trouble with frames

[nrj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

I've used M3, M2, M4, and now use an M6. My shooting experience has been the same with all of them wrt framelines so I think the M6 lines are not set for the closest distance. I just don't have the problems mentioned here with the M8 with my M6 and framing -so I think they made a good choice with the M6. In contrast I have a Mamiya M7 and there the framelines are set for the closest distance and I am always frustrated by the extra included on the film when shooting normal distances.

 

Nik

[jaapv]

No Nik, they are as accurate, but different. As some lenses focus down to 70 cm, Leica has put the accuracy distance to the closest focussing point, making the frames more loose at infinity. Plus, on film one seldomly remembers exactly what framing was chosen, whereas the M8 allows immediate chimping. And with film we lost 1 mm at the edges because of the mount( slides) or frame of the enlarger or printing machine. That all adds up to the feeling that the M8 is "less accurate".

There is an upside to this. As we now fully realize this phenomen, we tend to crop our subject a lot tighter, shooting the lenses at the same perspective as we did before on film, despite the 1.33 sensor. See this as the way of Leica giving us a full-frame M8 :D

[carstenw]

I've been keeping this idea to myself so far, but perhaps if it is useful, someone here could speak to Leica about it. The basic idea is to make the framelines programmable. They would be implemented by a tiny LCD screen with high enough resolution that they could move the frame with the distance of focus (rangefinder coupling) as well as the focal length (coding). They would give the basic frames for uncoded lenses. The LCD screen itself uses little power and could be very thin, and would sit where the current frames are, more or less. The lighting is a little tricky, but it would surely be possible to come up with something. With access to both focal length and distance, the frames could be extraordinarily accurate at most settings. A little ROM would hold the table of lookup coordinates for the frameline positions.

 

Thoughts?

[jaapv]

Another 750 $??

[kepstein]

I just noticed this frame problem with my new VC Nokton 50mm. It brought up another question; when using LTM adapters, do I select the one for the actual focal length of the lens or the focal length when used on the M8 (in other words, which one do I use for this lens?)?

 

Thanks,

Ken

[jaapv]

For the actual focal length. The focal length is a function of the lens, not the camera. The different film/sensor format only changes the field of view of the camera, not the focal length of the lens The viewfinder frames show the field of view of the camera with the focal length of the lens mounted.

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another 750 $??

I doubt it, Jaap. The existing rangefinder is plenty expensive, and a significant part of that must be switching the frames in and out. With an LCD frame, only a little converted needs to run from the bayonet to the rangefinder. Just one frame (LCD), so no mechanics for that part. And the real bonii: just one frame per lens, and very accurate framing at all distances.

[jaapv]

It would indeed be a nice leap forward, Carsten. And it would enable Leica to add framelines for any focal length they might want to introduce. For the time being, however, I would settle for an internal viewfinder dioptry adjustment. How difficult can that be? The Digilux2 one was pretty good.

[AlanG]

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.

 

--HC

 

I wasn't thinking of anything like this. Maybe just a small backlit LCD panel where the frame lines are generated by a digital signal (continually variable) and then use a semi-silvered mirror (or the prism) to reflect them so as to float as an aerial image in the viewfinder. Maybe there is another way to do it that will work better. Perhaps a low res DLP could be used with a small lamp sort of like a micro video projector.

 

Another possibility some sort of variation of "heads up display" like what is used in militarty aircraft (and I think on Cadillac cars to project images at night onto the windshield.) I think the militarty has small versions that work in viewers that fold are in front of one eye.

 

 

I really am not competant to come up with an answer, I just am speculating here thinking it may be possible.

[gabrielma]

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.

 

I must clarify something because there is a lot of confusion on this issue, and many are missing something key: The M viewfinder should be accurate in the sense of what you see inside the framelines should be registered. You should not be missing any part of what you've framed inside the framelines. You may have more in the registered image, the farther away your subject is.

 

With film bodies, it is well-known that the framelines show the area of the image as would be recorded on mounted slide film and/or "regular" film with subjects focused at the closest distances.

 

Then there are some of us with an M8 whose framelines have a parallax error which is evident when focusing closer. It is apparent that "more" area is in the shot, but that is only because the areas around one corner has "more" than what one framed through the viewfinder, which is diagonally opposed to the corner which has the image "chopped off", if you will.

 

This can create a lot of confusion for those who can only count the M8 as their experience in using Leica rangefinders.

 

Be sure to check that, if you have "more" than you visualized, that it is all around the frame, not just one corner of the frame.

 

Then again, there are people who don't care. But I do. So, if you care, like I do, check whether your M8 "chops" a corner of your image. But if you overall have "more" around the whole frame of the image than what you visualized, that's just the nature of the beast.

 

And this is why many people prefer SLRs, because they get frustrated by this, and by answers by people who don't quite understand what the problem may be. Rangefinders must be properly calibrated. When they are, like Leicas should be, SLRs can leave much to be desired.

[jaapv]

I must clarify something because there is a lot of confusion on this issue, and many are missing something key: The M viewfinder should be accurate in the sense of what you see inside the framelines should be registered. You should not be missing any part of what you've framed inside the framelines. You may have more in the registered image, the farther away your subject is.

 

With film bodies, it is well-known that the framelines show the area of the image as would be recorded on mounted slide film and/or "regular" film with subjects focused at the closest distances.

 

Then there are some of us with an M8 whose framelines have a parallax error which is evident when focusing closer. It is apparent that "more" area is in the shot, but that is only because the areas around one corner has "more" than what one framed through the viewfinder, which is diagonally opposed to the corner which has the image "chopped off", if you will.

 

This can create a lot of confusion for those who can only count the M8 as their experience in using Leica rangefinders.

 

Be sure to check that, if you have "more" than you visualized, that it is all around the frame, not just one corner of the frame.

 

Then again, there are people who don't care. But I do. So, if you care, like I do, check whether your M8 "chops" a corner of your image. But if you overall have "more" around the whole frame of the image than what you visualized, that's just the nature of the beast.

 

And this is why many people prefer SLRs, because they get frustrated by this, and by answers by people who don't quite understand what the problem may be. Rangefinders must be properly calibrated. When they are, like Leicas should be, SLRs can leave much to be desired.

 

 

But Gabriel, it is so easy on the M8. One chimp, and you know. With film it was much more difficult because of the timelag. There are those, like me, who effortlessly frame their 135 mm lenses, without framelines, despite the small area. It is just a matter of getting to know your tools.

[gabrielma]

But Gabriel, it is so easy on the M8. One chimp, and you know. With film it was much more difficult because of the timelag. There are those, like me, who effortlessly frame their 135 mm lenses, without framelines, despite the small area. It is just a matter of getting to know your tools.

 

I'm sure a lot of people chimp, but that is an unacceptable workflow in this case. There are a lot of situations which are just not going to wait for one's chimping. The moment's lost, and when the photo is ruined due to a chopped head, chopped feet, or whatever, in street photography, for example, or just plain real life outside of a studio without a willing model, this is critical and utterly important.

 

I know my tools. I shouldn't have to do a workaround for a tool which should have been calibrated at the factory.

[jaapv]

My point is, if you have chimped one or two or three times, you know exactly where to frame at the various distances.Then you can switch off your autoreview. You don't miss shots, you don't cut off heads or feet. Rather the opposite btw, the frames are loose,not tight. It is not a workaround, it is a learning curve. I was not advocating chimping instead of framing correctly.

[stunsworth]

Gabriel, the problem is that is you have accurate frames when shooting at say three metres anyone shooting closer will have the image cropped and anyone shooting further away have more in the frame than they expected. There isn't a solution with the current viewfinder, merely the posibility of a different compromise, but a compromise never the less.

 

By chosing to base the frames on the nearest focusing distance Leica have ensured that no one should have clipped images. Personally I'd prefer the framelines to be accurate at about 3 metres, but I know if that was the case we'd have a similar thread complaining that the poster's portrait shots were being clipped <grin>

[gabrielma]

Gabriel, the problem is that is you have accurate frames when shooting at say three metres anyone shooting closer will have the image cropped and anyone shooting further away have more in the frame than they expected. There isn't a solution with the current viewfinder, merely the posibility of a different compromise, but a compromise never the less.

 

By chosing to base the frames on the nearest focusing distance Leica have ensured that no one should have clipped images. Personally I'd prefer the framelines to be accurate at about 3 metres, but I know if that was the case we'd have a similar thread complaining that the poster's portrait shots were being clipped <grin>

 

I don't think you understood me at all, and this is one of the things I'm complaining about.

 

When people say "accurate frames" it can mean something different to different people. Please do not confuse parallax correction with image cropping. When there is parallax error, the center of the frame which you saw in the frame is effectively off-center in the registered image, which also invariably results in one corner being chopped off, and the opposite corner having "more", or should I say, what was "outside" the framelines.

 

In a properly-parallax corrected frameline, there should not be any chopping. My M8 shows this a lot, the closer the focusing distance is. It is exhibited throughout, from infinity down to as close as any of my lenses can focus. This shouldn't be if its parallax correction were properly calibrated. I have compared it with two other M8s, and they don't exhibit this; they behave just like I would expect a properly calibrated rangefinder should behave. So I know this is not user error, or me "not knowing my tools".

 

It is very frustrating having to explain something to somebody who just can't experience the same problem as you, or simply doesn't care about it. And that's fine. And I'm not saying you're not. Just don't ask me to compromise for something that I shouldn't have to compromise, because when I have used other M8s I didn't have to "compromise" anything.

 

I'm just getting ready mine to be shipped over to NJ (and then to Solms). I was sold an M8 which I was told didn't have to be sent for the hardware upgrade, but it is evident that it needs to have the upgrade. Not nice to have colored streaks across the frame vertically when you least expect it.

[Guest tummydoc]

The Leica framelines in M cameras were not only sized to the near focus area, but also to compensate for the peripheral area cropped by slide mounts (as well, prints on standard sizes of paper are cropped to an extent). What I am seeing in terms of increased conservatism in my M8 framelines appears to correlate to that additional amount, which is no longer appropriate as digital files are viewed in their entirety. I do not believe there was a deliberate resizing of the framelines, simply that the designers neglected to consider the aforementioned issue.

[jelderfield]

I would hazard to guess that more pix are shot with Leicas at 2 or 3 meters than at 2 feet. I think Leica should have kept the frames they way they were on previous bodies.

Jonathan Elderfield Photography

[ho_co]

... increased conservatism in my M8 framelines ...

Vinay--

Wonderful term for the resizing!

 

Gabriel--

I'm bothered by your description that the frames are not centered in the actual field that the lens photographs. That should not be the case, and I haven't heard of it previously (except where you mentioned it on the forum).

 

Two points come to mind:

 

Are you sure your viewing eye is centered behind the finder?

 

And have you talked to Leica about correcting the misalignment? This is not something that the user should have to adjust to.

 

--HC

[gabrielma]

Vinay--

Wonderful term for the resizing!

 

Gabriel--

I'm bothered by your description that the frames are not centered in the actual field that the lens photographs. That should not be the case, and I haven't heard of it previously (except where you mentioned it on the forum).

 

Two points come to mind:

 

Are you sure your viewing eye is centered behind the finder?

 

And have you talked to Leica about correcting the misalignment? This is not something that the user should have to adjust to.

 

--HC

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure that my viewing eye is centered behind the finder. After using another body, I noticed that I was doing some compensation in mine. I then went ahead and thoroughly checked with this in mind with the film bodies, and when I center my eye, it just becomes worse on my M8. It is off.

 

I have tried to get a straight answer out of somebody from Leica; the best answer I've had so far is "write it down in the accompanying letter when you send the M8". I think either I'm the only one who cares about-, or the only one who has this problem and has brought it up.

 

Unfortunately, it takes a collective scream to bring something to a company's attention. I hope they will actually read my letter and fix/correct the things that are wrong with my M8 body.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

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.

 

Rex

 

Hi Rex,

 

Ironically, many of the 20th century photographers who made Leica famous created pictures that were framed very precisely. The trick, as you know and as I've written many times, is for one to become familiar with a given small set of lenses so that he or she can internalize where the edges of the picture will really fall with those various lenses at various focus distances. With most of my lenses, the ones I use most, I have a good idea of where the pictures' edges will be (how far outside the frame lines).

 

I personally would rather the frame lines be optimized for a distance of about 5 feet but I know that wouldn't be everyone else's cup of tea. Maybe this is a future item to consider in an a la carte program. There were some RF cameras that zoomed frame lines in connection with focus distance but they weren't common.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean