compared the CL's 50mm framelines to an Olympus OM-1 SLR w/50mm, and the CL's 40MM framelines to a couple fixed lens cameras I have (Minolta 7sII, and Yashica Electro). They confirm my past observations. The CL is a much tighter interpretation of these framelines. Once I get some negatives then I can see what is truly happening. Thanks again. -Will