I will try to make it fast since time hasnīt been easy lattely.

This more than a question is an explanation on how I feel about frame lines in the leica M system camera range.

Since my only experience with this cameras has been M3īs and M4Pīs, .91 and .72 magnification range, those are in wich I base my coments here.

M3 50mm frame: I find it easy to see and great to work with it specialy in the close distance focusing range .70-2.00 mts, wish the frame corners were straigt angles and noy curved, age makes window less contrasty but it is not the point now, and thick frame lines are easy to see, so this compensate a bit for lack of contrast on lines.

M3 90mm: For me the best 90 fl of all, I can see the corners and not only the side lines, and magnification makes it easier to work with.

M3 135: I personaly dont work much with it, but what I have done in the past donīt let room for complains, in the limit of this finder capabilities but still comfortable.

M4P 28-90: I consider this the most compromised of the three framelines in the .72 finder. First although the 28 is hard to see, it helps that this lens can become very intuitive so I donīt need to see clearly the all frame, guessing is enough, specialy in street photography. 90 is for me very small, and thin framelines doesnīt help, and as corners are not shown I feel it is easy to miss wile composing, I havenīt try .85, but it seems to be the same.

M4P 50-75: it is another of my favourite framelines for the 50, it is clear, I can see a lot around it but still big, I may donīt see the corners of the frame but lines are so close that is enough and easy to find it actualy pops up in the finder. Not the same for the 75mm flīs, they are hard to see and I always get confuse with the 50 flīs, I donīt find it fair for such an important and expensive lens in the M line, what is justified is that at infinity it covers the 50 format, I canīt confirm this but users say so.

M4P 35-135: 35 frame lines on a .72 M finder, I love it! this and the 50 is what this finder were made for, easy to see and it is almost alone since 135 fl almost doesnīt exist.

-- Roberto Watson-García (al1231234@hotmail.com), August 25, 2001

Answers

Roberto:

I think that I have commented on this before. This isn't a statement of fact but one of preference, and not meant to contradict the more knowledgable people on the board.

For me; they got the finder right in the M3 and everything has been downhill since then. The M6 works great but I don't like the cluttered finder. I can use the 35, 50 and 90 on the M3 without a problem. 28 with slide in the shoe finder. What more do I need. One frame per lens. Yeah, I know that the 50 is always present. I ignore it. Can't seem to do that with the changing frames in the M6. Guess you can't teach an old iguana new tricks. :)

Others differ, but that is my preference.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), August 25, 2001.

I have M4-P and M6TTL, both of which have the .72x finder. I don't use 28mm and can't see the framelines, which is a good match. The 90mm is just fine. I use the 50 (the 75mm marks don't bother me) and the 35 (the unused 135 marks don't bother me either). So I guess I'm saying that if the .72x vf had 35, 50 and 90 frame lines, that would suit me just dandy.

Everyone has their own pet peeves. I sold the M3 because I hated the goggle eyed 35mm lens.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), August 25, 2001.

Godrey:

Don't use the eyes. I use a 35 Asph. The whole finder is as close as the frame lines; which aren't that accurate. I now have it on my M6 and am waiting for my M3 to return. Actually since my M3 is off for repairs, I have decided to take only Nikon equipment on my trip next week. Hopefully, the M3 will be back by Christmas. :)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), August 25, 2001.

God frey:

Sorry, that I dropped the f. My hand is in a splint.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), August 25, 2001.

The M6's "clutter" doesn't seem to bother me. I could do without the 135mm frame. I don't use this focal length on the RF. It seems to me that it would hard to compose within such a tiny space (in the .72 finder). Leitz left it off the M2 because they felt, at the time, that the M2's shorter effective base length wouldn't focus a 135 with sufficient accuracy. I've wondered what made them decide later to reinstate it on the M4 and later cameras with 0.72 finders.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), August 25, 2001.

I have use my 35 on an M3 (without gogles) but I realy miss to see the edges of my frame, thatīs the reason i stoped doing it, but wish it wasnīt a problem for me.

Art I know Iīm not the first leica user that gives his opinon on frame lines, neather you are, you know I didnīt wrote it to make a statement but to know what other users do and feel about it. On the other hand I wish framelines were shown alone, I agree with you here also, and about gogles with the 35 on a M3, well i used this for years, and it wasnīt so bad, of couse when you get use to a .72 finder you donīt want gogles any more.

I donīt think i will ever want to have a 75, but if I would, I would also want a better frame lines on the body.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), August 25, 2001.

I have an M3 & M2, & prefer the M3 overall because of it's big 50mm frame (but I prefer the 50mm focal length). Since I wear glasses, I can't really see all of the 35mm frame in the M2. I wish the M2 finder had a bigger opening--I'm talking about the rectangular metal opening behind the eyepiece glass. I've never understood why Leitz felt it had to use such a small opening (the M3's is much bigger). I've never used an M4 or M6, so I don't know if this "problem" was ever fixed in those models.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), August 26, 2001.

I have an M4-2. I much prefer it's 'full-box' 90mm frame to the cornerless frame in the M4-P and all later cameras (and, sadly, Roberto, the .85 M6 uses the new style, not the old.) 8^(

For those of you who've only used an M4-P/M6, you should check out an earlier camera to see what we mean - the 90 frame has 8 parts and defines the corners as well as the sides. I'd leave the 90 on the M4-2 all the time, except that it's the one that needs a rangefinder tune- up.

I'm sure the reason the design changed had to do with realigning the mask mechanism to make the 75 and 28 frames visible, but it's still sad.

I've noticed the following differences between the M4-P and the M6, just as curiosities.

The "Ls" that define the 135 and 75 frames have much shorter "legs" - not much more than corner dots - which may make them harder to use, but also makes them much less intrusive when using the 35 and 50.

The 28 frame is not broken across the bottom (no gap needed for the meter LEDs since there are none).

My Hexar RF has VERY strong click stops for the frames, which seems like it should help eliminate the problem where parts of frames don't get uncovered completely, or parts of two frames sets show simultaneously (in older cameras, usually). My M4-P seems to 'click' into place also, but not the M4. Anyone have any experience with whether the M4-P and later cameras are less susceptible to this ailment?

The Hexar also has the full bottom for the 28 frame, but is missing the left side, also for meter display.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 26, 2001.

Oh, and Bob - Leica has just the camera for you (no 135 frame) - it's called the M6TTL .58. 8^)

Seriously, I believe the 135 frame reappeared in the .72 finder because the M3 mostly went out of production with the introduction of the M4 - if they hadn't put the 135 finder in the new body, they wouldn't have had ANY camera that could use the 135.

As many people have noted over the threads, the Hexar has a larger viewfinder "tunnel", which covers ALMOST a 21 frame if you really peer into the corners (and without glasses, natch)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 26, 2001.

I just wish Leica would make an M with VF magnification that suited the mounted lens. Why should I have to buy two bodies for a wide- angle (28mm) and a 90mm? I don't care what's outside the frameline - that's not what I'm photographing. The 90mm frame in my .58 TTL is a joke.

-- Peter Mackay (pm@novonordisk.com), August 26, 2001.

Frameline is the result of shoehorning one lens device for multiple lenses, hence the cluttered framelines.

I only like viewfinder camera with no clutter, such as Rollei 35, Minox CLX, TLX. Clear and bright, a pleasure to use.

An ideal multiple lens viewfinder should have only one frame line, a large frame line, not a tiny frame line for long lens. When change lens, the viewfinder automatically changes magnification to suit.

The technology of Leica M viewfinder is outdated

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), August 26, 2001.

I thought that too, and became fascinated with the Contax G. The zoom finder also corrects for field size as the lens is focused, not just parallax. However, the frames still show only about 85% of what goes on film, but you can't see outside the black borders. So although the framelines of the M are less precise, you can use experience to judge very accurately what the on-film crop will be.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 26, 2001.

As a former Contax-G user, I can add that the zooming viewfinder is very nice (especially life-size viewing with the 90). But the G is autofocus. I shudder to think at what would be involved in making a coincident rangefinder that zoomed - the rangefinder image would have to zoom in coordination with the viewfinder to keep things lined up. You'd probably wind up with something much bigger than the M6, and more prone to getting out of alignment, what with two zooming optical systems with moving parts. And as you zoomed smaller for wide-angle lenses, you'd lose more and more RF accuracy, just as with an SLR.

I suppose you could bring back the separate RF/VF of the screw-mount Leicas - a nice 1.5x rangefinder image with a separate zooming view window right beside it.

(As an aside to Barnack-camera users: have any of you looked through a G1/G2? The viewfinder looks very similar to a IIIf, IMHO.)

The new/rumored magnifying eyepiece from Leica (see neighboring post) may be as close as we'll get. Now if they can come out with a "minifying" eyepiece for 21 users!! Wheee!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 26, 2001.

The M3 is great for the 90mm. The M2 is great for the 50mm. The new wide angle is great for the 35mm. I just like to have a bit of room around the framelines so I can compose. Also it's easier to see because I wear glasses.
If you like the both eyes open method of composing then the M3 is something speical for the 50mm. The problem I have is that it's harded for me to focus the rangefinder patch with both eyes open otherwise the M3 would be my choice for 50mm as well as 90mm.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), August 27, 2001.