M8 Framing differences with 28 mm summicron f2

[patrick mimran]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When i look inthe viewfinder and i take a picutre the framing in the viewfinder doesn't correspond to what i get in the final picture i see on the back screen.

There is quit a big difference ,the overall image is higher in the final picture than in the viewfinder .

Beside that i really enjoy my M8 especially with an IR filter on i think it is a very good camera and part of it charm are its imperfections .

 

PM

[wattsy]

Yes, I have noticed exactly the same issue since using the combination of 28/2 and M8 in a big way. I can't say whether the frameline inaccuracy was as pronounced when I used the 28 with my film M bodies.

[Philippe D.]

I can't say whether the frameline inaccuracy was as pronounced when I used the 28 with my film M bodies.

It's not your lens or your body. It's on the frames.

I have also bigger pictures as seen trough the viewfinder with all my lenses 28, 35, 50, 90 and probably with the 75 as well.

[ho_co]

M8 frames are set to be accurate at closest focus distance.

 

Previous models had frames that corresponded to a focus distance of either 2 or 3 m (the latter, I think).

 

Reason: Earlier cameras gave accurate coverage at 2 or 3 m, film got more image at greater distance than shown in frames, film didn't get as much as frames showed at closer distance.

 

Now with digital, frames have been adjusted so that you never get less on the sensor than what you see.

 

--HC

[scott kirkpatrick]

Still it's worth a little time spent with a tripod finding out just what you get at, say, 2 m distance. And if the frame is a little high or low. Eye position makes a difference, too. I thought I was getting a true image higher than the indicated frame with my 24/2.8 and found that the fault was in my viewing.

 

scott

[DWeston]

I see this as two different issues if they are being described precisely. If the image is "higher" as in shifted up compared to what is seen throught the eyepiece, it sounds like a rf adjustment may be needed. If is just the relative proportions are off, the final image larger dimensionally then the viewfinder appears, this is common and occurs with all my current lenses at all distances I have shot in. It seems to me you get a good 10% more in the final. It is very noticeable to me also. Fix - frame very tightly and rest assured you won't cut off too many heads... :-). This is something I can live with. Since when is there a perfect camera, M8s come pretty close overall. Some of the fun is dealing with the quirks.DW

[Picturetraveler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

 

I also have experienced the differences in what you see and what you get on the horizontal side...used 28 35 50 90 mm and they all have it...If you measure it on the screen it's 2.5 mm each side...as the screen is 5 cm wide... It's 10 % extra.

And to my big supprise I have not read much about this problem.

It is a problem....

 

I find this very frustrating and must say dissapointing for Leica standards as the whole issue of photography is cropping and what to leave in or out...and on all film M's what you saw was what you got... using the old tick...2-3 m...the inner edge of the viewfinder line...infinity the outer edge of the frame

 

Yes one can always crop afterwards...but remember you only get 10% on the sides not above and below...so that basically means you are cutting off the sides and that leaves you with a different format.

 

Of course one can live with it but somehow it doesn't seem right. When I am working I like to concentrate on my image and what happens before my eyes and within the frame without having to calculate the immaginative line and the 2.5 mm extra on each side

 

I believe if the frames in the viewfinder are not accurate, they should be corrected. All of us are asked to learn how to live with plenty of little issues with the M8...most of us live and deal with it...but if a Frame is not THE Frame what's the use of having them.

 

I sometimes believe and don't really understand why standards should be lowered now that digital photography is there....because one can always correct in photoshop? Indeed one can very often...but I don't have anyone doing it for me...So if one shoots 100 GB in say a month...should one spend another month in correcting??????

 

No No No...

 

Looking forward to hear what others think. Do all M8 have this?????

 

I have posed the question to the leica representative in Belgium.

 

Kind regards from Gent

 

Marc

[lars_bergquist]

Howard is right. With an SLR you can see why. Focus the lens – any lens – at infinity, then, without moving the camera, focus closer. The infinity view does not only get fuzzier. It also grows, and more and more territory disappears outside the finder image.

 

This is because a change of focus is also a change of magnification. So at close focus, you lose some peripheral image. There's a German word for that, Bildfeldschwund (roughly 'image field wastage') but I don't know if there's a corresponding English term.

 

Now, a direct finder works at constant magnification. So, should frames include all that's on the sensor at infinity, and mislead us at close range? Obviously, we are best served by frames that are accurate at closest focusing range, but pessimistic at infinity. I do feel however (though I have not run actual tests) that frames on the M8 are more tight at c.f. than those of, say an M3 or my M4. With an M4, at infinity you got in about one extra width of frameline at inf. while the inside of the frames were accurate at c.f. The margin of error is larger on the M8. I don't know why, but I do feel that the boffins in Solms have somewhat overdone it. Still, it is of course no disaster, which it would have been if it had been the other way around.

 

Remember, the combined rangefinder is a framing and focusing aid. Some human judgment is also indicated.

 

The old man from the Age of the M3

[martinb]

I would like to have 100% live view as an alternative for the optical viewfinder in an upcoming Leica M9. Would be really nice to have when framing is critical.

[lars_bergquist]

I would like to have 100% live view as an alternative for the optical viewfinder in an upcoming Leica M9. Would be really nice to have when framing is critical.

 

No way you will have that. This kind of sensor cannot be kept running continuously, like the fingernail-size chip of a shirt-pocket compact. Different solid-state technology too, as I understand. The chip's elements have to be emptied completely of charge, then the shutter opens and the exposure is made. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a shutter!

 

The old man from the Age Before TV