dseelig
David
Hi Bill
I thought at some point the viewfinder on the m6 was changed is this so. After being leica digital only I just got a m6 ttl, I had as many as 3 m6 cameras before the digital revolution, is non ttl is the viewfinder different. Is the ttl better against flare then the non ttl?? thanks David P.S. I missed real black and white photography.
I thought at some point the viewfinder on the m6 was changed is this so. After being leica digital only I just got a m6 ttl, I had as many as 3 m6 cameras before the digital revolution, is non ttl is the viewfinder different. Is the ttl better against flare then the non ttl?? thanks David P.S. I missed real black and white photography.
mr_phillip
Well-known
As far as I know there's no great difference between the standard M6 and M6TTL 0.72 finders. However, the latter had the option of three viewfinder magnifications, of which the larger 0.85 finder has a reputation for flairing more than the 0.72 or 0.58 versions. I've no idea if the rarer 0.85 M6 classic suffered from the same flair issue or not. Either way, Leica will happily upgrade any M6 finder to that of the MP, which lowers flair even more.
dseelig
David
m6 viewfinder
m6 viewfinder
That was my problem with the older m6 72 flare . Just want to know if the ttl haas less falre and how much does leica charge fro the mp viewfinder ugrade thanks David
m6 viewfinder
That was my problem with the older m6 72 flare . Just want to know if the ttl haas less falre and how much does leica charge fro the mp viewfinder ugrade thanks David
Bill Pierce
Well-known
dseelig said:
Yes, there was a problem with flare in certain situations in the first M6 viewfinders. I'm going to be on the road for almost a month and don't have all my M cameras to check out when the problem was lessened, but I believe it was with the TTL. (It may have been a 2 step process, with the TTL being the final improvement.)
lic4
Well-known
I used to own an early version of the non TTL that I upgraded to an MP finder b/c the flare was driving me crazy. I have a TTL now, and although I've encountered the problem, it has been relatively rare. I assume there is an improvement.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
The M rangefinder changed a few times since 1954. These changes fall into three categories. Actual mechanical revisions to the RF unit, changes to the area of coverage that the frame lines indicate, amount of focal lengths shown and magnification.
Revisions to the rangefinder unit:
The M3 has a RF unit that is unique among all M bodies. The alignment of the frameline mask etc is different, making this incarnation very resistant to flare.
Leica made changes with the introduction of the M2 and this unit carried over into the M4/M5. This is a very good design. Very flare proof and very bright framelines. The frameline masks are frosted glass sandwiched between etched sheets of metal. Truly an amazing piece of engineering. Starting with the M4 Leica started to bond the prism blocks with a UV cured glue, instead of Canadian Balsam as they had done in the M3/M2. This is a much stronger construction and will not degrade as severely with age.
Erwin Puts has a good article illustrating the differences here.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/rangefinder_engineering_fro.html
After the M5 meltdown, Leica reverted to the M4-2 and once again the RF unit was modified. A condenser was eliminated, which led to the flare problem that plagued M cameras until the introduction of the M7/MP. Also the frameline mask is all metal.
Starting with the M7/MP Leica redesigned the RF unit once again. The condenser that went missing with the M4-2 was reintroduced and other changes were made. The very earliest M7 bodies do not have the flare fix, but can be upgraded. This may only be the first and second batch. I have one of these cameras and it has been upgraded.
You can have a M6/M6ttl upgraded with the 'flare fix' kit from Leica or a repair shop. I had this done to my M6ttl and oddly enough it now has the brightest RF of all of my bodies.
Overall the M3 is the least prone to flare.
The M2/M4/M5 are very close. I rarely have a problem.
The M6/ttl was a pain in the neck. My .85 flared like crazy, but then again I used to live in the desert. The .58 flares the least and the .72 is somewhere in between. If you center your eye perfectly over the viewfinder the flare goes away.
The M7/MP are actually quite good. I would say on par with the M2/M4/M5 as far as flare resistance goes. Both my M7 and upgraded M6ttl work like a charm.
Revisions to the area of coverage as indicated by the framelines:
All lenses are prone to a change in magnification, as they are focused from their closest focus distance to infinity. In other words the lens will 'zoom' ever so slightly as you change focus.
On an SLR this isn't a problem, because you are looking through the lens and see what is happening, but in the case of the M camera the area of coverage indicated by the framelines remains constant, as you focus from close up to infinity.
Leica decided that the framelines should indicate the minimum area of coverage you will get on your neg, regardless of where you are focused.
That would be the area of coverage at the closest focusing distance.
When you are focused at infinity you will get a little more on your negative than the area of coverage indicated by the framelines, but you are guaranteed to capture what is within the area indicated by the markings.
Leica made this change in coverage to all focal lengths, but it is most noticeable with the 50/75/90/135 markings.
As an example.
The 50mm markings on an M3/M2/M4/M5/M4-2/M4-P indicate what a 50mm lens will capture, when focused as close as 1 meter. During this period most 50mm lenses made by Leica would not focus closer than 1 meter.
Minimum area of coverage: 50mm
-----------------------------------------
M3 - 1 meter
M2 - 1 meter
M4 - 1 meter
M5 - 1 meter
M4-2 - 1meter
M4-P - 1 meter (some M4-P units have a M6 mask, that shows coverage at .7m)
Around this time Leica introduced several 50mm lenses that focused to .7 meters (70cm). In response they also changed the area of coverage that the framelines indicated to .70cm.
Minimum area of coverage: 50mm
-----------------------------------------
M6 - .7 meter
M6ttl - .7 meter
M7 - .7 meter
MP - .7 meter
While this makes perfect sense from an engineering standpoint, it is something of a fiasco in real life.
As mentioned, when you focus a lens from its closest focusing distance to infinity there is a slight change magnification.
Due to this issue, Leica decided that the frame lines should indicate the absolute minimum amount you can expect to get on your negative. This is the area of coverage at the closest focusing distance of the lens.
Take a look at the attached illustration.
Starting with the M6 the 50mm frame-lines indicate the area of coverage when focused at .7 meters (70 cm). This was due to the introduction of many lenses that could focus as close as 70cm, as opposed to 1 meter.
Prior to that, in cameras like the M4, the 50mm lines indicated the area of coverage when focused at 1 meter. With the older lenses 1 meter was the principal close focus distance. The difference (error) between the coverage indicated at 1 meter and 5 meters wasn't that great and in general we didn't notice it. It became somewhat more noticeable at infinity. If you were smart you used the outside edges of the thick framelines for framing at infinity.
Starting with the M6 the difference between the area of coverage indicated at .7 meters and 5 meters is quite a bit larger and very noticeable. The difference is even more apparent between the area of coverage indicated at .7 meters and infinity. It doesn't help that Leica also made the actual framelines thinner. Someone figured out that at working distances (5m - infinity) the M6 framelines indicate the area of coverage of a 60mm lens, instead of a 50.
Unless I absolutely need to use a built in meter, I will not use a 50mm on the newer bodies. The framing error is far too big for my taste. I hope, I pray that some day Leica will offer a 1 meter frameline mask for the M6/ttl/M7/MP. Apparently they did this with the MP3, but of course Leica priced it out of the reach of the vast majority of us (rats!).
Focal Lengths in Viewfinder
M3 - 50/90/135mm
M2 - 35/50/90mm
M4/M5/M4-2 - 35/50/90/135
M4-P/M6/M6ttl/M7/MP - 28/35/50/75/90/135
The ttl/M7/MP also vary depending on magnification
.58 - 28/35/50/75/90
.72 - 28/35/50/90/135
.85 - 35/50/90/135
The 28mm framelines will simply not be visible in the viewfinder at .85 magnification. Some people have trouble even seeing the 35mm on the .85, because they are so close to edge of the frame.
The .58 doesn't support 135mm, because the small magnification does not allow you to accurately focus such a long lens.
By adding the x1.25 magnifier you can change the magnification as follows:
.58 -> .725
.72 -> .90
.85 - 1.0625
Revisions to the rangefinder unit:
The M3 has a RF unit that is unique among all M bodies. The alignment of the frameline mask etc is different, making this incarnation very resistant to flare.
Leica made changes with the introduction of the M2 and this unit carried over into the M4/M5. This is a very good design. Very flare proof and very bright framelines. The frameline masks are frosted glass sandwiched between etched sheets of metal. Truly an amazing piece of engineering. Starting with the M4 Leica started to bond the prism blocks with a UV cured glue, instead of Canadian Balsam as they had done in the M3/M2. This is a much stronger construction and will not degrade as severely with age.
Erwin Puts has a good article illustrating the differences here.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/rangefinder_engineering_fro.html
After the M5 meltdown, Leica reverted to the M4-2 and once again the RF unit was modified. A condenser was eliminated, which led to the flare problem that plagued M cameras until the introduction of the M7/MP. Also the frameline mask is all metal.
Starting with the M7/MP Leica redesigned the RF unit once again. The condenser that went missing with the M4-2 was reintroduced and other changes were made. The very earliest M7 bodies do not have the flare fix, but can be upgraded. This may only be the first and second batch. I have one of these cameras and it has been upgraded.
You can have a M6/M6ttl upgraded with the 'flare fix' kit from Leica or a repair shop. I had this done to my M6ttl and oddly enough it now has the brightest RF of all of my bodies.
Overall the M3 is the least prone to flare.
The M2/M4/M5 are very close. I rarely have a problem.
The M6/ttl was a pain in the neck. My .85 flared like crazy, but then again I used to live in the desert. The .58 flares the least and the .72 is somewhere in between. If you center your eye perfectly over the viewfinder the flare goes away.
The M7/MP are actually quite good. I would say on par with the M2/M4/M5 as far as flare resistance goes. Both my M7 and upgraded M6ttl work like a charm.
Revisions to the area of coverage as indicated by the framelines:
All lenses are prone to a change in magnification, as they are focused from their closest focus distance to infinity. In other words the lens will 'zoom' ever so slightly as you change focus.
On an SLR this isn't a problem, because you are looking through the lens and see what is happening, but in the case of the M camera the area of coverage indicated by the framelines remains constant, as you focus from close up to infinity.
Leica decided that the framelines should indicate the minimum area of coverage you will get on your neg, regardless of where you are focused.
That would be the area of coverage at the closest focusing distance.
When you are focused at infinity you will get a little more on your negative than the area of coverage indicated by the framelines, but you are guaranteed to capture what is within the area indicated by the markings.
Leica made this change in coverage to all focal lengths, but it is most noticeable with the 50/75/90/135 markings.
As an example.
The 50mm markings on an M3/M2/M4/M5/M4-2/M4-P indicate what a 50mm lens will capture, when focused as close as 1 meter. During this period most 50mm lenses made by Leica would not focus closer than 1 meter.
Minimum area of coverage: 50mm
-----------------------------------------
M3 - 1 meter
M2 - 1 meter
M4 - 1 meter
M5 - 1 meter
M4-2 - 1meter
M4-P - 1 meter (some M4-P units have a M6 mask, that shows coverage at .7m)
Around this time Leica introduced several 50mm lenses that focused to .7 meters (70cm). In response they also changed the area of coverage that the framelines indicated to .70cm.
Minimum area of coverage: 50mm
-----------------------------------------
M6 - .7 meter
M6ttl - .7 meter
M7 - .7 meter
MP - .7 meter
While this makes perfect sense from an engineering standpoint, it is something of a fiasco in real life.
As mentioned, when you focus a lens from its closest focusing distance to infinity there is a slight change magnification.
Due to this issue, Leica decided that the frame lines should indicate the absolute minimum amount you can expect to get on your negative. This is the area of coverage at the closest focusing distance of the lens.
Take a look at the attached illustration.
Starting with the M6 the 50mm frame-lines indicate the area of coverage when focused at .7 meters (70 cm). This was due to the introduction of many lenses that could focus as close as 70cm, as opposed to 1 meter.
Prior to that, in cameras like the M4, the 50mm lines indicated the area of coverage when focused at 1 meter. With the older lenses 1 meter was the principal close focus distance. The difference (error) between the coverage indicated at 1 meter and 5 meters wasn't that great and in general we didn't notice it. It became somewhat more noticeable at infinity. If you were smart you used the outside edges of the thick framelines for framing at infinity.
Starting with the M6 the difference between the area of coverage indicated at .7 meters and 5 meters is quite a bit larger and very noticeable. The difference is even more apparent between the area of coverage indicated at .7 meters and infinity. It doesn't help that Leica also made the actual framelines thinner. Someone figured out that at working distances (5m - infinity) the M6 framelines indicate the area of coverage of a 60mm lens, instead of a 50.
Unless I absolutely need to use a built in meter, I will not use a 50mm on the newer bodies. The framing error is far too big for my taste. I hope, I pray that some day Leica will offer a 1 meter frameline mask for the M6/ttl/M7/MP. Apparently they did this with the MP3, but of course Leica priced it out of the reach of the vast majority of us (rats!).
Focal Lengths in Viewfinder
M3 - 50/90/135mm
M2 - 35/50/90mm
M4/M5/M4-2 - 35/50/90/135
M4-P/M6/M6ttl/M7/MP - 28/35/50/75/90/135
The ttl/M7/MP also vary depending on magnification
.58 - 28/35/50/75/90
.72 - 28/35/50/90/135
.85 - 35/50/90/135
The 28mm framelines will simply not be visible in the viewfinder at .85 magnification. Some people have trouble even seeing the 35mm on the .85, because they are so close to edge of the frame.
The .58 doesn't support 135mm, because the small magnification does not allow you to accurately focus such a long lens.
By adding the x1.25 magnifier you can change the magnification as follows:
.58 -> .725
.72 -> .90
.85 - 1.0625
Attachments
Last edited:
ferider
Mentor
Very nice write-up Harry, thank you for that. There is a similar visual difference
for 35mm lines, for similar reasons I guess. Plus 28 was added.
Although, the first 35mm Summarons and Summicrons without eyes had .7m min.
focus. Not sure why.
On the other hand it's easier to use 40mm lenses on M6 and above, because effectively
the 35mm framelines become 40 at 3m and above.
Roland.
for 35mm lines, for similar reasons I guess. Plus 28 was added.
Although, the first 35mm Summarons and Summicrons without eyes had .7m min.
focus. Not sure why.
On the other hand it's easier to use 40mm lenses on M6 and above, because effectively
the 35mm framelines become 40 at 3m and above.
Roland.
normclarke
normclarke
Harry,
I hope you'll bear with me but I have one small point with regard to the use of Canada balsam. My M4 which is one of the early model's is definately Canada balsam, I can see the effect of the gradual deteriation in the adhesive. Congrat's on your very thorough coverage of this often arrising question, I must add that I sold my M6TTL not because of the flare but the inaccurate viewfinder framing.
Cheers,
normclarke.
I hope you'll bear with me but I have one small point with regard to the use of Canada balsam. My M4 which is one of the early model's is definately Canada balsam, I can see the effect of the gradual deteriation in the adhesive. Congrat's on your very thorough coverage of this often arrising question, I must add that I sold my M6TTL not because of the flare but the inaccurate viewfinder framing.
Cheers,
normclarke.
Pablito
coco frío
Thanks for the info. So does the M4-P, which has framelines for 28 to 135 like the M6, have the same problems with framing accuracy as the M6 or are the framelines more accurate as in the earlier M4?
thanks
thanks
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Harry -
Many, many thanks for not only all the useful information, but the fascinating history lesson as well.
Bill
Many, many thanks for not only all the useful information, but the fascinating history lesson as well.
Bill
Harry Lime
Practitioner
normclarke said:
Interesting. Maybe it's an early M4 or has an M2 type RF unit?
cheers,
Harry
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Pablito said:
I've handled two M4-P cameras and although they had the full 28-135mm set of markings, they appeared to show the same, larger coverage as the old markings did in the previous cameras. The actual projected lines were much thinner, but the coverage looked the same.
But I do know that the M4-P underwent some changes and became more M6 like late in production.
The top plate certainly switched from brass to zinc, but I'm not sure about the frameline mask.
If I was going to buy an M4-P I would check it in person, if that is important to you. It's a tempting camera, because of the motor lug, making it the only Leicavit / Rapidwinder* M body, with the larger coverage.
*unless you have a special M2 Rapidwinder or your camera was modified or is a special model.
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Bill Pierce said:
Thanks everyone.
The whole area of coverage issue is my pet peeve with the M bodies, so I did a lot of research on this. I shoot a lot with the 50 and it's a PIA on the newer bodies...
Cheers,
Harry
normclarke
normclarke
Harry,
Thanks for the interest. My M4 is serial 11811*** which makes it 1967 second batch so the possibility that the new adhesive had not been introduced was there. Its definitely not a M2 finder as the 135 frame is present. One thing I could not agree with in Erwin's blog was that the small prism on the frame line mask only applied to the 90mm frame, I do not think this is so.
Cheers,
normclarke.
Thanks for the interest. My M4 is serial 11811*** which makes it 1967 second batch so the possibility that the new adhesive had not been introduced was there. Its definitely not a M2 finder as the 135 frame is present. One thing I could not agree with in Erwin's blog was that the small prism on the frame line mask only applied to the 90mm frame, I do not think this is so.
Cheers,
normclarke.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
normclarke said:
Or it could be the M2 RF with an M4 frameline mask. Leica is notorious (?) for doing this with early batches of new cameras.
In any case it's an interesting camera. Don Goldberg sings high praise about the M2 finder/RF.If I remember correctly the RF that's in my early M7 is actually from the TTL. It certainly is not the MP finder. The windows have the anti-reflection coatings, but the condenser was still missing.
Last edited:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I agree that the 50mm frameline on the M6 (and M7, and MP) seems to be the worst offender as far as accuracy is concerned. I found that at a distance of 16 feet or so, my M6 50mm framelines cover the same area as the 60mm Elmarit gives, on my R5! So the 50mm frame is fully 20% undersized in width and height.
On the flare issue: my pre-TTL M6 flared badly until I sent it to DAG for the MP upgrade. Now, it behaves the same as my MP. Realy, this fix should not be called an "upgrade." It is really an "un-downgrade" or "downgrade reversal!"
On the flare issue: my pre-TTL M6 flared badly until I sent it to DAG for the MP upgrade. Now, it behaves the same as my MP. Realy, this fix should not be called an "upgrade." It is really an "un-downgrade" or "downgrade reversal!"
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
With the caution that you can never say either "never" or "always" with Leica, the frameline mask in most M4-Ps differs from the M6 in at least one respect. The -P showed only the corners of the 75mm frameline. In contrast, the M6 always had additional horizontal lines.
I cannot say whether very late M4-Ps had the M6-type mask (quite possible), nor did I ever compare frameline coverage of the M4-P when I owned them against an M6.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
JNewell said:
You're right. Personally I prefer the corner markings.