The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica M9-P Viewfinder framing lines

Brian S

New member
There are many types of cameras. No camera does everything perfectly. For architectural shots, I used a Nikon F2Sb with E-Screen and 35/2.8 PC-Nikkor. If I wanted to concentrate on that type of photography again, I'd will go for a full-frame Nikon, E-Screen (gridlines), and Perspective Control lens.

For the type of photography that I enjoy most, Rangefinder Cameras have suited me for over 40 years. But they are not the only cameras that I use. Select the tool that is best for the job.
 

Gary Clennan

New member
Thanks, but I'm not into 'point shoot and fix it later'.

That is pretty funny. It must be sooo much work for you to do a little croppimg! As mentioned, you would have been on a tripod anyway and would only need one or two extra shots to compose critically. In a fast food type of society people have a problem these days if anything takes a bit of effort...
 

jlm

Workshop Member
I happen to like using the edges of the frame as a compositional element while previewing, if i can, and while shooting. An old tradition stated more prominently by those who left the film frame margins on their prints. not everyone's cup of tea, of course
 

wattsy

Active member
Having said that I am hoping that the M10 will have the means to check for critical framing and focusing pre-capture.

Believe me, I'm not alone.
I sincerely hope they don't mess with the optical-mechanical rangefinder - it is the very essence of the system. The great lenses come as a bonus.

There are plenty of other systems out there if you need 100% precise framing.
 

250swb

Member
Sixty years of inaccurate framing is a positive?
Sixty years of common sense is a positive though. Visualise the scene you want to record and compose with regards to any crop needed later. Seeing in your minds eye the photograph you want to create was common practice when you could only imagine what your exposure and development would produce from the negative. It was only a simple step to do the same with composition. Perhaps it is a skill that is dying out with the insistence on immediate results? And I'm not saying an architectural shot shouldn't be accurately framed/cropped, but for the rest of life's work with a rangefinder I like the happy accidents that can happen at the edge of a busy frame, they can keep things fresh and dynamic rather than rigidly formal.

Steve
 

KeithL

Well-known member
I sincerely hope they don't mess with the optical-mechanical rangefinder - it is the very essence of the system. The great lenses come as a bonus.
I don't believe they will. The means to determine critical framing and focus pre-capture is more likely to be additional to the rangefinder.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Seeing in your minds eye the photograph you want to create was common practice when you could only imagine what your exposure and development would produce from the negative. It was only a simple step to do the same with composition. Perhaps it is a skill that is dying out with the insistence on immediate results?
Exactly what I've been doing for the last forty plus years as a painter and photographer.

Try shooting and supplying transparencies to clients without pre-visualisation skills, believe me you won't get very far.

Strike "immediacy" and replace with insight and accuracy.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... when I shot with M4's and M5's years ago, I am fairly certain the viewfinder frame lines were much closer to the lens coverage than this new M9P camera.
I've compared the frameline coverage with 35, 50, 90 and 135 mm lenses between my M9 and M4-2. The M9 framelines are ever so slightly tighter compared to the M4-2 ... You'd never notice it unless you were looking for it.

Really, I think you're reacting having come from using an SLR for a long time. SLRs (particularly those with 100% coverage viewfinders) and electronic TTL cameras have much more accurate framing indication than any Leica M has always had. That's part of the charm of the M, as well as part of its disadvantage to an SLR. With an M, you have to know what a lens is seeing and consider the framelines as merely a guide. With an SLR or electronic TTL, you see what the lens is seeing.

As others have said, use whichever tool is appropriate to your purposes. I have SLR, electronic TTL and rangefinder cameras for this reason. No one camera is perfect for everything.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
As others have said, use whichever tool is appropriate to your purposes. I have SLR, electronic TTL and rangefinder cameras for this reason. No one camera is perfect for everything.
Why the restriction, the M10 could be so much more than merely a rangefinder camera. The addition of an EVF or high res screen and Liveview would open up so many more possibilities.

But hey, I'll admit that this is perhaps a step too far for the purists here.
 

250swb

Member
'Point, shoot, fix later' extends pretty well everywhere, so unless you do away entirely with post processing (colour adjustment, saturation, dodging, burning, etc) of any sort its not an avenue that will reap rewards as a podium to stand on.

Steve
 

Brian S

New member
I've used a Nikon F2 series camera since about 1978, still my preferred film SLR. The Nikon F series provides 100% coverage of the negative. When I printed the image, I noticed my framing was off on the print. I checked the negative- framed perfectly. Seems the negative carrier had a built-in Crop Factor. Slides- same story, the projected image was cropped.

So I filed down the negative carrier and on my favorite slides: modified the carrier in a glass mount.

I hate LOSING part of the image that I was expecting. Having margin in the image- usually a good thing.

Digital images. Found out my original Kodak DCS200 was throwing away a 12pixel border on the sensor. They were used for color interpolation, I had a Monochrome camera. So I wrote my own RAW processor to keep the extra pixels.

You could always make a custom frame mask for the camera. It's just a little piece of metal with holes in it. Optimize the frames for distance shots. Or use a lens with a focal length that exactly matches the framelines. Like a Nikkor 85 (75 frame) and 105 (90 frame). Worked out for me, I use the Nikkors on the M9.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Why the restriction, the M10 could be so much more than merely a rangefinder camera. The addition of an EVF or high res screen and Liveview would open up so many more possibilities.
What restriction are you referring to?

And "merely a rangefinder camera" doesn't compute. It's a type of camera. There are many types of cameras, many with far more features and capabilities.

If you want something like that, with different capabilities, buy that. No one is saying that you must buy or even want a Leica M.

I hope the M10 is still a Leica M, as defined by what a Leica M has always been.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
No one is saying that you must buy or even want a Leica M.
?

I didn't think for a moment think they were.

You might not like it but the M10 could well be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century with a CMOS sensor, Liveview and high res screen. If it has those capabilities I may well buy.
 

Gary Clennan

New member
Why wait for the M10 when you could buy one of many other manufacturers right now who already have all those features? You also won't have to be bothered with inaccurate framelines either....
 

Brian S

New member
All you need to do is file down the framelines. Use the outer border of the framelines for distance shots, inner border for close-ups.

Does make me wonder why Leica did not use variable framelines as did the Konica S2 and Zeiss Ikon finder on the high-end Polaroids, my Model 180 being one of them. The framelines change size as you focus to compensate for both parallax and changing field of view. The mechanism is fairly simple. We're talking 1960s solution that does not draw battery power. A simple mechanical solution exists.
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
?

I didn't think for a moment think they were.

You might not like it but the M10 could well be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century with a CMOS sensor, Liveview and high res screen. If it has those capabilities I may well buy.
I have Live View on the GXR. Works great.
I almost never look at the display on the M.
Different cameras. I Use them differently.
Why is this such an issue?
 

jlm

Workshop Member
Brian:

egad! i have one of those polaroid 180's I'll have to check out the rangefinder framelines...and i used to file down my enlarger negative carriers to get full frame + a bit of border for all my formats
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Interesting thread!

Rarely do I find my subjects precisely matching a 36 mm by 24 mm frame. I almost always crop my shots to suit the subject and the composition. Why work within the restriction of the camera's proportions?

Once you start thinking outside the conventional size, cropping becomes a way of life and exact framing irrelevant. Personally I'm glad that the M9 gives me a bit more to play with than the framelines show. (Of course, for precise architectural or copy work you do need precision - but then a Leica wouldn't be my first choice as a tool.)

Just my 0.02C.

Bill
 
Top