Leica M2 Depth of Field

[dgriff2]

Hello all, recently acquired an M2 and from what I've read on the net, the rangefinder patch should have depth of field indicators. This camera does not. Does anyone know if there is a certain serial number range of the M2's that had the depth of field indicators. My sn is 10627XX. It's a user grade, but boy is it smooth. I also have a Canon P, but the M viewfinder wins hands down. Shutter is a lot quieter also.

Thanks
Don

 

[Carlsen Highway]

I have wondered the same thing...my one (just new to me) is serial 1115XXX from 1965 and doesnt seem to have anything I can identify as Depth of field marks that people have mentioned...

 

[BillBingham2]

Never heard of any RF having that. The DOF marks are on all the M and most of the LTM lenses I've ever seen.

B2 (;->

 

[Tom A]

The M2 has two notches above and below the rangefinder patch - you are somehow supposed to be able to tell the depth of field. After close to 50 years of using M2's - I have not figured them out yet. Read a manual for a M2 sometime in the late 50's - but I can not recall the details - and never really felt the need for it either!

 

[Chris101]

The M2 has two notches above and below the rangefinder patch - you are somehow supposed to be able to tell the depth of field. After close to 50 years of using M2's - I have not figured them out yet. Read a manual for a M2 sometime in the late 50's - but I can not recall the details - and never really felt the need for it either!

I'm with you on that Tom. How would the viewfinder even know what f-stop you were using?

 

[ferider]

Unless your viewfinder was changed (doesn't have to be a bad thing - many M2 finders are starting to separate these days), I believe all M2s have the markings.

The top marking shows you how much you can be off at f16, the bottom at f5.6, and still be within the DOF of a 50mm lens.

I did find the markings useful with a shifting Sonnar - to predict the shift.

The bottom half of the following pic shows how the markings look like:

 

[dgriff2]

Yes, I agree they may be useless because supposedly they are used with the 50mm frame lines. Gandy's website mentioned on one page (Not the M2 review, another one) that the first M2's did not have the indicators and the later ones did. My serial comes from the 1962 era, so how much later??????? He mentioned that the M3's had these as well. This is a very nice view compared to the Canon P. Thanks

 

[ferider]

Early M3s didn't have them, later ones did. I have a button-rewind and a younger M2 and they both have the markings.

 

[dgriff2]

That's strange, after looking at these pics, mine has no indicators but my rangefinder patch also has 4 small 90 degree markings in each corner. They are only visible with the 35mm frame lines. The patch is more rectangular than the M6.

 

[ferider]

That's strange, after looking at these pics, mine has no indicators but my rangefinder patch also has 4 small 90 degree markings in each corner. They are only visible with the 35mm frame lines. The patch is more rectangular than the M6.

These are 135mm framelines. You did get an upgrade 🙂 Again, no problem if you ask me. How do the 90mm framelines look ? If the corners are solid, your upgrade came from M4 or M4-2.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[dgriff2]

Hi Roland, thanks. The 35 lines are open in the corners and cover pretty much the whole viewfinders. The 50 (assuming these are 50 lines) lines are open also. When I push the lever all the way to the 90, the corners are open and each vertical sides are broken up into 3 dashed lines so to speak, with then center dash of the vertical longer than the others. The horizontal lines are just a bit longer than the rangefinder patch. Still think it's an M4 upgrade? Thanks for your help.

 

[dgriff2]

Thanks Vic, my patch doesn't have the protrusions.

 

[dgriff2]

Hmmm after looking at Vic's link, I don't know what I have. The 35 and 50 look the same, but the 90 is different. The link shows the 90 with solid corners.

 

[amateriat]

My M2 ('58, among the first 200 built) has the patch markings. Haven't determined for myself how useful they are. Might finally take off the 35 f/2 'cron an snap on my 50 M-Hex to find out. 🙂


- Barrett

 

[Jamie Pillers]

The two notches are different sizes... I believe one of them is for something like f/5.6 and the other is for something like f/11. However I haven't taken time yet to figure out how to use them.

 

[KoNickon]

I think that if the offset of the double image (i.e. the actual image and the rangefinder reflected image) both fall within those notches, then that object will be in focus at f5.6 or f16, depending on which f-stop of the two you're using. No help if you aren't using either of those, of course! Better to just use the DOF markings on the lens, I think.

 

[Frankie]

I think that if the offset of the double image (i.e. the actual image and the rangefinder reflected image) both fall within those notches, then that object will be in focus at f5.6 or f16, depending on which f-stop of the two you're using. No help if you aren't using either of those, of course! Better to just use the DOF markings on the lens, I think.

The Leica M2 manual states, and only for the 50mm lens:

"... After focusing on the subject of major importance the appropriate projection is superimposed on other subjects before and/or behind the point of focus. If the separation of the double image outlines still lie within this projection the image will be acceptably sharp."

In other words:

If the separation [of the double image] lies within the upper wider notch and f16 is selected, the depth of field will be adequate; and, if the separation lies within the lower narrower notch and f5.6 is selected, the depth of field is also adequate.

Anything else is a guess.

 

[payasam]

Had an M3 with the notches for 17 years, never used them. Have an M2 with the notches, never use them. Part of the reason is that I do not always use a 50mm lens. A good idea, perhaps, but not of much use in practice.

 

[__hh]

The M2 has two notches above and below the rangefinder patch - you are somehow supposed to be able to tell the depth of field. After close to 50 years of using M2's - I have not figured them out yet. Read a manual for a M2 sometime in the late 50's - but I can not recall the details - and never really felt the need for it either!

If even Tom can't work it out, then I feel relieved. I have been looking into this for a long time and have been feeling stoopid. I feel better now. Thanks Tom 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Think of it this way: it's a feature that cost very little to put in, and which was very little use.

A bit like half the modes on the average DSLR.

Once I'd figured out how to use them -- which takes a few seconds after you've read the right instruction book -- I don't think I ever used them again.

Cheers,

R.