trouble with frames

[m4-2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ironically, many of the 20th century photographers who made Leica famous created pictures that were framed very precisely.

 

Ironically, those photographers used M-cameras with the classic finder and the coverage of 24x36 mm:) , very accurate up to the M4-2 (not M5) as JGW explaned. I think, there must be a (technical?) reason, that 30 years later this accuracy is not possible anymore. I miss it too.

 

Cheers

Jup.

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

It's not a question of possible, per se. The frame lines can only be completely accurate at one focus distance so Leica Ms have never had accurate frame lines at all focus distances. For better or worse, however, the chosen distance has become shorter.

[ho_co]

... It is off.

...

I think either I'm the only one who cares about-, or the only one who has this problem and has brought it up.

...

I hope they will actually read my letter and fix/correct the things that are wrong with my M8 body.

Gabriel--

My guess is that with the kind of users we have on this forum, you'd have heard if this problem were around.

 

I think Leica will take care of the problem so long as you let them know. I've always had good results with Leica repair personally, though apparently some others haven't.

 

My suggestion is to send it in as soon as it's practicable. You're compensating for it now, and the longer you use it the more trouble you'll have re-adjusting when it gets fixed.

 

But of course, all I can say is that I hope I'm right...

 

Good luck.

--HC

[ho_co]

Ironically, those photographers used M-cameras with the classic finder and the coverage of 24x36 mm:) , very accurate up to the M4-2 (not M5) as JGW explaned. I think, there must be a (technical?) reason, that 30 years later this accuracy is not possible anymore. I miss it too.

Jup--

Someone else on the forum mentioned previously that he felt the M5 didn't frame as exactly as the previous cameras, but I never found that to be the case. I find the framing of the M5 and the M6 very accurate (haven't tried M6TTL or M7, but I would guess that Leica would have mentioned a change if they had made one, just as they told us of the change with the M8).

 

But that's just my experience, and I'm curious to know any source for this previous change in framing, if you have one.

 

Many thanks!

 

--HC

[nrj]

Jup--

Someone else on the forum mentioned previously that he felt the M5 didn't frame as exactly as the previous cameras, but I never found that to be the case. I find the framing of the M5 and the M6 very accurate (haven't tried M6TTL or M7, but I would guess that Leica would have mentioned a change if they had made one, just as they told us of the change with the M8).

 

But that's just my experience, and I'm curious to know any source for this previous change in framing, if you have one.

 

Many thanks!

 

--HC

 

my earlier post was about my experienece with the M6 versus older cameras (not M5 though). The framelines in the M6 seemed the same as my earlier M2 and M4, and I remember reading some time back that they were set to be accurate somewhere around 3 metres. Whatever the precise setting it was well chosen since I never felt there was a problem with including too much on the film and I could use the framelines to frame with confidence.

 

One thing we haven't mentioned with the M8 is that users report the lines for the 24 are tight in the vf - there may not be room to make these accurate at 3 metres since they would need to be wider and taller than now. May be Leica chose to make the lines accurate at closest focussing distances with this in mind.

 

Nik

[Shootist]

Gabriel--

My guess is that with the kind of users we have on this forum, you'd have heard if this problem were around.

 

I think Leica will take care of the problem so long as you let them know. I've always had good results with Leica repair personally, though apparently some others haven't.

 

My suggestion is to send it in as soon as it's practicable. You're compensating for it now, and the longer you use it the more trouble you'll have re-adjusting when it gets fixed.

 

But of course, all I can say is that I hope I'm right...

 

Good luck.

--HC

 

Mine is off slightly also, especially with the 35 Cron ASPH. With the 75 APO it seems to be right on. With the 50 Cron it is off just a tad.

With the 35 Cron the image taken is higher and more to the left then what the frame lines indicate.

 

My test was done at near it's closest focusing point but I have notice this since the first image I took with the camera. I think this has something to do with how rangefinders work, the parallax effect.

 

I agree with others that with film the time between taking a shot and developing/printing it was so much greater that the photographer would of forgetten just where the frame lines were for that one shot.

 

As to Sean Reid's comment about how the old timers, er film only photographers, framed very accurately with a M camera, well most of that framing was done in the darkroom. The frame lines on the camera were used to make sure they had in the shot what they needed to tell the story. Same goes for most if not all SLR cameras, the viewfinder doesn't show all, 100%, of what will be on the film/sensor.

[m4-2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jup--

Someone else on the forum mentioned previously that he felt the M5 didn't frame as exactly as the previous cameras

,Many thanks!

 

--HC

 

The frames of the M5 are very accurate, if they are not centered(?), it needs service.

 

Of course, the frames of any M can show theoretically a100% coverage only at one certain distance. That was 1 m in older M`s, 70 cm in newer, when the 50 mm lenses changed to minimum distance at 70 cm, so you loose more coverage in far distance. We can`t change this effect, and we have to get used to it, and it`s no problem. But especially with the classic framing (35, 50, 90) you are very close to perfect in middle distance, because the framing covers 24x36 mm ( the MP-3 does the same). The coverage for mounted slides ( 23x35 mm) of the later analog modells with the 28 mm frame were less precise. Compare the 50 mm frames of the M2 - M4-2 to M4-p - MP, you see it at the first sight. But with the M8 you make no slides, so what is the reason why? I don`t think, Leica wants to make us (ore some of us) suffer.

 

Jup.

 

Suppositions: the more wideangel the RF, the more difficult. The changing of the focal distance of the lenses.

[nrj]

I checked in Leica Rangefinder practice M6 to M1 by Andrew Matheson (published 1986). He says the finder includes:

 

'only the field of view at the nearest focusing distance...That is 0.7m with the 28 to 50mm lenses, 1m with 70 to 90 and 1.5m with the 135mm lenses. Moreover, the field shown is that included within the 23x35mm slide frame area and so also a little less than what goes into the full film frame'

 

This works for me with film.

 

Nik

[sean_reid]

Mine is off slightly also, especially with the 35 Cron ASPH. With the 75 APO it seems to be right on. With the 50 Cron it is off just a tad.

With the 35 Cron the image taken is higher and more to the left then what the frame lines indicate.

 

My test was done at near it's closest focusing point but I have notice this since the first image I took with the camera. I think this has something to do with how rangefinders work, the parallax effect.

 

I agree with others that with film the time between taking a shot and developing/printing it was so much greater that the photographer would of forgetten just where the frame lines were for that one shot.

 

As to Sean Reid's comment about how the old timers, er film only photographers, framed very accurately with a M camera, well most of that framing was done in the darkroom. The frame lines on the camera were used to make sure they had in the shot what they needed to tell the story. Same goes for most if not all SLR cameras, the viewfinder doesn't show all, 100%, of what will be on the film/sensor.

 

Well, I myself was one of those old time film rangefinder photographers <G> and some of the others (older than myself) are/were acquaintances of mine or friends of my friend Ben Lifson. These include Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Helen Levitt, Danny Lyons, Andre Kertesz, etc. I mention them not to name drop but to emphatically make this point (since they all are/were masters of the small format Leica camera). In most cases, the cropping was not done in the darkroom at all. Rather, many of these photographers learned to see where the real edges of the picture would fall relative to the frame lines. I know this because either myself or Ben have seen many of the contact sheets. Ben, in fact, helped Winogrand edit the pictures for Stock Photographs. I was also an exhibition printer at one time so I saw and printed negatives from some well-known photographers. Helen Levitt, for example, tends to print full frame almost all the time and the same was often true for her mentor HCB. I've sat in her kitchen with her discussing this topic.

 

The trick with a rangefinder camera is to find a small set of lenses one likes and stick with them. With practice, one will internalize how the camera frames with each of these lenses at different distances. It's easier for the eyes/mind/body to internalize this than it is to deliver a curveball accurately or to do any other number of activities that require attention, practice and coordination. I know this from my own years working with these cameras.

 

That said, I'd still like to see the M8 frame lines optimized for about 5 feet focus distance but not everyone would like like that.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[steve_l]

Well, when using the Leica ASPH 21mm with a CV 28mm finder, the frame lines seem pretty near exact for medium shooting distance (25-20 feet.)

 

Now my favorite combo, due to that!

[ho_co]

I checked in Leica Rangefinder practice M6 to M1 by Andrew Matheson (published 1986). He says the finder includes:

 

'only the field of view at the nearest focusing distance...That is 0.7m with the 28 to 50mm lenses, 1m with 70 to 90 and 1.5m with the 135mm lenses. Moreover, the field shown is that included within the 23x35mm slide frame area and so also a little less than what goes into the full film frame'

Nik--

Good that you've got that reference. Thanks for citing it.

 

But I'm sure that's not correct. (Been wrong before... ) I thought the set distance was 2m, someone else said 3m, and I'm sure it was somewhere in that area.

 

Of course, any of us could check if we weren't so lazy. Oh, on second thought, we've all sworn off film, haven't we?

 

I had an email from Dave Elwell which he had received from Solms specifying that the M8 was the first camera to have frames set for closest distance, and citing the fact that with digital one can always crop and should never have less in the file than was in the frames. Unfortunately I accidentally deleted that email and now don't have the referenced previous distance.

 

Sean is right about many Leica photographers using the whole negative. Remember the Focomat I series enlargers? They were all full-frame. And for the whippersnappers, in those days that black border meant we had printed just as we had composed. We didn't have a wet darkroom "make dark border" action button.

 

--HC

[lars_bergquist]

Ironically, those photographers used M-cameras with the classic finder and the coverage of 24x36 mm:) , very accurate up to the M4-2 (not M5) as JGW explaned. I think, there must be a (technical?) reason, that 30 years later this accuracy is not possible anymore. I miss it too.

 

Cheers

Jup.

 

They cropped their pictures under the enlarger. Honestly!

 

The old man from the Age of the Darkroom

[nrj]

Nik--

Good that you've got that reference. Thanks for citing it.

 

But I'm sure that's not correct. (Been wrong before... ) I thought the set distance was 2m, someone else said 3m, and I'm sure it was somewhere in that area.

 

Of course, any of us could check if we weren't so lazy. Oh, on second thought, we've all sworn off film, haven't we?

 

I had an email from Dave Elwell which he had received from Solms specifying that the M8 was the first camera to have frames set for closest distance, and citing the fact that with digital one can always crop and should never have less in the file than was in the frames. Unfortunately I accidentally deleted that email and now don't have the referenced previous distance.

 

Sean is right about many Leica photographers using the whole negative. Remember the Focomat I series enlargers? They were all full-frame. And for the whippersnappers, in those days that black border meant we had printed just as we had composed. We didn't have a wet darkroom "make dark border" action button.

 

--HC

 

Well this is getting confusing! I started by saying I found no difference between the M6 and earlier cameras, and also that the M6 gives me no trouble in framing whereas my Mamiya 7 does because its set so framelines show coverage at closest focussing. So HC I tend to agree with you - the older cameras were not set for closest focussing, but it would be nice if someone did the test to establish at what distance the lines are/were accurate on the film cameras, unfortunately I don't have the time right now.

 

Nik

[nrj]

They cropped their pictures under the enlarger. Honestly!

 

The old man from the Age of the Darkroom

 

Hi Lars

 

I just returned from a trip to Stockholm, a lovely city. The Moderna Museet had some excellent photographs on display (Cindy Sherman, HCB, Rodchenko, Kertesz and others)

 

Nik

[thrid]

Here's the problem.

 

As you adjust focus on a lens from close up to infinity, there is a slight change in focal length and consequently your field of view changes. As an example, your 50 may become a 47mm as you change focus.

 

Obviously the area of coverage that the framelines in the rangefinder indicate is fixed. The area of coverage does not change size as you focus from close up to infinity, adjusting for the shift in focal length

 

Instead Leica decided that the framelines should show the absolute minimum you are guaranteed to get on your negative and this is the area of coverage at the closest distance that the lens will focus. When you focus to infinity you will get more information on your negative, than is indicated by the framelines, but in Leica's mind that's ok, because you know what you are getting at minimum.

 

Here's where it gets interesting.

 

Up until the arrival of the M6, the framelines showed the minimum amount of coverage you got at 1 meter. If you were clever you used the outside of the thick framelines to compose at infinity for a little more accuracy. Framing was relatively accurate, especially at working distances of 2-15 meters, where most shots are taken, because the margin of error between the indicated coverage at 1 meter and lets say 10 meters wasn't all that great. Even composing when focused at infinity delivered acceptable results.

 

Then the M6 came along. Around this time the minimum focus distance of many Leica lenses changed from 1 meter (100cm) to .7 meters (70cm). In light of this, Leica shrank the framelines to show coverage at 70cm, instead of 1 meter. Makes perfect sense, because Leica wants you to see the absolute minimum you are guranteed to end up with on your negative. The only problem is that the difference in coverage that the new framelines show from close-up to infinity, is now quite dramamtic. Shrinking the area of coverage from 100cm to 70cm is a reduction of 30%, so the coverage of something that is even only a few meters away is suddenly way off.

 

The difference in coverage that the 50mm lines indicate in an M4 and M6 is quite starteling. A while back I read a post on another list, where someone had figured out that the 50mm framelines in an M6 or newer camera show the coverage of a 60mm lens at normal working distances (5m - infinity). That's a huge error.

 

So, now you have a set of framelines that indicate the area of coverage quite accurate at distances of 70cm to 2 meters, but are wildly off the mark for anything beyond that. Unfortunately for photographers, most pictures are NOT taken across a table from 70cm away, but probably at distances of 3-15 meters.

 

This decision has been carried over to the M8. I used my friends M8 a few weeks ago with 21, 35 and 50mm lenses and the amount of error in framing is bordeline unacceptable, at anything but the closest focus distance. The amount of cropping that needs to be done to get the framing to where you intended it to be, transforms a 10mp capture in something more like 8mp.

 

Now, I do not expect a rangefinder to compose as accurately as a Nikon F.

 

But we have gone from having a system that was acceptably accurate, to something that is wildly off the mark.

 

And frankly these excuses about getting into your zen zone and going with the flow and guessing around the framelines are not acceptable. I've been shooitng Leica M for over 10 years and the current framelines stink. Leica needs to come up with a better solution.

 

Thrid

 

(For some reason the 50mm markings have suffered the most, and those for 28 and 35 the least. In any case I have pretty much given up on shooting a 50mm on anything but my M2 and M4. I keep my M6ttl and M7 for the 35's.)

[sean_reid]

They cropped their pictures under the enlarger. Honestly!

 

The old man from the Age of the Darkroom

 

Which of them did you print for? Which of them did you edit with?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Nik--

We didn't have a wet darkroom "make dark border" action button.

 

--HC

 

LOL

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

 

And frankly these excuses about getting into your zen zone and going with the flow and guessing around the framelines are not acceptable. I've been shooitng Leica M for over 10 years and the current framelines stink. Leica needs to come up with a better solution.

 

 

Excuses? Perhaps you haven't read this thread very closely.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[thrid]

Excuses? Perhaps you haven't read this thread very closely.

 

I didn't necessarily mean this thread.

 

Generally speaking I don't agree with people, who dismiss this issue as a non issue and recommend that you just learn to live with it, imagine a bigger set of lines, wing it or whatever.

 

That sort of thinking just doesn't strike me as realistic. It's an engineering problem, just like the patch flare was.

[pklein]

Well, I myself was one of those old time film rangefinder photographers <G> and some of the others (older than myself) are/were acquaintances of mine or friends of my friend Ben Lifson. These include Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Helen Levitt, Danny Lyons, Andre Kertesz, etc. I mention them not to name drop but to emphatically make this point (since they all are/were masters of the small format Leica camera). In most cases, the cropping was not done in the darkroom at all. Rather, many of these photographers learned to see where the real edges of the picture would fall relative to the frame lines. I know this because either myself or Ben have seen many of the contact sheets. Ben, in fact, helped Winogrand edit the pictures for Stock Photographs. I was also an exhibition printer at one time so I saw and printed negatives from some well-known photographers. Helen Levitt, for example, tends to print full frame almost all the time and the same was often true for her mentor HCB. I've sat in her kitchen with her discussing this topic.

 

Sean: Your post gave me a flashback to the scene in Annie Hall where all the arty New Yorkers are arguing about Marshall McCluhan's work, and then Woody says: "Well, I have Marshall McCluhan right here, and . . ."

 

Seriously, with practice one can get used to anything. But it would be nice if we didn't have to. A fixed frameline can only be accurate at one distance. Those of us who remember the M2 - M5 framelines probably prefer them. You have a more accurate frame for the majority of shots, and for the occasional shot at 0.7 meters, you imagine a little dotted line like in one of the brightline finders. In my mind this is better than having to frame overly tight for almost all shots.

 

The projected-LCD frameline being discussed in another thread provides a reasonable solution. The frames could shift and expand or shrink for any distance set on the RF. Meantime, you pick your camera and you pick your framelines. And if you don't like them, I guess you call DAG or Sherry and ask if they can swap a different set in. I know they can put older framelines in an M6, so perhaps they can do so for an M8.

 

--Peter