WoolenMammoth
Well-known
Am I under the correct assumption that the M8 framelines do not match the crop exactly but are simply the same lines that are in a M7 or MP?
kipkeston
Well-known
Where did you hear this? They match, at closest focus.
baycrest
Established
Don't recall exactly, but I think the M8 Classic framelines are set at 0.7 meters.
The upgraded M8 and the M8.2 framelines are set at 2 meters, which I believe is the same at the M7, M6,.....
Best Rob
The upgraded M8 and the M8.2 framelines are set at 2 meters, which I believe is the same at the M7, M6,.....
Best Rob
kipkeston
Well-known
Look, I know this has been discussed before but the recent film Ms are also .7 from what I've seen from FAQ's and a few leica books from the library. I think it's only after the M8 with chimping did people begin to complain about the .7m frame size.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Wooly, but I think you're asking if the M8 framelines show the same field of view as in film M viewfinders when using the same lens? Answer is no: The M8 framelines are sized to consider the "crop factor" and show framing for the lenses as used on the M8.
A second issue is the matter of framing accuracy, which has become a matter of contention on the M8 because you can directly compare viewfinder framing to the pic just taken as shown on the screen.
The issue arises because actual lens framing depends on focus distance. As you focus closer, the lens extends farther from the film and shows a narrower angle of view. Many fixed-lens RF cameras have viewfinder framelines that shrink and expand to attempt to compensate for this. This is in addition to the overall frameline movement that attempts to compensate for parallax error. Interchangeable-lens RF cameras do have the parallax compensation but not the field-size compensation. So the camera designers have to pick some focus distance for the framelines to represent; they cannot, with reasonable accuracy, show the actual field of view both at Infinity and close distance. Just a fact of life with an interchangeable-lens RF type camera that framing is an approximation.
For that matter, only some professional SLRs show 100% of what will appear on film; most display about 85-95%, and it has been said that this matches better what you see on your mounted slides anyway, and what is printed on the lab prints.
A related confusion is thinking that lenses change their focal lengths when mounted on cameras with different sensor/film sizes. Focal length never changes... what changes is the angle of view that the sensitive material "sees." A small sensor sees just the center "crop" of the image projected by the lens. So a 21mm Elmarit does not become a 28mm when mounted on an M8; it remains 21mm but the smaller sensor picks up only the center for a narrower angle of view, about the same angle of view a 28mm lens projects onto film. Merely a convenient mental trick for those with a history with film cameras.
Yesterday, in another forum, I read a comment that when using a Pentax 645 with a 105mm lens from a Pentax 67 it "becomes a 120mm lens". Nope, it becomes a 105mm lens and the smaller film just picks up a narrower angle of view than the larger camera.
A second issue is the matter of framing accuracy, which has become a matter of contention on the M8 because you can directly compare viewfinder framing to the pic just taken as shown on the screen.
The issue arises because actual lens framing depends on focus distance. As you focus closer, the lens extends farther from the film and shows a narrower angle of view. Many fixed-lens RF cameras have viewfinder framelines that shrink and expand to attempt to compensate for this. This is in addition to the overall frameline movement that attempts to compensate for parallax error. Interchangeable-lens RF cameras do have the parallax compensation but not the field-size compensation. So the camera designers have to pick some focus distance for the framelines to represent; they cannot, with reasonable accuracy, show the actual field of view both at Infinity and close distance. Just a fact of life with an interchangeable-lens RF type camera that framing is an approximation.
For that matter, only some professional SLRs show 100% of what will appear on film; most display about 85-95%, and it has been said that this matches better what you see on your mounted slides anyway, and what is printed on the lab prints.
A related confusion is thinking that lenses change their focal lengths when mounted on cameras with different sensor/film sizes. Focal length never changes... what changes is the angle of view that the sensitive material "sees." A small sensor sees just the center "crop" of the image projected by the lens. So a 21mm Elmarit does not become a 28mm when mounted on an M8; it remains 21mm but the smaller sensor picks up only the center for a narrower angle of view, about the same angle of view a 28mm lens projects onto film. Merely a convenient mental trick for those with a history with film cameras.
Yesterday, in another forum, I read a comment that when using a Pentax 645 with a 105mm lens from a Pentax 67 it "becomes a 120mm lens". Nope, it becomes a 105mm lens and the smaller film just picks up a narrower angle of view than the larger camera.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
aye, what did I start 
I wanted to know if the lines are sized to show the crop factor or not. Now I know.
I ask because I wanted to see if they are the same, in fuction, to that of an M6. I absolutely detest my M6 and the primary reason is the accuracy of the frame lines. It drives me nuts and I can usually tell the photos Ive taken with my 6 versus any of my 4's or 2's. What always amazes me is people telling me that Im crazy or suggesting that there is something wrong with my camera, when there isnt, its just the design.
Jump over the the M8 and there is no shortage of people moaning over the M8 framelines and their accuracy.
Both cameras, in fuction are the same. Both are just as accurate. One group is banging down the door at leica for a fix to the problem and the other cant be convinced there is a problem at all. I find it very telling if not slightly amusing. Im not sure what the moral of the observation is just yet but its an oddity for sure.
I wanted to know if the lines are sized to show the crop factor or not. Now I know.
I ask because I wanted to see if they are the same, in fuction, to that of an M6. I absolutely detest my M6 and the primary reason is the accuracy of the frame lines. It drives me nuts and I can usually tell the photos Ive taken with my 6 versus any of my 4's or 2's. What always amazes me is people telling me that Im crazy or suggesting that there is something wrong with my camera, when there isnt, its just the design.
Jump over the the M8 and there is no shortage of people moaning over the M8 framelines and their accuracy.
Both cameras, in fuction are the same. Both are just as accurate. One group is banging down the door at leica for a fix to the problem and the other cant be convinced there is a problem at all. I find it very telling if not slightly amusing. Im not sure what the moral of the observation is just yet but its an oddity for sure.
jgw
Member
The M8 classic framelines were just a crazy mistake that Leica never admitted to, and now charge a fortune to correct. They will never return (if any more cropped sensors in M cameras are made) which will further confirm this. They should have been fixed under warranty, but it would have cost Leica too much, especially with all the other teething troubles the M8 had after it had come out. How I wished I'd waited a year or so and bought the M8-2. This is really what the M8 should have been...
jgw
Member
aye, what did I start
I wanted to know if the lines are sized to show the crop factor or not. Now I know.
I ask because I wanted to see if they are the same, in fuction, to that of an M6. I absolutely detest my M6 and the primary reason is the accuracy of the frame lines. It drives me nuts and I can usually tell the photos Ive taken with my 6 versus any of my 4's or 2's. What always amazes me is people telling me that Im crazy or suggesting that there is something wrong with my camera, when there isnt, its just the design.
Jump over the the M8 and there is no shortage of people moaning over the M8 framelines and their accuracy.
Both cameras, in fuction are the same. Both are just as accurate. One group is banging down the door at leica for a fix to the problem and the other cant be convinced there is a problem at all. I find it very telling if not slightly amusing. Im not sure what the moral of the observation is just yet but its an oddity for sure.
Hello WoolenMammoth,
The problem you find with your M6 frameline inaccuracy is this: from the M6 on, the frame-lines became 'smaller' than the image recorded. Many say that this was to compensate for what would be concealed by the slide mount. (it also enabled Leica to start to add more frames in the viewfinder) This is what I think went wrong: When Leica re-calibrated the framelines for the M8's cropped sensor, they did not factor out this slide mount discrepancy and consequently, the framelines became even smaller.
On your M6 is was an unnecessary design decision that many complained about; on the M8 it became a compounded mistake. You would find the M8 frame-lines even worse than your M6. Now, adding to this confusion and misunderstanding is this: there is an infinite variety of people in our world, and all with different needs and expectations. Many people even like the M8's frame-lines as they are, and that's okay because they work well for them because they fit within their working style. But for those who like to know what is going on around the edges of their framing during composition -and this is often done instinctively and usually very quickly- this camera's design then fails. Leica listened to many photographers' complaints -including mine- and corrected their mistake on the M8-2. I haven't used an M8-2 so I can't comment on how much of an improvement has been made, or whether they are now as 'accurate' as your M6. I would have preferred a digital sensor inside my M3 or M2 but I know this was not possible!
Jeffrey.
Last edited: