Ajax
Jonathan Eastland
I've had a late serial production M8 on review for several weeks (The BJP will carry a preliminary field report in its 8/8/07 issue) and one of the first noticeable issues was the backfocus and framing.
Well, on the latter score, framing on ANY rangefinder has always seemed to me to be imperfect except when the thing is tripod mounted and the frame periphery can be correctly eyeballed. In the hand it's a different matter. I get them close to where I want perhaps seven out of ten times, but that's only when I'm stood still and take some time to frame up. On the run, it's anyone's guess as to what will be manifest in the frame. The M8 does seem to have a similar problem to the RD1 in this respect, but I have noticed over the weeks that the more I am careful, the better the outcome.
Pretty much the same applies to the so-called back focus issue. Tripod mounted, point of focus is usually met with some consistency, say 6 out of 10 times (refocus each time). I think one of the problems with the M8 VF and incident meter patch is that the system is simply not as accurate as it needs to be for digital capture using a cropped (magnified) focal length. Any discrepancy in actual focus point is enhanced considerably and more so when the captured image is then inspected on a CPU screen at 1:1.
Whereas with negs and prints, print sizes range from say, 5X7 inches up to 16X20, from a full frame neg, any focus discrepancy is not nearly so identifiable as it is from a CCD sensor with an effective 1.3 mag to begin with. That aside, I think the real problem is with the inaccuracy of the rangefinder for this type of tool and I experienced a lot of it initially with the RD1 until I started taking real time to ensure focus was as spot on as I could get. Of course, the extra time needed often negates the whole purpose of the system.
regards
Jonathan
>www.ajaxnetphoto.com<
Well, on the latter score, framing on ANY rangefinder has always seemed to me to be imperfect except when the thing is tripod mounted and the frame periphery can be correctly eyeballed. In the hand it's a different matter. I get them close to where I want perhaps seven out of ten times, but that's only when I'm stood still and take some time to frame up. On the run, it's anyone's guess as to what will be manifest in the frame. The M8 does seem to have a similar problem to the RD1 in this respect, but I have noticed over the weeks that the more I am careful, the better the outcome.
Pretty much the same applies to the so-called back focus issue. Tripod mounted, point of focus is usually met with some consistency, say 6 out of 10 times (refocus each time). I think one of the problems with the M8 VF and incident meter patch is that the system is simply not as accurate as it needs to be for digital capture using a cropped (magnified) focal length. Any discrepancy in actual focus point is enhanced considerably and more so when the captured image is then inspected on a CPU screen at 1:1.
Whereas with negs and prints, print sizes range from say, 5X7 inches up to 16X20, from a full frame neg, any focus discrepancy is not nearly so identifiable as it is from a CCD sensor with an effective 1.3 mag to begin with. That aside, I think the real problem is with the inaccuracy of the rangefinder for this type of tool and I experienced a lot of it initially with the RD1 until I started taking real time to ensure focus was as spot on as I could get. Of course, the extra time needed often negates the whole purpose of the system.
regards
Jonathan
>www.ajaxnetphoto.com<
Ben Z
Veteran
Mine is late# and I've been using the same framing regimen I do with my M6 I'm not noticing much difference if any at all. For example at infinity with a 50 I'm getting the same 3-frameline-thicknesses outside the framelines.
As to the focusing, the lower mag finder is somewhat more challenging than the M6. Couple that with the increased magnification due to the crop factor and I don't have any trouble seeing where most of the front/back focusing reports are coming from. A certain % I'm sure are due to lenses being out of specs. There are more than half a century's worth of production out there being used.
As to the focusing, the lower mag finder is somewhat more challenging than the M6. Couple that with the increased magnification due to the crop factor and I don't have any trouble seeing where most of the front/back focusing reports are coming from. A certain % I'm sure are due to lenses being out of specs. There are more than half a century's worth of production out there being used.
S
StuartR
Guest
I think Ben is right here. I have a lot of lenses, and most are spot on with the M8. A few just aren't. I think the problem is more in the lenses than in the camera and for the most part we are not used to getting huge enlargements with little grain after every shot like we do with the 1 to 1 preview on the screen.
It used to be expected to pair your camera to your lenses at the repair center, and that may be a good idea once again.
As for framing, I like the old framelines better, but that is more of a size and configuration issue. The accuracy is poor, but so was the M6...I think people are just noticing it more because the feedback is instant. There really is no way to make it accurate with a single sized frameline....they would have to shrink and expand a lot based on the focused distance to be truly accurate.
It used to be expected to pair your camera to your lenses at the repair center, and that may be a good idea once again.
As for framing, I like the old framelines better, but that is more of a size and configuration issue. The accuracy is poor, but so was the M6...I think people are just noticing it more because the feedback is instant. There really is no way to make it accurate with a single sized frameline....they would have to shrink and expand a lot based on the focused distance to be truly accurate.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ben,Ben Z said:
Indeed, well over half a century. Did you see the August Shutterbug, with my lightning blast through 24 lenses on an M8 -- including 50/1, 135/2.8 and Thambar? I find the 135/2,8 the most demanding, but also one of the most rewarding.
Cheers,
Roger
Harry Lime
Practitioner
From the horses mouth:
http://www.leica-camera.co.uk/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_2896.pdf
3. Rangefinder/ Bright-line frames
3.1 Why do I get considerably larger images with my LEICA M8 than indicated by the brightline frames?
In the LEICA M8’s range-/viewfinder, the bright-line frames for 24 to 90mm are mirrored in automatically upon attaching the respective lenses. A lens’ absolute angle of view changes slightly though, depending on the distance set, this effect is termed image field loss. On the other hand, the bright-line frames are adjusted to a certain distance meaning that the frame’s size will match only this one setting.
In the case of the analogue Leica M models, at a setting of 2 metres, the frames show exactly the image field visible in a mounted slide. The inner frame edges correspond to the common near setting limit of 0.7m, the outer edges approximately to a setting of infinity.
The frames in the LEICA M8 are adjusted to show precisely the image field at the near setting limit of 0.7m. At longer distances a proportionately larger image field is captured than indicated by the bright-line frames. This makes sure the user will capture everything she/he aligned within the frames, i.e. without any image field loss. Since it is very simple to crop the image after the taking, it was decided to opt for this adjustment.
End
Pre M6 cameras show coverage at 1 meter, which is why they frame more accurate at working distances than the metered bodies.
HL
http://www.leica-camera.co.uk/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_2896.pdf
3. Rangefinder/ Bright-line frames
3.1 Why do I get considerably larger images with my LEICA M8 than indicated by the brightline frames?
In the LEICA M8’s range-/viewfinder, the bright-line frames for 24 to 90mm are mirrored in automatically upon attaching the respective lenses. A lens’ absolute angle of view changes slightly though, depending on the distance set, this effect is termed image field loss. On the other hand, the bright-line frames are adjusted to a certain distance meaning that the frame’s size will match only this one setting.
In the case of the analogue Leica M models, at a setting of 2 metres, the frames show exactly the image field visible in a mounted slide. The inner frame edges correspond to the common near setting limit of 0.7m, the outer edges approximately to a setting of infinity.
The frames in the LEICA M8 are adjusted to show precisely the image field at the near setting limit of 0.7m. At longer distances a proportionately larger image field is captured than indicated by the bright-line frames. This makes sure the user will capture everything she/he aligned within the frames, i.e. without any image field loss. Since it is very simple to crop the image after the taking, it was decided to opt for this adjustment.
End
Pre M6 cameras show coverage at 1 meter, which is why they frame more accurate at working distances than the metered bodies.
HL
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I cringe whenever I read the "words" M8 and "backfocus" together in the same sentence, because "backfocusing" is something that describes how an autofocus camera incorrectly sets the lens' focusing behind the point of focus in the viewfinder.
That said, I think you're experiencing the same issue I had with my M8, which is that of incorrect parallax correction. You get a lot of sneering and unhelpful "advice" ranging from "who cares?" to "I just use the LCD to correct my framing" (which is an unreasonable compromise, at best, and simply unintelligent, at worst, because for some people --like myself--, life moves too quickly, and real-life is not a studio which you can control).
I was lucky to try out other people's M8s (three in total), and noticed that some had correct parallax correction, and others where wrong (like mine).
The right edge and bottom edge would get cut off when focusing very close, while the left edge and top edge would have "extra stuff" which I didn't visualize with the framelines.
After a (very long and painful) trip to Solms, they did what I asked them to, and did a great job. NJ is another matter (that part of the Universe seems to be rife with contempt and sloppiness), but what counts is what gets done at Solms.
Good luck with your issue (and the other opinions)!
That said, I think you're experiencing the same issue I had with my M8, which is that of incorrect parallax correction. You get a lot of sneering and unhelpful "advice" ranging from "who cares?" to "I just use the LCD to correct my framing" (which is an unreasonable compromise, at best, and simply unintelligent, at worst, because for some people --like myself--, life moves too quickly, and real-life is not a studio which you can control).
I was lucky to try out other people's M8s (three in total), and noticed that some had correct parallax correction, and others where wrong (like mine).
The right edge and bottom edge would get cut off when focusing very close, while the left edge and top edge would have "extra stuff" which I didn't visualize with the framelines.
After a (very long and painful) trip to Solms, they did what I asked them to, and did a great job. NJ is another matter (that part of the Universe seems to be rife with contempt and sloppiness), but what counts is what gets done at Solms.
Good luck with your issue (and the other opinions)!
Are you saying this issue was corrected when you sent the camera to them?