Viewfinder frame lines M8/8.2. Framing accuracy of M8?

[john_newell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure what the % error in the M8 framelines (or M7, or other M bodies - since they all have some error at some distance) is? I know that I always notice the slight over-coverage when I shoot my still very viable D200 with its "95%" finder (which, by the way, is the same figure for the D700 - an issue that I do not think I have seen a single reviewer comment upon negatively!) compared to my D300 with its supposedly true 100% finder.

 

I get the same with the M8 but at least for my purposes the "error" is minimal and I've come to regard these "problems" (both M8 and D200) as more a workflow issue (I have to spend a few seconds cropping the image) rather than an IQ issue (the number of pixels sacrified to these errors just doesn't seem to be great enough to make any different in final image quality).

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

Do you know why? Surely, most shots are taken at greater distances?

 

Rocky

 

Yes, the lines were initially set for the minimum focus distance of many newer 75 mm and wider lenses. There's a logic to that but the new lines work better at most distances. I wrote about all this when the camera came out in 2006.

 

Cheers,

[sean_reid]

I'm not sure what the % error in the M8 framelines (or M7, or other M bodies - since they all have some error at some distance) is? I know that I always notice the slight over-coverage when I shoot my still very viable D200 with its "95%" finder (which, by the way, is the same figure for the D700 - an issue that I do not think I have seen a single reviewer comment upon negatively!) compared to my D300 with its supposedly true 100% finder.

 

I get the same with the M8 but at least for my purposes the "error" is minimal and I've come to regard these "problems" (both M8 and D200) as more a workflow issue (I have to spend a few seconds cropping the image) rather than an IQ issue (the number of pixels sacrified to these errors just doesn't seem to be great enough to make any different in final image quality).

 

The difference of course is that the SLR's framing accuracy changes remains the same, essentially, at different focus distance because it is showing the actual view through the lens. An RF camera with mechanical frame lines can only be most accurate at a specific focus distance.

 

Cheers,

[john_newell]

The difference of course is that the SLR's framing accuracy changes remains the same, essentially, at different focus distance because it is showing the actual view through the lens. An RF camera with mechanical frame lines can only be most accurate at a specific focus distance.

 

Cheers,

 

Yeah, I thought that was implicit, but maybe not...!

[marknorton]

I wonder what percentage of Leica users wear glasses. I imagine it's quite high. When I buy binoculars, the amount of eye relief (i.e. comfort for glasses wearers) is the first specification I check out and is something that strongly influences my purchasing decision. It might be a wise decision if Leica were to start accommodating glasses wearers more by making the wide-angle framelines more visible for them.

 

That's certainly what I would like to see but unfortunately Leica seem to think the existing finder is beyond improvement. Incorrectly, in my view.

[marknorton]

I'm not sure what the % error in the M8 framelines (or M7, or other M bodies - since they all have some error at some distance) is? I know that I always notice the slight over-coverage when I shoot my still very viable D200 with its "95%" finder (which, by the way, is the same figure for the D700 - an issue that I do not think I have seen a single reviewer comment upon negatively!) compared to my D300 with its supposedly true 100% finder.

 

I get the same with the M8 but at least for my purposes the "error" is minimal and I've come to regard these "problems" (both M8 and D200) as more a workflow issue (I have to spend a few seconds cropping the image) rather than an IQ issue (the number of pixels sacrified to these errors just doesn't seem to be great enough to make any different in final image quality).

 

The D300 does give 100% view but of course it's a cropeed sensor camera, so easy to do. A viewfinder which gives a true 100% coverage for full frame is necessarily large and there's then no room for sensor cleaning stuff which is why the D3(x) does not have it and the D700 does, after compromising to 95% (in each direction, 90% by area) coverage.

[hoppyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Mark, eye relief is a difficulty as people have commented. I actually take my glases off when using any camera. It depends on your needed correction of course. One issue to consider is that as the finder magnification is decreased to make the framelines smaller you are reducing accuracy in the framing and focusing. It is always a compromise. With the some later film Ms you could get versions optimised for wider lenses or longer (.58, .72, .85. ) With the M8 we only have the standard .68 now. I had my M8 finder upgraded. I find the 24 framelines usable still (without glasses) but right at the edges. They would be very difficult to see all at once with glasses. I prefer the upgraded version, although you learn to use the originals of course. For critical focusing with the 50 and longer I use the screw in 1.25 magnifier. When you put that on you are at an effective .85.

So to improve the eye relief you would need lower than the normal .68. That would very likely cause problems with focus and framing accuracy for lenses longer than your wides.

Dioptre corrections for glasses wearers are available. That is a different correction to finder magnification, but of course you would get your eyeball in closer that helps to see more of the finder.

Definitely pluses and minuses for using a rangefinder viewfinder! I don't find any of the external finders I have tried provide more eye relief.

I wonder what percentage of Leica users wear glasses. I imagine it's quite high. When I buy binoculars, the amount of eye relief (i.e. comfort for glasses wearers) is the first specification I check out and is something that strongly influences my purchasing decision. It might be a wise decision if Leica were to start accommodating glasses wearers more by making the wide-angle framelines more visible for them.

[Don Morley]

I too wear glasses, and struggle with the 24mm finder frames on my M8's, hardly use this great lens beccause of it, but I find the 35,50 and 90mm framing very accurate.

 

As others have said the 75mm is the least accurate by a long way, but I too have learned to simply allow almost a third more round the frame, which seems to work for me, and its worth it as the optical quallity of my little f2.5 lens is quite stunning. regards, Don:)

[mark_s]

Hi Mark, eye relief is a difficulty as people have commented. I actually take my glases off when using any camera. It depends on your needed correction of course. One issue to consider is that as the finder magnification is decreased to make the framelines smaller you are reducing accuracy in the framing and focusing. It is always a compromise. With the some later film Ms you could get versions optimised for wider lenses or longer (.58, .72, .85. ) With the M8 we only have the standard .68 now. I had my M8 finder upgraded. I find the 24 framelines usable still (without glasses) but right at the edges. They would be very difficult to see all at once with glasses. I prefer the upgraded version, although you learn to use the originals of course. For critical focusing with the 50 and longer I use the screw in 1.25 magnifier. When you put that on you are at an effective .85.

So to improve the eye relief you would need lower than the normal .68. That would very likely cause problems with focus and framing accuracy for lenses longer than your wides.

Dioptre corrections for glasses wearers are available. That is a different correction to finder magnification, but of course you would get your eyeball in closer that helps to see more of the finder.

Definitely pluses and minuses for using a rangefinder viewfinder! I don't find any of the external finders I have tried provide more eye relief.

 

Thanks for this very clear explanation, Geoff. Yes, I see now what you mean about the compromise and that better eye relief for the wider framelines might be detrimental to focussing and framing with longer lenses.

 

Dioptre corrections are unfortunately not available for my needs, and I wouldn't be able to use the camera without my glasses. But I can see the 35 lines on the M8 very well, the 28s just about, and I'll just have to get used to imagining where the 24s are and compensate accordingly when framing the shot (I can see them just about if I move my head slightly from one side to the other). Apart from these very slight inconveniences, I think the viewfinder is very pleasant to use.

[carstenw]

I had a thread once where I tested the accuracy of all framelines for the focal lengths I had access to (all but 24mm). Generally there is about 10% or a bit more extra in each shot, compared to what you thought you were getting.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/31212-frameline-accuracy-comparison.html

 

The framelines in the upgraded M8 are pretty much bang on. Occasionally, they are a tad tighter than they should be, but most of the time they are really great. I shoot mostly at normal distances, and use other cameras for close-ups.

[marknorton]

It's not just a question of finder magnification, it's the size of the optical system. The eyepiece diameter of the Nikon D3 is 17mm and that gives me a great view of the focussing screen and the displays below it and to the right; eye position with glasses is not hugely critical. Similarly, the Frankenfinder is very easy to use because of the large diameter of the eyepiece. I expect the S2 viewfinder and eye comfort will be fabulous.

 

The M eyepiece is a measly 11mm in diameter and we all know that makes it more difficult to use. Add the fact that it has a sweet spot around 28 - 50mm requiring aux finders at one end of the range and magnifiers at the other and it's easy to conclude the finder is not fit for purpose.

 

Leica invests huge sums in new lenses but the one optical component which we use every shot we take has been studiously ignored for decades. Leica need to let go of all this legacy and compatibility nonsense and give us a finder which really is the crowning glory of the M camera, the key product differentiator.

 

Sadly though, what I expect we will get on 9th September will be a case of new bottle, same dreary old vintage.

[john_newell]

The D300 does give 100% view but of course it's a cropeed sensor camera, so easy to do. A viewfinder which gives a true 100% coverage for full frame is necessarily large and there's then no room for sensor cleaning stuff which is why the D3(x) does not have it and the D700 does, after compromising to 95% (in each direction, 90% by area) coverage.

 

 

I should probably say more or say less.

 

Yes, I know...and I do know that RF VF coverage can only be, by definition, actually perfect at a single distance.

 

Part of what I was asking was whether we're being too hard on ourselves or on the Leica M system. I think I remember comments about the non-100% finder of the D200 when it was introduced and favorable comments about the D300's finder. And I do know that physical size issues are what kept Nikon from fully reproducing the D3 finder in the D700 which is built on the D300 chassis. But - back to the nub - if everyone is willing to heap glories on the D700 with its (admittedly constant, as Sean points out) VF coverage "error," and with the stipulation that we've got an error of a different type with the M system in that it varies according to subject distance and the manufacturer's spec for the framelines which may not even be consistent across various framelines within a single camera design (?), maybe we should cut the camera a bit of slack?

 

I've been watching the VF vs actual file frames carefully this (long) weekend. Sometimes it works in my favor when I'm working in a rush, sometimes it means cropping a little. I can live with these....

[john_newell]

Leica invests huge sums in new lenses but the one optical component which we use every shot we take has been studiously ignored for decades. Leica need to let go of all this legacy and compatibility nonsense and give us a finder which really is the crowning glory of the M camera, the key product differentiator.

 

Yes, I was going to say, probably driven by backward compatibility of all the old diopter lenses, which would be pretty silly! Unfortunately, at this point, they have to take account of customer reaction if they overnight make obsolete all of the 1.25x and 1.4x finders they've sold in the last few years?

[carstenw]

The D300 does give 100% view but of course it's a cropeed sensor camera, so easy to do. A viewfinder which gives a true 100% coverage for full frame is necessarily large and there's then no room for sensor cleaning stuff which is why the D3(x) does not have it and the D700 does, after compromising to 95% (in each direction, 90% by area) coverage.

 

The Sony A900 has 100%, 0.74x magnification, and image stabilization. I think sensor cleaning should be within reach.

[marknorton]

Carsten, Sony don't have the legacy baggage of the Nikon F mount. Sadly, the designers 50 years ago didn't realise the need to provide for sensor cleaning stuff within the geometry. Don't know about the Sony, which I guess derives from the original Minolta mount. Personally, I would much rather have 100% FF viewfinder coverage.

[thrid]

Carsten, Sony don't have the legacy baggage of the Nikon F mount. Sadly, the designers 50 years ago didn't realise the need to provide for sensor cleaning stuff within the geometry. Don't know about the Sony, which I guess derives from the original Minolta mount. Personally, I would much rather have 100% FF viewfinder coverage.

 

 

I don't think the F mount itself is the problem, but production costs. It is expensive to make a 100% viewfinder. Making one that also incorporates a cleaning system and/or IS would be even more expensive. From what I remember the Minolta mount in about the same size as the F mount.

 

I suspect that SONY's production costs are lower than Nikon's. They are drawing on technology from several other divisions (pro video, sensors, etc). That or SONY may be willing to take lower profits in order to gain market share.

 

Personally I prefer a 93-95% viewfinder, although my main SLR camera are a Nikon F, F2 and F3. The extra slack on the negative has saved my tail on several occasions.

[hoppyman]

Mark I follow your comments there of course, although I think maybe you might be a little tough on M's. Reasonable to say that the current system works well in that 28-90 range, in my opinion. For me the best M finder ever is that of the M3 (for the 50 -90-135). That one has the highest magnification as you know. So it can be done within those size constraints.

I guess that you are looking for a large change in the next M camera in the finder department then? I think that is fraught from a traditional customer acceptance perspective. Especially if the camera were to get taller to accommodate a larger eyepiece.

Dare I say if there was a 24x36 sensor with no 'crop factor' in the next M there may be more options? If that meant that the 24 framelines were to go, (ending up with a frameline set like the standard M7) at least Leica already have an external finder available. All entirely speculation and opinion by me, of course.

I guess that the S2 is a very good example there of what can be done with a clean slate.

It's not just a question of finder magnification, it's the size of the optical system. The eyepiece diameter of the Nikon D3 is 17mm and that gives me a great view of the focussing screen and the displays below it and to the right; eye position with glasses is not hugely critical. Similarly, the Frankenfinder is very easy to use because of the large diameter of the eyepiece. I expect the S2 viewfinder and eye comfort will be fabulous.

 

The M eyepiece is a measly 11mm in diameter and we all know that makes it more difficult to use. Add the fact that it has a sweet spot around 28 - 50mm requiring aux finders at one end of the range and magnifiers at the other and it's easy to conclude the finder is not fit for purpose.

 

Leica invests huge sums in new lenses but the one optical component which we use every shot we take has been studiously ignored for decades. Leica need to let go of all this legacy and compatibility nonsense and give us a finder which really is the crowning glory of the M camera, the key product differentiator.

 

Sadly though, what I expect we will get on 9th September will be a case of new bottle, same dreary old vintage.

[ChrisC]

....Leica invests huge sums in new lenses but the one optical component which we use every shot we take has been studiously ignored for decades. Leica need to let go of all this legacy and compatibility nonsense and give us a finder which really is the crowning glory of the M camera, the key product differentiator........

 

Mark I absolutely agree. For me the M8 finder is a very weak aspect of the camera and a hindrance to my picture making. A redesign is long overdue.

 

.............. Chhris

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[marknorton]

Geoff, a FF camera is likely to see a return to a 0.72 finder with the 28mm frame as difficult to see as the 24mm frame is now. That will require 7 of the available lenses to use an auxiliary finder with only 11 (excluding the Summarits) usable with the built in finder, 4 of which should ideally use a magnifier. Hardly comprehensive, is it?

 

Nearly 40 years on, Leica are still smarting from the negative reaction to the M5 and, like the rabbit frozen in my headlights and wiped out under my Bridgestones, are now incapable of change.

 

I'm not an optical designer but I do wonder what would be possible with modern glass and design techniques. A zooming or at least variable magnification finder; built-in dioptre; great eye comfort. Sure, it would be larger than what we have now but I think it would be better.

 

I don't think we'll get it though.

[marknorton]

Mark I absolutely agree. For me the M8 finder is a very weak aspect of the camera and a hindrance to my picture making. A redesign is long overdue.

 

.............. Chhris

 

Thanks Chris, pleased to see I'm not the only one...