Why I love the M-A

[sepiareverb]

Sticking on this off topic M5 segue, just spoke to Don and he will mask off the stoooopid 75mm frames on my M5...

How will you shoot the 1.25 Noctilux?

 

[Huss]

How will you shoot the 1.25 Noctilux?

No matter what Leica wants u to believe, there is no such thing as a Noctilux with a 1.25 max aperture. How dare they sully the name! It's almost a Summarit at that point...

 

[michaelwj]

The M4/M2 framelines are seen by many as ideal. Why did Leica not choose for those in the M-A? For many people this is a reason not to choose for the M-A I guess.

Erik.

I believe this has been discussed (maybe over at LUF though), but the change was to to make the framing accurate at 0.7m rather than 1.0m. As you focus closer the field of view gets smaller. With the M2/4 framelines focused at 0.7m you will get less on the film than the framelines show. With the M6 on framelines you will always get more on the film, never less.

 

[agoglanian]

Either way. I still love shooting with my M-A and will continue to do so. It cost about what a fairly used MP goes for but in my situation it was an exceptionally generous gift for finally getting my degree and finishing school (after a long hiatus). So in this situation this particular camera holds considerable emotional weight for me.

Emotional value aside I still quite like it, and I am very fond of it. I will probably at some point buy another M film body that's more of a user that I can beat up a bit.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I believe this has been discussed (maybe over at LUF though), but the change was to to make the framing accurate at 0.7m rather than 1.0m. As you focus closer the field of view gets smaller. With the M2/4 framelines focused at 0.7m you will get less on the film than the framelines show. With the M6 on framelines you will always get more on the film, never less.

True, but this is useless as the majority of shots is taken on larger distances (I presume ...).

It is totally useless tho have frames in a viewfinder that are not as precise as possible (my opinion ...).

Erik.

 

[michaelwj]

True, but this is useless as the majority of shots is taken on larger distances (I presume ...).

It is totally useless tho have frames in a viewfinder that are not as precise as possible (my opinion ...).

Erik.

They are as precise as they have always been, they're just accurate at a different distance. Where they are now (0.7m) you will never end up with less than you wanted, whereas with a 1.0m calibrated frame, you will get a crop when focused at 0.7m.
The obvious argument is that you can always crop a little, but you can never add. The following argument is that if you need perfect framing, use a camera with TTL viewing.

 

[Godfrey]

True, but this is useless as the majority of shots is taken on larger distances (I presume ...).

It is totally useless tho have frames in a viewfinder that are not as precise as possible (my opinion ...).

If you need framing indication that is "as precise as possible" you need a TTL viewing camera with a 100% coverage viewfinder, not a rangefinder.

How precise, and at what distance, a rangefinder can be is completely, arbitrarily, the call of what marketing and engineering determine for the camera's manufacture. No Leica M is actually what I'd consider to be even close to the accuracy of any Leicaflex/Leica R or EVF camera. Not even in the same ballpark.

This has never prevented me from getting exactly what I want in my photographs, however. 😀

G

 

[Erik van Straten]

If you need framing indication that is "as precise as possible" you need a TTL viewing camera with a 100% coverage viewfinder, not a rangefinder.

if you need perfect framing, use a camera with TTL viewing.

I've ment to say: As precise as possible with a rangefinder. I am happy that there are lots and lots of M2's, M3's, M4's and M5's for me to choose from. I still do not understand why the later M's have framelines optimized for close ups as it is better for close ups to use a TTL-viewing camera.

Erik.

 

[Godfrey]

I've ment to say: As precise as possible with a rangefinder. I am happy that there are lots and lots of M2's, M3's, M4's and M5's for me to choose from. I still do not understand why the later M's have framelines optimized for close ups as it is better for close ups to use a TTL-viewing camera.

- It is always better, with a rangefinder camera, to see a little less than what you'll get rather than a little more. The is the majority opinion, by the vast majority of users/photographers.

- When I'm using my beloved Summilux 35 v2, with its 1m close focus limit, I'm always surprised by how many times in a day's shooting I'm at the close focus limit. I'm sure I'm not unique in this respect.

Between these two things is the rationale for optimizing the frame lines for closer rather than farther focusing distances in later M models.

G
—
"Remember that, except for a single trivial exception, the world is comprised of other people."

 

[ptpdprinter]

It is always better, with a rangefinder camera, to see a little less than what you'll get rather than a little more. The is the majority opinion, by the vast majority of users/photographers.

I have found this to be true. Sometimes in my zeal to use the full frame with my SLR, I find myself in the darkroom wishing I hadn't cropped quite so tightly. A little leeway on the more side gives you some needed flexibility when you print.

 

[aizan]

has anyone developed an exercise to get a better sense of what you'll get on film at different focusing distances? this is such a persistent concern, someone must have sorted out a method by now.

 

[Erik van Straten]

- It is always better, with a rangefinder camera, to see a little less than what you'll get rather than a little more. The is the majority opinion, by the vast majority of users/photographers.

This is also the case with M2's, M3's, M4's and M5's. The M2 is designed for the Summicron 35mm v1. This lens focuses to 0.7m. The framelines are perfect, also for the modern lenses.

It is really not clear to me why Leica suddenly changed their mind and made the framelines smaller. There is no reason for why they did so. I am sure many photographers gave up the Leica because of this. Cartier-Bresson had an M6, but with an M3 finder in it.

Erik.

 

[Huss]

I have found this to be true. Sometimes in my zeal to use the full frame with my SLR, I find myself in the darkroom wishing I hadn't cropped quite so tightly. A little leeway on the more side gives you some needed flexibility when you print.

I thought I was the only one! Guilty if that using my F2, F3 and F6.
The opposite of this is the glorious Zenit TTL. It shows 60% of the image!!!

(leeway is extremely handy when I print and mount, as mounting always takes up some image space)

 

[michaelwj]

They changed them not long after their 50mm lenses changed MFD from 1.0m to 0.7m, but not straight away - but it took a few years (the first 0.7m 50mm was introduced after M4 started production though). Maybe they had some complaints? Maybe they just decided that it's better to get a little more on the film than a little less?
The big conspiracy is that they had to make the framelines smaller to accommodate the meter LEDs, or to fit in the 28mm framelines, but I think it's the above reason.

 

[Godfrey]

Erik, you just don't want to accept what they decided was better for the majority of their users. That's fine by me. But grousing about it constantly is kinda pointless ... they're not going to change it, it's been going on this way for thirty years. :bang:

I really don't care. After so many years using the M, and having owned most of the M models (M3, M2, M4-P, M4-2, M6, M6TTL, M9, M-P typ 240, M-D typ 262), I have hardly ever even noticed the differences in the frame line definitions. I know what my lenses see, and that's all that matters.

Frame lines are just an aid to framing ... they don't define what you frame. You have to see what the lens sees with your mind. :angel:

G

 

[Michael Markey]

Frame lines are just an aid to framing ... they don't define what you frame. You have to see what the lens sees with your mind. :angel:

G

That`s exactly what I do .... I`d be happy if there were no frame lines.

I never look at the them .... but I know what lens I`m using .

 

[Erik van Straten]

having owned most of the M models (M3, M2, M4-P, M4-2, M6, M6TTL, M9, M-P typ 240, M-D typ 262), I have hardly ever even noticed the differences in the frame line definitions.

Well, that is you. I think those inaccurate framelines do not bother when shooting digital. Digital photographs do not have "natural ends". Cropping will go unnoticed on digital photographs. However, many film shooters want to print the whole frame. They want that for many reasons. That is why for them precise framelines are important.

Erik.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I seem to recall reading in one of their catalogues that the aim was to cover what you get once the developed film was mounted in a slide frame and slides cut off a small percentage of the edges. And, of course, years ago who used anything else for colour? And for B&W prints the enlarger frame would cut off the edges.

It also explains why looking at old cameras' negatives you see slight distortions where the body hasn't been machined too precisely.

OTOH, I could have remembered it wrongly...

Regards, David

 

[ptpdprinter]

Whether it was in one of their catalogues or not, it certainly make sense, and was what first came to mind.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Hi,

I seem to recall reading in one of their catalogues that the aim was to cover what you get once the developed film was mounted in a slide frame and slides cut off a small percentage of the edges. And, of course, years ago who used anything else for colour? And for B&W prints the enlarger frame would cut off the edges.

It also explains why looking at old cameras' negatives you see slight distortions where the body hasn't been machined too precisely.

I have never seen those distortions with Leicas.

The color slides is what it was all about. I remember how proud Nikon was when their "F" could deliver 100% from what you saw in the viewfinder came on film. Of course a Leica M was less precise.

The Leica M5 however was conceived as a rangefinder camera to make color slides. Hence the lightmeter and the very, very precise framelines.

The film gates of the Leicas were always extremely well finished.

Erik.