Sorry I didn't ask this the last time we went round on the frame lines but does anybody know, for each of the lenses, exactly what distance the frame lines will show what the film sees? I was advised, before, that the 50 summicron, focused at infinity provides an image larger than roughly three frame line widths around what the viewfinder shows. My question, at what distance will the frame lines be accurate? While I've got you, does the noctilux (or anyother lens for that matter) intrude further into the viewfinder with a .85 than the .72. Thanks.

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), June 15, 2001

Answers

The frame lines aren't accurate at any distance (Thanks a lot, Herr Leitz)!! They are said to show 90% of the field of the lenses at their closest focusng distance, which, IMHO is a disgrace. You want accuracy, get an Imarect (or a top of the line Nikon/Canon/Contax/Minolta SLR).

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), June 15, 2001.

The frame lines aren't accurate at any distance (thanks a lot, Herr Leitz)!! They are said to show 90% of the field of the lenses at their closest focusng distance, which, IMHO is a disgrace. You want accuracy, get an Imarect (or a top of the line Nikon/Canon/Contax/Minolta SLR, but not a Leica R).

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), June 15, 2001.

Jim, just trying to visualize this, my guess is that the intrusion of a given lens must be about the same with the two finders, for a given frame line. I think so because the angle of view from the finder, would necessarily have to be the same regardless of magnification. The greater magnification will of course exclude the 28mm lens, but I don't visualize it as changing what is included in the remaining frames.

The only problem with my conclusion is that I arrived at it in the absence of any actual observations, except for what I can visualize. In other words I did what Einstein called a "thought experiment"; and the problem with that is I'm not Einstein. But I imagine the frame lines for both cameras incorporating the same amount of area, including extraneous stuff.

Now we'll see what the big guns say . . .

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), June 15, 2001.

The inside of the 50mm framelines show 93% of the film area at closest focus. This is 23mm x 35mm which is the area of a mounted slide. The outside of the framelines shows the same 93% film area when the lens is focus at 2 metres. The infinity coverage you have already explained.

So all the framelines are for closest focus but the amount the field of view increases varies with the focal length.The 21mm to 28mm lenses change less than 10% in field of view from closest focus to infinity while the 135mm lens changes almost 20%. A 50mm lens changes about 15%. This is why some people use the 75mm framelines when using a 90mm lens focused to infinity (or close to infinity).

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), June 16, 2001.

The framing on most SLR is no more accurate. Accept for the top level pro cameras (F5, EOS1hv), most SLR's state in their manuals that they show (depending on the model) anywhere between 86% to 93% of the actual image. Usually they say this is the area a slide mount covers (a lame excuse to me). What it really amounts to is this...all of the manufacturer's (Leica included I'm sure) could make their viewfinders 100% accurate, at an added cost to the camera of only $400.00 or $500.00. I for one will take the slight inaccuracy!

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), June 16, 2001.

I guess if one is going to have inaccurate frame lines this is the kind of inaccuracy one wants. At least you know that what's in the lines is in the picture, but so is a little bit more. As I do most of my composing in the camera rather than in the darkroom, and as I long ago learned that a picture is something other than an object of emotion that you put in the middle of the frame, I have always paid a lot of attention to the edges to avoid, for example, distracting highlights. But, a certain amount of unwanted and unplanned stuff in the picture is to be expected when on the run and it's part of the charm of street photos, candids, and so on.

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), June 16, 2001.

John is correct about the % of change in coverage angle increasing along with focal length. However the finder discrepancy in the Leica M with the 135mm is actually less than with the 90. There are 2 reasons for this. First, the 135mm lens' closest focusing distance (for which the lines are computed) is already 1.5m, versus 1m for the 90 and 0.7m for other lenses. Second, the 135mm frame is the smallest of the lot, so 20% of it is much less perceptible than say 10% of the 35mm frame.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 16, 2001.

As confirmation of the 85% figure at about 20 meters - the 90 framelines of the M4/6 and the 90mm view through a G2 both box exactly the same rectangle as a 105 on a 100%-view Nikon F. (This courtesy of the test that led me to Leicas in the first place.)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), June 17, 2001.