Frame lines on M 19

[Pobble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I noticed that the right and left frame lines on my M 10 indicate a slightly larger space that the 50 Ao-Summicron and 90 Macro Elmar cover. Checked with live-view and confirmed that tis is the case, so if yu compose up to the edge using the optical finer a small section will not be recorded. Distances were betwwen 1 and 4 meters. 28 mm framing fine.

 

Anyone else notice this?  Could reflect difference between actual focal lengths and nominal focal length - might not happen with Lux or Summarit.

 

 

[adan]

Interesting - usually Leica framelines show LESS than the final picture ends up containing, except right at/near minimum focus distance, where they should be exactly right. To avoid accidentally cutting off people's heads and such, due to the parallax between the lens and the viewfinder.

 

However - Leica M framelines are always going to be "wrong" except at one subject distance. Because as you move the lens away from the film or sensor to focus closer, the image expands a bit (think of pulling a slide projector away from the screen - the projected picture gets bigger and bigger until it runs right off the edge of the screen, or sensor). The fixed framelines (slits cut into a metal mask) cannot expand and contract to reflect this effect. (Some day, we may get computerized "zooming" framelines like those in the Fuji X-Pro cameras - but not soon).

 

Many users, especially in the digital era, where we see the full picture, without cropping by print labs or slide mounts, have hated how much extra shows up in the final picture, especially in landscapes or other long distances. The 50 and 90 lines have always been the most troublesome. My M9's lines for a 90mm actually show about a 105mm image area, so my pictures always end up too loose, with extra stuff showing that I didn't want in the picture. At "street photography" distances of 10-50 feet or more.

 

Leica has fiddled with the lines over time, setting them to show correct framing at: 1) minimum focus distance, or 2) 1 meter for all lenses, or 3) 2 meters for all lenses.

 

I notice the M10 specs say the lines are set for peak accuracy at 2 meters/6.5 feet, so if you are using your lenses mostly closer than that, then, yes, your final picture may be as much as 1 frameline-thickness less than the lines suggested.

 

The instruction manual has a diagram showing how to best estimate final framing at various distances. But if you have to have absolutely perfect right-to-the-corners framing in every shot, time for an SLR or an EVF-mirrorless camera - the M view/rangefinder can't do that.

 

http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/framelines-in-manual.jpg

 

Your observation is actually GOOD M10 news for me, since the old "looseness" for the 90 lines in earlier cameras at longer distances drives me crazy.

 

But it just depends on where most of one's work is done - infinity, or 100 feet, or 10 feet, or 6 feet, or 3 feet or less.

[jaapv]

You are leaving out the perspective shift Andy.

Because the viewfinder is offset to the left it may happen that certain objects may be visible in the viewfinder, but hidden by something in front on the image - and the other way around.

[duckrider]

The fixed framelines (slits cut into a metal mask) cannot expand and contract to reflect this effect...

Thinkable is an optical construction enlarging and shrinking the picture of the metal mask in correspondence with the focus.

But this would be a complex and with no doubt to integrate into M-body solution.

But idea is alluring, or?

 

Thomas

[chris_tribble]

Isn't the good news with the M10 that if you REALLY need such a tight frame you have the option of the very usable EVF / Visoflex 020. In reportage mode with 80%-09% of the M lenses the FF, the M (240 & 10) does a good job. For critical framing and a more measured style of work we now have a viable alternative way of making the image.

[adan]

Just for reference here's an M9 shot with a 90mm (lines tuned for 1 meter distance, actual shooting distance about 25 meters) - the simulated lines show what the finder told me I would get, the whole picture is what I did capture. Lot of extra dead space (street, wall, etc.)

 

If the M10 improves on that - bravo for me, but troublesome for people working mostly closeup. Leica can't please everyone.

 

@ Jaap - well, yes, I could write a more complete technical manual with nothing left out - but only for a price.

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!

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

BTW - the effect is most pronounced for longer lenses because they move much more to focus closer, thus exaggerating the image maginfication effect. Your 28 only moves perhaps 4mm to get from infinity to .7 meters, while a 90 (checking my own Summicron) moves about 10mm to get from infinity to 0.95 meters.

 

I think Leica squished the 50mm lines a bit (reducing accuracy) once they began squeezing in the lines for 75mm, back in the 1980s. My impression is that the M2 50mm lines covered a larger area. But I've never had pre-M4-P/post-M4-P bodies side by side to check that visually.

[Bill Livingston]

To correct for all of this in a mechanical/optical system would be extremely difficult and very expensive.

 

However, dare I say it, an EVF option would get rid of this and other issues instantly... 

[adan]

To correct for all of this in a mechanical/optical system would be extremely difficult and very expensive.

 

However, dare I say it, an EVF option would get rid of this and other issues instantly... 

 

If you prefer viewing a TV image of the world over a simple window onto the real thing.

 

But - since Leica appears to have abandoned natural-light frameline illumination forever (sic transit gloria mundi) and the lines will always turn off with the camera from now on - I could live with a hybrid a la the Fuji X-Pro, where you see the world through pure glass, but the lines (and other finder data) come from an LCD reflected in the split-prism, along with the RF patch. Shouldn't take up more room than the current chamber over there on the right.

 

http://cdn1.expertreviews.co.uk/sites/expertreviews/files/2016/05/fuji_xpro-2_viewfinder.jpg?itok=Pp8r93qr

 

And Leica would avoid the main X-Pro problem - that the lines are still not accurate until AF measures the distance. At which point you may be taking a grossly mis-composed picture, if close.

 

With Leica's manual, mechanical focusing and RF linkage, there would be a smooth continuous change in the lines as one turns the focus ring.

[UliWer]

....

 

I think Leica squished the 50mm lines a bit (reducing accuracy) once they began squeezing in the lines for 75mm, back in the 1980s. My impression is that the M2 50mm lines covered a larger area. But I've never had pre-M4-P/post-M4-P bodies side by side to check that visually.

Traditionally the framelines were calibrated according to the shortest focussing distance. Though the lenses shortest distance changed during the M-times. For the M3 1m was the limit, so if you focus a lens with 0.70m to its minimal distance on a M3, the rangefinder doesn't work. The M2 rangefinder works below 1m, but the lines still were calibrated for 1m. I am not sure wether the change to calibration for 0.70m already happened during the M4/M4-P-times, but it certainly was there for the M6 up to the M8.

 

This only applies to 50 or 35mm lenses, since for 90mm 1m staid the minimal distance, 1.5 for 135mm. For the 75mm Summilux the shortest distance was 1m at first and later changed to 0.75 so the framelines in the cameras would have gotten a new calibration around the time when the lens was changed.

 

Only after users realized that they got more on their photos than the framelines promised by chimping with the M8 and protested against this, they changed the calibration to 2m for all focal lengthes with the M8.2, compromised with the M9 to 1m and went to 2m again with the M (Type 240).

[mikemgb]

Framelines showing less than you get on the final image isn't something limited to Leica, I think every D/SLR I owned only showed 92-94% of the final image. It's something I learned to use to my advantage, once you know exactly how much you lose you can often just squeeze the top of that building in without having to change lenses, even if the viewfinder says otherwise.

[Bill Livingston]

That was one of the many advantages of the Nikon F2A... you saw pretty much 100%... unlike virtually every SLR before or after...

[jaapv]

Just for reference here's an M9 shot with a 90mm (lines tuned for 1 meter distance, actual shooting distance about 25 meters) - the simulated lines show what the finder told me I would get, the whole picture is what I did capture. Lot of extra dead space (street, wall, etc.)

 

If the M10 improves on that - bravo for me, but troublesome for people working mostly closeup. Leica can't please everyone.

 

@ Jaap - well, yes, I could write a more complete technical manual with nothing left out - but only for a price.

Yes, but  in the context of the original question, it is worth mentioning that even if the framelines are OK albeit a bit loose in the plane of focus, they will be shifted on the horizon and close up  due to parallax.

[Pobble]

The frame lines show MORE than what you get. I have checked them at 2 meters. To my surprise that's also the case on a M 262. I no longer have a M 240, but that might also be the case.

 

The reason that i noticed the larger area framed by the lines on the M10's OVF is that they are brighter and the viewfinder image larger. I would not have attempted to use the m 262, m-240 viewfinder OVF to place a critical part of an image on the edge - a technique that marks Goya's paintings. 

 

It's not a problem if you are aware of the OVF frame lines coverage. Perhaps Leica will place the frame lines closer to the image size, but that might result in problems in series production since the actual focal length of an individual lens might vary from its nominal focal length. That was the case before computer-controlled lens grinding machinery was commonplace and still may be the case.

 

BTW - startup time seems to be about a second - about as fast as you can switch the camera on and bring it into action, I used EXFATT formatting of a Sandisk 64 GB extreme pro SDXC card. EXFATT formatting is easy if you are using Windows 10. Simply insert a SDXC card into your computer, right click and select the format.

 

M10 image quality is stunning!  ISO 6,400 results in crisp micro-contrast. ISO 25,00 is useful.

 

And the camera handles much better - close to the fim Ms of yore. A superb instrument.

[Pobble]

The frame lines show MORE than what you get. I have checked them at 2 meters. To my surprise that's also the case on a M 262. I no longer have a M 240, but that might also be the case.

 

The reason that i noticed the larger area framed by the lines on the M10's OVF is that they are brighter and the viewfinder image larger. I would not have attempted to use the m 262, m-240 viewfinder OVF to place a critical part of an image on the edge - a technique that marks Goya's paintings. 

 

It's not a problem if you are aware of the OVF frame lines coverage. Perhaps Leica will place the frame lines closer to the image size, but that might result in problems in series production since the actual focal length of an individual lens might vary from its nominal focal length. That was the case before computer-controlled lens grinding machinery was commonplace and still may be the case.

 

BTW - startup time seems to be about a second - about as fast as you can switch the camera on and bring it into action, I used EXFATT formatting of a Sandisk 64 GB extreme pro SDXC card. EXFATT formatting is easy if you are using Windows 10. Simply insert a SDXC card into your computer, right click and select the format.

 

M10 image quality is stunning!  ISO 6,400 results in crisp micro-contrast. ISO 25,00 is useful.

 

And the camera handles much better - close to the fim Ms of yore. A superb instrument.

[rramesh]

M19 and frame lines? Did I sleep that long?

[Pobble]

Looked into frame lines issue again. The M 10's frame lines appear to be adjusted for 2.5 to 3 meters. At tat distance they map onto the recorded image. End of story.

[Peter Kilmister]

When was the M19 announced? It seems like only yesterday that the M10 appeared. Maybe I'm slow off the mark. Am I alone?  

[Sergius]

Looked into frame lines issue again. The M 10's frame lines appear to be adjusted for 2.5 to 3 meters. At tat distance they map onto the recorded image. End of story.

 

 

About 35  lens ? Same problem ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M