MP frame spacing showing some variability

[semi-ambivalent]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes the frame spacing is dictated by the winding mechanism. If there is no slippage or wear in the mechanism then the distance from centre of each frame to the next should be consistent. 

The area/size  of each exposure is unaffected by the image circle as it overlaps the film gate by some margin by design.

I agree with what Tom explained at #9 .You may get some small variation from the nominal 24x36 film gate dimensions due to the film register  (in different camera designs) and different lenses. As I recall using wide angles was where I noticed this.

 

I'm not sure how I noticed this thread as I havent shot film for some years. I think because I measured (with vernier calipers) frames from an M3 some time back.

 

As long as the original poster with his MP has found the discussion helpful it's worthwhile. 

My MP is just fine, thank you, and learning something is always worthwhile. My epiphany came when NB23 mentioned the wide angle aspect and I realized that rangefinders could put a lens element much closer to the film (than an SLR) so the light rays could get "under" the film gate a bit and produce a larger image. I bet if I looked the image edges are also not as clean or distinct because of this but I'm enjoying a perfectly mediocre cabernet tonight and feeling rather lazy. Just glad the MP is not misbehaving, it's such a nice camera.

 

Prost!, or something,

s-a

[gabrielaszalos]

I have also noticed the irregular spacing on my new MP. Happened two times on my latest roll. I have looked through older rolls too (past 20) and I did notice that occasionally it happened that two frames were closer together than others (never overlapping). Frankly I will abstain from contacting Leica Customer Care because I am pretty sure they will ask me to send the camera in and it’s not something I want to do... Not sure if normal or not. My Pentax K1000 doesn’t seem to have it. Perhaps it was too cheap to have mechanical problems (sarcasm). 

In the photo below, the larger spacing is the norm and the smaller ones is the exception.

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!

Edited May 13, 2020 by gabrielaszalos

[a.noctilux]

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/118961-distance-between-frames/?do=findComment&comment=1302276

 

[gabrielaszalos]

Forgot to say: I used the same lens for the whole roll, the latest Summilux 35mm FLE

[gabrielaszalos]

I wonder if I should make a fresh topic of this to get some input from others who have MPs. I'm sure a lot of people on the forum could look at their rolls and tell me if they see similar behaviour on their MPs... 

[250swb]

This really is a non-story, sometimes the film slackens a bit, the roll slackens inside the cassettte, if it does slacken you get slightly uneven frame spacing next time you wind on.

[gabrielaszalos]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, 250swb said:

This really is a non-story, sometimes the film slackens a bit, the roll slackens inside the cassettte, if it does slacken you get slightly uneven frame spacing next time you wind on.

I am no expert (by far) in Leica internals but I don’t see what slack in the cassette has to do with the other side of the camera. For this to happen, there would in theory have to be slack between the teeth advancing the sprocket holes and the sprocket holes themselves. 

[250swb]

2 hours ago, gabrielaszalos said:

I am no expert (by far) in Leica internals but I don’t see what slack in the cassette has to do with the other side of the camera. For this to happen, there would in theory have to be slack between the teeth advancing the sprocket holes and the sprocket holes themselves. 

Maybe you run with the camera, or the camera gets giggled up and down in the boot of the car, etc. all these things can cause a fraction more film to unwind from the cassette so it's not wound as tight through the film gate. Some films are springier so they can push out of the cassette more or resist relaxing back more than others at different times as they unwind. I'm just saying it's not a mechanical mystery, stuff happens. And the pressure plate is to keep the film flat, it's not a clamp. Even the way people move the advance lever can introduce a small mismatch, an old street photographers trick before digital was to advance the film with lots of tiny movements of the lever so they don't appear to be taking photographs but just composing them, this can cause uneven frame spacing. 

If you want to start a new topic please do it, I'm not trying to stop you, but maybe it would be useful to make it for all 35mm film cameras, not just Leica, because they will all have uneven frame spacing from time to time.

Edited May 14, 2020 by 250swb

[gabrielaszalos]

Thanks for taking the time to write that. It makes sense to me to some extent, and I would not be able to argue with you  The only thing I'd be curious of is to hear if other MP owners see this, but I assume that you probably also do, given your replies. I will wait to hear back from Leica (because I wrote to them too, to ask) and perhaps open a new topic if I feel necessary. I'm just afraid that they might give me the usual default "send it in for us to check it" answer, which I frankly don't want to do because you're probably right and this doesn't seem to be a problem.

[TomB_tx]

I don't have an MP, but I've seen such slight variation in frame spacing at times on a number of cameras, including Leicas. Fit of the film on the sprocket holes makes sense. I also don't consider it an issue.

[wizard]

Over the years I have experienced variations in frame spacing a number of times, both on my Leica M cameras as well as on other cameras. It has never bothered me as long as consecutive frames do not overlap.

[wizard]

Am 11.2.2016 um 18:56 schrieb NB23:

My super-angulon definitely uses more film area than other lenses, the frames almost touch together.

Yes, that lens is well known for showing this behaviour. It probably also means that lenses which do show such behaviour will likely not perform well on digital sensors, due to the very oblique angles of the light rays those lenses are sending towards the edges of the frame. Has anybody ever tried a Super-Angulon on a digital sensor?

[ianman]

10 minutes ago, wizard said:

Has anybody ever tried a Super-Angulon on a digital sensor?

Yes. Here's one on the M9.

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!

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by ianman

[ianman]

... and another, in colour...

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!

[250swb]

4 hours ago, gabrielaszalos said:

Thanks for taking the time to write that. It makes sense to me to some extent, and I would not be able to argue with you  The only thing I'd be curious of is to hear if other MP owners see this, but I assume that you probably also do, given your replies. I will wait to hear back from Leica (because I wrote to them too, to ask) and perhaps open a new topic if I feel necessary. I'm just afraid that they might give me the usual default "send it in for us to check it" answer, which I frankly don't want to do because you're probably right and this doesn't seem to be a problem.

I do get uneven frame spacing with my MP to the extent I don't even notice it anymore, I just cut between every sixth frame and if one is gap tighter I cut more carefully. And I think Leica will say 'send the camera back' simply because they always work on the basis that the customer doesn't necessarily explain or interpret things correctly.

[wizard]

vor 32 Minuten schrieb ianman:

... and another, in colour...

Looks good to me. Have you noticed inferior edge performance on your M9 with this lens when compared to other lenses?

[ianman]

40 minutes ago, wizard said:

Looks good to me. Have you noticed inferior edge performance on your M9 with this lens when compared to other lenses?

No more on the M9 than the MP. The corners are not sharp and there is a lot of vignetting, which is expected. And luckily I like a fair bit of natural vignetting. I believe the issues you mention on digital show up as what is known as the "Italian flag" effect. I usually convert to monochrome with that lens but even in the colour image posted above, there isn't that much of an effect, you can see a little red-ish tint along the lower and left edge. It doesn't really bother me and I couldn't even correct it if I wanted to, as I do not have the software to do so.

M9, 21mm Super-Angulon, orange filter (22?)

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!

[pippy]

59 minutes ago, ianman said:

...I believe the issues you mention on digital show up as what is known as the "Italian flag" effect. I usually convert to monochrome with that lens but even in the colour image posted above, there isn't that much of an effect, you can see a little red-ish tint along the lower and left edge. It doesn't really bother me...

Interesting. Which version of the S-A do you have, Ian? Is it the f3.4?

I have the old f4 design and there is a whopping amount of colour fringing at the edges when shot in colour. I bought it to use on the M9M and when used on the M-D Typ-262 and converted to monochrome the images work really well after a bit of TLC correcting stuff at the LHS and RHS edges but it cannot realistically be used for colour-work on a digital M.

There's a thread about the older 21 S-A here. If you go to post #5 you will see the colour-fringing on a digital body;

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/306221-21mm-f4-super-angulon-m-vs-21mm-elmarit-pre-asph-m/#comments

Philip.

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by pippy

[ianman]

36 minutes ago, pippy said:

Interesting. Which version of the S-A do you have, Ian? Is it the f3.4?

It's the f/3,4. I saw the thread you mentioned and in fact had already posted the above picture (the tree) there. It's not that I don't get any Italian flag issues, but for some reason I do seem to get it less than others I've seen. I wonder if the fact that I under expose quite a lot when using digital has an effect. I've never really thought about it because as I wrote above, that lens is used mainly for monochrome conversions anyway.

May I suggest we go back to the above mentioned thread as to not derail this one anymore.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

Of course!

Sorry to the OP for going off-topic!

P.