M4 Spacing

[ColColt]

I've noticed with the new to me Leica M4 I recently bought that the spacing between frames are about half as much as those shot with the M2 or Nikon F2. Is there any way to fix that? With the F2 and M2 the spacing is about 1/16th inch but not that much on the M4.

Just one caveat. All shots were with a 35 f2 lens...not the usual 50mm lens-if that matters and I'd say it should not.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The lens focal length should not matter. This should be adjusted with a CLA.

 

[ColColt]

It was CLA'd by DAG three years ago. Seems I've read an article since I posted this about wide angles such as the 35, 28mm etc would cause less spacing between frames than the 50 or 90mm.

 

[karl]

The lens focal length does in fact matter. The frames will be slightly closer together with a wide angle because the image is slightly larger, than it would be with a normal lens.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Look at the sprocket holes. If the spacing is even, you are fine.

 

[Xmas]

The lens focal length does in fact matter. The frames will be slightly closer together with a wide angle because the image is slightly larger, than it would be with a normal lens.

Confirmed the effect occurs with the non retro focus wides.
It is vestigial with a 40mm or 35mm more apparent with 21mm or 28mm If none are retro focus.

It was (still is) annoying with Kchrome (or E6) slides cause you lose a lot of picture.

You needed to ask for unmounted cut your own masks and bind cover glass by hand.

Hard if your scanner has a restrictive holder.

 

[ColColt]

Looking back over the negatives shot with the 50 and the 35 there is definitely more spacing with the 50 and compares to the space given with a Nikon. So, I can only surmise if using a wide angle of any sort there will be less spacing. Whey that happens with a rangefinder and not an SLR I can't readily say.

 

[MattKing]

Whey that happens with a rangefinder and not an SLR I can't readily say.

Is the shutter larger than the film mask and the film mask at a small distance from the film plane?

 

[mdarnton]

With an SLR the back of the lens has a minimum distance it has to be from the film, regardless of focal length, to give room for the mirror to flip up and down. With RF cameras, and no mirror in the way, the shorter lenses can be moved back into the camera closer to their true focal lengths, an easier problem for lens design, and this permits them to project an image "behind the frame" that is in front of the film, so to speak, because the light comes at the edges of the film from a steeper angle. Like when you're closer to a window you see a wider view of what's in the room than just the actual dimensions of the window. The film gate, which doesn't quite touch the film, is the "window", and the room is the "film", so the image is projected slightly larger than the hole of the film gate when the lens is a short one, compared to the situation with a longer lens, which is more like standing far away from the window and seeing only a tiny piece of the room inside.

 

[ColColt]

So, that's the reason you get less with a wide angle than the normal 50 lens...makes sense. Sort of like looking through a keyhole and then backing off about six inches or so.

 

[mdarnton]

Exactly.

 

[Xmas]

Is the shutter larger than the film mask and the film mask at a small distance from the film plane?

There are two window frames only the one nearest to the film just off set from film rails has any effect with a non retro focus wide.
The problem is some lenses have the rear most glass just clearing the shutter window and curtain, so the angles of illumination are extreme.
The preWWII Bigon 35mm won't mount on the post war contax II the rear hits the shutter window frame.
The J12 clone is way close to Kievs it's kit camera
The only bad effect is you need custom slide mounts or a file on a scanner holder.
The picture can be near 25x37mm, super size slides.
The Leica needs to be maintained for uniform spacing.
David's Bigon is a symmetric lens,
Leica's SA 21mm /3.4 did big pictures...