M8 Frame Line (in)accuracy

[Mistral]

If I've missed the detailed discussion of this topic, sorry.
Please point me in the right direction.

My M8 experience is affected \ diminshed by noticeably inaccurate frame lines.

I'm capturing considerably more than I intend and this is counter to my
M6 + M7 experience where I could choose what I wanted in / out of frame.
Or believed I was.

I don't want to whinge and I am a fan of M8 sufficiently to just go and spend another US$400 on more IR filters for various lenses, but this frame line innacuracy is worthy of fixing. Is there a Forum thread \ dialog on this?
Does Leica have any position?
Is it worth trying hotshoe mounted finder? Is it any better?

 

[Ben Z]

The same thing has been discussed often in the past regarding film Leicas. Here's the condensed version:

Lenses lose some field of view as they are racked out to focus on closer objects.

On a reflex, WYSIWYG. On a rangefinder if the framelines don't expand/contract (some fixed-lens like Fuji 6x9, or electronic like Contax G2 do, Leica's never have) the framing will only be accurate for one subject distance. (This is not to be confused with moveing for parallax correction!)

Leica has always fixed the framelines for the smallest field of view possible with each lens, i.e. that would be found at the closest distance the lens can be focused. That way you can only get more, not less, than you saw in the finder. You can crop, but you can't put the top of someone's head back on!

If you do some experimentation (easy with the M8 since the LCD is 100% and you don't have to wait for developing) and take some notes, making mental compensation (i.e. composing outside the framelines) will become more or less instinctive. Just like applying the brakes when you drive a car, it becomes reflexive how hard to push the pedal depending on your speed and distance.

Some people don't want to develop that instinct. Those people are better off with an SLR...except that the majority of those do not have 100% viewfinders and you can't even see what's outside the box that will appear in the final shot 😉

 

[eef]

The irksome part for me is that I had an RD-1 long enough to learn what a 35mm lens would capture on it, and now I have to relearn what it will do on the M8. Leica did us no favors by making the framelines accurate at .7 meter.

It would be great if the next version had a digitally generated frameline so the problem would go away.

 

[Mistral]

Thank you both for your insights.

When for a day \ period \ shoot , using one lens only, I do just that.
Take test shots to reaffirm where the actual frame boundaries are and adjust.

That proves more challenging with Tri Elmar. Or swapping lenses.

Funny to have had so many years experience with M Leicas and now M8 to only now gain an appreciation for this. My long held impression had been that the M6, M7 frame lines were more accurate than I observe with M8.

Might be time for an experiment or two, as I still own them.

 

[Andy Aitken]

It bugs me too so now I use a (modified) 40mm as my "50" instead of a 35mm. Framelines are then a perfect match as long as you are aware that you'll get less than the frames show at under 1m. Luckily there a some good 40's out there.

 

[Ben Z]

My long held impression had been that the M6, M7 frame lines were more accurate than I observe with M8.

My findings are that they are about the same. Somewhere I read that the M framelines were also made with a mind to considering the part of the negative or slide hidden by an enlarger's carrier or slide mount, and somewhere else I read that Leica might've forgot to exclude that added amount on the M8. Sounds plausible. Sean Reid says the 75 frames are worse than the others on the M8. That could be, I don't own a 75.