Rangefinderproblems on new M9s

[jaapv]

my camera was correct from the factory and went off in six weeks. it may have been vibration, but Will van Manen suggested that it may be due to the drying in of locking compound in the rangefinder. as for the allen wrench method, emergency field treatment only.

[ArtZ]

Originally Posted by rob_w

Still, if the camera is delivered with incorrect adjustment in the first place -- due say to mishandling during transit -- I cannot see that sending it back to Solms and putting it through another transit is very practical.

The underlying question remains: why can't Leica send the camera to you from the factory corrected adjusted in the first place? (And with a clean sensor, for that matter).

Mysterious!

Rob,

Personally, I have always dealed with Leica Customer Service directly. They have always sent to me a transporter (GLS or UPS) to my home, free of charge, to get the defective items and returned them after being repaired in the same way.

But I don't think RF misalignment is do to transport.

I think Leica is victim of their success. After a few years in stand-by, the M8 has been a real success (but with a lot of problems), quite a lot of new lenses have been introduced (WATE, Summarits, new Summiluxes and Noctilux...) so probably QA department (and other departments) are suffering from that.

I imagine these quality problems will be sorted out very soon. In fact, I've seen an important progress since 2007 till nowadays.

Leica has to understand that early adopters (M8 and M9 users) will find more problems and technical issues than M10(?) users. If you may say something, I would suggest Leica to be more helpful with people having problems such as: sensor darn lines and other issues, shutter faults, SD cards... even if the camera is not under guaranty.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by lct

Never heard of so many focusing issues with film Ms in 30+ years use. Never had to calibrate any of my 20+ M lenses with M3, M4, M4-2 or M6 bodies and i don't need lens calibration either with my Epson cameras. QC problems at Leica?

Do you think that everyone set up tests with tripods and test charts to check these things? I certainly didn't, and I certainly do now. Did you do formal focus checking with all these lenses against all your film bodies?

I would have said that Leica's QA over this issue had improved in the face of a horde of pixel peeping focus checkers (myself included).

Certainly - as ArtZ says - my impression is that efficiency, helpfulness and response times have improved immeasurably since the launch of the M8.

[bybrett]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Do you think that everyone set up tests with tripods and test charts to check these things? I certainly didn't, and I certainly do now. Did you do formal focus checking with all these lenses against all your film bodies?

I would have said that Leica's QA over this issue had improved in the face of a horde of pixel peeping focus checkers (myself included).

Certainly - as ArtZ says - my impression is that efficiency, helpfulness and response times have improved immeasurably since the launch of the M8.

In hindsight my Titanium M7 with 50mm Summilux never did focus perfectly.

[lct]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

...I would have said that Leica's QA over this issue had improved....

I envy your faith.

[ArtZ]

Originally Posted by lct

I envy your faith.

Mais quel aplomb et quelle langue fourchue...

(Desolé mais la photo n'est pas terrible)

[lct]

Hard punishment for a tongue in cheek understatement.

[adli]

Originally Posted by ArtZ

Off topic: It's snowing in Paris

Snow in Paris, that probably means you have some photo oportunities that you haven't had in decades?

[Julian Thompson]

Interesting stuff ArtZ - there is clearly something 'going on' that I haven't quite understood yet as to why some people are successful with the cam adjustment and some are not.

I wil try to think about this, and I'll also double check all my lenses at a range of apertures and shooting distances and report back.

[wlaidlaw]

Originally Posted by Julian Thompson

Interesting stuff ArtZ - there is clearly something 'going on' that I haven't quite understood yet as to why some people are successful with the cam adjustment and some are not.

I wil try to think about this, and I'll also double check all my lenses at a range of apertures and shooting distances and report back.

Julian,

I think it depends on what has gone out of adjustment. As you stated in an earlier post, the "allen key" adjustment of the front roller is a global adjustment and although set at infinity, affects far, middle and near focus. I assume the middle distance is a fine adjustment affecting the middle distance only and would be set after the infinity adjustment is correct. I have been looking through various Leica books and although some of them show an RF being adjusted, none of them explain the methodology or sequence of adjustments. Therefore if the middle range to infinity range adjustment relative to each other remains correct, just adjusting the infinity cam will correct all distances but if it is wrong, then obviously the middle distance will need adjusting as well as the infinity. On my M8, before it went back for the upgrade, the adjustment on the front roller was very easily moved and went out of adjustment about every month or so. I used to reset it regularly using my 90 Elmarit and the planet Jupiter as a target image. The middle distances were fine after adjusting the infinity, using my 35 ASPH Summilux as a checking lens. After two visits for the LCD and frames upgrade (it came back miles out of adjustment after the first trip), it now has stayed spot on for over a year. I had asked them to tighten the front roller.

I seem to be one of the lucky ones so far (touch wood), that my M9 was OK from the factory and has stayed OK, although I have not checked it in the last month with a focus target.

Wilson

[Julian Thompson]

OK Wilson thanks that makes a great deal of sense.

So here's the next question. I posted something similar back in May or June of last year:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...-infinity.html

And I don't re-read the thread conclusively - can you help me dissect it?


So, specifically - when we refer to 'infinity focus' do we refer to getting it all to actually take in focus pictures?

Or do we expect the rangefinder patch to allow 2 stars in the sky to totally align with it set to infinity on the lens? (Because my new M9, post adjustment, like my M8's did - does not do this.)

Thanks very much in advance - and kinda sorry to hijack this thread into a bit of a technofest :-)

[lct]

Originally Posted by Julian Thompson

...do we expect the rangefinder patch to allow 2 stars in the sky to totally align with it set to infinity on the lens? (Because my new M9, post adjustment, like my M8's did - does not do this.)...

Yes we do, with normal lenses at least. Some long lenses focus beyond infinity but it is not the case with M lenses AFAIK.

[Julian Thompson]

Hmmn - SJP thought not, last year - I read his post as saying that at infinity the rangefinder 'beam' is parallel and so won't line up:

The rangefinder superimposes two images that are collected from two points on the base of a triangle (the baselength of the triangulation). On the camera these points are the viewfinder itself and the small square opening more to the centre of the camera, these images are superimposed in the "rangefinder patch".

If you focus the rangefinder on a close object the lines emanating from the base of the rangefinder cross each other at the focussing distance so for 1 metre you should imagine an equilateral triangle of 1 m high and 5 cm base as the path of the triangulation rays. Similarly for focus at 10 m, the triangle is 5 cm wide and 10 m high. In that case the angle in the upper corner becomes 0.05/10 = 0.005 radians which is already a very small angle, i.e. the two rays entering the rangefinder are nearly - but not quite - parallel.

As you extend the point of focus further and further away the trangulation rays become increaingly closer to being completely parallel, reaching that point when the focus is at infinity.

In your example if the lens and rangefinder are set to infinite then all the masts should not line up perfectly in the rangefinder, although 500m and infinity should be very barely distiguishable. Something at 1000 m is at infinity within the accuracy of the rangefinder.

[lct]

Cannot say that i shoot stars very often but i've been aligning them for 30+ years with my Ms and i'm still doing it with my modest Epsons.

[wlaidlaw]

Originally Posted by Julian Thompson

OK Wilson thanks that makes a great deal of sense.

So here's the next question. I posted something similar back in May or June of last year:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...-infinity.html

And I don't re-read the thread conclusively - can you help me dissect it?


So, specifically - when we refer to 'infinity focus' do we refer to getting it all to actually take in focus pictures?

Or do we expect the rangefinder patch to allow 2 stars in the sky to totally align with it set to infinity on the lens? (Because my new M9, post adjustment, like my M8's did - does not do this.)

Thanks very much in advance - and kinda sorry to hijack this thread into a bit of a technofest :-)

Julian,

Stars are too difficult. Try a planet. the light rays to the two windows of the RF system are to all intents parallel. Try a variety of lenses. If you have a local friend with a Leica, try his lenses too. If with a longish lens, your RF images coincide on a planet and a photo of a distant object taken on a tripod is pin sharp, you can be confident that can be your reference lens.

Wilson

[SJP]

Originally Posted by Julian Thompson

Hmmn - SJP thought not, last year - I read his post as saying that at infinity the rangefinder 'beam' is parallel and so won't line up:

You called sir???

I think I do not quite understand the question. But I will be happy to shed light in darkness

But just to throw a spanner in the works a lens can be focussed beyong infinity, if the sensor is at the location of the lens focal plane then it is focussing objects at 'infinity' stars, trees at 1 km etc. if the lens is moved slightly closer to the sensor then nothing is in focus anymore except for objects behind you, which unfortunately you will never see as they are virtual.

[Julian Thompson]

lct / Wilson - thanks - I have never looked at a planet (or know how to see one - I always thought you needed a telescope! - I feel ignorant and silly about this..) - but I would like to try.

So at the risk of sounding like a child - how do I find a planet in the sky?

[Julian Thompson]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for coming on board!

What we're looking at here is that I've adjusted my roller cam again (seems like i have to do it on every M camera I have!) and I'm getting great results, but when I look at a star through my old M8 (back last year) and my M9 now I can't get the image and the rangefinder patch to fully conincide. I 'run out' of focus and the rangefinder patch hits the stops just before the 'two' stars become one.

So, when Wilson talked of 'infinity focus' being right I wanted to know, does this mean that my 'two' stars should indeed become one - or just that the image that results from that should be in focus?

[SJP]

planets are usually bright objects, without fluctuating intensity (unlike stars that flicker) and they roughly follow the path of the sun and moon in the sky. Just after sunset (or before sunrise) you might expect to see Venus, which is bright nearly blue in color (forget about seeing Mercury unless you are very lucky & persistent).

Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are also easy to see in principle, Mars slight red in color (very light salmon actually), Saturn is slightly yellowish, Jupiter is quite bright and not very distinctive in color.

If you have google earth you can also view a map of the night sky and figure out their current location (planets move in the sky unlike the stars that are a constant background).

[SJP]

Originally Posted by Julian Thompson

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for coming on board!

What we're looking at here is that I've adjusted my roller cam again (seems like i have to do it on every M camera I have!) and I'm getting great results, but when I look at a star through my old M8 (back last year) and my M9 now I can't get the image and the rangefinder patch to fully conincide. I 'run out' of focus and the rangefinder patch hits the stops just before the 'two' stars become one.

So, when Wilson talked of 'infinity focus' being right I wanted to know, does this mean that my 'two' stars should indeed become one - or just that the image that results from that should be in focus?

Hi I'm back

mmmm, how to make this clear....
twisting the lens barrel moves the lens backward and forwards, as is easily verified, unless the lens is incorrectly adjusted setting it to infinity (usually coinciding with the maximum rotation of the barrel) should cause objects at "infinity" stars, distant trees etc. to be sharply imaged in your pictures and this should be the same for M8 and M9. My impression is that this is the case with your lens(es)?

In this situation the image in the rangefinder should show overlapping stars, distant trees etc. - which is not the case if I understand correctly?