35mm Frame Lines - Really 35mm?

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really like my Leica M3 to be used with my 50/2 Summicron lens, and most often I use this combination in parallel with my Leica M6 and 35/2 lens. The M3 doesn't has frame lines for 35mm lenses, so I decided to get an external viewfinder for my M3 to allow me to use sporadically my 35/2 lens mounted on it, too. I found a very good deal on an excellent quality Braun Burnberg 38 mm viewfinder which was originally made in Germany for Paxette rangefinder cameras. I was not willing to spend $$$ for a Voigtlander or even Leica 35 mm viewfinder either. In fact this Braun viewfinder fits very well to the M3 as you can see in the photo below. My question is the following: I compared the field of view of my 35/2 lens being mounted on my M6 and on my digital mirrorless camera. As expected, the field of view of this lens is a tiny bit wider when comparing the digital image from my mirrorless camera with the view through this Braun external viewfinder. But when I compare the Braun viewfinder view to the 35 mm frame lines of my M6 camera, I can barely tell any difference. Does anybody know why? Does it mean that the Leica rangefinder 35 mm frame lines are closer to 38 mm than 35 mm of the "real" field of view of the lens itself? How accurate are the 35 mm frame lines in the rangefinder cameras compared to the 35 mm focal length of the lens? 

 

Either way, I find it feasible to use the 38 mm frame for my 35 mm lens by just adding a bit more to the viewfinder frame. And if I ever decide to get the 40/2 lens, this viewfinder will also work well. 

 

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 August 21, 2017 by Martin B

[earleygallery]

The M frame lines are set at 'accuracy' when focusing at 1m. So yes, they may well be less accurate at other distances.

 

Of course the 38mm frame lines won't be accurate at all distances either. How do you know where they show exactly a 38mm field of view?

 

If absolute accuracy in framing is important to you then you're using the wrong camera.

[Advertisement]

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

[pico]

Either way, I find it feasible to use the 38 mm frame for my 35 mm lens by just adding a bit more to the viewfinder frame. And if I ever decide to get the 40/2 lens, this viewfinder will also work well.

 

What earleygallery said. However as one who is slightly sight impaired I have learned through experience to us external viewfinders to accommodate what the lens sees. It might continue to work for you.

[Martin B]

The M frame lines are set at 'accuracy' when focusing at 1m. So yes, they may well be less accurate at other distances.

 

Of course the 38mm frame lines won't be accurate at all distances either. How do you know where they show exactly a 38mm field of view?

 

If absolute accuracy in framing is important to you then you're using the wrong camera.

 

I have no certainty that the 38 mm field of view of the external viewfinder is correctly revealing 38 mm focal length either. I was not aware about the 1 meter accuracy - thanks for letting me know. I asked this question above more out of curiosity than intending to have the absolute accuracy in framing. A rough estimate is sufficient for my purpose with this camera of course. 

[earleygallery]

I always shoot 'loose' with the rangefinders, whether it's the built in finder or an accessory finder.

 

I'm sure the loose framing is a part of what some refer to as 'the Leica look'.

[Martin B]

What earleygallery said. However as one who is slightly sight impaired I have learned through experience to us external viewfinders to accommodate what the lens sees. It might continue to work for you.

 

Yes - I actually do something similar when using my CV 21/25 external viewfinder. I predominantly use this viewfinder for my CV 21/1.8 lens, but interestingly this viewfinder can be even used with much wider lenses: The CV 12/5.6 has a very similar field of view to the one going from border to border of this external viewfinder outside of the drawn frame lines for 21 and 25 mm. Another example to adjust the external viewfinder to the actual lens view.

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I always shoot 'loose' with the rangefinders, whether it's the built in finder or an accessory finder.

 

I'm sure the loose framing is a part of what some refer to as 'the Leica look'.

 

Yes, it makes it more creative and interesting!

[Ko.Fe.]

38-35=3, it is indeed, hard to tell any difference. Just take it easy. M3 is only accurate with 50mm, IMO. If you want 35mm on M3, get lens with goggles or get camera with M2 like framelines for 35mm.

[Martin B]

38-35=3, it is indeed, hard to tell any difference. Just take it easy. M3 is only accurate with 50mm, IMO. If you want 35mm on M3, get lens with goggles or get camera with M2 like framelines for 35mm.

 

I fully agree that the M3 is the best for 50 mm lenses - I love the 0.9x viewfinder which allows a very precise focusing. Obviously wider angle lenses are much better off to be used with a later camera model like M2 - or in my case with my M6/M7 cameras. If I use my 35/2 lens mounted on the M3, I don't expect this kind of precision - I just want to do it for sporadic shooting with 35 mm on the M3. I wouldn't mind having a dedicated 35 mm lens with goggles, but I find them very expensive for the quality they offer compared to my excellent 35/2 version IV. So I rather mount this lens on my M3 and go ahead with the external 38 mm viewfinder - this should more than suffice. I got the Braun viewfinder for less than $30 - no brainer IMO. 

[thrid]

The M frame lines are set at 'accuracy' when focusing at 1m. So yes, they may well be less accurate at other distances.

 

Of course the 38mm frame lines won't be accurate at all distances either. How do you know where they show exactly a 38mm field of view?

 

If absolute accuracy in framing is important to you then you're using the wrong camera.

 

 

 

It depends on the model.

 

The M3/M2/M4/M4-2/M5 and some M4-P are set to 1 meter

The M6/M6ttl/M7 and all never models with the possible exception of the MP-3 are set to .7 meters.

 

The 1m framelines are very close to 35mm.

The .7m frame lines are closer to 40mm.

 

Nobody expects a rangefinder to frame as accurate as a SLR, but when Leica switched from 1m to .7cm accuracy went from reasonable to noticeably off. At infinity the .7 frame lines are a joke.

 

As an example with a 50mm the .7 markings indicate a 60mm lens at anything but the closest focusing distance. 

Edited August 24, 2017 by thrid

[sblitz]

It depends on the model.

 

The M3/M2/M4/M4-2/M5 and some M4-P are set to 1 meter

The M6/M6ttl/M7 and all never models with the possible exception of the MP-3 are set to .7 meters.

 

The 1m framelines are very close to 35mm.

The .7m frame lines are closer to 40mm.

 

Nobody expects a rangefinder to frame as accurate as a SLR, but when Leica switched from 1m to .7cm accuracy went from reasonable to noticeably off. At infinity the .7 frame lines are a joke.

 

As an example with a 50mm the .7 markings indicate a 60mm lens at anything but the closest focusing distance. 

 

Even an SLR isn't entirely accurate. Most, talking film SLRs, have views that cover about 93% to 97% of what the lens sees, for whatever technical reason. I guess this speaks to the value of a good lens -- you are probably going to crop the picture a little smaller after you see it.

[Martin B]

Even an SLR isn't entirely accurate. Most, talking film SLRs, have views that cover about 93% to 97% of what the lens sees, for whatever technical reason. I guess this speaks to the value of a good lens -- you are probably going to crop the picture a little smaller after you see it.

 

Yes, my 5D MkII DSLR has only a 97-98% viewfinder view which I never liked. The EVF of my A7R covers 100% which is much better. 

[sblitz]

Yes, my 5D MkII DSLR has only a 97-98% viewfinder view which I never liked. The EVF of my A7R covers 100% which is much better.

I wonder whether it is generally true in the difference between looking through the lens vs evf and if so why

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Martin B]

I wonder whether it is generally true in the difference between looking through the lens vs evf and if so why

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Both for (D)SLR and mirrorless, we look through the lens directly. Difference is that the viewfinder (D)SLR image is displayed through a prism (and depending on the prism size this determines the coverage of the viewfinder) whereas in mirrorless we see in EVF the image which is displayed on the sensor itself. So mirrorless is a bit better regarding what-you-see-is-what-you-get, but it depends on the EVF quality how well the image is presented. In DSLR terms this only works via LiveView when the mirror is flipped up. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Martin B

[sblitz]

Both for (D)SLR and mirrorless, we look through the lens directly. Difference is that the viewfinder (D)SLR image is displayed through a prism (and depending on the prism size this determines the coverage of the viewfinder) whereas in mirrorless we see in EVF the image which is displayed on the sensor itself. So mirrorless is a bit better regarding what-you-see-is-what-you-get, but it depends on the EVF quality how well the image is presented. In DSLR terms this only works via LiveView when the mirror is flipped up.

Thanks. Well that answers it. Getting back to original point, at least in live view world there are compromises between what we see and what we get whether it's a rangefinder or SLR.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thrid]

Even an SLR isn't entirely accurate. Most, talking film SLRs, have views that cover about 93% to 97% of what the lens sees, for whatever technical reason. I guess this speaks to the value of a good lens -- you are probably going to crop the picture a little smaller after you see it.

 

 

 

Even at 95% a SLR system is far more accurate than any RF will ever be, because you see things like lens breathing, focus shift etc.

 

Personally I prefer an SLR with 95-97% coverage over 100%. It's close to impossible to hand hold a camera perfectly steady and the extra 3-5% compensates for 'drift'. 

 

The bright lines in the Leica RF offer an approximation of the image you are trying to capture. There is an acceptable margin of error that has to be met to make this work. Unfortunately when you compare the framing accuracy of the 1m mask to the .7cm mask it becomes pretty obvious that Leica made a poor decision, when they switched. I did a lot of testing in regards to this and the 50mm markings on the .7m cameras are essentially for a 60mm lens. At infinity the margin of error is enormous and to me unacceptable, unless you enjoy cropping 10-20% into your negative.

 

Leica has stuck with the .7 mask on their film bodies, but the M9/240/M10 all have markings in the 2m range and frame quite accurately. I think that says a lot.

[Martin B]

Even at 95% a SLR system is far more accurate than any RF will ever be, because you see things like lens breathing, focus shift etc.

 

Personally I prefer an SLR with 95-97% coverage over 100%. It's close to impossible to hand hold a camera perfectly steady and the extra 3-5% compensates for 'drift'. 

 

The bright lines in the Leica RF offer an approximation of the image you are trying to capture. There is an acceptable margin of error that has to be met to make this work. Unfortunately when you compare the framing accuracy of the 1m mask to the .7cm mask it becomes pretty obvious that Leica made a poor decision, when they switched. I did a lot of testing in regards to this and the 50mm markings on the .7m cameras are essentially for a 60mm lens. At infinity the margin of error is enormous and to me unacceptable, unless you enjoy cropping 10-20% into your negative.

 

Leica has stuck with the .7 mask on their film bodies, but the M9/240/M10 all have markings in the 2m range and frame quite accurately. I think that says a lot.

 

Again this all is a matter of personal preference, but I fully disliked not having 100% viewfinder coverage on my DSLR cameras. I am/was very able to exactly compose with 100% viewfinder coverage. You are right about the close focus range with Leica rangefinder cameras, but I rarely/never use them for close-up photography in the first place. This area I leave fully up to my DSLR or mirrorless cameras. 

[Pyrogallol]

As you change focus distance you are actually changing the focal length of the lens, so the view will change. The old VIDOM viewfinder used with the screw mount bodies has a second index mark to use when close focussing. But then if you are trying to be very accurate are you looking at the inside or outside edges of the white bright line frame?

[avatar230]

It depends on the model.

 

The M3/M2/M4/M4-2/M5 and some M4-P are set to 1 meter

The M6/M6ttl/M7 and all never models with the possible exception of the MP-3 are set to .7 meters.

 

The 1m framelines are very close to 35mm.

The .7m frame lines are closer to 40mm.

 

Nobody expects a rangefinder to frame as accurate as a SLR, but when Leica switched from 1m to .7cm accuracy went from reasonable to noticeably off. At infinity the .7 frame lines are a joke.

 

As an example with a 50mm the .7 markings indicate a 60mm lens at anything but the closest focusing distance. 

 

 

Not sure what digital body the OP was looking at, but that only adds to the above fragmentation and confusion -- 

 

As stated above by another poster, the current Leica digital Ms are optimized for 2 meters, making them even more generous than the original M3/2/4 1 meter standard. 

 

I own a M Typ 262 (optimized for 2m), an M4 (optimized for 1m) and an M-A (optimized for .7m). The area covered by the frame lines becomes more restrictive throughout that progression. 

 

This is a long way around to saying that even within the Leica universe, "35mm frame lines" have a great deal of variation, and people manage to get workable shots from all three standards / body types. My guess is that the 38mm finder you have will be more accurate the closer you are to close focus -- this is why it's most similar to your M6, optimized for .7m.

 

If you've successfully shot 35mm on an M6 with the .7m-optimized finder and are happy with the results, I imagine you'll be able to make the 38mm finder on an M3 work just fine.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[TomB_tx]

I recall that most film era SLRs also showed around 95-97% of the actual film image, and the claimed rationale was because most "good" photographers then shot slide film, and the slide mounts covered a few % around the edges of the frame. Of course, the real reason may have been other factors in the VF design, but when people complain companies try to justify the situation by finding "reasons" as if they planned it for the benefit of the customer.