Why I love the M-A

[Godfrey]

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.

Erik, I used film camera for thirty-five years before any decent digital cameras I could afford existed. And I still work with film cameras on a regular basis. What you say above makes no sense whatsoever.

When I want to print the full frame, I print it—regardless of capture medium. When I shoot for the full frame, no cropping, I do the same thing—again regardless of medium. The image area on the film with a negative defines the image. The pixels in a digital capture define the image. There's no such thing as a "natural end".

As I said before, if you want precise framing in the viewfinder, you need a TTL viewing camera with a 100% coverage viewfinder. No Leica M is that accurate in its framing, ever. Unless you use a digital M that can take an EVF accessory, or a Visoflex reflex housing. Bellyaching about it is ridiculous ... If an M2 has the framing you like, use an M2. No one will think it unusual that you like a particular model camera, ya know?

G

 

[Godfrey]

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.

You know, of course, that the actual framing of the imaged area on film changes with focal length too. With wide lenses, you get a bit more negative; with long lenses, you get a bit less. There is no such thing as "precise" with any film camera when it comes to framing (unless you're taking about a photogrammetrically calibrated camera, which doesn't describe ANY standard Leica M).

I shot thousands of slides in my time. Slide mount apertures varied by as much as 15% in dimensions, so saying that the M5 was especially tuned to making color slides with "very very precise framelines" is also ridiculous.

G

 

[ptpdprinter]

When I want to print the full frame, I print it—regardless of capture medium. When I shoot for the full frame, no cropping, I do the same thing—again regardless of medium. The image area on the film with a negative defines the image. The pixels in a digital capture define the image. There's no such thing as a "natural end".

Precisely.

 

[Erik van Straten]

if you want precise framing in the viewfinder, you need a TTL viewing camera with a 100% coverage viewfinder. No Leica M is that accurate in its framing, ever. Unless you use a digital M that can take an EVF accessory, or a Visoflex reflex housing. Bellyaching about it is ridiculous ... If an M2 has the framing you like, use an M2. No one will think it unusual that you like a particular model camera, ya know?

G

What I want to say is that it is totally incomprehensible that Leica started to make in 1981 or so cameras with far less precise framelines then before. Everybody knows that. That is why the M2 and M4 cameras are still very popular and wanted by truly devoted Leica-photographers.

They want to make silver/gelatine prints of the complete negative, without nibbling at the sides. Therefore they need those precise framelines in their cameras.

I do not want 100% precise framing, but I want more precise framing than I get with an M6 or MP.

Erik.

 

[Godfrey]

What I want to say is that it is totally incomprehensible that Leica started to make in 1981 or so cameras with far less precise framelines then before. Everybody knows that. That is why the M2 and M4 cameras are still very popular and wanted by truly devoted Leica-photographers.

They want to make silver/gelatine prints of the complete negative, without nibbling at the sides. Therefore they need those precise framelines in their cameras.

I do not want 100% precise framing, but I want more precise framing than I get with an M6 or MP.

Erik.

They didn't make the framing less precise. They changed the reference standard for the framing' s accuracy, from mid range distance to a bit closer in. This produces more accurate framing where it's needed for most users.

The fact that you disagree with that decision isn't relevant. The fact that it was done nearly forty years ago and has 'stuck' as their standard proves that it serves well for the majority of customers.

G

 

[Erik van Straten]

The fact that it was done nearly forty years ago and has 'stuck' as their standard proves that it serves well for the majority of customers.

G

Yes, I know, and that says a lot about the customers.

Erik.

 

[Doug]

Do I recall correctly that the M8/M9 framelines (inside edge) were sized to match actual framing at 1m focus distance? And I believe this changed to 2m for the M (typ240) in the interests of better usability for most common usage... 🙂

 

[Huss]

Just got my first roll back. Love this camera.

M-A + CV 40 1.4 SC + Fuji C200 + D750 scan.

 

[Pioneer]

Just got my first roll back. Love this camera.

M-A + CV 40 1.4 SC + Fuji C200 + D750 scan.

Very nice Huss. I like this photo.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Huss, chapeau, very nice picture! Like a modernist painting.

Erik.

 

[Roel]

I like the picture! I also have the 40mm sc. I like that little lens.

 

[Godfrey]

Just got my first roll back. Love this camera.

M-A + CV 40 1.4 SC + Fuji C200 + D750 scan.

https://flic.kr/p/2239idE

Very nice!

G

 

[giganova]

To me, an M-A is essentially a brand new M4. The fact that Leica still makes them is actually pretty amazing.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Let's hope Leica fabricates an even older camera.

 

[zuiko85]

In my personal experience, while shooting and doing my own darkroom work. No matter what camera you have, you just have to shoot a bit loose and then crop, even if ever so slightly, to get what you want. I prefer SLR viewing, mainly because it's easy to get close, not because of super precise framing (note; I've never had a Nikon F or F2). So, with my just ok OM-1, or for half frame a Pen F, I don't count on every square mm of negative area, even though, lets face it, both half and full frame 35mm are postage stamp size negs and a person would want to use as much as possible.


By the by Eric, you seem to do quite well with your little Pen FT set up, hard to tell at screen resolution they are half frame.

 

[Erik van Straten]

In my personal experience, while shooting and doing my own darkroom work. No matter what camera you have, you just have to shoot a bit loose and then crop, even if ever so slightly, to get what you want. I prefer SLR viewing, mainly because it's easy to get close, not because of super precise framing (note; I've never had a Nikon F or F2). So, with my just ok OM-1, or for half frame a Pen F, I don't count on every square mm of negative area, even though, lets face it, both half and full frame 35mm are postage stamp size negs and a person would want to use as much as possible.


By the by Eric, you seem to do quite well with your little Pen FT set up, hard to tell at screen resolution they are half frame.

Thank you, Zuiko, I've always loved to shoot with a Pen FT!

Erik.

 

[Pioneer]

Cropping with digital scans is no big deal, I do it frequently.

For some reason I hate to crop when I'm printing in the darkroom. I'm not sure why?

Maybe I'll have to try it a couple of times.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Cropping with digital scans is no big deal, I do it frequently.

For some reason I hate to crop when I'm printing in the darkroom. I'm not sure why?

Cropping an already small negative goes always at the cost of quality. For one reason or another this loss of quality is not so obvious in a digital workflow, but it is there nevertheless.

Erik.

 

[Huss]

Let's hope Leica fabricates an even older camera.

They made the series O a few years ago. They really reached back w that one!

Thanks for the compliments on that shot peeps!

 

[zuiko85]

Regarding cropping, although I like primes, smaller, faster, cheaper (usually) than a good zoom, sometimes you just cannot stand where you need to or you don't have the right FL for where you can stand. This is why, for my Pen F lens line up, I still keep that large, heavy and narrow range 50~90mm f3.5 Zuiko. Don't like to carry it around but if the 38mm is too short and the 100mm is to long. (And the 70mm? Yikes, who can afford that?) Then I have to drag out the 50~90 zoom.

But, I did come across a 75mm f3.5 Beslar enlarging lens at local thrift shop for $4 and if I can find one of those Chinese focusing extension tubes that is 21 or 22mm closed then I can mount it up as a macro/portrait lens.