The Love Of Frame Lines

[dcsang]

Whilst taking a break from the boredom that is the office I was outdoors carrying my M2 and on my way to my local camera shop to get some prints done.

As I walked along, I walked by our local city hall and the skating rink which occupies the fountain that usually exists in its place during the summertime.

I took out my M2 and snapped off a number of photos of the Zamboni which slowly rolled its way around the ice surface.

What I loved was the fact that I had these lines within the viewfinder showing me where the edge of the frame was.

Yes, I know that this is not a huge revelation - heck it's not like I'm the first guy to enjoy the frameline in a viewfinder - but because I go back and forth between DSLR and RF cameras it's always nice to "know the frame".

The Canon 5D (or any Canon that I've used; both film and digital) is a good camera and it does an excellent job at many things but there aren't any framelines in that viewfinder and the viewfinder is not 100% so you end up sometimes getting too much; getting too little or just not "getting it" when it comes to snapping the image.

The trade off of course is that the viewfinder on an RF camera is merely that; a viewfinder and it is not seeing exactly what the lens is seeing, hence the need for framelines I would imagine. 😀

But with those framelines I'm happy to say that it does help in composition (I think) and makes me feel a bit more "secure" in knowing I've "got it" when it comes to snapping the image.

Now if only I can learn to let go and shoot freely.......

Cheers,
Dave

 

[carvinganish]

Dave,

Sorry to disagree, but an SLR viewfinder (even if not 100%) is more accurate for framing than a rangefinder.

In a rangefinder, at the closest focusing distance you will get almost exactly what you see within the framelines.. BUT at infinity you will include a lot more than what the framelines show.

Try it out.

Cheers,
N

 

[dcsang]

That might be the case but I'd still like to have framelines in a less than 100% viewfinder on an SLR 🙂

When I used a Hasselblad for wedding formals I used to have the crop lines, in tape, on the ground glass and that was a huge help for me; maybe I'm just more apt to need "limits" so that I don't "colour outside the lines" 😀

Dave

 

[swj]

Dave,

Interesting observation, but I think I'm right in thinking that the Canon EOS 1v has 100% viewfinder - it's wonderfully bright too.

Simon.

 

[mike_j]

What I like in the Bessa is the ability to see the framing of different lenses at the flick of a lever. I don't think you can do it on a Leica as the frame lines are selected by the lens mount (I may be wrong - I have never used an M mount Leica)

Still viewfinder coverage matches lens better in a SLR I suspect, and it's vastly more usable at the longer focal lengths.

 

[RayPA]

Here's a quandry: Sports photography for big field events (e.g., soccer) requires a long lens, usually something in the 200 - 400mm or more range--to really "reach" across the field. With a RF and a viewfinder magnifier and a 135mm lens, it's doable, but not sufficient. In the end, you really end up needing a SLR, but with a SLR comes the dreaded "tunnel vision" and the loss of the glorious benefit of framelines: seeing the action all around the framelines. You can photograph with both eyes open (good idea, anyway), but two eyes open with framelines is still much better than two eyes open with a SLR. I've used both camera types for photographing big-field sports and always go for the "reach" (I know, some really dislike that word). It's a compromise. But like you, Dave, I like framelines.

🙂

 

[smileyguy]

Ummmm, correct me if I'm wrong here but if the slr viewfinder is less than 100% then there will be stuff in the picture that you won't see in the view finder, right? Therefore the framelines in an SLR viewfinder will in fact be OUTSIDE the viewfinder and not even visible. No? It would require an SLR viewfinder of MORE than 100% if you wanted frame lines.

 

[mtbbrian]

I have nothing to add to this thread, because I am too new to RF's to really appreciate frame lines, but I wanted to comment on your quote from Costa Manos.

I had the opportunity, this past summer, to meet him and hear him lecture at the Maine Photographic Workshops, and I must say that, that quote is vey much Costa Manos.
He is a great photographer(who shoots Leica M7's I believe) and pretty genuine guy.
Brian

 

[Spyderman]

I not only love framelines. I became addicted to framelines 🙂

Recently I was in town with my new newest SLR (OM4Ti) and I couldn't get one good picture. I found I can't frame with SLR anymore... 🙁 I'll have to get back into it...

So be careful and use framelines wisely 😉 You might end up like me and so many other RFF members - addicted to framelines :bang: 😀


PS: Leicas do have preview lever to show different framelines...

 

[teo]

It would require an SLR viewfinder of MORE than 100% if you wanted frame lines.

Yes, you'll need a lens that cover (much?) more than the film area. And a bigger mirror. And prism.
And weight and bulk :bang:
This on 35mm.

But I was thinking: on APS sized DSLR, the area covered by the lens IS bigger than the sensor area, so it would be possible (and the prism would be the same as in a 35mm camera). But they'll never do it: people would see everytime how much tehy're losing with non full frame-DSLR. (and the AF marks would become veeery little...)



paint the framelines on your spectacles! 😀

 

[Spyderman]

Some first DSLRs like what Kodak did with some EOS-1 bodies had this: they put small sensor behind the shutter, and there was a frameline on the focussing screen showing the coverage of the sensor. And the VF was as big as EOS-1...

 

[Rico]

I also switch between DSLR and RF, but my DSLR has a 100% viewfinder. It also weighs a ton, so spends most of its time on a shelf. I think dcsang simply enjoys the bright lines. 🙂 I know I do! But seriously, one genuine advantage of brightlines is evident if you can shoot with both eyes open. This can never work with an SLR because the viewfinder is centrally located, blotting out the view to the other eye.

 

[Spyderman]

Rico: try OM-1 or OM-2 with 50mm lens. This camera can be used w/ both eyes open 😉 The VF is really BIG.

 

[dcsang]

heh..
I never intended this to turn into a "Why I like my RF/SLR better than my SLR/RF" thread.

The cameras are DIFFERENT. All I'm saying is, yes, I like the framelines 🙂 I like the fact that I can use them as such. What I don't like on MY SLRs (if I owned a Canon 1V then maybe I wouldn't be complaining right? 😀) is that I am constantly composing and leaving ample room to accommodate for the fact that I may lose some of the individual/group in a shot.

You see... you also have to understand what I use my DSLRs for. Weddings, Portraits, and Events. I don't shoot street with them; I don't shoot landscapes with them (that's a rare occurrence) and I don't particularly like lugging them around with me if I'm going to be walking around for the bulk of the day UNLESS I'm being paid to do so 😀

BUT

I do own them and I do use them and they produce some incredible images for my clients.

So.. if it was for me.. and I wanted to design the "uber camera" it would be one that has framelines and "small-ness" of an RF with the versatility and "through the lens-ness" of an SLR.

I hope that clarifies my muddled mind for you lot 😀

Cheers,
Dave

 

[jlw]

Ummmm, correct me if I'm wrong here but if the slr viewfinder is less than 100% then there will be stuff in the picture that you won't see in the view finder, right? Therefore the framelines in an SLR viewfinder will in fact be OUTSIDE the viewfinder and not even visible. No? It would require an SLR viewfinder of MORE than 100% if you wanted frame lines.

That's correct. Sigma, I think, used to make -- and maybe still does make -- a DSLR with this kind of "extra-view finder." They used a 35mm camera chassis, but a smaller sensor, so the viewfinder already had the ability to show more than would be in the final picture. Most makers just masked down the finder to the actual area, but Sigma left the larger view and added a line showing the sensor's coverage -- so you could see not only what would be in the picture, but a little extra outside, as you can on an RF camera. I'd still rather use an RF, though...

 

[Kin Lau]

Nikon D2X (I believe) has a 2x crop mode and electronic frame-lines in that mode, otherwise it's 1.5x crop.

I'm still not totally sure what Dave is getting at. With both an SLR & RF, you'll get _more_ than what the frame (less than 100% VF on SLR) or frameline (not all RF's change the frame size as you change focus) shows. The biggest difference is that RF's show you what's outside of the framelines.

 

[Trius]

I not only love framelines. I became addicted to framelines 🙂

Recently I was in town with my new newest SLR (OM4Ti) and I couldn't get one good picture. I found I can't frame with SLR anymore...

There is a simple solution. Send the OM-4Ti to me.

The OM single digit bodies have a 97% viewfinder, which corresponds to the frame of a mounted chrome.

For some reason, I seem to be able to switch between RF & SLR wrt framing, at least with the OM (or equivalent) viewfinder. My Mamiya-Sekor 1000DTL viewfinder is small and dim by comparison, and I have trouble with it.

Earl

 

[dcsang]

I'm still not totally sure what Dave is getting at. With both an SLR & RF, you'll get _more_ than what the frame (less than 100% VF on SLR) or frameline (not all RF's change the frame size as you change focus) shows. The biggest difference is that RF's show you what's outside of the framelines.

Basically I'm getting at wanting the "uber camera" as I described - a wonderful combination of SLR and RF - a marriage of the two; a "FrankenCamera" if you will 😀 Sure, having both is great, but it means having two cameras ya know? I want it in one camera... kind of like Resse's Peanut Butter Cups - chocolate and peanut butter rolled into one 😀

I want my framelines everywhere - if I could I'd walk around with them painted on glasses just so I can constantly frame images I see 🙂

Dave

P.S. Don't mind my ramblings.. I'm staying home today with a chest/head cold and I think I need rest 😉

 

[bsdunek]

For those old enough to recall, the original Nikon F series had a 100% viewfinder. I find my old F's very accurate, which is a joy. The only thing to remember is when doing slides, leave a little margin, as the slide frame covers a bit of the edge of the film.
Later SLR's were more in the range of 97%, which gives a little safety factor. In any case, I think SLR's are best for close-up and telephoto work (the frame gets aufelly small with a 250mm+ lens!).
That said (and I love my old Nikons), I do like my rangefinders (Nikon S, Yashisa GSN, Olympus XA) with the frame lines. No, they're not absolutely accurate, but I tend to leave a little margin anyway, and adjust during printing. 😎

 

[Kin Lau]

Okay... how about an ALPA reflex then? It's a combo RF + SLR. The Alpa Reflex 7 had both an SLR prism and RF w/ framelines for 50, 90 & 135.