I was just wondering if there was any rhyme or reason (other than historical convention) to the selected frameline pairs that Leica chose for its viewfinders... It seems to me it would have made more sense if they were paired up in a similar progression such as 28/75, 35/90, 50/135. ???

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 09, 2001

Answers

Well, Jack, here's the deal. First came the M3, with 50, 90, and 135mm framelines. Each frameline was displayed separately, only one at a time. There were three different cam grindings, one for each frame. Then the M2 came along. Since the 135 frame was deleted, and the 35 frame added, it made sense to use the existing 135 cam length to activate the 35 frame, since the 135 frame wasn't needed on the M2.

Still with Me? OK. Now the M4 shows up. The 135 frame they thought they didn't want in the .72 finder of the M2 now got reinstated, but this meant the same cam length had to activate both frames, probably so as not to obsolete a whole bunch of lenses. Besides, it might have been too dicey to design four separately appearing frames anyhow.

Towards the end of the M4 production run, and the beginning of the M6, the 28 and 75 lenses came into being. Apparent, by this time, they were so locked into the three position selector that there was nothing to do but pair these two with the two frames that didn't yet have to share the finder window, namely the 50 and 90. They could have paried the 28 with the 50, and the 75 with the 90. That would have been nice, since everyone says the 75 lines are more representative of the 90mm field at infinity. But they didn't. The 50 & 75 were paired, and the 28 went in the 90 frame. I don't know why.

Best Wishes,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 09, 2001.

If Leica were to start over from scratch I'm sure they would pair them up more sensibly. However, not all 6 lenses came along at the same time, so the corresponding frame lines were added only as the lens requirement came about.

For example, with the M3 only the 50, 90, and 135 lenses were usable with the viewfnder. So only those 3 frames were set up, and only the 50, 90, and 135 lenses were so cammed to bring up the appropriate frame line.

When the M2 came along they had to use the 135 cam on the 35 lens, substituting the 35 frame for the 135 frame, all *without* making the previous 50 & 90 cams obsolete. So now the stage was set. The 35 and 135 lenses had the same cam and brought up the same frame, or "set" of frames. The 2 lenses were forever tied together.

Then came the 75 and 28. Again they had to use existing cams & frames *without* making the previous lens cams obsolete. The 50+75, and 28+90 lens cams and frame lines are all tied to each other now.

So the frame pairings sort of grew as the lenses came along, rather than start out as a grand scheme design. If Leica were now to reinvent all the pairings to make more sense, we'd all have to bring our lenses in for new cams to bring up the right frames.

Such is life.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), April 09, 2001.

Of these pairings, IMHO the 50/75 is the worst. Having just acquired a 75 after a decade of using the 50 Summicron, it is extremely confusing to switch lenses, and one has to make a strong conscious effort to look only at the less prominent 75 frame and ignore the very prominent 50 frame close to it. I'm talking about framing moving subjects... Maybe its just me and I will get used to it, but that 50 frame has imprinted itself in my mind's eye, more or less.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 09, 2001.

DAG blanked off the 50mm lines in my CL leaving the 40 and 90. I presume he could do the same with an M6, although I personally just gave up and use an Imarect, since the built-in lines are so inaccurate anyhow.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), April 09, 2001.

Since I only rarely shoot at close distances I swapped the lensmount on my 90 for a 50, so I could use the 75 framelines. On the occasion I do go into the under 3m range, I just use the preselector lever to switch to the 90 frame. Similarly when I owned a 75 I used the 50 framelines, already present, to frame at normal to long distance and the 75 frames in the close range.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 09, 2001.

Speaking of the selector lever, I wish Leica would modify the future M bodies so that you must manually select the proper frames. I would rather control the process as there are times (like with the 90 lens and 75 frame) that I want to see something different than it's giving me and holding the frame selector lever is a pain.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), April 09, 2001.

I would advocate for a second lever that preselects whether the lens cam tabs will select the 50/90/135 group or the 75/28/35 group at a given preselector position. This would allow displaying only one frame at a time, but without obsoleting any existing lenses or cameras. Of course, it's easier said than done, I'm sure.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 10, 2001.

This thread is taking an interesting turn for me. I am now to understand that the frame lines are just approximate, to the extent that when focused at infinity what is captured on film is larger than the frame lines. In the case of the 90 the 75mm lines are more accurate? And conversely, when close-focusing, the image is smaller to the extent that we should use the 75 lines with the 50? And when the 75 is focused at infinity should we use the 90 lines? Does Leica give any advise on any of this?

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), April 11, 2001.

The accuracy of the Leica M6 frame lines is based on less than 90% coverage when focused at the closest distance. For use at more realistic distances this is even worse than most point-n-shooters. It is a disgrace.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), April 11, 2001.

Jim,

Leica does talk about the disparity in the actual framing versus the projected lines. In many books they have detailed diagrams to show how to compute the differential. The basic theory is that the frame lines are showing the field of view for the lens when set to the closest range... and lenses increase in focal length when focused close due to the extension. At infinity, according to Leica, the actual framing would be 3 frame line widths on the outside of the existing frame line. Just try doing this in a hurry.

If you slowly move the frame preview lever from the 28/90 to the 50/75 position, and remember to factor about three frame line widths around the 90mm frame, you can see that the 75mm frame is almost perfect for the 90mm lens focused at infinity. My personal use for the 90mm lens is usually portraits in the 6 to 8 foot range, so this is not that big of an issue to me. When I shoot at infinity with my 35 and 50 Summicrons, I just realize that there will be some additional area covered, and try not to compose to the edge when trying to exclude something.

This might sound like a major flaw, but most people using the current crop of semi or non pro SLRs are working with viewfinders of about 93%... not seeing 7% or the actual area covered. With the final result being in a slide mount or slightly cropped during printing, this is not something that is going to ruin a lot of your shots. If I want extremely accurate framing, I'll use a Nikon F series camera with 100% viewfinder. For dynamic real world shooting, the Leica M is fine.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 11, 2001.

My interest in the frameline accuracy question stems from my interest in buying a 75. I see people suggesting that a .85 is desirable so this would mean getting a .85 TTL (expensive and I don't need the TTL), .85 Classic (harder to find, still expensive), or going with the M3 (no 75 lines, hence the concern). Bessa T has not escaped my notice but I'm not sure how I feel about the focus+viewfinder set up. People also seem to think the Noctilux needs .85 too. Opinions?

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), April 12, 2001.

I've never used a Noctilux, but I have no problems using my 75 on a .72 body. According to Erwin Puts there shouldn't be a focussing problem with this combination. I do prefer the .85 body with the 90 and 135, because the contents of the image is a bit easier to see.

Check out http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/rfaccuracy.html

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), April 12, 2001.

I use a .72 body with both my Noctilux and 90 f2 APO, and have no problems with either combo, even wide open.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 12, 2001.

"Since I only rarely shoot at close distances I swapped the lensmount on my 90 for a 50, so I could use the 75 framelines."

Jay, could you go into a little more detail on what you did? Did you modify the existing lens mount to activate the 50/75 pair? Or do you mean you exchanged the focusing mount of the Elmarit for something else? If it's the former, I might like to do this.

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

For what it's worth - while doing the lens comparisons that persuaded me to switch from G2 to Leica M, I noticed that the 90mm framing of both an M4-2 and a G2 exactly duplicated the view through a 105 Nikkor on a 100% Nikon F viewfinder. (Quasi-infinity focus: a storefront about 100 feet away across a city street)

In other words, both RFs show you the field of view of a 105 with their 90s. This corresponds exactly with everyone's estimates that the viewfinders show about 85% of actual image area (on average).

(I do sometime pine for the life-size view through a G2 with a 90 - both eyes open and stereo vision, with just a frame floating in space. Dare I dream of an M6 1.00x with 50, 75, 90, and 135 frames? Or how about an M7 1.00x with the shutter/wind of a Hexar and a nice, big Leica-made Leica-quality rangefinder!!)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 03, 2001.

How about a 1.00x high eyepoint viewfinder (at 35 and 50mm) that can be set to zoom, if necessary, and retains space around the frame, unlike the Contax G?

We can but dream on...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 06, 2001.