Frame lines relative size M8 vs M8.2?

[D&A]

Hi All,

A few, relatively simple questions...especially for those that currently own both a M8 and M8.2 body. My questions concern the 50mm and 75mm frame lines.

1. Comparing the M8 & M8.2 50mm frame lines relative to the entire viewfinder, at say at approx 15 feet, how does the relative size of the 50mm frameslines in both cameras compare? in one of the bodies, are the 50mm frameslines relative size to the entire viewfinder bigger or smaller than the other body?

2. The same exact question as above except considering the 75mm framelines in both bodies relative to their entire respective viewfinders?

I realize framelines in the M8.2 are optomized for approx 2 meters as opposed to the M8's for approx. .7 meters...but that is not what my above questioneds relate to.

Thanks for any insight that can be provided.

Dave (D&A)

 

[jaapv]

The only thing that is different in the viewfinders of the respective cameras are the sizes of the framelines, so I must confess I do not understand your question.

 

[noimmunity]

Hi All,

A few, relatively simple questions...especially for those that currently own both a M8 and M8.2 body. My questions concern the 50mm and 75mm frame lines.

1. Comparing the M8 & M8.2 50mm frame lines relative to the entire viewfinder, at say at approx 15 feet, how does the relative size of the 50mm frameslines in both cameras compare? in one of the bodies, are the 50mm frameslines relative size to the entire viewfinder bigger or smaller than the other body?

2. The same exact question as above except considering the 75mm framelines in both bodies relative to their entire respective viewfinders?

I realize framelines in the M8.2 are optomized for approx 2 meters as opposed to the M8's for approx. .7 meters...but that is not what my above questioneds relate to.

Thanks for any insight that can be provided.

Dave (D&A)

The framelines in the M8.2 cover slightly more area in the VF than those of the M8. If you shoot the M8.2 at MFD (minimum focus distance) you have to be careful about cropping.

Since I LOVE to use the 75 at MFD, the M8 original framelines work well for me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

All the frame lines in the M8.2 are a little bit bigger than in the M8.

With the M8 I compose to just outside the frame lines; with the M8.2, to just inside. This is at typical shooting distances of 2-3 metres.

Cheers,

R.

 

[D&A]

I appreciate everyones response and it appears I may have stated my question in a somewhat confusing way. Let me try and explain in more detail. On the original M8, looking at the relative size of the framelines when mounting a 35mm lens (effectively 47mm) and 50mm lens (effectivly 67mm), I was somewhat astonished to see the relatively large difference in size (relative to the entire viewfinder view) these two framelines were to each other. If I throw on a zoom lens on say a SLR body ( full frame) and set the zoom to approx 47mm and then 67mm....they seem to frame the subject matter more closely relative to each other than the these two framelines on an M8.

Likewise and maybe even more so....I was equally a bit perplexed at the relative apparent closeness of the size of the 50mm (effectivly 67mm) and 75mm (effectively 100mm) framelines in the M8 as compared to looking at the view of that same zoom lens on a full frame SLR when the zoom lens is set to both 67mm and 100mm.

My original question was asking if in the newer M8.2 body, whether the comparison of the relative size "difference" of the 50mm and 75mm framelines is greater than seen in the original M8.....and conversly if the relative size difference of the 35mm and 50mm framelines in the M8.2 are smaller than seen in the M8 .

*** People have mentioned that some of the framelines were more inaccurate in size than others in the M8, but not all...so I thought (and was hoping) that in the M8.2....all framelines didn't proportionately change in size...just the ones that were innacurate (like the 75mm one)..so that realtive size of comparing the pairs I mentioned had changed. If as Jaap mentioned they all got larger in the M8.2 but proportion of each pair of framelines remained the same (they got larger by approx same amount)...then I would still be somewhat perplexed at the relative size difference in these pairs as I described above.

Now, I hope with these additonal explanations of mine, that I didn't confuse the situation even more? Thanks.

Dave (D&A)

 

[sepiareverb]

Roger, how do you find the 24 framelines in the M8.2? My only concern about the upgrade (underway) is the 24's getting too close to the edge. Wish there was a .58 VF for the M8.

 

[RichC]

Dave - ignoring the slight difference in size of the framelines between the M8 and M8-2, the differences between the individual framelines 35 mm vs 50 mm vs 75 mm, etc., is a pretty accurate reflection of the relative fields of view covered by the different focal lengths: if you put 50 and 75 mm lenses on a 1.3x crop dSLR (to match the 1.3x Leica M8) such as the Canon 1D, the view through the viewfinder/framelines would be very similar.

I think the tunnel-like viewfinder of an SLR tends mask the effect of focal length - a sort of optical illusion. With the M8 framelines and the accompanying space around them, differences between focal lengths are more obvious.

I sometimes let SLR users look through my M8, and they're often shocked by the differences between the framelines - even more so when I tell them a 200 mm lens would have framelines smaller than the focusing patch!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, how do you find the 24 framelines in the M8.2? My only concern about the upgrade (underway) is the 24's getting too close to the edge. Wish there was a .58 VF for the M8.

Frankly, they are inconveniently tight. And I find the 24 a bit too wide, too. But the image quality of the 24 Summilux is so stunning I can live with it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ben Z]

My original question was asking if in the newer M8.2 body, whether the comparison of the relative size "difference" of the 50mm and 75mm framelines is greater than seen in the original M8.....and conversly if the relative size difference of the 35mm and 50mm framelines in the M8.2 are smaller than seen in the M8 .

The framelines in the M8.2 were enlarged by a certain percentage. That would in theory make the differences appear greater. In practice (I got my M8 upgraded to the 8.2 framelines, after checking my M8 against an M8.2 at a Leica day) it's not even worth thinking about.

What is worthwhile, at least to me, and why I opted for the upgrade, is that for some reason (possibly a neurophysiologist could explain it but I for sure can't) for me it's a lot harder to guesstimate outside the frame box than inside. So I'd rather have the frames more accurate at far distance, and have to estimate more at closer distance. YMMV.

BTW, in my experience the M8.2 framelines are definitely not "set" at 2 meters. They are closer to 1 meter. The original M8 framelines are tighter still. The new ones are better for me, but not as great an improvement as I would have wished. Unpopular as it would be to the portrait-shooting users, I would rather the frames were sized for infinity. I could better guesstimate how far inside the framelines a subject would need to be if and when I was shooting closeup, than I can guesstimate how far outside the framelines I will capture at infinity. Again, YMMV.

 

[sepiareverb]

Frankly, they are inconveniently tight. And I find the 24 a bit too wide, too. But the image quality of the 24 Summilux is so stunning I can live with it.

Cheers,

R.

As I feared. I bet I'll be living with it as well as I just can't get enough of the 24/2.8 ASPH myself.

 

[adavis47]

It has me pondering getting one of the .85 magnifiers on ebay. Just got the 24 and I found myself looking through the veiwfinder, frame the scene, then realize, oh, that's the 35 frame! Oh yes, if I look up, there is the top of the 24, and over to the left, there's the left frame, now look down, yes, that's the bottom frame ... I find I actually have to scan the viewfinder. That said, I'm quickly adapting to it. Kind of cool actually, if it's in the viewfinder you're going to capture it!

As I feared. I bet I'll be living with it as well as I just can't get enough of the 24/2.8 ASPH myself.

 

[victoriapio]

D&A,
Perhaps this is part of the problem and may be more of an optical illusion than any real difference in the angles of view: the M8 viewfinder has a magnification of .68 whereas most DSLR or SLRs see close to 100% (1:1) of the view of the LENS. So the viewfinder on the M8 appears more like a "wide angle" view than the "normal" view of DSLR which is actually looking through the lens at 100%.

If you can ever pick up a 1:1 viewfinder such as the Epson Rd1s, you may not see as much of a difference between the view of the lenses. Viewfinder magnification makes a difference in everything in the viewfinder. When I owned one, I really like the viewfinder of the RD1s because it was easier for me to keep both eyes open while looking through a 1:1 viewfinder. It is much harder - for me anyway - to do it with the M8 viewfinder.

 

[sepiareverb]

It has me pondering getting one of the .85 magnifiers on ebay. Just got the 24 and I found myself looking through the veiwfinder, frame the scene, then realize, oh, that's the 35 frame! Oh yes, if I look up, there is the top of the 24, and over to the left, there's the left frame, now look down, yes, that's the bottom frame ... I find I actually have to scan the viewfinder. That said, I'm quickly adapting to it. Kind of cool actually, if it's in the viewfinder you're going to capture it!

I had the 1.25X from Hong Kong and hated it- dim view. I may end up getting an external VF for the 24- which seems pretty lame considering it is about a 32mm equivalent? That "whole VF" thing sucks to my mind, I love that we get to see MORE of what's going on than just the tunnel view of an SLR.

 

[D&A]

Hi All,

Thank you to everyone to take the time to give me your point of view....very helpful. I have used for years an M3, M6, 7etc. and an Rd1, but what struck me about the M8, is the relative size of certain framelines to another (not necessarily a frameline pair. As I mentioned the difference in relative size of the 50mm (effective 66mm ) and 75mm (effective 100mm)....seemed way too close in size... yet represented focal lengths far greater in difference than these frameline when compared...seemed. Yes, must be somewhat an optical illusion. Likewise, the difference in size between the 35mm frameline (effective 47mm) and 50mm frameline (66mm)..seemed too big a difference when caomparing the two...realtive to what their effective focal lengths are.

I too would have prefered the framelines in the M8 and/or M8.2 to be optomized for a distance of say 10-15 feet or slightly greater..as opposed where they are currently set.

In time, I suppose we might see futire digital M bodies have options of various viewfinder magnifications. Thanks again.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Rob-F]

Leica framelines were always undersized to some extent. This was/is not a problem with the M2 through M5, or the early M4-P. But beginning with the late M4-P and continuing through M6, M7, and MP, the framelines are smaller. Some are very much smaller, like the 50mm frame; while others seem fairly accurate, like the 28mm.

So here's my question: are the M8 framelines even smaller than those of the M6/M7/ MP? Or do people just notice the discrepancy more, perhaps because the short time between shooting and viewing the results makes it easier to remember how much of the subject was included when shooting?

 

[jaapv]

That is emphatically so. And enlarging cuts of part of the negative, as do slide mounts.