sirius
Well-known
Hi,
I was at a workshop with Costa Manos in 2008 and he was talking about how the one thing that really bothered him about the M8 was that his framelines were inaccurate. He's an old-school leica photographer who disciplines himself to frame well in the finder, not with the cropping tool.
I thought of him when they announced the M8.2 and the new finder lines optimized from 1 meter to 2 meters...how that would be so much better. I recently read that they returned to the 1 meter optimized finder for the M9.
How do you find the accuracy of the framelines? Attached is a graphic from leica showing the M8/M8.2 frameline comparisons.
thanks
I was at a workshop with Costa Manos in 2008 and he was talking about how the one thing that really bothered him about the M8 was that his framelines were inaccurate. He's an old-school leica photographer who disciplines himself to frame well in the finder, not with the cropping tool.
I thought of him when they announced the M8.2 and the new finder lines optimized from 1 meter to 2 meters...how that would be so much better. I recently read that they returned to the 1 meter optimized finder for the M9.
How do you find the accuracy of the framelines? Attached is a graphic from leica showing the M8/M8.2 frameline comparisons.
thanks
Attachments
I have not made direct comparison but I suspect that the original M8 finder framelines are about the same accuracy as in the M6, M7, and MP. It's just that with the digital preview available, the user can easily see the difference between what was viewed and what was captured.
The two-meter accuracy change for the M8.2 may be more nearly correct for general use, but of course shows more than you'll get at 1m, and is still optimistic at infinity. The M2, M3, and M4 are about the same as this too, seems to me.
I have both the 1m and 2m versions of the M8 viewfinder, and an M2 but no experience with the M6/7/P... and it seems logical the M9 would also have the 1m accuracy like the latter for the same reason, to squeeze that 28mm frameline in.
The two-meter accuracy change for the M8.2 may be more nearly correct for general use, but of course shows more than you'll get at 1m, and is still optimistic at infinity. The M2, M3, and M4 are about the same as this too, seems to me.
I have both the 1m and 2m versions of the M8 viewfinder, and an M2 but no experience with the M6/7/P... and it seems logical the M9 would also have the 1m accuracy like the latter for the same reason, to squeeze that 28mm frameline in.
250swb
Well-known
I would say your example of the M8 35mm 'infinity' frame is about the same as the M9.
Steve
Steve
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Have had issues with the 90 mm framelines. They seem to be on the thick side, and have led to me leaving too much space on the top of a photo, unless I'm careful.
sirius
Well-known
I guess it is better to have too much rather than too little. I didn't know that this was an issue with the film cameras too. Thanks for your thoughts.
ampguy
Veteran
I like the M8 original framelines. They're the only ones that will guarantee what's in the framlines are what the sensor has captured.
All the others are compromises, and will give you some loss and inability to crop later.
All the others are compromises, and will give you some loss and inability to crop later.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Have a look in Gunther Osterloh's Leica M - Advanced Photo School, pp41 ff. It is clearly explained there, and how to use the framelines for good accuracy. There is no basic difference between the M8/9 and earlier film M versions. But people tend to forget that slide frames and enlarger negative carriers lose about 1 mm at the edges.
thompsonks
Well-known
From the standpoint of shooting most of the time with 28mm on M8 & M8u, & 35mm on M9:
IMO the original M8 framelines were a pain – so inaccurate for my customary distances that they had the effect of turning a 10 MP camera into 8-9 MP, after cropping away the inaccuracy.
The M8u (= M8.2) 2 m framelines were 'right on' for most work & matched my M4 pretty well. (M4 view was a bit 'too small,' allowing for other people's slide mounts; but the view was centered for most shooting. With M4 I could frame accurately enough to print with black borders.)
M9 framelines (again IMO) are a mistake – should have stayed with 2 m. But the file is large enough to allow cropping the residue.
Jaap's suggestion about revising the framelines in one's head isn't very helpful to me – much of my shooting is fairly fast & reactive, without time for the mental calculations.
If a 2 m 'upgrade' were available for M9, I'd go for it.
Just one opinion!
Kirk
IMO the original M8 framelines were a pain – so inaccurate for my customary distances that they had the effect of turning a 10 MP camera into 8-9 MP, after cropping away the inaccuracy.
The M8u (= M8.2) 2 m framelines were 'right on' for most work & matched my M4 pretty well. (M4 view was a bit 'too small,' allowing for other people's slide mounts; but the view was centered for most shooting. With M4 I could frame accurately enough to print with black borders.)
M9 framelines (again IMO) are a mistake – should have stayed with 2 m. But the file is large enough to allow cropping the residue.
Jaap's suggestion about revising the framelines in one's head isn't very helpful to me – much of my shooting is fairly fast & reactive, without time for the mental calculations.
If a 2 m 'upgrade' were available for M9, I'd go for it.
Just one opinion!
Kirk
Last edited:
afineman
Established
As a long time M shooter when I got the M8 I found the frame-lines to be horribly off for 99% of my shooting until I upgraded to the new frame-lines when that became an option.
Upon upgrading to the M9 I have to say that I am again unhappy with the frame-lines but since I shoot a lot with a 28 I am much happier not needing a separate viewfinder. But I really wish they had simply stuck with the old 2meter measurements.
Upon upgrading to the M9 I have to say that I am again unhappy with the frame-lines but since I shoot a lot with a 28 I am much happier not needing a separate viewfinder. But I really wish they had simply stuck with the old 2meter measurements.
JeffNYC
Well-known
I do feel I had a bit better control (and accuracy) with the M8.2 - frame lines.
Set at 2 meters, it just felt right.
Now, on the M9, I'm getting about the width of the frame line extra on the sides.
Set at 2 meters, it just felt right.
Now, on the M9, I'm getting about the width of the frame line extra on the sides.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Shoot enough pictures and you get used to it.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
furcafe
Veteran
That's my approach.
Precise framing was never a strength of RFs (e.g., try shooting w/a "Barnack" or Contax) & the M8/9 framelines haven't struck me as being any more inaccurate than those on my film M bodies. I can certainly see that the framelines on my M4 & earlier bodies are larger, but it's never had much of a practical effect on my shooting, probably because I usually shoot well within the 10m range.
Precise framing was never a strength of RFs (e.g., try shooting w/a "Barnack" or Contax) & the M8/9 framelines haven't struck me as being any more inaccurate than those on my film M bodies. I can certainly see that the framelines on my M4 & earlier bodies are larger, but it's never had much of a practical effect on my shooting, probably because I usually shoot well within the 10m range.
Last edited:
ruslan
Established
I like original M8 35 frame lines, perfectly suitable to my Summicron-C 40mm.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No calculations, it is more of a second nature. I don't have to think about it after a few weeks of using a camera.
Ben Z
Veteran
I tested my M8u quite carefully and find that at 2m I get more like what's framed by the outside of the framelines. Inside, it's closer to what the lenses see when focused to their minimums. My theory is when they figured the original M8 framelines they just adjusted M7 framelines for the crop factor and forgot that there was also compensation for a slide mount. Then when they revised the framelines they just took out that unnecessary bit.
On p.131 of the M9 owner's manual there's a diagram that shows clearly that the framelines are set for 0.7m on the inside, and 1m on the outside of the lines. That's the way it was back as far as the latter run of M4-2 bodies.
Like Jaap said, if you pay attention to it at first and teach yourself how the lines relate to the actual capture, in a short time it becomes like a reflex. Sort of like riding a bike, at first you're focused on turning the front wheel to keep it balanced, but afterwhile you just sort of do it automatically.
On p.131 of the M9 owner's manual there's a diagram that shows clearly that the framelines are set for 0.7m on the inside, and 1m on the outside of the lines. That's the way it was back as far as the latter run of M4-2 bodies.
Like Jaap said, if you pay attention to it at first and teach yourself how the lines relate to the actual capture, in a short time it becomes like a reflex. Sort of like riding a bike, at first you're focused on turning the front wheel to keep it balanced, but afterwhile you just sort of do it automatically.
That would mean all framelines would be larger... It seems to me that this would force the 28mm frame out of view, and bring the 35mm framelines close to the viewfinder edges, as on the M2.