trouble with frames

[robojock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

does anyone else find that the frame lines on the m8 aren't all that accurate, i find that more subject gets into my pictures than i was expecting. or is it just my newbieness at rf photography

[cbretteville]

Welcome!

No, you're not alone. It does include more than what you see framed. But, it will wary depending on subject distance. Consider it a safety margin.

 

- C

[rwfreund]

Well,

It is better that you get more than less.

Even with SLR photography, most cameras get you close to 100% but always a bit less.

That way there is always some margin.

I am thankful for it since I am persistently unable to hold the cmera parallel to the horizon and find that a couple of degrees of rotation are needed.

-bob

[carstenw]

I have the same problem. I find that especially the 50 and 75 frames are way off. I wish there was a way to make them more accurate. I wish Leica had designed them to be accurate at 2m or 3m instead of the close focus range that they apparently used. This is one of the things I like least about the M.

[holgerf]

does anyone else find that the frame lines on the m8 aren't all that accurate, i find that more subject gets into my pictures than i was expecting. or is it just my newbieness at rf photography

 

@Robojock

 

You are describing a principle drawback of a rangefinder. You know that the finder of the M8 is compensating the parallax in x- und y-direction. But what is not corrected and may be cannot even be corrected is correction in z-axis:

 

The dimension of the picture that is recorded on your film or your sensor varies with the distance of the object. The nearer the object the smaller the area you record.

 

So the designer of the frames must decide a compromise. To be on the safe side the design principle for Leica has always been: the framelines are rather accurate with the nearest possible focusing range, i.e. 1 m. Having a farer distance you record more and will that way always be on the safe side.

 

See also manual page 105:

"The size of the bright-line frame is matched to the taking format of the LEICA M8 and corresponds to a sensor size of around 18x27mm at the shortest setting distance for each focal length. At longer distances, the camera records more of the subject than can be seen within the bright-line frames."

 

Best

Holger

[lars_bergquist]

Well, it has been so since the M3 was launched in 1954 … basically, as you focus closer, you rack out the lens, increasing the magnification (subject reproduction ratio) just as you do when you insert extension rings behind an SLR lens. Conversely, magnification decreases as you focus out toward infinity, and you get more stuff on the sensor. With an SLR camera you can see the phenomenon very clearly.

 

It is theoretically possible to design a bright frame finder to take this 'Bildfeldschwund' (as it is called in German) into account. It would however in all probability be as large as the camera itself, and cost nearly as much. So the only reasonable course is to do as Leica have done for the last half-century, design the frames to cover everything you get at closest focus, and a bit less than you get at infinity. That way you don't decapitate people inadvertently. And now with the M8 it is easy to check. Just put the camera on a tripod, align the frame lines with easily identifiable features in the subject, and then compare the finder picture with what you get on the monitor!

 

If you do get something in the picture that you don't want in it, just do some cropping in the computer, or even at your photofinisher's.

 

The old man from the Age of the M3

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There was recently an experimental M2 with such a viewfinder on eBay, IIRC, but apparently it was way too complex and sensitive to use in every camera.

[Baxter]

I'm glad that it isn't just me then! Having been used to composing precisely on the Ground glass of a 4x5 camera, this variation is coming as quite a shock to me.

 

I appreciate that I need to learn new skills, but knowing where the edges of the frame are is quite fundamental, except being so inept is reducing the fun element leaving me as 'da mental'....

[stunsworth]

Baxter, if exact framing at all distances is important then you'll have to switch to an SLR. There is not way that the current M viewfinder can be accurate at all distances.

[Baxter]

Hi Steve

 

I am sure that I'll get better at it with practise - with no more than a couple of quick outings so far I am a real newbie. Being able to review on LCD makes the learning process quicker and supplies near-instant feedback which I wouldn't have got with a film camera. It is a skill that I am bound to pick up.

 

An SLR is a no-no, I wanted an M8 and so paid all the extra cash for one, I just need to learn how to use it! There seem to be a few photographers through the years who have managed to 'get-by' using M system cameras.... So far from me to be blaming the tool, I know the fault lies with the fool behind it!

[sean_reid]

The frame lines are set to be accurate at a distance of just over two feet *but* with practice one can learn where the picture's edges will fall in relation to the frame lines (with different lenses at different focus distances). With experience, one can learn to place the edges of the picture fairly accurately.

 

Cheers,

[AlanG]

The camera could have electronically generated frame lines. I had an inexpensive Nikon film camera (N80?) years ago that had grid lines in the viewfinder that could be turned on and off. I'm sure other cameras have similar things so the technology is not exactly cutting edge.

 

With electronic frame lines it would be a simple matter to vary the size and adjust for parallax as the focus changes. And it would only have to display one frame for each lens. This would probably be a lot simpler to make and implement than the current method. Add a way to zoom the viewfinder (even manually) and you'd really have a modern optical viewfinder.

[JGW]

...I wish there was a way to make them more accurate. I wish Leica had designed them to be accurate at 2m or 3m instead of the close focus range that they apparently used. This is one of the things I like least about the M.

 

I agree completely. This camera does not have to be this inaccurate, and I do wish people would stop saying that all M rangefinder cameras have always been like this. This is just not true. The M3 and M2 were very accurate for middle distance shooting as they were (sensibly) not set for accuracy at 70cms. I've used both cameras professionally for years, and I did tests for framing accuracy with them years ago which I found satisfactory. All M cameras up to the M5 were much more accurate for middle distance composition than the later and present cameras. This M8 camera just does not compare with the earlier Ms for middle distance accuracy which I find infuriatingly disappointing. I find it so seriously flawed in this department that I often feel like rejecting it, but there's nothing else available that works like a proper camera should; i.e. they're all far too automated.

I've complained about this before, see my post: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/11619-m8-framing-lines.html

This time I've decided to include two shot from my M2 using 35mm lenses to demonstrate what I mean. Both images are not cropped. The black and white shot was taken quickly at the right moment and required accurate dependable framing. I wanted the 'La Caverne' shop front in the right hand top corner and the boy far left behind the tree with equal space around him. In the colour shot I just wanted the children completely as they are on the edges of the frame, and I didn't want uncontrollable space to appear after the shot was composed at its correct moment as I saw it. You have to use peripheral vision when composing quickly, and you get what you see only if your camera records what you want it to do from what you aim it at. I fear that the M8 would have messed these shots up, and please don't say crop! This M8 camera has messed up so many of my photographs recently with inaccuracy that I'm having to 'over compose' into the framing to hope you get what you want on the edges, and I just find it too hit and miss for my liking. You can not keep control of the edges of the image with this camera, and this was what used to be said as a sign of a bad camera! This, as carstenw referred to, is the most disappointing aspect in its design. It is this 'hardware' problem of the M8 that should have been the 1st. item on the list of Guy Mancuso's laundry list, and yet I don't think it was even mentioned!

Regards,

JGW.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[rvaubel]

I don't know about the necessity for precise framing with a rangefinder. My first rangefinder was the RD1 so I got use to some really sloppy framing. I thought that the rangefinder style precluded the kind of precise framing I got with my SLRs of yore. I considered it somewhat liberating in fact. In contrast, I found the M8 to be much much better with framing than the RD1. While not perfect, I can achieve results that I consider more than adequate for the rangfinder style of shooting. If I wanted SLR accuracy I would use a SLR.

 

Rex

[carstenw]

I was quite prepared for some inaccuracy when I got the M8, coming from a 5D, but to be honest, with some focal lengths, it is just way too much. I haven't measured exactly, but I have the feeling that, for example, with a 75 Lux at 15m I get near 50% more than I bargain for.

[j. borger]

I find that especially the 50 and 75 frames are way off.

Except for the inaccuracy (i can live with that) .... i hate the pairing of 50/75 framelines very much ...... it is for me the aspect of the M8 i dislike the most, especially since i use a 50 mm lens pretty much as my standard.

When it comes to the viewfinder .. i realy prefer the R-D1 with it's 1-1 finder and manual selectable single frame-lines!

[lars_bergquist]

The camera could have electronically generated frame lines. I had an inexpensive Nikon film camera (N80?) years ago that had grid lines in the viewfinder that could be turned on and off. I'm sure other cameras have similar things so the technology is not exactly cutting edge.

 

With electronic frame lines it would be a simple matter to vary the size and adjust for parallax as the focus changes. And it would only have to display one frame for each lens. This would probably be a lot simpler to make and implement than the current method. Add a way to zoom the viewfinder (even manually) and you'd really have a modern optical viewfinder.

 

You are speaking of a camera the size and weight of a Hasselblad.

 

The old man from the Age of the TLR

[ho_co]

JGW--

Thanks for once again pointing out the change in accuracy of the frame lines!

 

Some vociferous and influential people complained that they sometimes got less image on the film than the framelines showed with the older cameras (frames set for 3 m IIRC), and Leica bowed to their viewpoint for the M8.

 

Film required getting the image right to a degree not matched by digital: With a color slide (the standard at the time of the M3), you couldn't do any later cropping. Today you can with digital.

 

So I'm with you: The people on the forum who haven't experienced the surety of the earlier M series's framing will be amazed how excellently the camera was designed in its day if they ever try a film Leica.

 

It wasn't always so, folks! The M frame lines haven't ever been as accurate as the screen of an SLR, but they have previously been more accurate for general photography than they are in the M8.

 

--HC

 

PS--Those images are perfect examples of what we expected from Leica: Perfect compositions well seen.

 

Question 1--Was the framing accuracy reduced in the M6 and subsequent cameras? I was unaware of that.

 

Question 2--And you say the cameras "up to the M5" were more accurate. The phrase is ambiguous. Does that mean "up through the M5" or "prior to the M5"?

 

Thanks!

[ho_co]

The camera could have electronically generated frame lines. I had an inexpensive Nikon film camera (N80?) years ago that had grid lines in the viewfinder that could be turned on and off. ...

With electronic frame lines it would be a simple matter to vary the size and adjust for parallax as the focus changes.

Alan--

As you say, a number of cameras have switchable composition lines, but remember that they are SLRs, and the frame lines are built into the focusing screen. I don't think the rangefinder mechanism would yield itself easily to that kind of design.

 

And if you could put electronic traces into the prisms, I don't think you would be able to 'move' them (i.e. switch them) as accurately as you can with the mechanical frames.

 

As I see it--someone please correct me if I'm wrong--there would have to be a different set for each of several distances for each lens, all mounted to the surface of the prism. That would be six sets of frames plus different focus distances for each. If we assume just ten different focus distances, that's already 60 different sets. And then you'd need the ability for them to change from dark to light based on the background, without being overly bright and obtrusive.

 

Sounds quite unwieldy to me, and much more difficult to do well than the current mechanism. Good idea, though, and definitely something someone should look into!

 

--HC

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Baxter]

Thanks for all the historical information.

 

It just seems an odd decision, to inconvenience the majority of users for most of their images. They must have been very voiciferous users to overcome common sense. The cumulative manhours expended cropping virtually every shot isn't a bill which Leica would want to foot.

 

Using a camera within 2 feet of someone is hardly subtle and to be effective one needs to be skilled, so why not accept some compromise here?

 

Anyway the design and hardware is done now and this problem is not rectifiable with a firmware change.

 

I shall have to get the tripod out and conduct some simple framing exercises/tests to get my own rule of thumb. Posessing only a 28mm lens it oughtn't take too long.

 

Incidentally, (planning my future expenditure already!) what is the situation with the WATE viewfinder - are the same rules applied?