Leica M6 viewfinder on infinity (with 50mm lens)

[ooze]

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.

[tj01]

I shall try it with the M2 and M6 side by side and check how far off.

[thomasw_]

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).

[erikg]

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.

[Vilk]

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...

[Ronald Moravec]

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.

[ic-racer]

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 )

[darkosaric]

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)

[OddE]

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.)