M9 Framing error ?

[kbg32]

Now I know that the Summilux is NOT to be used with the M9, but the Hexanon ?

I use the pre-asherphical version Summilux on my M9 without any problems whatsoever. I have read the rear lens shroud should be modified, but my lens works great! I was never a fan of this focal length until I bought this lens. It is my favorite go to lens for environmental portraits, while the 28 is my favorite lens for the street.

 

[jaapv]

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.

You asked - but did they acctually change out the frameline matrix? As far as I am aware that must have been a special manufacture, as 0.7 for a 0.62x viewfinder does not exist.

 

[jaapv]

Isn't the original M8 corrected for .7 meters? I think I read that somewhere. That would be the other M to deviate.

Afaik it was 1 M.

 

[srtiwari]

This is one of those situations, where lack of immediate feedback in film RFs allowed me to remain blissfully ignorant about this issue. Now, with some experience, either I learn to adjust the frame according to the subject/lens, or to ignore the discrepancy completely.🙁

 

[Paul Luscher]

The instruction manual warns you about the framing accuracy issues. and gives you some tips.

Can't remember specifically, but I think it indicates that in the horizontal axis, the actual photos may be four frame line thicknesses wider each side than what you see if the viewfinder.

Actually, I''ve found this to be less of a problem with wides and normals (hey, too much beats too little--you can always cut the excess off), but it HAS been an issue with my 90mm--I shoot a lot of musicians using vertical framing, and found that at first I was leaving WAY too much room at the top.

Learned the trick is to just cut the top of the subject's head with the 90mm frameline, and that leaves you just enough space at the top of the frame. Then you have to make sure the subject is centered in the framelines.....

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

You asked - but did they acctually change out the frameline matrix? As far as I am aware that must have been a special manufacture, as 0.7 for a 0.62x viewfinder does not exist.

I don't believe they did change it, but I did notice improved framing (specially at one of the edges...I forget right now exactly which one it is, but I believe it's the bottom-right corner --in "normal" orientation as a reference)

 

[JSU]

There is an easily seen difference in the field of view of the frame masks of my M2 & M4 compared to my M6's. The cameras preceeding the M4-P have masks correct for approximately 2m, the same as the M8.2. The M4-P, M6's & M7 as well as the M8 (not M8.2) and M9 are correct for 1m.

This difference is apparent with the 35mm masks but even more so with the 50mm masks.

This is an issue widely known since Leica brought out the VF masks incorporating the 28mm mask for the film M's.

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)