Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] reply to John.. Parallex..reply...LONG....
From: John Straus <Mail@SlideOne.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:36:48 -0600

Thanks Walt and to the other who answered,

The total frame was one thought I had but more importantly is the viewfinder
lens offset. But as you all say, shoot and see, and I agree. But I like to
hear from other experiences and 'mistakes' before I go make my own, which I
will :)
- -- 
John 
Chicago, IL 
http://SlideOne.com
====================


on 12/20/01 8:19 AM, Walter S Delesandri at walt@jove.acs.unt.edu wrote:

> Is there a
>> basic distance when I should start to think about the effect it will have on
>> my framing or is it really dependant on the lens I'm using? I am used to
>> croping things tight in the frame on an SLR and want to know if I need to
>> shoot a little more "forgiving" with the RF...
>> 
>> Thanks
>> -- 
>> John 
> There are two effects of "parallax".....one is the obvious--VF "sees"
> different 
> area than lens...cut off heads are an EXTREME example.
> The other is more subtle....the "viewpoint" of the finder and lens are
> different.
> This causes the relationship between near and far objects to be slightly
> different.
> If these juxtapositions are important to your composition, then it MAY be
> noticeable.
> \
> Having said all this, I've used Leicas (IIIf thru M6, nearly all) which had
> varying 
> amounts of "parallax" correction, and NEVER noticed it....maybe I'm just not
> one 
> who "composes" very thoughtfully, tho I doubt it...:)
> 
> I will say, that I've read and verified, however, that the M- finder frame set
> shows a little less than your film will...giving you more "error" room, unless
> you try to carefully compose the very edges of the frame.  Most all slrs do
> this 
> too, showing only about 90-95% of the actual film areas.
> 
> The M camera strives to show the field of view of the lens at it's closest
> focusing 
> distance (usually .7-1M)...the effective focal length is a little "longer"
> there, 
> and the lens will show "more" of the field at infinity.
> 
> As one poster replied, tho, I can't say that I EVER worried about it, and I've
> NEVER been disappointed in my results from a Leica.  I use the old Nikon F
> (virtually 
> 100% finder accuracy) for macro, copy, and long tele (rare) work...this is
> usually 
> only "work" related...ALL my personal photography has been done with Leicas
> for 
> 23 years.
> 
> An interesting sidebar:   I work in a department of "fine art"....never will
> you 
> find folks so committed to "full frame" printing...some kind of "religeon" to
> some of them!!-----being predominately non-technical
> folks, however, they have NO clue that their prints are showing CONSIDERABLY
> more 
> than their finder did!!!
> 
> Welcome to Leica M and enjoy your camera...if you need to do critical close-up
> work, buy either a Leica SLR (!!!) and macro, or another good brand...keep the
> M for everything else...I often hear of the "M" camera being a "specialized"
> tool, 
> and accessory to one's SLR system, perhaps....I totally disagree...unless your
> daily 
> photographys is outside the scope of the M (macro/long lens), then the M
> >>IS<< the 
> best camera...SUPPLEMENTED with an SLR!!!...parallax be damned..:) :)
> 
> Walt
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> 

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html