The inacurate M8 frame lines

[arnulf]

I feel pretty sure that this has already been discussed at length both on this forum and others, but I don't have the patience to browse through 15.000 m8 whino threads, so:

I've had the M8 for a little over a week now, and I'm mostly very happy with it. Sure, I can see all the weaknesses that everybody have been going on about ever since it came, and I can totally see why some people would find all those things unacceptable. Me? I'm happy with it. It works great and takes really great photos for my use. The thing that annoys me the most is that the buttons on the back can be hit really easily by mistake and accidentally deleting shots only takes two hits. That's NOT good. However, I'm just solving that by turning the camera off when carrying it on my shoulder. After all, it starts up pretty fast..

Anyway, my question is about the thing that puzzles me most: the inaccurate frame lines. I know that it lies partly in the very nature of rangefinder photography that there might be some discrepancy between what you see and what you get, but still: on the m8, this discrepancy is pretty darn big, wouldn't you say? Then I started thinking: I actually have no clue as to how inaccurate my m6 is. After all, on a film camera, you can't check this immediately after the shot is taken, and I can never remember exactly where the frame lines were when I took it.

So, my three questions are:
1) Is the m8 frame lines really that much more inacurate than other Leicas?

2) If so: why the hell is that???

3) Any good suggestions as to how to live with this?

I really don't wanna start another general m8 debate. there have been plenty of those already. If this has been discussed in a different thread, just point me to it, ok?

Arnulf

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Arnulf,

After 2 years with an M8:

1) Yup, they're bad. The worst I know -- and I've been using Ms for over 30 years. M2/3 were better than M4 series.

2) They got it wrong.

3) With enough practice, you learn HOW MUCH is outside the frame.

It's a bloody nuisance. But it's the only digital M in town.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tmfabian]

the frames are designed to be accurate at 1m, which they are...quite accurate at that range (my only logic as to why they changed it from the older way of being accurate at 3 meters(?) is so that what you want in the frame is actually always in the frame, instead of the possibility of getting what you thought was at the edge cropped out)
To delete an image accidentally would require 3 sequential accidental button pushes(play ->delete->set) and maybe it's the fact that I have a soft belly, but I've never once accidentally had one of those buttons activate (plus I have it taped up pretty good)

 

[arnulf]

Dear Arnulf,

2) They got it wrong.

Yeah, that's what I mean! How the hell could they just "get it wrong"? Haven't they been doing this for years?

Weird stuff....

 

[arnulf]

To delete an image accidentally would require 3 sequential accidental button pushes(play ->delete->set) and maybe it's the fact that I have a soft belly, but I've never once accidentally had one of those buttons activate.

Okay, so it takes three pushes. And it didn't happen to me yet, but once it came as fare as "delete?". I thought that was pretty scary. One wrong push and I would have lost a pic (true enough, it was a crap one, but still..). After all, three pushes: that's, if not very probable to happen, then at least very possible!

 

[WoolenMammoth]

I actually have no clue as to how inaccurate my m6 is.

I cant speak for the M8 but the M6 finder is awful. Many people do not notice this but if you tend to frame on your edges and crop things OUT of your frame, you'll soon discover how loose the frame lines really are. As a result, I barely ever use my m6. The M4/2 finder is much much more accurate.

This link pretty much defines how the finder works but its simply not practical to deal with mentally tripling framelines at infinity if you are shooting people that move around...

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/003wjo

 

[jaapv]

Yeah, that's what I mean! How the hell could they just "get it wrong"? Haven't they been doing this for years?

Weird stuff....

They ARE impractical, I'll grant you that, but they are not wrong. Leica went theoretical on us and made them accurate at the closest focussing distance, 0.7 m.

Rangefinder framelines:
They can only be correct for one focal length. Unfortunately, as one focusses, the lens extends and the focal length gets longer. With a 50 mm lens about 6 mm at closest focussing distance. So your lens that is a 50 mm lens at infinity has the smaller field of view of a 56 mm lens close up. So Leica made the framelines for 56 mm, making them too narrow at infinity. There is no way around this, unless we get into very complicated solutions.
On the earlier M cameras the compromise was different and the framelines were accurate at about 2 m.That is, the outside of the framelines. The inside was accurate at 1m and at infinity it was three frame-line widths outside. For a 50 mm lens.
I think the designers feared, with immediate chimping, people would notice cut off edges at close distances. So they went for the safe solution.
Plus, nobody in the past remembered exactly how a shot was framed by the time the film was developed. Now we chimp right away and everything gets noticed.
A learning curve, I fear. Maybe, in future, the old-fashioned framelines will be offered as an option or conversion, who knows...

 

[tmfabian]

Okay, so it takes three pushes. And it didn't happen to me yet, but once it came as fare as "delete?". I thought that was pretty scary. One wrong push and I would have lost a pic (true enough, it was a crap one, but still..). After all, three pushes: that's, if not very probable to happen, then at least very possible!

Now I know this ain't the prettiest thing you can do to a camera, and I admit someone at leica should've caught this mistake and just recessed the buttons, but here's a work around.
For the m8's buttons it takes about 3 to 4 strips of tape to build the height up to about that of the buttons.

 

[Keith]

Leica obviously perfected the innacurate frameline a long time ago ... I think the IIIg may have been the first of their rangefinders to have parallax corrected framelines?

To cut a long story short I used my IIIg for the first time the other day and when I developed the film I was amazed at how far out they were at close range! 😛

 

[Doug]

Anyway, my question is about the thing that puzzles me most: the inaccurate frame lines. I know that it lies partly in the very nature of rangefinder photography that there might be some discrepancy between what you see and what you get, but still: on the m8, this discrepancy is pretty darn big, wouldn't you say? Then I started thinking: I actually have no clue as to how inaccurate my m6 is. After all, on a film camera, you can't check this immediately after the shot is taken, and I can never remember exactly where the frame lines were when I took it.

Yes indeed, part of the RF experience. Relax, enjoy, and don't chimp. 😀

 

[rwchisholm]

framelines, and such...

framelines, and such...

A few tricks on the M8 to make it go from an average camera to an awesome camera:

1) After using the lenses for a while, you will get a feel for the lens and forget the framelines. So, be patient, this issue will bother you less in short order.

2) Forget the aperture setting and manually dial in your shutter speed. Makes a word of difference.

Chimping is a great help with learning both of these. --rob

 

[Ben Z]

By now it's all ingrained in my brain, but it does take some concerted effort to learn how to outguess the framelines. I often wondered why Leica couldn't make the frameline box accurate at infinity, and then place little marks inside the 4 lines to represent the closest distance (like parallax marks in some old cameras). I think it would be easier than trying to extrapolate outside the lines.

 

[arnulf]

They ARE impractical, I'll grant you that, but they are not wrong. Leica went theoretical on us and made them accurate at the closest focussing distance, 0.7 m.

Rangefinder framelines:
They can only be correct for one focal length. Unfortunately, as one focusses, the lens extends and the focal length gets longer. With a 50 mm lens about 6 mm at closest focussing distance. So your lens that is a 50 mm lens at infinity has the smaller field of view of a 56 mm lens close up. So Leica made the framelines for 56 mm, making them too narrow at infinity. There is no way around this, unless we get into very complicated solutions.
On the earlier M cameras the compromise was different and the framelines were accurate at about 2 m.That is, the outside of the framelines. The inside was accurate at 1m and at infinity it was three frame-line widths outside. For a 50 mm lens.
I think the designers feared, with immediate chimping, people would notice cut off edges at close distances. So they went for the safe solution.
Plus, nobody in the past remembered exactly how a shot was framed by the time the film was developed. Now we chimp right away and everything gets noticed.
A learning curve, I fear. Maybe, in future, the old-fashioned framelines will be offered as an option or conversion, who knows...

Thanks a lot! That was really helpful. So, in other words, it really isn't less accurate than other m's, just different? That makes sense.

 

[furcafe]

Just an addendum & clarification:

The framelines can only be accurate @ 1 focus distance, not focal length, & the change in field of view as focus distance changes is greater w/the longer focal lengths (hence you get more complaints about the inaccuracy of the 50mm & longer frames).

There are RFs that have framelines that change size w/the focus distance (e.g., Fuji, Mamiya, & Koni-Omega medium format RFs), but they have a different design than those in the Leica M cameras & don't have to cover as many different focal lengths. A modern solution would probably be to use some sort of electronically projected LCD lines in the finder, perhaps in conjunction w/"live view," but that obviously would have meant a very different camera.

They ARE impractical, I'll grant you that, but they are not wrong. Leica went theoretical on us and made them accurate at the closest focussing distance, 0.7 m.

Rangefinder framelines:
They can only be correct for one focal length. Unfortunately, as one focusses, the lens extends and the focal length gets longer. With a 50 mm lens about 6 mm at closest focussing distance. So your lens that is a 50 mm lens at infinity has the smaller field of view of a 56 mm lens close up. So Leica made the framelines for 56 mm, making them too narrow at infinity. There is no way around this, unless we get into very complicated solutions.
On the earlier M cameras the compromise was different and the framelines were accurate at about 2 m.That is, the outside of the framelines. The inside was accurate at 1m and at infinity it was three frame-line widths outside. For a 50 mm lens.
I think the designers feared, with immediate chimping, people would notice cut off edges at close distances. So they went for the safe solution.
Plus, nobody in the past remembered exactly how a shot was framed by the time the film was developed. Now we chimp right away and everything gets noticed.
A learning curve, I fear. Maybe, in future, the old-fashioned framelines will be offered as an option or conversion, who knows...

 

[furcafe]

I'm not sure when the IIIg was actually designed, but the M3 came out before it. I believe both had their roots before WWII, when Leitz had strong competition from Zeiss Ikon's Contax system & was looking for ways to move forward: 1 camp wanted to simply improve the "Barnack" form factor & keep the screw mount (hence the IIIg) & the other wanted to develop an improved Leitz version of the Contax (the M3).

Leica obviously perfected the innacurate frameline a long time ago ... I think the IIIg may have been the first of their rangefinders to have parallax corrected framelines?

To cut a long story short I used my IIIg for the first time the other day and when I developed the film I was amazed at how far out they were at close range! 😛

 

[ferider]

Just an addendum & clarification:

The framelines can only be accurate @ 1 focus distance, not focal length, & the change in field of view as focus distance changes is greater w/the longer focal lengths (hence you get more complaints about the inaccuracy of the 50mm & longer frames).

That is correct and rarely commented on.

The frameline coverage in Leicas only changed once, in the middle of the M4-P production run. AFAIK, older M4Ps, M42s, M4s, M2 and M3 all have framelines calibrated for 1m min. focus. Newer Ms for 0.7m min. focus for most focal lengths (all but 90 and 135mm). The 90mm lines between, say M3 and M6 are identical. Also, all M2-M7 are all made to work with slide film, which, compared to negatives, makes you loose another few percent coverage.

I once did a little Excel graph where you can see how the FOV of a given lens changes with focal distance:

For instance, the FOV of a 75mm at 0.7m distance is equivalent to the FOV of an 85mm lens at infinity.

I am guessing it's more obvious in the M8 because of the crop factor and ability to chimp.

Best,

Roland.

 

[jaapv]

I'm not sure when the IIIg was actually designed, but the M3 came out before it. I believe both had their roots before WWII, when Leitz had strong competition from Zeiss Ikon's Contax system & was looking for ways to move forward: 1 camp wanted to simply improve the "Barnack" form factor & keep the screw mount (hence the IIIg) & the other wanted to develop an improved Leitz version of the Contax (the M3).

The basics of the M3 date back to 1935, with the prototype Leica IV. It had many of the design ideas of the M3, but lacked the banjonet mount and transport lever. It is clear that Leica was well on its way to introducing the M3 before 1940, but other pressing matters interfered, losing one and a half decade....

 

[jaapv]

Also, all M2-M7 are all made to work with slide film, which, compared to negatives, makes you loose another few percent coverage.

Actually, Leica just chopped off 1 mm all around. Because that is what you lose on a slide frame. (and an enlarger film holder for that matter)

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

the frames are designed to be accurate at 1m, which they are...quite accurate at that range

Don't bother, they've already made up their minds, it seems.

 

[jaapv]

Just an addendum & clarification:

The framelines can only be accurate @ 1 focus distance, not focal length, & the change in field of view as focus distance changes is greater w/the longer focal lengths (hence you get more complaints about the inaccuracy of the 50mm & longer frames).

.

Well, yes- I simplified a bit. Of course the focal length is a fixed property of the lens, being defined at infinity, and the focal distance a variable, controlled by focal length and subject distance, projecting the plane of focus onto the receptor (film or sensor). However, for understanding the concept, calling the variable focal length is easier albeit technically inaccurate.