M8 Framing Accuracy?

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My Midland 50 Cron-R and 135 Elmarit-R lenses don't have the numbers. My Wetzlar 80 Lux-R (95=79.5) and 180 Elmarit-R (90=179.0) do.

Well, I'm flummoxed! I was completely unaware of that! Thanks for pointing it out to me!

 

I think the only 50/2 R from Canada had a 55mm filter thread, right? Does your 135 R take series filters, or is it also E55? I'm trying to figure out whether these lenses might be rather early Canadian production and the idea of engraving the focal length hadn't worked its way through to them yet--Midland in those days was always a bit more innovative than Wetzar!

 

That 50 Summicron R (if it's the one I'm thinking of) was a breakthrough in lens design: It had three plane surfaces. No one had ever designed a lens like that previously. That fact didn't seem groundshaking to the average consumer, but optical designers were astounded at the audacity and performance of such a lens.

 

--HC

[Advertisement]

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

[carstenw]

HC, Gunter Osterloh's Leica M book also states that Leica's design focal length for the 50s is 52mm, not 50mm. There is no mention of 51,9mm though.

 

Interestingly, that makes my future comparison of 50mm f/1.4 Asph on M8 (1.33x) vs. 80mm f1.4 on 5D (1.0x) much more valid, since it is now 52x1.33=69mm vs. 79.5mm, much better than 66 vs. 80 I of course have to stop down to f5.6 before I can really compare the sensor results at all, since the lenses have such different character until that point.

 

Note, I am sure better comparisons can be made, but this is what I've got to work with.

[ho_co]

Carsten--I won't argue with Mr Osterloh, but I'm certain that there was a ".9" in the value. I think he may simply be rounding.

 

But before you compare the current 1.4, doublecheck its actual focal length. In other words, Leica might have had a design focal length of 52mm for Summicron thirty years ago, but that doesn't mean necessarily that today's 50mm lenses would share the same value.

 

Enjoy the comparisons; and thanks for bringing these points to my attention!

 

--HC

[Stevez4]

I

 

The trick is to use a familiar set of lenses and learn where the edges will tend to fall with those lenses on the M8 relative to the frame lines (at various distances). This is also something I've discussed in more detail in various articles.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Thank you Sean for revealing one of the secrets of long time Leics shooters. It is an integral part of the creative experience.

[gabrielma]

I'd like to bring this issue up again.

 

I had been noticing that a lot of my shots were misframed, and of course I was led to believe that this was due to the "conservative" framelines.

 

Well, this is poppycock. I compared shots with two other cameras, one of them a demo M8, and I've discovered that my own M8 has the problem of the original poster: when you line up an image up to the edge of the top frameline, there is considerable space in the shot.

 

When I line it up to the right frame when focusing to the closest focusing distance, it gets chopped-off. This didn't happen when I tried the other two cameras.

 

So this isn't a case of "it's the user". Perhaps...maybe...just maybe, some of the M8 cameras that were shipped weren't rigorously tested for accurate parallax correction/framing. I mean, there were some cameras that needed to be sent back for a hardware upgrade, right? So maybe...just maybe...some of our cameras need to have this recalibrated.

 

I know I've had a number of shots which didn't turn out like I framed them, with the edge or edges chopped off (bottom or right if in Landscape mode, or bottom or left if in Portrait mode...for me; I shoot with my left eye). This didn't happen with my film bodies. Ever.

 

Perhaps these reports should not be so easily dismissed?

 

Could Leica please take a closer look at these reports?

[furcafe]

You're not alone in noticing this or having an M8 that displays this issue. My M8, serial # 31026**, gives noticeably more extra space towards the top of the frame when shooting in landscape mode (left side in portrait mode--I'm right-eyed, but prefer keeping the VF/RF on top & shutter release on the bottom). I would get this adjusted, but have hesitated because I don't want to send my camera on another 6-week journey to Solms (assuming that Leica USA can't fix it in NJ).

 

I know I've had a number of shots which didn't turn out like I framed them, with the edge or edges chopped off (bottom or right if in Landscape mode, or bottom or left if in Portrait mode...for me; I shoot with my left eye). This didn't happen with my film bodies. Ever.

 

Perhaps these reports should not be so easily dismissed?

 

Could Leica please take a closer look at these reports?

[Philinflash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you Sean for revealing one of the secrets of long time Leics shooters. It is an integral part of the creative experience.

 

Strictly speaking, this not an issue unique to Leicas and their users. You have got to know what your equipment will do and not do, quirks and all.

 

I am learning what the framelines represent with the respective lenses. Unlike film cameras, one can at least see immediately what was captured vs. what was framed. That is nice.

 

Personally, I prefer the framelines to be "tighter" than the captured image as they are in my experience, given that it would seem impossible to get an exact fit over all focusing lengths and circumstances.

 

PK