Best way to compensate for parralax

[cambolt]

I just bought my first Leica, though I haven't received it yet (M2). I have been "preparing" myself a bit lately, and naturally, coming from the world of SLRs, the subject of accurate framing is concerning me. I only have a 50mm lens (Jupiter 8, also coming). So, in practice, what is the best way to compensate for the parralax error, when shooting fast moving subjects, e.g. "street photography" etc if this is even needed? I know Leica Ms have the moving framelines but how close do you have to get before it is inaccurate, and does it really matter in the real world?

Thanks

 

[literiter]

I just bought my first Leica, though I haven't received it yet (M2). I have been "preparing" myself a bit lately, and naturally, coming from the world of SLRs, the subject of accurate framing is concerning me. I only have a 50mm lens (Jupiter 8, also coming). So, in practice, what is the best way to compensate for the parralax error, when shooting fast moving subjects, e.g. "street photography" etc if this is even needed? I know Leica Ms have the moving framelines but how close do you have to get before it is inaccurate, and does it really matter in the real world?

Thanks

I understand "parallax compensation", in a Leica M, is reasonably accurate to the minimum focal distance of your lens.

It doesn't mater in the real world I suppose.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I'm sure there's a more precise answer which someone will provide together with the maths, but basically I don't worry until I'm less than 3 metres away from the subject and then it's simply a matter of framing more into the bottom right hand side of the viewfinder.
As it's a new camera and lens combination for you, it might pay to take a series of test shots on your first film with the camera on a tripod (or other fixed support) and moving the target in steps closer and closer, say from 30 feet (10m). You'll soon see in the negs or prints just what's happening at different distances and you can assess how much of a shift you need to make.

 

[Neare]

I always use the framelines even at 0.7m
It's more or less dead on as far as I know, I've never noticed anything otherwise.

 

[cambolt]

Ok then, I'll take some test shots when I get the camera and report back. But I have seen a lot of people saying things like "if you want accurate framing get a nikon f etc"

 

[Lss]

I find the framing is accurate enough for most purposes (meaning that you can come up with an example where it isn't accurate enough, but others may find such differences irrelevant). Where you may struggle is perspective; placing an object in a compositionally relevant way in relation to other elements in view.

Let's say you want to frame a duck using a fence that happens to be between your camera and the duck. If you shoot a frame thinking you are using an SLR, you may end up with the duck covered by the fence. The distances between your camera and the fence, between the fence and the duck will determine how badly you are off. This is an issue you need some experience to deal with. Visualize the problem, shoot more than one frame.

 

[Ronald M]

If you want super accurate framing, then a RF camera is not the best tool.

The frame lines move to the lower right as you focus in. They are always accurate.

They do not correct parallax which is difference in viewpoint from finder to lens. If you are trying to line up near and close objects, this can be a problem.

Even worse to consider is image area changes based on near/far focus. Essentially it is a mini zoom lens. The frame lines do not expand and contract to compensate for focus distance and they are set for close distance. If you do landscape, there will be more on the negative than the frame lines show.

All these problems are solved with reflex cameras if you purchase one with 100% viewfinder coverage. Most do not have 100%, but more like 95%. My Nikon D3 and F2
are 100%. There are others and all are expensive.