CV 40mm Nokton Framing on R3m

[Yuphorix]

So, I recently picked up an CV R3m along with the 40mm Nokton. One thing I noticed was that my pictures were coming out wider than I recall framing. Of course, I am aware that Rangefinder framing is more of an estimate, where the frame lines are like a "minimum" amount you will get in your picture, since the amount captured changes slightly due to focusing. But I wondered how much more the lens was capturing.

So, I took a test shot of a decently large poster-art frame in my house to test this. The shot was taken about 2 meters away from the poster, where I, more or less, lined the edges of the poster with the edges of the framelines. The final picture was not leveled probably probably due to my shaky hands... but it illustrates how much more the film is capturing compared to what the R3m's framelines are showing. It's almost like I have to use the entire viewfinder to really know what the full extent of the 40mm Nokton is capturing.

Have you guys noticed this at all?

Image below wastaking with a digital camera and shows the negative of the framing test. The digital jpg was resized, and inverted.

 

[Yuphorix]

Another interesting observation. So... if we assume that the framelines for the Bessa R2m is accurate, and by the looks of it on the Voigtlanders webpage, the R2m's 35mm frameline is basically the same size as the R3m's 40mm frameline... if you do the math of converting the 35mm from .7x magnification to 1.0x magnification... doesn't the 35mm frameline correspond to 50mm exactly?

Math: (1/0.7) * 35 = 50

What this means is that if we assume the 35mm framelines on the R2m is the same size as the 40mm framelines on the R3m, the actual coverage of the R3m's 40mm framelines shows 50mm rather than 40mm. What do you guys think?

 

[mdspace]

I think the framing is also related with the distance where you take the picture. It´s interesting your study and comments regarding the R2M and the R3M.
I´m considering to buy the Nokton Classic 35mm F1.4 SC or the 40mm F1.4 SC, but still choosing between them... I think the performance is almost the same, but continue with the dilemma of these 5mm. How important can be if I want to try them with a film and digital (considering the crop factor)?

 

[ferider]

Y., the image you show is actually not so bad.

Remember, parallax and focal length extension get worse when you get close, and the 40/1.4 focuses down to 0.7m. Also, when you shoot slides you will loose some additional space.

Don't sweat it .... you'll get used to the framing after a while.

 

[le vrai rdu]

the frame of a RF is usually accurate for a focus of 2 or 3 meter(maybe less, maybe more, the essential is to know it is accurate only for a certain distance) , if you shoot at 20 meter you will have more stuff on your picture than in the VF frame 😉

 

[Yuphorix]

Thanks for the replies. I just checked and the picture was taken at 1.5m away. At that distance, the extra spacing around the picture should be minimal.

It's just interesting to note that the magnification difference between .7x and 1.0x, when comparing the R2m and R3m, is noticeably different... and yet the framelines are rather similar between the two cameras.

But, I dunno... I'm rather new to RF's so I'm just trying to figure things out.

 

[ferider]

What I usually do when shooting at longer distances, is a quick scan around the frame to see if anything would bother me later on the negative.

When I have the negative in front of me, I am usually happy to have extra space, for cropping (for instance to 8x10).

Enjoy your excellent combo.

Roland.