ho_co Posted October 11, 2006 Share #81 Posted October 11, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... as you can see i do my homework and research all my possibilities. Guy-- The good thing about planning ahead is that when (not 'if') your plans change, you've already considered the alternatives, so you're way ahead of the rest of us. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 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!
sean_reid Posted October 11, 2006 Share #82 Posted October 11, 2006 Thanks Sean was just trying to figure the 21 out . Sorry if I drove everyone crazy here but as you can see i do my homework and research all my possibilities. Hi Guy, I enjoy your enthusiasm about this stuff and there is indeed lots to research and learn. I think that once you've worked with the M8 for awhile you'll get a better idea of which lenses you want to buy and which R lenses (if any) you want to sell. You'll also get a better sense of how the various frame lines, etc. work for you. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 11, 2006 Share #83 Posted October 11, 2006 Why swim upstream? I agree - I was one of the main protagonists for a variable magnification finder to avoid the need for aux finders and finder magnifiers - and even I have capitulated; I've now got a finder magnifier and a 21/24/28 finder which I can use set to 28 when the 21mm is mounted. It's not ideal, but it's not that bad. It will also handle the new Tri-Elmar but without frames and parallax correction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 11, 2006 Share #84 Posted October 11, 2006 Incidentally, it's interesting to take the aux finder and set it to first 21 and then 28 which allows you to see very clearly how much coverage you lose due to the crop factor. I know it's a quarter but when you compare it side-by-side, it's not so much of a penalty. Also highlights that there's not so much difference between the 16mm and 21mm fields of view on the Tri-Elmar... Makes me think the I'm-not-buying-it-because-of-the-crop-factor crowd are getting in a lather for nothing (very much). Finally, it's an extremely tight fit into the hot shoe, not sure yet whether this is down the the width or the thickness or both of the foot. [Turns out it's the M6's fault. The space between the top flanges on the hot shoe of the (Classic) M6 is 12.5mm, on the R-D1 it's 12.8mm and that is enough difference to make the fit very tight for the M6 and OK for the R-D1. A D2X and D2 are fine as well, so hopefully, the M8 has not inherited the M6's shoe dimensions.] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 11, 2006 Share #85 Posted October 11, 2006 I'm trying to buy a external finder anyway for a 15mm. Going after a variable one , not that mouse box . LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 11, 2006 Share #86 Posted October 11, 2006 Just a quick reminder, BTW, as to why there are not 21 mm frame lines in the M8. For a given physical finder window, the wider a lens the frame lines can cover, the smaller the magnification needs to be. Some people would have preferred that the M8 have a .85 finder mag. but that would have eliminated the 24 mm frame lines. I gave this all some thought when I was first using the M8 and have decided that Leica made a good decision with the .68X finder. It allows a fairly wide EFOV (32 mm), which is wider than many M cameras allow, while not offering too small a mag ratio. Down the line, it would make sense for Leica to offer alternate versions of the M8 with different finder mags. I've argued that to Leica in the past and we'll see what they do. For now, the task is to just get this initial version out. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 11, 2006 Share #87 Posted October 11, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sean could you explain this . If the frame lines show the corrected Paralax in the finder for all the frame sets. Than I would assume the whole finder is in that same paralax and is adjusted correctly. Trying to figure why the 21mm would not be in the same paralax , I undrstand it would be beyond the 21mm focal length but the paralax would not cahnge it seems it would be equal all around. Hope that made sense Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 11, 2006 Share #88 Posted October 11, 2006 Guy, when you focus on an M, the whole frame moves diagonally to adjust for paralax including the rangefinder patch which is different from the R-D1 where the frames move but the patch does not, leaving the patch off centre (of the frame). This movement takes place within the limits of what you can see - the viewfinder window border. There is no 21mm frame to move, so if you are using the viewfinder window border as a pseudo 21mm frame (which as Sean has said will be a crop of what gets captured), there's nowhere for this "frame" to move as you focus closer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 11, 2006 Share #89 Posted October 11, 2006 Thanks Mark now that becomes as clear as mud. I was trying to understand that. I would imagine it moves right and down a touch also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 11, 2006 Share #90 Posted October 11, 2006 Clear as mud? That means not clear at all!!! Let me try again... The frame lines are presented within the viewfinder window which remains in a fixed position. As you focus closer, the frame lines and the rangefinder patch move together down and to the right within what you can see in the viewfinder. That will be the case for any of the standard frame sets. On a 0.72 M6 with the 28mm frame selected, at closest focus, the frame is right up against the right hand side and bottom edge of the window with space above it and to the left. The viewfinder window itself presents a wider angle view than any of the frames but it's difficult to see and the edges are typically out of focus. As an approximation on the M8, you could say that everything you can see in the viewfinder will appear when a 21mm lens (though as Sean has said, it's likely the camera will capture a bit more). However, there's no moving frame, the border of the viewfinder window is fixed so there's no adjustment for parallax. That said, if the camera is capturing more than you can see, parallax correction is going to be less of a problem. The whole framing business is a bit hit and miss anyway, where those frames are cut in the mask is at best an approximation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 11, 2006 Share #91 Posted October 11, 2006 Great , I understand that . It sounds these things are approximate in general. Thanks Mark My 35mm 1.4 lux shows up today was thinking of going to the store with it, Which film body is closest to the M8 as far as the frame lines. I do have my magnifier also Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 11, 2006 Share #92 Posted October 11, 2006 Great , I understand that . It sounds these things are approximate in general. Thanks Mark My 35mm 1.4 lux shows up today was thinking of going to the store with it, Which film body is closest to the M8 as far as the frame lines. I do have my magnifier also To add a couple of things to Mark's very clear explanations of the parallax correction in the frame line movement. 1) I've spoken with photographers who've used the 21 on the M8 and the full finder does not show the area covered by the lens, the view is (in this respect) quite tight. 2) With practice, an experienced RF photographer learns how the edges of the actual capture will relate to the frame lines (with various lenses at various distances). With familiarity and practice, then, the framing is not imprecise. For example, when I use a 28/1.9 on my R-D1 I have a very good idea of where my picture edges will fall at the various distances I commonly work at. *But* to do this, one must be able to see the area outside the frame lines. Learning the edges of a picture made with a 24 on the M8 takes practice but seeing the edges of a picture made with a 21 on the M8 (through the main .68 X finder) is *impossible*. Again, I recommend that all photographers who are new to rangefinders (and who are considering the M8) borrow, rent, etc. a film RF camera or an R-D1 to start to get a feel for all of this. It's a very different way of working and generally requires more practice and familiarity than an SLR. It's no wonder that the RF is no longer a mass-market camera design. Many people may not want to learn the techniques needed to get the most from these cameras. But you, Guy, certainly will. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted October 11, 2006 Share #93 Posted October 11, 2006 Great , I understand that . It sounds these things are approximate in general. Thanks Mark My 35mm 1.4 lux shows up today was thinking of going to the store with it, Which film body is closest to the M8 as far as the frame lines. I do have my magnifier also Hi Guy, The mid point between 0.72 and 0.58 is 0.65, so the 0.58 viewfinder may be the closest to the M8's 0.62 finder. You could do what Jono Slack did and use an M6 TTL 0.58 and run a roll of color negative stuff through it and get machine prints to check your lens, the frame lines and the spot meter. You gotta break that 12 year "no film" slump sometime:D Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 11, 2006 Share #94 Posted October 11, 2006 Never BOB, i would not know what film to buy. LOL I do have another question. I am such a pain, sorry. With Diopters, yes this old fart can't see for a hill of beans. Does the Diopter fit inside the eyepiece , would you unscrew the eye piece than fit inside. Than you can still use the magnifer. i noticed my vision was blurred when I ws playing with the M8 . The DMR has that built in Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 11, 2006 Share #95 Posted October 11, 2006 ...the closest to the M8's 0.62 finder... Are you sure, Bob? I thought that the M8 mag was .68x... If so, the usual .72x should be the best mag to choose as an approximation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted October 11, 2006 Share #96 Posted October 11, 2006 Guy, Mark & Sean have explained how the framelines work well. Relative to going to the store to see how your 35 is on a film body and have it be the same as an M8 is difficult. The MP or M7 that you will find in any store is going to be a .72 mag VF. The M8 is a .68x VF. The 35 frame lines that come up on film are going to be similiar to you putting a 28 on the M8. If you use the frame preview lever and use the 50 frame line in a film camera to simulate what the 35 will do on the M8, it is the closest. The 50 will be close even though it is a little tight, especially since the difference in magnification should equalize out the lines. Just remember that on the film you will be looking at the 50/75 pair vs. the 24/35 pair on the M8. Confusing huh, basically only look at the 50 frame line in the film camera and it will approximate what you will get on the M8 using the 35. Best, Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 11, 2006 Share #97 Posted October 11, 2006 M8 finder magnification is 0,68 so just a tad wider than the "normal" M6/M7. Factor in the crop-factor though and the (say) 50mm frame is that bit smaller. I think the viewfinder magnifier - all $280 of it - is going to work well for 50/75/90. Incidentally, I'm buying my Nocti from HK and they are throwing in their own finder magnifier which they sell for $60, it will be interesting to compare with the Leica original. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 11, 2006 Share #98 Posted October 11, 2006 Hi Guy,The mid point between 0.72 and 0.58 is 0.65, so the 0.58 viewfinder may be the closest to the M8's 0.62 finder. You could do what Jono Slack did and use an M6 TTL 0.58 and run a roll of color negative stuff through it and get machine prints to check your lens, the frame lines and the spot meter. You gotta break that 12 year "no film" slump sometime:D Bob Hi Bob, The M8 finder mag. is .68 and the closest film camera mag. is .72 Hi Guy, I think the key advantage of getting a film rangefinder to play with would be so that you get more familiar with how the whole system works. The effective fields of view on the M8 will be different, of course, but that's a separate issue. The more general practice is valuable though, seeing how the framelines shift and what that means for the picture, all kinds of things. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 11, 2006 Share #99 Posted October 11, 2006 Okay just got back from the store with a M7 that i played with first off I like the .72 seems much better but of course 28 is the widest and i see the reason why the M8 is .68 so a 24mm equals the 28mm or 30mm. Okay that part is interesting why they did that. I also saw the paralax shift going on this time, just did not notice that on the M8 . So now it all makes sense the why and how. So 21mm you would really need a external viewfinder which is okay. The 24 is the widest you can see framelines paired with the 35mm frame lines, that part still bugs me and I can't change that. The clearest frame lines is the 28mm and with a 1.25 magnifier and lenses above it would be great. The magnifer 1.25 almost works with the 24 but there is some cutoff without glasses , with glasses forget it not going to work. So that is sort of workable. Talking out loud here sorry. This is how i justify stuff. Now going to the lenses i think from all comments the 24 is the better lens than the 21. Maybe it is a slight difference , not sure never tested them. The thing i like is the clear view of the 28 and the 24mm frame lines bug me with the 35mm in there. Now that is something i would just have to get use to. Hope this helping someone besides me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 11, 2006 Share #100 Posted October 11, 2006 I will say this , I found it much more comfortable the second time around and my hands went the right way and it was easier to see and work plus it had the grip on it. For me that is a must have item, rig up a hand strap and would be happier than anything. Love handstraps Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.