Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/10/24

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

Subject: [Leica] RE: Leica M4-2
From: grduprey at (
Date: Sun Oct 24 08:18:24 2004

I never even think about it.  The frame lines are a reference only, and as 
long as they are not less than what I see in them, then it is not of any 
consequence in my book.  If I want absolute accuracy, then I can always 
dust off my old Nikon F3.


feli <> 
Sent by:
10/25/2004 02:46 PM
Please respond to
Leica Users Group <>

Leica Users Group <>

Re: [Leica] RE: Leica M4-2

On Oct 25, 2004, at 12:14 PM, Henning Wulff wrote:
> I don't think you'll find an error of 20% with a 50. The error at 
> infinity (or at any other distances for the 90 and 135 frames has not 
> changed.

I think you will if you carefully compare a shot framed with a M6 vs a 
M4. You will see a error
close to 20%, or at least 15%. Trust me, I have waisted more time on 
this subject than I care to admit.

> The percentage framing error, as opposed to parallax framing error has 
> been part of all rangefinder cameras except the Koni_Omega. Actually I 
> think there was one other one, but I can't recall right now.

Yes, it is inherent in every rangefinder camera that that only 
compensates for parallax in x and y.

> As far as the framing accuracy of older or newer Leicas, I'll take the 
> newer ones, just as I'm not buying another 50 that doesn't focus down 
> to 0.7m. If I'm interested in true framing accuracy, I'll use a camera 
> with a ground glass, at the least.

If you mostly shoot at distances below 5 meters is not a big issue. For 
others who
don't it can be a royal pain in the arse. ;-)



Leica Users Group.
See for more information

Replies: Reply from tedgrant at (Ted Grant) ([Leica] RE: Leica M4-2)