srtiwari
Daktari
I have had this beast for less than a week, and love it (mostly) as I get to know it.
I noticed yesterday that the pictures I took seem "wider" than I thought. On rechecking it with different lenses ( 35/1.4 Pre-asph, Hexanon-m 50/2) I confirmed ( by using landmarks in the scene) that the final image extends beyond (equally on each side- 5 degrees or so ?) the framelines.
I have tried the "Off" and "Manual" settings for the Lens detection options on these non-coded lenses.
Now I know that the Summilux is NOT to be used with the M9, but the Hexanon ?
This is disappointing since the photos now have wasted space in them.
Anyone else having this problem ? Wonder if I'm doing something incorrectly...
I noticed yesterday that the pictures I took seem "wider" than I thought. On rechecking it with different lenses ( 35/1.4 Pre-asph, Hexanon-m 50/2) I confirmed ( by using landmarks in the scene) that the final image extends beyond (equally on each side- 5 degrees or so ?) the framelines.
I have tried the "Off" and "Manual" settings for the Lens detection options on these non-coded lenses.
Now I know that the Summilux is NOT to be used with the M9, but the Hexanon ?
This is disappointing since the photos now have wasted space in them.
Anyone else having this problem ? Wonder if I'm doing something incorrectly...
Lss
Well-known
That's how it works. Framing is approximate on any rangefinder/viewfinder camera, and you should get a little bit more than you see in the frame. If you get less than what you see in the frame, then you have a problem.
Why shouldn't you use the Summilux on the M9?
Why shouldn't you use the Summilux on the M9?
thegman
Veteran
I don't have an M9, but is it any more than the inaccuracy you'd normally expect from a range finder?
srtiwari
Daktari
sojournerphoto
Veteran
No, it just seems a nonsense because you see it when you chimp after 2 seconds rather than when you develop and print after 2 weeks plus.
To the OP, that's how it is. The lines are set for 1m and become progressively less accruate for longer focus distances. You'll either free up and love it or just hate it and go back to an slr. Strangely, I really dislike 95% viewfinders in slr's but completely enjoy and engage with the comedy framelines in rfs.
Mike
srtiwari
Daktari
Never quite noticed it on a film body, possibly because of the time between exposure and film review, given my ever worsening memory
.
On a film camera you need to look at the negative or the precut slide. Mounted slides and printed images throw away a good bit of the image. With digital- you see all of the pixels from edge-to-edge of the usable image area of the sensor.
With the Telephoto end of things: the 75mm framelines are perfect with my 8.5cm Nikkor, and the 90mm framelines are perfect for the 10.5cm Nikkor.
With the Telephoto end of things: the 75mm framelines are perfect with my 8.5cm Nikkor, and the 90mm framelines are perfect for the 10.5cm Nikkor.
srtiwari
Daktari
I guess one needs to assess the degree to which there is an error (depending on the distance ?), and correct for that. Why did I think the M9 corrected for parallax too ?
the M9 corrects for Parallax, but does not correct for the changing field-of-view that occurs with distance.
Gives new meaning to "Think outside of the Box".
Gives new meaning to "Think outside of the Box".
ferider
Veteran
The M9 corrects for parallax but not for focal length increase. Try at 0.7m min. focus of your Hexanon: effectively, at 0.7m, the Hexanon is 54mm long, reducing the FOV by about 8%.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That is known since the M3 in 1954... The focal length of a lens gets longer as you focus closer. So the framelines are correct at 1 meter and are "too wide" at infinity to prevent you from cutting off the edges of the subject close up. Mentally add three frameline widths to the outside frame of a 50 mm to compensate and approximate the framing at infinity. And why shouldn't you use a Summilux on an M9 Those are dream combinations.:angel:
Those are dream combinations.:angel:
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
Looks like the M9 has similar resized frame-lines as the M6, M7, MP, which show only what will be on a framed slide in 1m distance. If you are used to an older M Leica, M2, M4(-x), M5 then it needs some time to get used to the difference.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Older Ms were exactly the same, corrected for 1m. The only M to differ is the M8.2, that one is correct at 2 meter. (and the M5 at 0.7 iirc)
fiatlux
Established
The 35 Summilux pre-ASPH has a shroud protecting the rear element that hits something inside the M8/M9 when focusing towards infinity. Similar problem with early samples of the 35mm 1.2 Nokton. Voigtlander did modify the shroud after Leica released the M8, but I guess the only option is to machine the Summilux, or live with the constrains.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That is correct - I did not think. However, all other Summiluxes, or this one modified, are super lenses on the M9
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Btw, all other rangefinder cameras of all makes exhibit this phenomen, except for one with zooming framelines, I think it was a Contax, but correct me if I am wrong.
maddoc
... likes film again.
"In general the accuracy of the M9 is similar (not quite the same) to the 0.72 viewfinders on the newer film Ms"
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
efix
RF user by conviction
Isn't the original M8 corrected for .7 meters? I think I read that somewhere. That would be the other M to deviate.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
My M8 was corrected for 1m. I asked to have mine adjusted for .7, since I tend to use the closest-focusing distance in the so-called "pre-asph" Leica lenses more often than not.