Frameline Accuracy Comparison

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I will post comparisons of the 28, 35, 50, 75 and 90 framelines now, in batches of 5. I sadly don't have a 24mm lens. Perhaps someone can add similar shots afterwards. There will be 5 shots for each distance of 1m, 2m, 10m, and infinity, and both bottom-left and top-right shots. Since I couldn't find objects at all distances which sat exactly at the framelines for all the lenses, I had to do it this longer, more complicated way. For each shot, I placed the area under the red dot inside the corner of the relevant framelines. I hand-held, so please allow for a small amount of error.

 

It should not matter, but the lenses used were: 28/2A, 35/1.4A, 50/1.4A, 75/1.4, 90/4M.

 

I would ideally like to redo it at some point, with the framelines clearly shown a single time for each focal length for each distance, but this is a lot more work, and it will have to wait.

 

bottom-left corner, 1m:

 

.

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[carstenw]

top-right corner, 1m:

 

.

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!

[carstenw]

bottom-left corner, 2m:

 

.

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!

[carstenw]

top-right corner, 2m:

 

.

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!

[carstenw]

bottom-left corner, 10m:

 

.

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!

[carstenw]

top-right corner, 10m:

 

.

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!

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

bottom-left corner, infinity:

 

.

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!

[carstenw]

top-right corner, infinity:

 

.

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!

[carstenw]

The results surprise me a bit. Yes, the 90 is more accurate up close, and the 75 less so, but further away the 90 is still not that great. I guess this is why Leica chose the 1m point for the 90 focal length, if that is indeed what they did.

 

All the lenses seem pretty loose at distance, to be honest. Somehow the top right corner seems worse off than the bottom left, and the sides are generally worse than the top and bottom.

 

This would all be very hard to learn inside-out, unless you had only a lens or two.

[sean_reid]

It should not matter, but the lenses used were: 28/2A, 35/1.4A, 50/1.4A, 75/1.4, 90/4M.

.

 

Hi Carsten,

 

Thanks very much for the work and for the examples. I still need to study them.

 

It does indeed matter. A group of lenses with the same nominal focal length (28 for example) will not necessarily all show the same fields of view. Some will be wider and and some narrower. I discussed this in the "Introduction to Rangefinder Cameras" article.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I guess this is why Leica chose the 1m point for the 90 focal length, if that is indeed what they did.

 

It is indeed what they did. Did you see my post on that topic?

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[carstenw]

Yep, I thought I had, but wasn't sure in that moment. The 90 framelines close up (not in the macro range; I didn't test that yet) with my 90 Macro are brutally accurate, at least compared to the other focal lengths. Given that most things are a little loose most of the time, one would really have to be careful not to inadvertently chop something off with a 90. I wish they were all that close.

 

I really hope that the rumour that Leica will offer a second, more accurate frameline set as a custom option is true. I would spring for it in a second.

[Guest tummydoc]

Thank-you Carsten for taking your time to do the research so that others don't have to. Now the only question remaining is how many will commit your results to memory and apply it whilst shooting, and how many will continue to whine about the "horribly" inaccurate framelines and implore Leica to redesign them to their personal specifications

[carstenw]

Well, one of my thoughts was that this is too complicated to remember, at least for those who have several of these focal lengths. The 24 is even missing, so there are more. I think that those who have 2-3 lenses could probably try to generalise a little and remember some basic rules, but it would be great to have better frames so we could just forget about memorisation and go back to taking photos with a clear mind.

[Guest Walt]

Carsten-

 

Your work here is much appreciated. The results are complex and surprising. (My comments apply only to the 28 and 35 results, because these are the only two lenses I use.) In using one or two lenses on a camera, the field of view becomes intuitive and one sees the world in that frame. So it is not necessary to use the framelines except to locate the camera--i.e. the shot in framed in the mind, not in the camera. Still, more accurate lines would be useful on some shots, because there is now an element of luck. (There is always a large element of luck with rangefinders.) I do not do the kind of photography where I could look through the camera and deliberately account for the error of the lines. I have to just know that intuitively.

 

I have noticed that in using the (excellent, thanks Sean) VC 25/f4.0 with the 24mm framelines the results are very accurate, very satisfying--very much the way the film Ms feel to me and I prefer this working experience. So we are talking about focal length differences of only 1 or 2 mm, which is also surprising.

 

Walt

[sean_reid]

Carsten-

 

Your work here is much appreciated. The results are complex and surprising. (My comments apply only to the 28 and 35 results, because these are the only two lenses I use.) In using one or two lenses on a camera, the field of view becomes intuitive and one sees the world in that frame. So it is not necessary to use the framelines except to locate the camera--i.e. the shot in framed in the mind, not in the camera. Still, more accurate lines would be useful on some shots, because there is now an element of luck. (There is always a large element of luck with rangefinders.) I do not do the kind of photography where I could look through the camera and deliberately account for the error of the lines. I have to just know that intuitively.

 

I have noticed that in using the (excellent, thanks Sean) VC 25/f4.0 with the 24mm framelines the results are very accurate, very satisfying--very much the way the film Ms feel to me and I prefer this working experience. So we are talking about focal length differences of only 1 or 2 mm, which is also surprising.

 

Walt

 

Hi Walt,

 

You're welcome. It's generally true that the 24 mm frame lines on the M8 work better with 25 mm lenses simply because they're so conservative.

 

Best,

 

Sean

[ho_co]

Carsten--

Thanks very much for taking the time to do and post the comparison.

 

I'm particularly impressed by your persuasive ability, getting a friend to carry that Leica red dot to the top of a distant building and hold it there while you shot!

 

( ^ Please don't take that literally. ^ )

 

Seriously, I'm surprised how close to accurate the framelines are (75 excepted). Yes, they're clearly off; and if I don't go out and compare these results with my other M's, I won't have a good feel for how far off they are. (Might be nice if someone with a scanner could make that comparison.)

 

But overall, the frame lines aren't as badly off as I had anticipated. Maybe Leica's idea of setting them for closest focus isn't all that bad after all?

 

--HC

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Actually there not as bad as we thought, personally i am just used to shooting the lenses and getting great frameline accuracy but that is the mental part , never tested it and if i am off just reshoot it, chimping king i guess. i still want in the future electronic framelines in LED form or something of that nature but i'm not complaining about this too much. I think with a lot of shooting which i am pretty close to about 30 k on these it just becomes mental and you don't think about it any more. But better accuracy in the future is needed , my guess the M9 will be better at this.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

My own experience is that they're OK (though could be better) at 24 - 35 and 90. 50 is not so great and 75 is way off.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

But overall, the frame lines aren't as badly off as I had anticipated. Maybe Leica's idea of setting them for closest focus isn't all that bad after all?

--HC

 

I think the majority of M8 photographers would be better served with frame lines that are all set for one meter (i.e. the old standard) That's just a hunch though.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean