Are you generally satisfied with the framing accuracy of your M?

Are the frameline adjustable, and if so is this part of a CLA?

When I shoot architectural details, the results are off center. It's generally less noticable when shooting landscape, but when going portrait - right hand down - I get more right-side in the print. This happened when I tried to frame an interesting doorway, and arch-framed landscapes. Therefore, would get more top shooting landscape.

I've heard the frame lines are calibrated for 3m. Therefore, they should be adjustable.

Has anyone tested framing at various distances?

BTW, my Hassy SWC's viewfinder seems perfect; shot the interior of the capital dome pointing upwards.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 11, 2002

Answers

I have found the M3 viewfinder to be extremely accurate, at least with the 50mm lens.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), March 11, 2002.

I crop liberally and absolute framing accuracy to me means not cutting off heads, hands and feet. The framelines are projected into the viewfinder via the second window and I don't think that is adjustable. I wouldn't use a Leica for anything that requires a tripod like architectural and landscape. If I am going to carry a tripod I want a bigger negative to go with it. Unless you can calibrate the framelines so they end up physically through the lens there will be some error. I don't like the 903SWC finder at all due to the pronounced distortion and the frameline isn't too helpful for the foreground.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), March 11, 2002.

Yes the frameline position is adjustable. It would need to go to a VERY GOOD Leica tech who has all the test jigs. Leica USA, Kindermann Canada, etc.

The inside of the M6 50mm framelines show what is on 93% of the negative (23mm x 35mm) at closest focus. The outside of the M6 50mm framelines show the same negative area when the lens is focused at 2 metres. When the lens is focused at infinity, the same negative area is covered by imagining three extra frameline thicknesses around the M6 50mm framelines. With wider lenses the differences between infinity and closest focus is minimal but with longer lenses it is even more pronounced. Some people use the 75mm framelines as a guide for a 90mm lens focused at infinity.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), March 11, 2002.

Framing of the current Leicas really sucks. You get, maybe, 80% accuracy at real-world distances. For those who compose on the entire negative it is totally unsatisfactory. The M-2,3,4,&5 were better but still not good, while the Barnack cameras were designed for 100% accuracy at 3 meters (except for the 3G). For near 100% accuracy use an Imarect or Universal finder (like HC-B), or any of several brands of SLR. Several models of rangefinder cameras, such as the konica S2, have had framelines which automatically compensated for distance, so it can't be too technically difficult. Apparently Leica just doesn't care.

-- Bill (bmitch@comcast.net), March 11, 2002.

I take protraits with a 90 mm lens and do architectural subjects with wide angles. I have always found the framelines on my M4-P to be very accurate. Though you need to read a reference like Gunter Osterloh's excellent book on Leica M photography (or follow John Collier's advice given above) on how use the framelines are calibrated when the lens is focussed to different distances.

You should be aware that the Leica M framelines are parallax corrected, so they move with close focussing to correct for the difference in position between the VF and the lens. However, they are NOT corrected for the change in focal length, which is increased slightly when the lens is close-focussed.

The framelines should not be off in the right-left dimension, so if you are consistently not getting what you remember seeing in the VF, you should have the camera looked at by a professional. The frameline position most certainly is adjustable if it is off, which can happen if the camera is bunged. Finally, even SLR framing is not perfect. Most SLRs, except for a few high end models are not designed to show 100 % of the on-film image in the VF, and actually show significantly less.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 11, 2002.

When I first got my M, I put it on a tripod and framed it to my garage door. Then I took a series of exposures at different focus distances (I used DoF to keep images sharp). I printed the negs full frame, looked at them for a few minutes and now I have no problem producing tightly framed shots. No big deal, just another quirky aspect of the "Leica Craft".

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 11, 2002.

I have found all my rangefinders (M4, CL and IIIg) to be very adequate for what they are best at - fast, indiscrete shooting. When I want very accurate framing I pull out the R - seems simple enough.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

About frames, er, it depends on how the lab prints are.

if the size is 10cm by 15cm, this is related to 24mm x 36mm

However, with 13xm x 18cm, that's less obvious. Not by far.

When you use slides, the mount eats out a little of the frame.

Satisfied? Yes I try to compose with my subject in the center of the image.

Cheers.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

I got back a set of prints last Saturday that were most disappointing. They were very tightly framed portraits taken with a 90mm lens and an M6 TTL .72 camera. All the prints were off-centre, the horizontally-composed ones being too low and the vertically- framed ones (camera rotated with the shutter button uppermost) too far to the right. I realized that it was a bit of a gamble to frame the shots so tightly with a rangefinder camera but I couldn't believe that I would have taken a complete roll of 36 as poorly composed as that!

Then I noticed that there was a thin white line at the top of the horizontal shots and to the left of the vertical shots. I loked at the negatives and they seemed reasonably well centred - certainly a lot better than the prints! It seems this was a case where the lab failed to align things optically for the print phase.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.