Okay- I mostly use 50mm lenses on my M8. From what I can see, the 50mm framelines work out well. Frame a shot with them, press the button, check out the results on the LCD. The two are a good match. I've tried from up close to infinity- just do not see a problem.
Set the framelines on the tree to the left, got a bit more of it in the image. Good 90% rule held, just like the M3.
Up close (also a flare test), put the framelines above the head- got expected results.
What focal lengths present a problem with the M8 framelines, and how big of a problem is it?
Set the framelines on the tree to the left, got a bit more of it in the image. Good 90% rule held, just like the M3.
Up close (also a flare test), put the framelines above the head- got expected results.
What focal lengths present a problem with the M8 framelines, and how big of a problem is it?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
They all work OK for me, but I compose to the outside edge of the frame on the M8, inside edge on the M8.2.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Maybe that is why I have not noticed an issue- I use the outside framelines of the M3.
Maybe some DSLR users were not used to taking pictures with a rangefinder?
Maybe some DSLR users were not used to taking pictures with a rangefinder?
Johnny_Johnson
Member
Try a 75mm
Try a 75mm
The 75mm is the worse in my experience. The actual framing is about halfway between the 50mm and 75mm frame lines.
Try a 75mm
The 75mm is the worse in my experience. The actual framing is about halfway between the 50mm and 75mm frame lines.
I read up on what the issue was. The framelines for the original M8 were optimized for closest focus, meaning they cover the lens at a slightly longer actual focal length. Works for me, a lot of my shots are close-up and wide-open. The marked focal length for a lens is for infinity focus. The margin for the framelines is different, and on some focal lengths the actual image is stated to be different than that shown by the framelines when used at infinity. However- for the 50mm framelines, the view at infinity still has plenty of margin in my experience. Roger's solution of using the outer portion of the framelines serves to match things up. The M8.2 shifted the framelines to match FOV mid-distance at ~7ft. Better for many applications, but not all.
I'll try the 9cm F2 Summicron on it. If it's off, I'll just use the Nikkor 8.5cm F2 with it for my longest focal length. Ya think that's what they had in mind...
I'll try the 9cm F2 Summicron on it. If it's off, I'll just use the Nikkor 8.5cm F2 with it for my longest focal length. Ya think that's what they had in mind...
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Brian
Hi Brian
That's pretty much it. The film M's for half a century were accurate at 1m and this was fine for most folks.
When they designed the M8, many more lenses were focusing closer than 1m, and more photographers were shooting at minimum distances, so in order to take the conservative position, and not allow for framelines cutting off edges, they went tighter to 0.7m.
M8 owners couldn't take this, since all distances except beyond .7m were "loose" so they went to 2m with the 8.2. This was too severe, and causes "data loss"
The M9 is back at 1m, and all seems well again.
I am fine with the framelines of the original, agree that 40 fits 35 better than a 1m close focus 35 though. With 50, you'll want to use the insides of the lines at distances.
75 corners work fine for me, but my 75 close focuses to .7m, so I wouldn't want them optimized for 2m and beyond.
90 was fine, but is small in the .68 VF, there are no 135 lines.
Never tried framing with the 24 lines paired with the 35, but do use a 21 with the whole area of the VF which is still tight, but I can get level shots.
With a 15, I need an external VF (21).
Hi Brian
That's pretty much it. The film M's for half a century were accurate at 1m and this was fine for most folks.
When they designed the M8, many more lenses were focusing closer than 1m, and more photographers were shooting at minimum distances, so in order to take the conservative position, and not allow for framelines cutting off edges, they went tighter to 0.7m.
M8 owners couldn't take this, since all distances except beyond .7m were "loose" so they went to 2m with the 8.2. This was too severe, and causes "data loss"
The M9 is back at 1m, and all seems well again.
I am fine with the framelines of the original, agree that 40 fits 35 better than a 1m close focus 35 though. With 50, you'll want to use the insides of the lines at distances.
75 corners work fine for me, but my 75 close focuses to .7m, so I wouldn't want them optimized for 2m and beyond.
90 was fine, but is small in the .68 VF, there are no 135 lines.
Never tried framing with the 24 lines paired with the 35, but do use a 21 with the whole area of the VF which is still tight, but I can get level shots.
With a 15, I need an external VF (21).
Last edited:
My M8 still has the 90mm framelines. I'll give it a try.
I use so many different camera systems, I'm not set in my ways. Pretty much adapted my own FOV perspective. Except the Zeiss Ikon RF on the Polaroid 180. It changes the FOV as you focus. I think Luke Skywalker's targeting computer was made by Zeiss.
I use so many different camera systems, I'm not set in my ways. Pretty much adapted my own FOV perspective. Except the Zeiss Ikon RF on the Polaroid 180. It changes the FOV as you focus. I think Luke Skywalker's targeting computer was made by Zeiss.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
35mm are rubbish IMO .... the indicated framelines are token at best!
ampguy
Veteran
Yes, thanks
Yes, thanks
I corrected my post, I have no 90 right now, but yes, the 50/75 and 28/90 pairs are the same, the 35 comes up with 24 lines instead of 135.
If you decide to test out coding at some point, you need the right framelines up for coding to work, for example, 21s need to bring up 28s, and CV 15s need 28 adapters to be coded and ID'd as any of the 3 WATEs, etc.
So Zeiss has upgraded some of their mounts, and CV has "version 2" adapters which have a little groove allowing for coding.
I also need to frame a bit wide, as I don't like to crop unless it's for framing, so fitting to 8x10 chops a bit off the long sides.
Yes, thanks
I corrected my post, I have no 90 right now, but yes, the 50/75 and 28/90 pairs are the same, the 35 comes up with 24 lines instead of 135.
If you decide to test out coding at some point, you need the right framelines up for coding to work, for example, 21s need to bring up 28s, and CV 15s need 28 adapters to be coded and ID'd as any of the 3 WATEs, etc.
So Zeiss has upgraded some of their mounts, and CV has "version 2" adapters which have a little groove allowing for coding.
I also need to frame a bit wide, as I don't like to crop unless it's for framing, so fitting to 8x10 chops a bit off the long sides.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I tried my old CV 25mm with Leica-M adaptor on my M8. That was not usable at all. The adaptor brought up the 28mm framelines. On the lower left side it framed slightly out of the frameline. On the upper right side it framed way out of the frameline. Always needed two or three attempts to get on the photo what I wanted. Sold the lens. With my CV 35mm framing is ok.
I, for one, am annoyed at how inaccurate the M8 is at long distances... it gives me way too much on the left and up top. It is the worst M I can remember with regards to frameline accuracy. Up close, the M8 is pretty accurate suprisingly.