35mm Frame Lines - Really 35mm?

[michaelwj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

No, the digital bodies have framelines accurate at 0.7m. The 2m confusion is actually where the focus is calibrated at. If they were optimised for 2m then you would get less than you expect at closer focus. The framelines only appear to be more generous because the magnification is lower. The framelines can't be any bigger that the 0.7m optimised lines on a 0.72x finder or the 28mm frame would no longer be able to fit.

[avatar230]

No, the digital bodies have framelines accurate at 0.7m. The 2m confusion is actually where the focus is calibrated at. If they were optimised for 2m then you would get less than you expect at closer focus. The framelines only appear to be more generous because the magnification is lower. The framelines can't be any bigger that the 0.7m optimised lines on a 0.72x finder or the 28mm frame would no longer be able to fit.

 

 

Respectfully, Michael, this is incorrect, at least as far as the "optimization" question. On the digital bodies you do get less than you expect at closer focus.

 

From Leica's current technical documentation on the M10, emphasis mine:

 

At a range setting of 2m, the bright-line frame size corresponds exactly to the sensor size of approx. 23.9 x 35.8mm; at infinity setting, depending on the focal length, approx. 7.3% (28mm) to 18% (135mm) more is recorded by the sensor than indicated by the corresponding bright line frame and slightly less for shorter distance settings than 2m

 

From Leica's current technical documentation on the M-A, emphasis again mine:

 

The bright-line frame size corresponds to an image size of approx. 23 × 35 mm at the minimum focusing distance for all focal lengths; focused at infinity, and depending on the focal length, approx. 9% (28 mm) to 23% (135 mm) more will be captured on the film than is shown in the corresponding bright-line frame

 

This said, you've helped me come to a potential realization regarding viewfinder magnification in the digital bodies. Prior to the M10, the viewfinder magnification in the digital cameras was not .72, but .68, a magnification unique in the Leica lineup to the best of my knowledge. Speculation here, but perhaps that slightly lower magnification was chosen so that 28mm framelines would be visible at 2 meter optimization. The M10 returns to the classic .72 magnification, but with a significant change -- the finder itself is larger. Leica touted this is as being done to provide better viewing conditions, but again -- speculating -- perhaps the rationale was truly to solve the problem you allude to: if they wanted to keep 2 meter optimization consistent through the digital line, but also wanted to introduce a .72 finder in the digital body while allowing the 28mm framelines to be seen, the only solve was a physically larger finder.

Edited January 4, 2018 by avatar230