ho_co Posted October 9, 2006 Share #41 Posted October 9, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is a particularly interesting discussion considering how few of us have actually seen the camera! But Leica needs the money more than we do--else we wouldn't have anything to discuss! And now you guys have got me thinking about purchasing the 24mm to go alongside my current 21 and 28. Drat! I thought I had the thing covered with just buying the body. Maybe the answer to the question "Can M8 frame lines be removed?" is: Yes, but you should probably just buy another lens to fill that frame instead. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 9, 2006 Posted October 9, 2006 Hi ho_co, Take a look here M8 can frame lines be removed. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 9, 2006 Share #42 Posted October 9, 2006 Actually I stuck the 21mm lens on the M8 and the 24 and 35 frameset came up. Ray do you remember this. This was the whole reason i am battling this one. If it is the 28-90 than it would not be bad at all and would prefer that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 9, 2006 Share #43 Posted October 9, 2006 Wish this darn thing was out there so we can confirm what happens when you put a 21 asph lens on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 9, 2006 Share #44 Posted October 9, 2006 Guy, when you mount a 21mm lens, the 28/90 frames come up, not the 24/35. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 9, 2006 Share #45 Posted October 9, 2006 Thank you Mark . That just made my day. The least cluttered frame lines Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 9, 2006 Share #46 Posted October 9, 2006 Two points: 1) That image of the M8 viewfinder from dpreview is rather inaccurate in that it shows quite a bit more outside that 24mm frames than is actually visible (IMHO). I tried using the "full view" with my 21 - bought an external 28mm finder instead. 2) The M8 has a circuit board on top of the rangefinder/viewfinder assembly (based on the cutaway images someone posted from Photokina), so it MAY be much trickier to disassemble the M8 to get to the frame mask than an M2. More costly, and not something a "mechanical" Leica technician can necessarily do right. Screw up the circuitry and you'll have customized framelines in a non-functional camera. If Leica says they can do it, they probably can. I wouldn't want to be the beta-tester for the 3rd-party servicepeople (even those with excellent reputations for the mechanical stuff). As always, sound advice from Andy. I don't think the traditional Leica service people will touch the M8. Based on what I heard at Photokina (and it was me who posted the cutaway), they may not even be able to get the thing apart. How many fixing screws do you see holding the camera together? It's a far cry from the Digilux 2 which with a single cross-head screwdriver and a pair of tweezers comes apart in a few minutes. My advice is to live with the framelines for a while and if you really cannot get on with them, then change them but don't pre-judge the camera until you've used it in anger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 9, 2006 Share #47 Posted October 9, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Actually if you went 21,28 than it is actually quite good . the 90 frame line is so small you overlook it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 9, 2006 Share #48 Posted October 9, 2006 I would not let anyone pop open my M8 to do this type of work unless it was leica and under warranty. just in case something happened. Also i may get very used to the frame lines and not bother either Hi Guy, That's what I think will happen. Moreover, your taste/preferences/needs in lenses could change over time so why not leave your options open? Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 9, 2006 Share #49 Posted October 9, 2006 Maybe the answer to the question "Can M8 frame lines be removed?" is: Yes, but you should probably just buy another lens to fill that frame instead. --HC Hi Howard, I like it, good answer. I do think the 24 will be an important lens on this camera, as I mentioned in the review. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted October 9, 2006 Share #50 Posted October 9, 2006 I did buy the 1.25 magnifer, which helps from 28 up. I must say that I've never gotten to like the 1.25 magnifier, as I always have the feeling that the magnification is offset by the slight darkening of the viewfinder from the magnifier. —Mitch/Paris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 9, 2006 Share #51 Posted October 9, 2006 I did not notice that buit will check it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgmb Posted October 9, 2006 Share #52 Posted October 9, 2006 Okay, here is what I do not understand after reading this entire thread... perhaps some of the experienced M experts can explain this to me, an admitted rangefinder neophyte. Why are there frame "sets" instead of just individual frames to begin with? Is there any technical reason why Leica could not design the camera to automatically show only the frame of the attached lens? As I understand it, with the new coding system, the camera knows which lens is attached and brings up the appropriate frame in a pair set. But if all frames are stored within the camera already, why not just show the single relevant frame? And then have the so-called "frame preview" lever step through and preview all alternative frames? To me that would seem the most logical and elegant approach from an ergonomic and design perspective and it alleviates the "clutter" Guy speaks about. Too late for the M8, but perhaps this is a solution Leica could take for the M9? Is there any reason why this would be undesirable for M shooters? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 9, 2006 Share #53 Posted October 9, 2006 M. Gorodish: Why there are frame "sets". Once upon a time Leica built a camera called the M3. The camera was designed for 3 framelines - 50, 90, 135. Leica devised a simple and compact way to bring up the correct frame automatically when each of the three lenses was mounted: they made one flange of the mount on each focal length a slightly different length. This flanges pushes on a lever in the camera to change the framing. There are "long", "short" and "medium" flanges (90, 135, 50). When Leica came out with the "wideangle" M2, they substituted a 35mm frame for the 135 frame, and used the same camming for 35mm as for 135mm. Thus all Leica-M 35s and 135s ever made share the same "short" flange (except the goggled 135, which is flanged like a 90). When Leica moved to the M4, they had to frame 4 lenses with only 3 possible settings. Since the 35 and 135 already shared the same flanging, they come up together. The M4-P added 75 and 28 lines, and Leica could have paired them 28/50 and 75/90, or 28/90 and 50/75. They chose the second option. But basically there are frame 'sets' to handle more than 3 focal lengths with only 3 mechanical settings, grandfathered into the M line ever since the M3. The M8 could have been designed to obsolete all existing lenses (unless upgraded) by using the kind of electronic framing you describe - it and Leica would have died within a year if Leica had done so. Also, such a coded framing system would require some kind of power, if only for the infrared LEDs to 'read' the lens - thus one would have to power up the camera even to see the right framelines or try others. The simple mechanical flange-and-lever system Leica already has does not require any current. "Le buffle est lent, mais forte aussi, M. Gorodish!" - Diva Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 10, 2006 Share #54 Posted October 10, 2006 You can return the camera to Leica USA and they will mask out the framelines that you don't want. They will charge you for this. How much, I don't know. Do you have a contact name or number, Ray? I'm very interested in this ... and plan to retain only the 35 and 75 framelines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgmb Posted October 10, 2006 Share #55 Posted October 10, 2006 Andy, thanks for that thorough and detailed explanation. I figured there had to be some sort of "grandfathering" involved to ensure compatibility with existing lenses and I fully agree that Leica had to do that in order to survive. So apparently the technical limitation is a mechanical cam with only three settings, and this system was retained for older lenses that are not upgraded with the 6-bit encoding? Personally, I would think that upgrading a lens might be a minor sacrifice in order to use a modern digital M and have precise electronic framing, despite the minor electrical requirement. But I could be wrong... what do others think? Or maybe they could design a switch that gave us an option between using traditional mechanical framing in pairs or precise electronic framing utilizing the lens codes? (back to buttering my baguette ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 10, 2006 Share #56 Posted October 10, 2006 Simon our local sales rep is looking into it for me . she e-mailed me about the 2 lens codings voucher for the purchase of the M8 for US and Canada. Someone also mentioned buy a new llens and get 2 free codings. Need to confirm that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted October 10, 2006 Share #57 Posted October 10, 2006 Watch this I copied these from DPR. Thanks Phil . LOL Okay normal frame lines Hi Guy, I did a little playing with dpr's frame shots, too. I was trying to figure out how the metering pattern followed the frame lines, since the metering area wont show. I also corrected dpr's images to 2:3 from the 4:3 aspect ratios. With the 50mm, 24mm & 28mm, the smaller inner frame does sort of approximate the metering area. As others have mentioned these images might not be accurate. Bob 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/6868-m8-can-frame-lines-be-removed/?do=findComment&comment=67484'>More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 10, 2006 Share #58 Posted October 10, 2006 Interesting Bob. I keep staring at those frame lines to see what i like the best. In my mind a 21 with the FF with the 28 frame lines makes the most sense. And have a 28 and the 35 I own. I could use the magnifier on 28,35 and above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted October 10, 2006 Share #59 Posted October 10, 2006 Interesting Bob. I keep staring at those frame lines to see what i like the best. In my mind a 21 with the FF with the 28 frame lines makes the most sense. And have a 28 and the 35 I own. I could use the magnifier on 28,35 and above. Hi Guy, A lot of the value to me of the M viewfinder is seeing outside the frame for composition, so I've tended to like the 50mm & 90mm with film. I have a 35 Summicron and like the compactness, but haven't used it as much as the 50mm. What you need to do is borrow an M6, put your lenses on it and go street shooting, say down west Buckeye Rd... Kidding aside though, you would get a bunch out of a roll of consumer print film and machine prints, even if you don't convert them to digital. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 10, 2006 Share #60 Posted October 10, 2006 LOL Bob I have not shot a roll of film in about 12 years. Can you believe that. I also like seeing outside the frames lines. Most people thought that would be a issue with the DMR and actually it is nice to see out there. Really my dilmma is the 24 or 21. I believe i need the 28 and 35 for sure and the 24 is not tight enough nor wide enough at time. reason I keep thinking 21,28,35 and maybe 75. I will use this camera a lot for event work with flash reason for the 28 and 35 . It will work better than the DMR here. It has to do more than just be a street shooting camera for me. It is supposed to back up and take over certain area's where I can leave the DMR out of it. I am not giving up my R system , there is already talk of the future there so the R will continue. Ideal would be 24,35, 75 It is just the 28 is important and I am basing this off my use off the DMR 19,28 , 35 and 80 are used a lot. The M will bring me at least 2 stops better in noise and more DR and able to focus in no light, perfect for PR work. Plus i have full use of my Metz flash Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.