Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,550   Posts: 1,599,070   Online: 929
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    365
    I agree that this is a major problem with the rangefinder design. It all boils down to experience. By using the M day in day out you learn to compose very tight for distant shots.

    I don't know where, but I read somewhere that for medium distances you should add the thickness of the frameline once, and for distant shots you should add it twice. That should give you a better feel for what'll end up on the negative.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    17
    I shall try it with the M2 and M6 side by side and check how far off.

  3. #13
    thomasw_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Langley, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    41
    The 50mm framelines changed somewhere with the M4-P (probably with the zinc top plates) and continued with the M6-7-P (not with the MP-3) to show less than the earlier M4-M3-M2 50mm framelines. That being said, the words about precise framing and RFs should be borne in mind even when looking at the M3's 50mm framing (and what is caught on the neg).
    "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." W. Durant

    flickr

  4. #14
    erikg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    pawtucket rhode island usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,452
    The phrase right tool for the job comes to mind. RFs are great but they aren't SLRs or view cameras. It's not a fault. It's the frame lines in your head that matter most. A lot of people have done pretty well working the m6, but it's not for everyone.

  5. #15
    Vilk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    413
    Quote Originally Posted by darkosaric View Post
    It is not about rangefinder vs SLR – it is about Leica having bad 50mm lines in viewfinder. [...] it is not acceptable – and it is not about rangefinder vs SLR. It is about M6 – it is unusable with 50mm if you want to print full frame. [...]
    so rangefinder vs. SLR--bad, leica bashing--good?

    darko, all in good faith and with a very obvious wink i simply think you're channelling more energy than it's worth into flogging a dead donkey--an obsolete design that was never meant to do what you want it to do. taking a step back sometimes helps--that was all i meant

    if you really must know what the frames are doing, here's an idea. take a quick snap of some reasonably distant, reasonably flat, reasonably detailed scene--like the attached. mark the spot you were standing on. return with a workable-size full-frame print, put the M6 on a tripod and draw what the finder sees right on the print... is this what you're looking for?





    ps. and while you're at it, have a mulled poltorak for me at pasieka on freta! i may not get there before october...

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,059
    The problem is image size, not "parallax correction" which Leica has.

    A 50 mm lens is 50 at infinity, maybe 55 at near distance. There is no way to make lines that show both fields of view.

  7. #17
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Moravec View Post
    The problem is image size, not "parallax correction" which Leica has.

    A 50 mm lens is 50 at infinity, maybe 55 at near distance. There is no way to make lines that show both fields of view.
    Actually the Zeiss rangefinders on the Polaroids do this. They do three things: Rangefinding, parallex correction and field of view correction.

    (Page 9 http://www.cameramanuals.org/polaroi...laroid_350.pdf )

  8. #18
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,091
    Images
    4
    On the end - I got myself M3 in very good condition. Much, much more precise coverage for 50mm lens.
    So 50mm summicron will be on M3, and on M6 probably some 35mm in the future (color scopar or some older letiz)


  9. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aalesund, Norway
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by darkosaric View Post
    On the end - I got myself M3 in very good condition. Much, much more precise coverage for 50mm lens.
    -That is what I found as well - having an M3 as my first (and, thus far, only!) rangefinder, I was positively surprised at how well the 50mm framelines matched what I got on film in the end.
    My concern (prior to getting the M3 delivered and shooting a few rolls with it) that I would have all sorts of lax compositions with loads of empty space around whatever I intended to shoot was entirely unfounded.

    Result is that the M3 with a 35 or 50 'cron is my daily shooter nowadays - small, quiet and reliable - my F4 only checks one of those.

    (A bit unfair to the F4; if I use the MB20 battery grip and the 50mm f/1.4, it is a very compact and capable little SLR indeed.)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin