Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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