Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/10/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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. Gene feli <feli2@earthlink.net> Sent by: lug-bounces+grduprey=rockwellcollins.com@leica-users.org 10/25/2004 02:46 PM Please respond to Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> To Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> cc Subject 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. ;-) Feli _______________________________________________________ feli2@earthlink.net www.elanphotos.com _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information