Jump to content

trouble with frames


robojock

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

I agree that frame line accuracy is important and I discussed this back in my review of the R-D1, then urged Leica to keep it in mind for the digital M (in 2004) and then discussed it again in the first M8 review. The million dollar question is..."At what distance should the frame lines be optimized for?" Not all photographers will agree on that. As I've said in this thread and elsewhere, I'd like to see them optimized for about 5 - 6 feet but that's just one vote among thousands.

 

All that said, even with the old frame lines photographers still needed to internalize the actual frame in relation to them. I suggest that approach because A) It has worked for decades and B) For now, 'what we got is what we got' and so we best figure out how to use it. Future cameras are all well and good to think about but many of us have to work things out with the cameras that exist right now. The best way to do that, I'd argue, is to learn one's lenses on the M8.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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 . . ." :D:D:D

 

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.

 

--Peter

 

I love the anecdote - perfect. As for the latter, I agree but I imagine some like them where they are. A la carte in the future?

 

Using a 75 on the M8, for example, at greater subject distances, takes a lot of practice because the edges aren't remotely close to what the finder suggests.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they can put older framelines in an M6, so perhaps they can do so for an M8.

 

--Peter

 

 

Actually you can't put the older frameline masks into anything from the M6 on.

 

I spoke to Don Goldberg about this a few years ago and the LED lights for the meter readout are in the way. You would have to either drill holes into the mask (very difficult to do) or move the tiny LED lights. The new frameline mask is also a totally different design. The old ones were a piece of paperthin glass, sandwiched between two sheets of metal. The new ones appear to be stamped metal.

 

Don did a one off custom conversion, where he transplanted the RF from an M3 finder into an M6, with functional meter lights. He indicated that it was a very expensive job and it must have been pretty painful for him, because he's only done one or two of these. it didn't sound like he wanted to do any more.

 

What you can do is turn off individual frameline masks. So, if you wanted the old style 35/50/90 combo, a technician could 'turn off' the 28/75/135 markings. But they remain the same size, which of course is not the same as in the older cameras.

 

The big question mark is the new MP3. It has a reduced set of markings for 35/50/90, but I have not been able to get a straight answer from anyone (LHSA, Leica, Dealers etc) regarding the amount of coverage they show (1m vs 70cm). If these showed 1 meter it would be a god sent, because they could be installed in a metered M body.

 

thrid

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that frame line accuracy is important and I discussed this back in my review of the R-D1, then urged Leica to keep it in mind for the digital M (in 2004) and then discussed it again in the first M8 review. The million dollar question is..."At what distance should the frame lines be optimized for?" Not all photographers will agree on that. As I've said in this thread and elsewhere, I'd like to see them optimized for about 5 - 6 feet but that's just one vote among thousands.

 

Well, it appears that a mechanical solution to this problem already resides in the Leica archives. They solved this issue a few decades ago, as the prototype for sale at Westlicht proves. There have been other RF cameras that compensate for focal length shift. I even think there was one Polaroid Landcamera that managed to do this.

 

In terms of an engineering challenge, this isn't rocket science. It's more a matter of the will of the management and internal culture. I grew up in Germany and I can tell you that trying to influence the internal thinking of a tradition steeped company like Leica, is about as easy to do, as bringing about peace in the middle east. Companies like Leica are very prone to "Not Invented Here Syndrome" also known as 'outside input'.

 

But if we can't have that, i would settle for the minimum coverage indicating 1 meter. For decades this choice worked very well in the older cameras.

 

 

All that said, even with the old frame lines photographers still needed to internalize the actual frame in relation to them. I suggest that approach because A) It has worked for decades and B) For now, 'what we got is what we got' and so we best figure out how to use it. Future cameras are all well and good to think about but many of us have to work things out with the cameras that exist right now. The best way to do that, I'd argue, is to learn one's lenses on the M8.

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I agree, but an important variable changed with the introduction of the smaller framelines.

 

With the smaller markings the margin of error is much greater now at working distances, than in the old days and very noticeable.

 

Shoot an M4 and a M6 with 50's side by side, focused at something about 20 feet away. There is a huge difference in framing accuracy between the two.

 

I never take a shot with my M4 and a 50 and when reviewing the negs, think 'what the hell was I lookng at when I framed that?". But it always happens with the metered cameras and the smaller markings.

 

The instant feedback of the M8 doesn't make this any simpler.

 

But you're right. Short of a minor miracle in Solms, this problem is not going to go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's clearly an important issue, else these threads wouldn't exist.

 

Sean is right, we probably automatically learned to understand the frames on previous bodies without giving it a second thought. But clearly, there's a new ballgame with the M8.

 

So far, I haven't seen any posts saying, "Hey, I like the M8 frame coverage as it is." Is anyone happy with it?

 

Most interesting to me is that we all remember that "the old ones were better" but we're not sure where those 'old ones' stopped. Where was it, M4-2, M5, M6, M6TTL, M8?

 

Puts or Reid or Matheson or Mancuso or Lager should do a definitive monograph on 'the history of frame lines in Leica cameras,' starting with IIIg, including prototypes etc. (:eek:)

 

Or maybe just answer the questions about frame coverage history, since that could be done in 1-2 pages.

 

--HC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that there are several lenses still in production at each of the main focal lengths, perhaps with different minimum focusing distance, it is puzzling why the closest focus distance should rule instead of the view at a standard distance like 1 or 2 m.

 

The reason why there is no problem at 21 mm (or with the WATE) and a visible problem with the 75 mm is simple. The change in field of view is a consequence of moving the lens further away to bring close objects into focus. (The focal length hasn't changed, but there is more distance from the lens to the image, and thus the angle of view is less when you focus close.)

The standard lens formula says that the increase in distance when a 21mm lens is focused at 70 cm is just under 3% while for a 75mm lens it is 11%, and these percentages are also the amount by which the viewing angles change.

 

scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not familiar w/the Leica prototype, but my understanding is that the problem is not just having expanding/contracting framelines, but having switchable framelines that change size for focus distance correction. All of the RF cameras I've seen that have framelines that change size have had just 1 set of lines in the VF, though they may be for different focal lengths (e.g., Koni-Omegas have frames for the 90, 135, & 180 mm lenses & the Fuji G690 has 100mm & 150mm frames, but all @ the same time). I suspect the engineering challenge isn't insurmountable, but would probably result in an even more expensive product. I think your "Not Invented Here" theory has more weight as to why Leica didn't really go outside of the box on the M8 & use electronically projected framelines (LCD?) of some kind (as discussed in this thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/24511-next-m3.html )--they would probably have been forced to go to 1 of the Japanese companies for help to do that.

 

Well, it appears that a mechanical solution to this problem already resides in the Leica archives. They solved this issue a few decades ago, as the prototype for sale at Westlicht proves. There have been other RF cameras that compensate for focal length shift. I even think there was one Polaroid Landcamera that managed to do this.

 

In terms of an engineering challenge, this isn't rocket science. It's more a matter of the will of the management and internal culture. I grew up in Germany and I can tell you that trying to influence the internal thinking of a tradition steeped company like Leica, is about as easy to do, as bringing about peace in the middle east. Companies like Leica are very prone to "Not Invented Here Syndrome" also known as 'outside input'.

 

But if we can't have that, i would settle for the minimum coverage indicating 1 meter. For decades this choice worked very well in the older cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there's some psychology going on here. First it seems people are sensitive to the coverage the framelines give, and second there is a question about what different people prefer. Is there an optimum distance that most would sign up for, or does it vary between people a lot? Personally my M6 (and M4 and M2) seemed about right. Being accurate at closest focussing is not what I'd choose since most of my photos with a rangefinder are not taken at this distance. I've not been troubled by the M6 choice, even compared to the Konica Hexar AF where the framelines FOV changed with distance.

 

 

Nik

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most interesting to me is that we all remember that "the old ones were better" but we're not sure where those 'old ones' stopped. Where was it, M4-2, M5, M6, M6TTL, M8?

--HC

 

It went wrong with the last few batches of the M4-P (zinc top plate), when in anticipation of the M6 Leica introduced the .7 meter mask.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be that the 30% change from 1m to 70cmts. makes an enormous difference to framing when you then use the 70cmts. frame-lines for middle distance work; by which I mean around 2-15 metres. I was always aware of the tightness of the frame-lines when focusing closely with my M2/3 cameras (and by the way, I use a 1964 1st version 35mm Summicron which focuses to 70cmts. A contemporary of the M2 and M3 with 'accurate' frame-lines for middle distance photography!) but never had a problem with it. But really, who wants to use a rangefinder camera for shooting that closely regularly, where you would have uncontrollable parallax error anyway; this is SLR territory.

It seems the problem started around the introduction of the M6, but I think with the M8 it got even worse and is now unacceptable. I do think this greater inaccuracy that we find is connected to the 1.33 adjustment, and that Leica took the opportunity, while having to completely redo the frame-line coverage because of lens focal length changes, to make them even tighter for reasons of their own. Perhaps, as mentioned by Nik, the 24mm frame-lines would not quite fit in the viewfinder, but this should have nothing to do with the others. I'll mention this too: the frame-lines in my M8 record more on the left side and top, than the right side; the bottom line is almost spot on. This is with 35mm lens during horizontal use and at all distances. I'm hoping this can be corrected.

Regards, JGW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest sirvine

Man, I just wish I could SEE all four corners of my framelines. My glasses are always on, and I haven't gotten around to buying an obscenely overpriced Leica diopter yet. I'm with Sean, though--I'm at the point where I can frame and shoot by reference to the focus patch and know what I'll get based on which lens is mounted. Most of the time I can't see one side of the frameline if I'm shooting under 50mm. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I posted earlier, that's about right for me as well - optimized for 5 - 6 feet. 2m would be OK as well.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Guys, if they go back to the old 1 meter frame lines, everything will be fine at normal shooting distances of 2.5 - 15 meters.

 

With the 1 meter markings the difference between what you get at 1 meter and infinity is acceptable and people have lived with this setup for decades.

 

The .70 markings are about 30% SMALLER than the 1 meter markings, so the difference between close-up and infinity is MUCH bigger than with the old framelines and that's the problem we are experiencing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...