hello

does anyone know, why the findermasks do not show the corners? it is a bit weird to guesstimate the corner crops of a picture. i am not aware of that they use prints without corners back there in germany. how about the older m models?

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), November 30, 2001

Answers

Hallo Stefan,

the frames you see in the finder of the LEICA M are not formed by liquid cristal quartz lines. They are accelertated by a complicated system of single masks and if it would show all the corners there would perhaps be not enough material left to create enough stability in these masks.

Additionally, showing the corners (technically perhaps possible) would make production of the already most complicated finder even more expensive.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), November 30, 2001.

but the 75 and the 135 lines show some kind of corners

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), November 30, 2001.

Any answer to this question is pure speculation. For example the 90mm finder frames in the M4/M4-2 is quite different from the M4-P/M6 yet the actuation mechanism is the same. Since the frames only move down and right (for parallax) but don't grow and shrink for field size (unfortunately)there is no reason I can think of that they could not be complete, unbroken rectangles (other than the intrustion of the LED's at the bottom).

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 30, 2001.

This is exactly the reason I like the M3 so much. I have never understood why the frames in the M6 couldn't be like the 90/135 frames in the M3. Add the cornerless frames to the clutter in the viewfinder and that's the reason I've never owned an M4P/M6.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), November 30, 2001.

Even if you visualize the corners, the framelines still do not show the whole image area, at least at most focussing distances. So the M6 is best used for situations which do not require precise framing, anyway.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), November 30, 2001.

To somewhat echo Douglas Kinnear's post, I'm honestly puzzled: Why is this a problem? If you use your camera almost daily, it becomes second nature to visualize a corner, if you REALLY need to know where the corner is (what crucial compositional element is getting tucked into your corners?). And I don't understand the "clutter" beef, either. I never see the frames I'm not using unless I WANT to -- the 135 in the 35 for a rough guess of metering angle, e.g., or any inside framelines to help true up a horizontal or vertical line. Those pesky additional lines are downright handy sometimes.

I'd be the last photographer you'd ever meet to sing the praises of the M6 in an unqualified manner (I've got one going back for service for the second time this year, third time in the last two years), but I am consistently bemused by the persistent fetishism for a 40-year-old camera. And yes, I have used M2's and M3's. Worship is unwarranted, IMO.

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), November 30, 2001.

If you move the frameline selector very slowly, you will see that there are in fact TWO masks - the one with the visible lines (all six of them) and another one that slides behind the first, alternately revealing and covering the lines.

The moving mask is braced by, and moves on, diagonal struts (top right to lower left), which would cover two corners of the outer frames (28- 90) in any case, so for consistency Leica left out ALL the corners. In addition Leica has kept the 75/90/135 frames 'minimalist' so that they are less distracting when using the 28/35/50 lenses.

The moving mask has a big hole in the middle for the RF patch to show through with any lens, so the struts don't extend past the edge that reveals/covers the 135 frame - therefore it can have corners. On my M4- P it appears that there are small round holes in the struts where they pass over the 75mm corners, allowing them to show through at the middle setting.

As someone noted already, the exact layout of the frames has varied over the years. The M3 50 frame is always present even when using the 90 or 135, and the 90/135 frames are nearly complete boxes. The M2/4/4- 2 have an 8-segment 90 frame (but still no corners), while the M4-P/6 have the 4-segment 90 frame. I believe the 75 frame on the M-6 has multi-segment lines, but in my M4-P the 75 just has tiny corners, barely more than triangles, like the 135 frames. I prefer my M4-2's more complete box when using the 90.

If you ever get a chance to look through a Nikon SP finder, Nikon just left the diagonal struts visible. They impart a 'barber pole' pattern to the inner frame lines, and their motion is clearly visible when changing frames.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 30, 2001.

Addendum and correction:

RE Nikon SP - the struts impart a barber-pole pattern to the OUTER frames.

As Jay noted, for parallax correction BOTH masks move down and right, at the same time the secondary mask is moving down and LEFT for frame selection - So we begin to understand why the Leica VF/RF contains over 100 parts and costs so much - and why everyone else gave up for 35 years.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 30, 2001.

K.G.:

I think what I'm understanding is that the frame lines are cutouts in a surface, and that it might resemble a stencil. If you cut out the letter "O" completely without leaving some connective material, the center of the O would just fall out. Thus you can't make an unbroken "O", or an unbroken frameline. And with three, four, or six frames, it gets even more complicated.

Is that about right?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 30, 2001.

Actually, Bob, you and K.G. raise a good point. In my youth I always assumed the frame masks were perforated metal sheets, as you suggest. But recently I thought I ran across the information that the masks are actually black and transparent patterns on a continuous transparent base - silk-screened or generated photographically on glass or plastic. I don't know which is right, so maybe someone can enlighten us all.

If it's perforated metal, your stencil analogy makes sense. On the other hand, if the masks are on a transparent film or glass substrate then there is no stuctural reason why they can't be unbroken squares - except for my previous point about the mask-moving mechanism getting in the way.

I did a LUG and web search and can't find anything definitive of the materials in use. Information, please!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 01, 2001.

Interim update: I asked a Leica rep today (Sat. 12/1) what material was used for the frame line masks and why the lines don't run to the corners - she didn't know either answer and will Email Solms to find out.

Will advise if she finds out anything before John Collier shows up and tells us. 8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 02, 2001.

Stefan (and others):

The WORD on Leica M framelines from Focal Point operator and repair guru John Van Stelten.

The corners are left out because they would be partially blocked anyway by the frame-changing mechanism - the "spokes" as he put it, that the moving masks moves on.

RE materials. The 6 framelines themselves are an acetate - most likely photographic - image sandwiched between glass plates. The moving mask that covers or reveals the frames as you change lenses is a perforated metal sheet - in M6s it is laser-cut - in earlier Ms it was punched out mechanically.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 04, 2001.