slad
Newbie
What is the percentage of image seen in the viewfinder of a Zeiss Icon as opposed to what is on the film? It's about 85% on my Leica M6.
italy74
Well-known
Not sure if I got your question correctly, Slad
for what I know, every rangefinder viewfinder is able to cover MUCH more than the 100% of what will be saved onto the film halide, in fact you have the frames that tell you what a certain lens what will record on it.
for what I know, every rangefinder viewfinder is able to cover MUCH more than the 100% of what will be saved onto the film halide, in fact you have the frames that tell you what a certain lens what will record on it.
slad
Newbie
What you see within the viewfinder framelines of an RF is less than what is actually recorded on the film. I also have a Nikon F3 which shows 100% of the viewfinder area on the film. so what you see in the viewfinder is exactly what you get on the film. By design RF's aren't that accurate. They generally show about 85% of what will be seen on the film. I'm curious as to what the percentage difference is (if any) between the Zeiss and the M6.
italy74
Well-known
Slad
I admit I have no idea about that, I hope someone will confirm either explain it deeper what you said and are asking for.
I admit I have no idea about that, I hope someone will confirm either explain it deeper what you said and are asking for.
Here's a part of the report Asahi Camera magazine did on the ZI in February 2006.
The three images on the left from top to bottom are the frame coverage of the 50mm Planar at infinity, 3 metres, and 0.7 metres.
The three images on the right are the 28mm Biogon at infinity, 3 metres, and 0.7 metres.
The three frames in each image are from outside to inside - the total image on film, the image shown on a standard slide, and the image coverage of the relevant ZI frame line for the focal length of the lens.
Hope that answers your question
The three images on the left from top to bottom are the frame coverage of the 50mm Planar at infinity, 3 metres, and 0.7 metres.
The three images on the right are the 28mm Biogon at infinity, 3 metres, and 0.7 metres.
The three frames in each image are from outside to inside - the total image on film, the image shown on a standard slide, and the image coverage of the relevant ZI frame line for the focal length of the lens.
Hope that answers your question
italy74
Well-known
Thanks Jon for sharing, this sounds completely new to me. Of course I knew that frame lines were approximate, but i didn't thought that much, however it's better having a bit more room (rather than the contrary) for images that will be effectively recorded on film. Probably Zeiss engineers chose to remain a bit on the (safe) conservative side
Last edited:
I forgot to add that the % of coverage is shown inside each image. The upper % is the vertical coverage, and the lower % is the horizontal coverage.
For example, the % of coverage at 3 metres for the 50 Planar is 83% in the vertical direction and 84% in the horizontal direction.
For example, the % of coverage at 3 metres for the 50 Planar is 83% in the vertical direction and 84% in the horizontal direction.
Last edited:
slad
Newbie
Thanks Jon. It looks equivalent to the M6 viewfinder frames.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Actually you don't get as much as 85% with the M6, at least not with some frames. The worst is the 50mm frameline. It shows the same image width as my 60mm Macro-Elmarit on the R6. That is equivalent to 80% coverage in width. But what is the area covered? Area is proportional to height times width--x times y. If the frameline covers 0.8 in width, then it also covers 0.8 in height. And 0.8 times 0.8 equals 0.64. That's right--the 50mm M6 frameline only shows you 64% of what you will see on the film.
That is not good enough for me. So I'm getting away from using my 50mm lenses on my M6 and MP. It's the same on the M7. Now I'm using the 40mm VC Nokton with the 35mm framelines, which is perfect. The 35mm framelines are a bit small too, but not to the same extent. They show a 40mm field. That's an error of 14%. That is to say, the 35mm frameline shows 86% (OK 85%, as Slad said) in linear coverage. That's 74% of the area--not quite so bad. But with the 40mm lens, you get a very accurate idea of what will be on the film.
All these remarks are based on shooting at a distance of maybe 15 feet or more. In the near range, around the 07M closest focus of most Leica lenses, the framelines are said to be more accurate. But at 50 feet or so, the error is considerable.
That is not good enough for me. So I'm getting away from using my 50mm lenses on my M6 and MP. It's the same on the M7. Now I'm using the 40mm VC Nokton with the 35mm framelines, which is perfect. The 35mm framelines are a bit small too, but not to the same extent. They show a 40mm field. That's an error of 14%. That is to say, the 35mm frameline shows 86% (OK 85%, as Slad said) in linear coverage. That's 74% of the area--not quite so bad. But with the 40mm lens, you get a very accurate idea of what will be on the film.
All these remarks are based on shooting at a distance of maybe 15 feet or more. In the near range, around the 07M closest focus of most Leica lenses, the framelines are said to be more accurate. But at 50 feet or so, the error is considerable.
slad
Newbie
Rob,
I have an early M6 (1985) an a .85 mag M6 classic. The 50 frame lines on the .85 show a bit more than the early M6. In fact the early M6 has thicker frame lines as opposed to the fine lines of the .85.
The 40mm Nokton brings up the 35mm frame lines in you Leica? I thought it brought up the 50's.
I have an early M6 (1985) an a .85 mag M6 classic. The 50 frame lines on the .85 show a bit more than the early M6. In fact the early M6 has thicker frame lines as opposed to the fine lines of the .85.
The 40mm Nokton brings up the 35mm frame lines in you Leica? I thought it brought up the 50's.
italy74
Well-known
Hi Rob
I wouldn't be that pessimistic. In the end, this is not pure math.
First of all, you see less than what will be recorded on film, and this is NOT bad, just think of the contrary (if you would see MORE of what is effectively recorded) and second all this 35% of the image is not concentrated only in a certain area, but it's spread in a narrow frame all around your framing lines. In the end, I mean, you're "losing" from the framing the least important part of the image (that will be however recorded, don't forget it!) So, whatever you frame when shooting, you know that you will have a little more but you won't lose anything.
Prints can be cropped later, though.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
The simplest way to find out:
Tape a piece of matte acetate or drafting film at the film plane, set the shutter at B and hold it down. Your will now see exactly the image the lens sees.
Level the camera and use hard vertical objects at infinity (such as building edges) as a reference.
Stopping down the lens might increase coverage a bit.
Tape a piece of matte acetate or drafting film at the film plane, set the shutter at B and hold it down. Your will now see exactly the image the lens sees.
Level the camera and use hard vertical objects at infinity (such as building edges) as a reference.
Stopping down the lens might increase coverage a bit.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
this is a very real phenomena with an M6 and Im always surprised when someone argues this idea. All you have to do is try to crop something out of your frame at more than three or four feet and you'll see how exactly inaccurate the M6 frame lines are. Doesnt compare in the least to a M4 or M2 or M3, its a horrible finder and the primary reason why I barely use my m6. granted, if you never frame in your corners you might never notice it, but if you do you probably find the camera as useless as I do. I sadly dont have any experience with the zeiss, but wanted to chime in, this is very real with the M6.