I am thinking of adding a m6 to my mix of cameras. I am primarily a slr user with my r6.2 and sl getting most of my work. I also enjoy using my contax IIIa with the zeiss 50mm f1.5. My m6 would replace the IIIa. On my slr's my 90 or is my primary lens. I shoot a lot of people and I enjoy tightly cropped photos and knowing exactly what is and what is not in the photograph. How difficult is this to achieve with an m6 and the 90 given the parallax error of a rangefinder? Would I have to shoot the 90 like I shoot the 50mm on my IIIa which is to leave room around my subject? I am planning on keeping my slr's. I have noted from previous posts that the 90mm is not a commonly used focal length with the m6. I was never sure if it was because it was not an ideal focal length for an m6, or if it was because many of the photographers here just simply do not use it and would not use it even if they were shooting with an slr.

Your experience and feedback are appreciated.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), December 21, 2001

Answers

I use a 90 Summicron on an M3 on a regular basis. The 90 frame is only accurate at minimum focusing distance, and parallax error isn't fully corrected then. With practice, you do get accustomed to the quirks, and it's possible to frame things quite accurately. It will probably take some getting used to, though; it won't be as easy as using the 90 on your SLRs in that respect.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 21, 2001.

Obviously, any M will provide you w/better parallax correction than your IIIa, which has no parallax correction at all. However, as Mike points out, there will still be some differences between what you see & what you get on film--but that's the breaks when you use an RF. As to the relative paucity of folks using the 90mm focal length, I can only speculate that most M6 owners use the 0.72 magnification VF, which is really optimized for 35mm lenses (1 problem w/the M frameline design is that it doesn't change magnification for the various focal lengths, so you have to decide what body will work best w/your favorite lenses). If you're like me & prefer the 50-135mm focal lengths, then an M3 (0.91 magnification) or 0.85 M6 is probably the way to go (or perhaps a Canon P, which has a life-sized 1.0 mag.).

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 21, 2001.

I use the 90 with a .72 M6 and like it. Since I use this combination so much, I am thinking of adding the 1.25x eyepiece for a little better ease in viewing and focusing. I find a 50mm is "ideal" with the .72 M6, but a 90mm is pretty close. I worried about framing accuracy before I got the camera, being used to Nikon SLR. But I don't think I have ever looked at one of my shots and thought parallax error messed it up. I think it is corrected enough that it is not really an issue. In other words, I frame using the framelines and do not "leave room around my subject" or do any other correcting to what I see in the viewfinder. And of course, Thanks again, Mike! 8-)

-- Hil (hegomez@agere.com), December 21, 2001.

Greg:

FYI, here's a previous query that addressed issues similar to yours:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fe tch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007D79

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 21, 2001.

Nice image Mike. Film and developer details?

-- Don M (Maldos@home.com), December 21, 2001.

I use my 90 Elmarit on my M2, M3, and M6(.72 finder) with no complaints at all about framing accuracy. It's easy enough to use on any of these models, but the M3 with its .91 magnification gets special mention because of the larger-appearing frameline with the 90 (and 135). The M6 with 0.85 finder would come pretty close to that, with the advantage of metering.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 21, 2001.

Greg:

I use a 90 a fair amount of the time (actually I have 2 - one fast, one small). I feel no temptation to use an SLR for anything shorter than a 180 - every time I feel that mirror shake I scurry back to the Ms. 8^)

I shot some tabletop studio pictures with an M4-2 and the 90 2.8 (all I had available) at minimum focus and came close to cutting off some edges - the frame actually showed a hair MORE than I got on film. Whereas at 60 feet or so the 90 framelines cover exactly the same subject area as a 105 using the 100% Nikon F finder - or only 85% on what showed up on film.

But even if the framing were perfect at all distances, there is still parallax to consider - especially the relationship of different objects to each other, not just to the frame edge. Through the M viewfinder you may have someone's head perfectly centered in a background doorway (or whatever) but the lens won't see the same thing.

But that's the rangefinder "thing" - they aren't about composition in space - they're about composition in time - getting the precise instant without waiting for apertures and mirrors to do their thing.

There's a reason why Jay Maisel and Art Kane glommed onto SLRs when they appeared on the scene to shoot their graphic images - and a reason why Bresson, Erwitt, Harvey, and a host of others in-between stuck with Leica to take their "decisive moments."

OTOH, wasn't it Bresson who started the black border craze to show that he was printing the whole negative? Obviously he learned how to work with the Leica's approximate framing to get the pictures he wanted.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 21, 2001.

I seem to recall reading that the inside edge of the bright-line frame is for the close focus point, and the outside edge of the frame is closer to what would be included at infinity focus. Is that correct? (I could be dreaming again.)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), December 21, 2001.

Thanks! The film was Ilford Pan F+ (EI 40) developed in Xtol diluted 1:2 and printed on Ilford MG IV.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), December 22, 2001.

To Andy Piper:

Wonderful post. Very informative info on the 90. Your knowledge of Leica lore and technical information, along with an added historical perspective, are impressive. Happy holidays.

Dennis

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), December 22, 2001.