Leica M6 viewfinder on infinity (with 50mm lens)

[darkosaric]

Hi,

I will do a test by myself one of these days, but as always – I like to double check with my APUG friends also .

So, the problem is Leica M6 viewfinder on infinity (with 50mm lens) – it shows only about 85% of negative on infinity (100% on 0.7 meters, but on infinity problem comes). As I shot B&W only, and print full negative frame with black border – I want to have 100% of negative inside of lines on infinity also, to be precise as possible.

I must interpolate – but question is on which way to do it? Please take a look on attached screenshot – in which way I should interpolate missing 15% of frame?

Also one question about Bessa R3A – do they have same problem – or viewfinder is more precise with 50mm on infinity?

And if someone knows some external viewfinder that will be absolutely precise with 50mm lines on infinity – it is also acceptable for me.

Thanks,

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I answered your previous question about external viewfinders saying that the Soviet multifocal finder has a smaller and darker 50mm "virtual image" than the M6's viewfinder.

It does however visibly cover more area than the M6's at infinity, so it might be better for getting close to 100% coverage.
They should be pretty common and easy to find in PL. Maybe a shop could let you take some test shots with one...


P.S. I actually want to sell one of mine (shipping from Germany), but try to do a test with one first to see if it has the coverage you want.

 

[jochen]

Hello,
sorry for my answer, but if you want to have the full control over the whole range of all focussing distances, you should take a SLR. But not every SLR brings exactly 100 % of what you see in the viewfinder to the negative. Examples which do that are e.g. the NIKON F 2, F 3 and F 4. The M 6 is a phantastic piece of precise German workmanship, but for your expectations it is not the best tool.

 

[MaximusM3]

FWIW, I always find the Imarect finders to be more accurate in terms of framing. I have tested on M3, M4, and even the M9. Obviously, you would have to test it with your equipment but it's worth a shot.

 

[darkosaric]

Thank you all for answers. Actually I have nikon F3, I have 2 of them - they are that good and perfect for my needs. But I have also luck to be able to afford Leica and summicron - and it is better than nikon in terms of shooting people on the street: people are not afraid when I point Leica in their face, but with F3 - they are .

I will do the testing over weekend and also try to look for Imarect finders.

 

[budrichard]

Certainly agree with the above, you are expecting something the M or any rangefinder system will not do. The M is designed to capture more than the viewfinder shows, the addition of external finders will probably not result in any better framing, will make focusing and shooting take more time as you switch from focusing to external finder.-Dick

 

[sandholm]

sorry, but the only answer is, live with it

personal i use external view finders to do the framing (if I have time) and of course focus using the standard viewfinder. I like this approach because i use the same method on both my M7 and M9, the down side is that you cant do it inside using a flash...

Leica M is a good camera, but definitiv not perfect, I see it more as a way of shooting then the ultimate tool (for that I have my H2

cheers

 

[elekm]

I agree with the others. If you want precise framing, you should select an SLR.

The rangefinder has many advantages, but I don't think precise framing is one of them. Early rangefinders don't even have framelines, which makes framing even less precise, depending on where you place your eye.

 

[Vilk]

...people are not afraid when I point Leica in their face, but with F3 - they are

are you suuuuuuuuuuure? at me they smile, at most. motorized F2 bricks only. actually, sold the M recently, when i realized the "street advantage" was all in my head

 

[darkosaric]

It is not about rangefinder vs SLR – it is about Leica having bad 50mm lines in viewfinder.

I have seen some Yashica rangefinders (I think it was Lynks 14) that had this problem better solved: upper and left line was moving away from bottom and right line while focusing to infinity - I was expecting that Leica has more precise viewfinder than Yashica (better than any rangefinder camera in this matter).

Also I see on rangefinderforum that other people were disappointed with M6 and 50mm combination:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62058

“50mm M6 frameline only shows you 64% of what you will see on the film“ – it is not acceptable – and it is not about rangefinder vs SLR. It is about M6 – it is unusable with 50mm if you want to print full frame.

For some reason my email is blocked on that site and I can not register on rangefinderforum– so I can not see attachment Frame line % for ZI.jpg (can someone who has login there take a look and attach it here or send it to me on email? Thanks .

Also I see that solution for my problem is to get 40mm lens and use 35mm lines. I will go and look for nokton or summicron 40mm.

 

[ooze]

I agree that this is a major problem with the rangefinder design. It all boils down to experience. By using the M day in day out you learn to compose very tight for distant shots.

I don't know where, but I read somewhere that for medium distances you should add the thickness of the frameline once, and for distant shots you should add it twice. That should give you a better feel for what'll end up on the negative.

 

[tj01]

I shall try it with the M2 and M6 side by side and check how far off.

 

[thomasw_]

The 50mm framelines changed somewhere with the M4-P (probably with the zinc top plates) and continued with the M6-7-P (not with the MP-3) to show less than the earlier M4-M3-M2 50mm framelines. That being said, the words about precise framing and RFs should be borne in mind even when looking at the M3's 50mm framing (and what is caught on the neg).

 

[erikg]

The phrase right tool for the job comes to mind. RFs are great but they aren't SLRs or view cameras. It's not a fault. It's the frame lines in your head that matter most. A lot of people have done pretty well working the m6, but it's not for everyone.

 

[Vilk]

It is not about rangefinder vs SLR – it is about Leica having bad 50mm lines in viewfinder. [...] it is not acceptable – and it is not about rangefinder vs SLR. It is about M6 – it is unusable with 50mm if you want to print full frame. [...]

so rangefinder vs. SLR--bad, leica bashing--good?

darko, all in good faith and with a very obvious wink i simply think you're channelling more energy than it's worth into flogging a dead donkey--an obsolete design that was never meant to do what you want it to do. taking a step back sometimes helps--that was all i meant

if you really must know what the frames are doing, here's an idea. take a quick snap of some reasonably distant, reasonably flat, reasonably detailed scene--like the attached. mark the spot you were standing on. return with a workable-size full-frame print, put the M6 on a tripod and draw what the finder sees right on the print... is this what you're looking for?

ps. and while you're at it, have a mulled poltorak for me at pasieka on freta! i may not get there before october...

 

[Ronald Moravec]

The problem is image size, not "parallax correction" which Leica has.

A 50 mm lens is 50 at infinity, maybe 55 at near distance. There is no way to make lines that show both fields of view.

 

[ic-racer]

The problem is image size, not "parallax correction" which Leica has.

A 50 mm lens is 50 at infinity, maybe 55 at near distance. There is no way to make lines that show both fields of view.

Actually the Zeiss rangefinders on the Polaroids do this. They do three things: Rangefinding, parallex correction and field of view correction.

(Page 9 http://www.cameramanuals.org/polaroid_pdf/polaroid_350.pdf )

 

[darkosaric]

On the end - I got myself M3 in very good condition. Much, much more precise coverage for 50mm lens.
So 50mm summicron will be on M3, and on M6 probably some 35mm in the future (color scopar or some older letiz)

 

[OddE]

On the end - I got myself M3 in very good condition. Much, much more precise coverage for 50mm lens.

-That is what I found as well - having an M3 as my first (and, thus far, only!) rangefinder, I was positively surprised at how well the 50mm framelines matched what I got on film in the end.
My concern (prior to getting the M3 delivered and shooting a few rolls with it) that I would have all sorts of lax compositions with loads of empty space around whatever I intended to shoot was entirely unfounded.

Result is that the M3 with a 35 or 50 'cron is my daily shooter nowadays - small, quiet and reliable - my F4 only checks one of those.

(A bit unfair to the F4; if I use the MB20 battery grip and the 50mm f/1.4, it is a very compact and capable little SLR indeed.)