50mm framelines on M7

S

swj

Newbie
Local time
10:14 AM
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
7
Hello, I'm new to the forum and have thoroughly enjoyed following the discussions. My favourite focal length is 50mm. Although I like the CL, I would like to 'upgrade' to a Leica M3, M4, M5 or M7. When looking at an M4 today I loved the viewfinder as it displayed only the 50mm framelines and was uncluttered . Is there a way to do this on the M7, that is, to prevent the 75mm frameline from appearing?

Thanks in advance,

Simon.
 
If you like shooting with the 50 and can live without a meter get an M2/M4, early M4-P or even an M5.

Starting with the M6 Leica reduced the size of the 50mm frame lines and now you end up with a good deal more information on your negative, than you see in the viewfinder.

Basically the newer 50mm markings show the lens coverage at .7 meters (70cm), instead of 1 meter. The only problem is that now when you are shooting anything that is more than 3-5 meters away, you end up with a about 15-20% more information on your negative than you expect to see.

Basically it is the difference between a framed slide (M6/M7/MP) and a full frame (M2/M4/M5 etc) negative.

I try to avoid shooting my 50's on the newer cameras, but my 35 is permanently glued to my M7.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Harry that is really useful information. I have got used to to the 50mm focal length using my EOS 1v and aim to restrct myself solely to that (the 50mm focal length that is, not the 1v!)

Simon.
 
Harry Lime said:
If you like shooting with the 50 and can live without a meter get an M2/M4, early M4-P or even an M5. [...]
Click to expand...
Why recommend the M4-P over the M4-2 if someone's looking for uncluttered 50mm frames? The -P's got all 6 frames whereas the -2's only got 35/135, 50 and 90...
 
EmilGil said:
Why recommend the M4-P over the M4-2 if someone's looking for uncluttered 50mm frames? The -P's got all 6 frames whereas the -2's only got 35/135, 50 and 90...
Click to expand...


The M4-2 is something of a crap shoot. It is the only M camera that has reliability problems.

It was produced in Canada (nothing wrong with Canada) when Leica put the M body back into production, after the M5 fiasco.

It took them a few batches to get things back in order and the camera was only made for a short time (less than 20,000 units). The M4-2was replaced by the M4-P, which is a totally reliable camera, built by an experienced workforce.

Some people have owned the M4-2for years and never had a problem, while it's been a disaster for others.

Mine was fully rebuilt by a well known repair shop and it died in less than 6 months. I know at least two other people who had the same experience. Full CLA and then failure within a year. I kept mine for spare parts, but wouldn't buy another.

Pretty much any reputable repair shop will tell you to stay away from the M4-2.


The M4-P has the full frameline set as in the M6, but in the example that I handled they were large, like in the earlier cameras. Perhaps it was an early unit or something. I don't know if they changed the size later in the production run. In any case you could get someone like Sherry or DAG to selectively turn frames off.
 
Last edited:
Harry Lime said:
Basically the newer 50mm markings show the lens coverage at .7 meters (70cm), instead of 1 meter. The only problem is that now when you are shooting anything that is more than 3-5 meters away, you end up with a about 15-20% more information on your negative than you expect to see.
.
Click to expand...

could someone enlighten me?
does this apply to the bessa rf?
 
Harry Lime said:
The M4-2 is something of a crap shoot. It is the only M camera that has reliability problems.
[...]
Some people have owned the M4-2for years and never had a problem, while it's been a disaster for others.

Mine was fully rebuilt by a well known repair shop and it died in less than 6 months. I know at least two other people who had the same experience. Full CLA and then failure within a year. I kept mine for spare parts, but wouldn't buy another.

Pretty much any reputable repair shop will tell you to stay away from the M4-2.
[...]
Click to expand...
I was afraid of something like this. If you and your friends had bad luck there's nothing I can do about it but mine has worked like a charm. Those bodies still running are probably not the ones most prone to fail and thus provides a good value entry point to the M system. Any 25-30 year old camera can fail, be it Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon or any other brand.

I only got a M6 as I couldn't get used to lug around a separate light meter, not because I was unhappy with my M4-2.
 
Get yourself a good M4 and stick a VCII meter on the top and you'll have the best camera money can buy.

You should also know that the 50mm framelines on later Leicas (M4-P, M6, MP, M7 and M8) are pretty innaccurate.
 
EmilGil said:
I was afraid of something like this. If you and your friends had bad luck there's nothing I can do about it but mine has worked like a charm. Those bodies still running are probably not the ones most prone to fail and thus provides a good value entry point to the M system. Any 25-30 year old camera can fail, be it Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon or any other brand. I only got a M6 as I couldn't get used to lug around a separate light meter, not because I was unhappy with my M4-2.
Click to expand...

As I said some people have been lucky, including you.

But...

- Everyone from DAG to Sherry and everyone in-between will tell you that the M4-2 is a risky proposition.

- Boards across the web are filled with stories that echo this notion.

- My M4-2 was fully rebuilt by a crack technician and the shutter failed in less than 6 months. I opted to not have it repaired again, because I can't rely on it. I can't afford to have a camera die in the middle of a job or when I am on the road.

- I know of two other people that had the same experience. One of them sent his camera repeatedly to a very well known service shop. This technician spent days trying to adjust the camera to spec and finally had to throw in the towel. It is not uncommon to find all sorts of shims and washers inside of M4-2 cameras, that were added in an attempt to bring the camera into adjustment.

Some history.

When Leica introduced the M5, they discontinued the M4 and the traditional M body assembly line was shut down in Germany.

The M5 tanked in the market for various reason, the main ones probably being the Nikon F and Leica fundamentalists, -eh traditionalists revolting against the bigger body. As a result of plummeting sales Leica was nearly bankrupted and pushed to the brink of going under.

Leica was talked in to resuming production of the traditional M body by the head of Leitz Canada, but need to find a more economical way of doing so. The solution was to move production of the M series to Canada.

So, Leica moved the entire assembly line to Canada, where several things happened.

- The design of the M4 was stripped and economized to reduce costs. These measures included removing the condenser from the RF (which introduced the flare problem), plastic frame-counter gears etc.

- Tooling was shipped from Germany and a new assembly line was set up

- The production line was changed from the traditional "fit and finish"method to tolerance-assembly.

- A new workforce had to be trained. Assembling an M series camera with over 1200 parts is no simple matter.

Now, as you can imagine this was not a trivial task.

I reckon that the spotty QC of the M4-2 has a lot to do with training the workforce. I can imagine that by the end of the 16,000 unit run they were up to speed and the less capable workers had been sorted out, but along the way it appears that a lot of questionable cameras were assembled.

Leica also tweaked the design of the M4-2 along the way and improved it in many ways. The M4-P is the result of this transition / development period. A camera that is more economical to produce, yet has the reliability of the earlier models.

So, your M4-2 may be perfectly fine, because it was assembled by someone who knew what they were doing, but that does not apply to the entire production run which is known to be spotty.

And that is why I will not recommend the M4-2 to someone as their first M camera. These are not cheap cameras, especially once you add in the obligatory CLA, and the QC on the 16,000 M4-2 units is all over the map. Getting a dud may turn off a new user for good, which would be a shame.
 
Last edited:
I just wanted to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. You might be interested to know that in the end I got an M5. I know this M has been unpopular with some, but it just seemed to fit perfectly in my hands and the price was great (perhaps due to this unpopularity). It seems to be built extremely well and I have no problem with appearance. When I put the CL 40mm Summicron on it brings up the 50mm lines and everything is bright and clear - I even get a nifty meter thrown in! I'm going to get a 50mm lens next and then go 'head to head' with my 1v!

Thanks again.

Simon.
 
The field of view of any lens changes as the distance changes (diminishing as distances decreases). For their recent M cameras, Leica chose to use the FoV @ 0.7m, which is the closest focus distance for most modern M lenses (it used to be 1m for the early M & screw-mount lenses) to be on the conservative side, but as Harry Lime wrote, that means you get a lot more on film than you see inside the framelines whenever you focus farther away than 3-5m.

I don't have a Bessa R, but if the framelines in my Epson R-D1 are any guide, then Cosina Voigtlander is as conservative as Leica. The 50mm framelines in my Konica Hexar RF, in contrast, cover a slightly larger area than those on my Leica M6/M7/M8 (not sure if it's the same as an M4, since I don't have 1 of those).

haagen_dazs said:
could someone enlighten me?
does this apply to the bessa rf?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom