Jump to content

Inaccurate framelines M4-P/M6/M7/MP +/-MA


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From what I've previously read, starting from later M4-P's & continuing through to today (M6>M7>MP>?M-A) framelines show approximately 15% less than what will end up on the negative. For example, the 50mm markings show what is more like that of a 60mm lens.

I have an M3 & MP & can tell the difference looking through the respective viewfinders (esp @ 50mm). Has this anomaly continued through to the M-A?

This has probably already been discussed on this forum but I couldn't find more information by searching (maybe I've chosen poor search criteria).

Edited by romualdo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The field of view varies with distance. The frames in the range finder are fixed in size and computed to be correct for one particular distance. I believe that for the M4s that distance is 1m. As the field grows wider with increasing distance, your observation seems correct that you will have about 15%-20% more on your picture than the frames made you expect.

 

This is mentioned in one of our FAQs and the search term is framelineshttps://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/216580-leica-m8-m82-m9-m9p-mm-mtyp240-faqs-questions-with-answers/?view=findpost&p=2464054

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The field of view varies with distance. The frames in the range finder are fixed in size and computed to be correct for one particular distance. I believe that for the M4s that distance is 1m. As the field grows wider with increasing distance, your observation seems correct that you will have about 15%-20% more on your picture than the frames made you expect.

 

This is mentioned in one of our FAQs and the search term is framelineshttps://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/216580-leica-m8-m82-m9-m9p-mm-mtyp240-faqs-questions-with-answers/?view=findpost&p=2464054

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link Phillipp & it makes sense but then why have comments been made (from my reading) regarding this being a particular problem for the models I've listed above.

 

Shouldn't this apply equally to all of the M's, starting from the M3.

 

People also complain about the MP framelines - is it more to do with their incompleteness rather than this "fixed distance" phenomenon that is the issue?

 

Is there a list of ideal frameline distances for each M camera?

Edited by romualdo
Link to post
Share on other sites

It does apply to all kinds of M. You learn to live with it. If I remember correctly, in most models the framelines coincide exactly with the picture taken at 1m. I don't think many people are bothered by this idiosyncrasy.

 

I don't know about people complaining about MP framelines; I haven't been following comments on that camera.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Complaint about MP finder ?

 

The main difference of framelines MP/M-A is the more "complete framelines" but otherwise same thing.

Leica re-introduced in M-A what was bottom complete line not available since M6 untill MP.

 

I appreciate also in M-A viewfinder more snap in focussing (but MP is very good already, no flare/contrast loss like previous Ms).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This is an M thing. Bothers me the most with a 35, for some reason - it's entirely personal. And, unfortunately, 35 seems to be my frame of choice.  So, I find that I shoot an awful lot with my Nokton 40, which I've filed to bring up the 35 lines.  I find the Nokton fits my M lines perfectly, and I like the lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've previously read, starting from later M4-P's & continuing through to today (M6>M7>MP>?M-A) framelines show approximately 15% less than what will end up on the negative. For example, the 50mm markings show what is more like that of a 60mm lens.

I have an M3 & MP & can tell the difference looking through the respective viewfinders (esp @ 50mm). Has this anomaly continued through to the M-A?

This has probably already been discussed on this forum but I couldn't find more information by searching (maybe I've chosen poor search criteria).

 

 

 

Previous to the M6 (and a few late M4-P) the frame lines indicated what you would get at 1 meter. 

Starting with the M6 and continuing to today the framelines indicate what you would get at .7 m (70cm).

(MP3 excluded which appears to have a 1m mask)

 

You are correct that there is a very noticeable difference in framing accuracy between the 1m and .7m cameras.

 

1m

M3/M2/M4/M5/M4-2/most M4-P/ maybe MP3

 

.7m

late M4-P / M6/M6ttl/M7/MP/M-A etc

 

Nobody expects a RF to frame as accurate as an SLR. But we went from reasonable accuracy at all distances with the 1m mask to noticeably inaccurate with the .7 mask at all but the closest focus distance. Frankly at infinity the accuracy of the .7 mask is laughable and mediocre at 5m. We are talking about an error of 20%.

 

A while back I did some testing and essentially the .7 mask would be better suited to a 60mm than a 50. In light of my findings I gave up on shooting anything longer than a 35mm on the .7 cameras. I only shoot my 50's on the 1 m bodies (M2/M4 etc)

 

Unfortunately many years of complaints on this subject have fallen on deaf ears at Leica. I've spoken to several Leica reps at shows and the reception was either indifference or I was told that the shift to .7m concurred with the minimum focusing distance of Leica 50mm lenses changing from 1m to .7m and therefore all was well. The simple fact that this change screwed up framing accuracy by a considerable margin for 90% of shooting did not seem to make much of an impression.

 

Oddly enough Leica has heeded these complaints with the M9/M240 and M10. The frameline markings in these cameras varies, but hovers around 2m and framing accuracy is very good.

 

So if you like to shoot the 50 you are better off with the pre M6 bodies (M3/M2/M4/M5/M4-2/most M4-P).

Apparently the MP3 has the 1m frameline mask, but these bodies have become quite expensive.

You could also have the RF swapped out in one of the newer .7 bodies for the MP3 unit, but that's an expensive option.

Edited by thrid
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Everybody,

 

1 of the reasons for choosing the closer 0.7 meter field of view might be:

When the frame lines show the field of view covered at 1.0 meters that field has a certain angle of view.

 

When the frame lines show the field of view covered with the same lens focused to 0.7 meters: They show a field covered by the lens with the lens unit further away from the film/sensor plane.

 

Because as a person focuses closer: The lens unit moves further away from the film/sensor surface.

 

When a lens is further away from the film/sensor plane: Then it becomes a lens which covers a smaller angle of view.

 

Which means that the frame which defines this field of view at the closer distance will create a smaller enclosure. Which is also further away from the edges of the viewfinder.

 

Since the lines showing the field of coverage are further from the edges of the viewfinder: They will be easier to see. Especially when wearing glasses.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
Link to post
Share on other sites

Subjective response, but as a glasses wearer I second Michael's point -- I prefer the .7m-optimized lines in my M-A over the lines in the digital bodies in part because they're easier to see.

 

Another consideration in favor of optimizing for close focus: I enjoy the simplicity of knowing with the .7m-optimized frames that it's ALWAYS the minimum coverage I'll get, rather than working with 2m-optimized lines where sometimes you get more, sometimes you get less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous to the M6 (and a few late M4-P) the frame lines indicated what you would get at 1 meter. 

Starting with the M6 and continuing to today the framelines indicate what you would get at .7 m (70cm).

(MP3 excluded which appears to have a 1m mask)

 

You are correct that there is a very noticeable difference in framing accuracy between the 1m and .7m cameras.

 

1m

M3/M2/M4/M5/M4-2/most M4-P/ maybe MP3

 

.7m

late M4-P / M6/M6ttl/M7/MP/M-A etc

 

Nobody expects a RF to frame as accurate as an SLR. But we went from reasonable accuracy at all distances with the 1m mask to noticeably inaccurate with the .7 mask at all but the closest focus distance. Frankly at infinity the accuracy of the .7 mask is laughable and mediocre at 5m. We are talking about an error of 20%.

 

A while back I did some testing and essentially the .7 mask would be better suited to a 60mm than a 50. In light of my findings I gave up on shooting anything longer than a 35mm on the .7 cameras. I only shoot my 50's on the 1 m bodies (M2/M4 etc)

 

Unfortunately many years of complaints on this subject have fallen on deaf ears at Leica. I've spoken to several Leica reps at shows and the reception was either indifference or I was told that the shift to .7m concurred with the minimum focusing distance of Leica 50mm lenses changing from 1m to .7m and therefore all was well. The simple fact that this change screwed up framing accuracy by a considerable margin for 90% of shooting did not seem to make much of an impression.

 

Oddly enough Leica has heeded these complaints with the M9/M240 and M10. The frameline markings in these cameras varies, but hovers around 2m and framing accuracy is very good.

 

So if you like to shoot the 50 you are better off with the pre M6 bodies (M3/M2/M4/M5/M4-2/most M4-P).

Apparently the MP3 has the 1m frameline mask, but these bodies have become quite expensive.

You could also have the RF swapped out in one of the newer .7 bodies for the MP3 unit, but that's an expensive option.

Many thanks for your input & explanation

 

At least the framing inaccuracy gives you more than what you see ie you can crop the image if needed

 

Looks like I may use a 50mm viewfinder on my MP or just stick to the M3

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody expects a RF to frame as accurate as an SLR. But we went from reasonable accuracy at all distances with the 1m mask to noticeably inaccurate with the .7 mask at all but the closest focus distance. Frankly at infinity the accuracy of the .7 mask is laughable and mediocre at 5m. We are talking about an error of 20%.

 

Oddly enough Leica has heeded these complaints with the M9/M240 and M10. The frameline markings in these cameras varies, but hovers around 2m and framing accuracy is very good.

 

I agree that 1m is preferable as a better "all-round" alternative to 0.7m but IMO frameline inaccuracy is just part and parcel of using a Leica M. Perhaps if I used a 50mm more often I'd find the 0.7m frames more of  problem but I tend to only use the framelines as an almost unconscious guide to what I'm including in a given composition. By the time I get to see the film, I have probably forgotten what it was I was trying to achieve :D (no doubt the reason why Leica have tightened up frameline accuracy only on digital bodies where inaccuracy is most readily apparent).

 

Looks like I may use a 50mm viewfinder on my MP or just stick to the M3

 

 

Without parallax correction and an accurate offset, a 50mm external viewfinder may introduce as much inaccuracy as it cures. Surely more convenient to get into the habit of allowing for the inaccuracy of the framelines at infinity when using a 50mm on a modern Leica?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've previously read, starting from later M4-P's & continuing through to today (M6>M7>MP>?M-A) framelines show approximately 15% less than what will end up on the negative. For example, the 50mm markings show what is more like that of a 60mm lens.

I have an M3 & MP & can tell the difference looking through the respective viewfinders (esp @ 50mm). Has this anomaly continued through to the M-A?

This has probably already been discussed on this forum but I couldn't find more information by searching (maybe I've chosen poor search criteria).

A thing about knowledge is how many ways you can use it, often turning an anomaly into the norm. Most photographers using rangefinder cameras have been doing just that for many years, those who adapt to framelines are cut from the same cloth that made early man learn to climb a tree to get away from a lion, not wait for a ladder to be invented.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the framelines were set to be accurate at 1 or 2m, then when focused to 0.7m you would have more in the box than on the film. The decision was made I believe to ensure that you never missed what you expected. It is easier to crop the image by 10-20% when making a print than to add extra in. It isn't perfect (it's not a TTL viewing camera), but it's the lesser of two evils.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that 1m is preferable as a better "all-round" alternative to 0.7m but IMO frameline inaccuracy is just part and parcel of using a Leica M. Perhaps if I used a 50mm more often I'd find the 0.7m frames more of  problem but I tend to only use the framelines as an almost unconscious guide to what I'm including in a given composition. By the time I get to see the film, I have probably forgotten what it was I was trying to achieve :D (no doubt the reason why Leica have tightened up frameline accuracy only on digital bodies where inaccuracy is most readily apparent).

 

Without parallax correction and an accurate offset, a 50mm external viewfinder may introduce as much inaccuracy as it cures. Surely more convenient to get into the habit of allowing for the inaccuracy of the framelines at infinity when using a 50mm on a modern Leica?

 

 

 

I shoot 28/35 on my M6/M7. The 35 frame lines on the .7 cameras is noticeably tighter than on my M2/M4 bodies, but it's a workable situation.

Accuracy really falls apart with the 50 and longer lenses on the .7 bodies. It's quite noticeable at 2-5 m and really bad at infinity.

So for me it's 28/35 on M6ttl/M7 and 50mm on M2/M4. Another excuse for buying more bodies...

 

I have also tried the Leitz 50mm viewfinder and it's actually quite good for street shooting at medium distances (2-10m) and even at infinity. Certainly better than the .7 mask. It's been a while, but I seem to remember comparing the frame lines in the 50mm viewfinder to an M2 and they matched.

Edited by thrid
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the framelines were set to be accurate at 1 or 2m, then when focused to 0.7m you would have more in the box than on the film. The decision was made I believe to ensure that you never missed what you expected. It is easier to crop the image by 10-20% when making a print than to add extra in. It isn't perfect (it's not a TTL viewing camera), but it's the lesser of two evils.

 

True, but unless the majority of your shots are portraits you will be in the opposite boat.

Cropping 15-20% off a 135 format film negative is giving up a lot of real estate, especially if you are shooting a grainy film...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this conundrum is part of the argument that Leica is now more of a luxury brand than pro camera maker.

 

You can get all sort of customizations done to your camera like engravings and leather straps, but you can't get something truly useful like a choice of frame line mask (.7 vs 1m vs 2m etc), which actually has to do with the camera taking pictures.

 

;-)

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...