Does anyone else dislike having two sets of framlines?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

For the latest digital M-cameras, where the light frames are generated electronically, a different programming should be possible, so that in combination with coded lenses only the corresponding light frame can be seen alone.

For non-coded lenses it would have to stay with the now practiced double frame reflection, since only three different settings of the frame selector lever are possible.

 

You are writing from 2028?

[jdlaing]

 

For the latest digital M-cameras, where the light frames are generated electronically, a different programming should be possible, so that in combination with coded lenses only the corresponding light frame can be seen alone.

For non-coded lenses it would have to stay with the now practiced double frame reflection, since only three different settings of the frame selector lever are possible.

They aren’t generated electronically. The light source comes from an LED bulb instead of a mirror behind a window and shines through cut outs on a piece of sheet metal.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest]

 I suspect they are not...

 

They are not. The frames are still the same cutouts in sheet metal and they are still brought in place by the same mechanical means. They are just lit with an internal electric light.

 

That would be a question for the Leica engineers:

Is it possible to switch the LEDs for the frame illumination separately, so that only the respectively required viewfinder frame is illuminated?

If not for the already built Leicas M with frame lighting by LEDs, then maybe as further development in future?

[UliWer]

If you look how the device which makes the framelines visible is constructed https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/278385-does-anyone-else-dislike-having-two-sets-of-framlines/?p=3387484 you‘ll find out they are simple masks illuminated from the background. Traditionally the light for this illumination came from the little window in front of the camera, with the new M bodies it comes from a LED.

 

But the masks - and their pairing - are the same. You cannot illuminate a mask which has the pairing for the frames partially so that it only shows one frame. All you can do is to put in another mask which has only one frame.

[LocalHero1953]

More irritating to me than too many framelines is that the framelines are usually wrong except at one particular distance, which is a bit like saying that a stopped clock is always right, twice a day.

I've given up hoping for something better and just shoot large in the expectation of wasting pixels by cropping.

[Jeff S]

If you look how the device which makes the framelines visible is constructed https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/278385-does-anyone-else-dislike-having-two-sets-of-framlines/?p=3387484 you‘ll find out they are simple masks illuminated from the background.

Thanks, I'm glad someone is paying attention.

 

The only change is that the illumination is electronic instead of by window. The rest is still mechanical, as I linked.

 

Jeff

Edited November 6, 2017 by Jeff S

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While we are still banging on about mechanical frame lines I’m afraid no one is paying attention. Throw away the mechanical slits, replace the LED illumination with a small screen, stick a lens somewhere in the path and use the computer to generate illuminated lines. It must be about a thousand times simpler than mechanics and a million times cheaper.

[pop]

While we are still banging on about mechanical frame lines I’m afraid no one is paying attention. Throw away the mechanical slits, replace the LED illumination with a small screen, stick a lens somewhere in the path and use the computer to generate illuminated lines. It must be about a thousand times simpler than mechanics and a million times cheaper.

Perhaps so, but woult it be even one time better?

[jaapv]

More irritating to me than too many framelines is that the framelines are usually wrong except at one particular distance, which is a bit like saying that a stopped clock is always right, twice a day.

I've given up hoping for something better and just shoot large in the expectation of wasting pixels by cropping.

There is a simple calculating method: 1 m is correct, 3 m is one thickness more, infinity is 3 thicknesses more. The more annoying effect that cannot be compensated for is perspective shift: Objects in for- or background may be hidden in the viewfinder but appear in the photograph, or the other way around.

[jaapv]

While we are still banging on about mechanical frame lines I’m afraid no one is paying attention. Throw away the mechanical slits, replace the LED illumination with a small screen, stick a lens somewhere in the path and use the computer to generate illuminated lines. It must be about a thousand times simpler than mechanics and a million times cheaper.

Not really simpler; it would call for a complete redesign.

[romanus53]

What's on your whrist, mechanical watch or quartz- or smart-watch? Apart from that, an electronic rangefinder/focus-indicator would be appreciated

[luigi bertolotti]

I agree that 2 frames at one time is someway annoying, but M users are longtime accustomed to (rather longtime, and not by chance many say that M3 is still the best VF...  ) , and imho there is no chance it will be modified until they'll make a complete redesign of the VF/RF system : there have been many speculations about  and I personally think they will do it in the next 2-3 years... looking at current technologies, seems to me  it'sFuji (XPro series)that has made some steps in the direction of a sort of compromise between EVF/OVF/RF: leica must do something better and I whish them success on a not trivial task (because it must KEEP the pluses of the traditional Leica VF).

[jaapv]

The fact that they have filed a patent for a two mini-camera system some time ago indicates that they ARE working on it.

[Exodies]

Not really simpler; it would call for a complete redesign.

Design work yes, but simpler manufacturing.

[jaapv]

Not sure about that, instead of simple sliding frames, they would have to integrate an optical/mechanical rangefinder with an electronic system. That is might be rather complicated.

[jdlaing]

Not sure about that, instead of simple sliding frames, they would have to integrate an optical/mechanical rangefinder with an electronic system. That is might be rather complicated.

And larger.

[steamboat]

I don't like the 75mm framelines. A pain for this 50mm shooter since the M4-P and i still don't understand why it was paired with 50mm. None of my film Ms have them and i could well ask for a removal if i happen to buy an M11 unless it has electronic framelines but i don't hold my breath.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not crazy about the 75mm being tucked inside the 50mm frame lines. The 35 + 135 and the 28 + 90 aren't a problem. I'd love to NOT have the 75mm lines floating in the 50mm. They are obtrusive.

[jmahto]

I like 28/90 pair of framelines because I carry 28mm and 90mm for outdoors (hiking etc). This allows me to visualize whether to pull out 90mm (or vice versa) without additional effort.

 

Ideally I would like the option of what frameline(s) I would like to see at the same time (and have this available in user preference). Something I expect by 2042.

[jdlaing]

I like 28/90 pair of framelines because I carry 28mm and 90mm for outdoors (hiking etc). This allows me to visualize whether to pull out 90mm (or vice versa) without additional effort.

 

Ideally I would like the option of what frameline(s) I would like to see at the same time (and have this available in user preference). Something I expect by 2042.

June of 2050. You heard it here first.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jmahto]

June of 2050. You heard it here first.

I guessed 2042 because 42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything. Here "everything" includes Leica frame lines, I reasoned.