Having fun with 3D-printer

[mmx_2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe slightly OT, but I bought a 3D-printer about a year and a half ago and I'm slowly learning how to master it. So what has this to do with Leica M lenses, well, I decided to try a little "reserve engineering" of the Leica M-rear cover (yes you can buy cheap copies for next to nothing, but still) and this is how it turned out:

 

 

And in the printer program:

 

 

And the finished one :

 

 

 

Next project is to make one in "glow-in-the-dark-plastic" so we can always find our lenses when shooting in poor lighting .

[FM2N]

 

 

Next project is to make one in "glow-in-the-dark-plastic" so we can always find our lenses when shooting in poor lighting .

 

Great idea! If you start mass production I definitely would buy one... :-)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rpavich]

Nice job!

[DTM]

How much did it end up costing?

[Schrödinger's cat]

Couple of questions:

 

Is the material used in the printer sufficiently durable to withstand the repeated attachment/removal process without undue wear?

 

Could you produce one double sided to allow simultaneous attachment of two lenses?

[mmx_2]

Time will tell regarding the mechanical wear, but it's a quite sturdy material. I use a plastic called PLA but, with some modifications, it's also possible to use ABS which is the same material used "original". Not sure if there is any significant difference in durability though.

 

I have already drawn up a double version:), that will be the "next update".

[mmx_2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have three on "field test" now:)

[EoinC]

Nice work, mmx_2. It must be a great feeling when you produce something that functions.

[Schrödinger's cat]

Time will tell regarding the mechanical wear, but it's a quite sturdy material. I use a plastic called PLA but, with some modifications, it's also possible to use ABS which is the same material used "original". Not sure if there is any significant difference in durability though.

 

I have already drawn up a double version:), that will be the "next update".

The only versions I have seen commercially either had no center divider or were MUCH larger in diameter than the original.

I like to carry the camera with one lens mounted and a second in my pocket.  Find this greatly facilitates lens changing for me.

My current solution is two standard caps stuck back to back, but should it be convent for you to sell these things I would likely want to purchase a couple.

[mmx_2]

The only versions I have seen commercially either had no center divider or were MUCH larger in diameter than the original.

I like to carry the camera with one lens mounted and a second in my pocket.  Find this greatly facilitates lens changing for me.

My current solution is two standard caps stuck back to back, but should it be convent for you to sell these things I would likely want to purchase a couple.

My first draft is this:

 

 

Diameter is the same as original, but I did not add a center divider. You would prefer to have a center divider? It would make it more difficult to print (need to add some support in the middle that must be cut away afterwards).

[mmx_2]

How much did it end up costing?

The printing time is roughly 70min and the lid contains about 20g of PLA. 1kg of PLA is about 20$ (plus freight) so the material cost is only about 40cent/lid (but of course for a full cost one should count in the cost of the printer).

[mmx_2]

Nice work, mmx_2. It must be a great feeling when you produce something that functions.

Yes, it's a great feeling actually .

[EoinC]

My first draft is this:

 

 

Diameter is the same as original, but I did not add a center divider. You would prefer to have a center divider? It would make it more difficult to print (need to add some support in the middle that must be cut away afterwards).

That looks very interesting, mmx_2, but I would think it needs the centre divider, as the purpose is to be a lens cap.

[Schrödinger's cat]

My first draft is this:

 

 

Diameter is the same as original, but I did not add a center divider. You would prefer to have a center divider? It would make it more difficult to print (need to add some support in the middle that must be cut away afterwards).

The issue is that I would be carrying it in my pocket with only one lens attached.  I need the divider so as to keep pocket lint out of the lens.  A commercial version already exists with no center divider, and I are not really sure it is deep enough to accommodate lenses with large back focus.

 

[gvaliquette]

The issue is that I would be carrying it in my pocket with only one lens attached.  I need the divider so as to keep pocket lint out of the lens.  A commercial version already exists with no center divider, and I are not really sure it is deep enough to accommodate lenses with large back focus.

I have two copies of the commercial version without the central divider, and there is indeed a problem with lenses with a proeminent rear component.  For example, any two of the Elmar-M 24mm/f3.8, the WATE and the Summilux 35mm/F1.4 cannot be used with it.  I resorted to using two regular back lens caps glued together back-to-back.

 

The "ideal" double-ended rear lens cap should have the depth to accept lenses with a proeminent rear component, like a regular rear lens cap, and only a very thin divider to keep the pocket lint and dust/dirt out (1 mm?).

 

"mmx-2", carry-on and build us the better, if not the best, mousetrap.  After all, that is what the 3-D printer is for!

 

Guy

Edited November 23, 2015 by gvaliquette

[mmx_2]

Yes, I've seen the commercial one and it is very thin, that was why I dicided to do a thicker one (the current draft is 30mm). I will try and add a thin layer inbetwen. The original caps are roughly 14mm deep.

[mmx_2]

I have two copies of the commercial version without the central divider, and there is indeed a problem with lenses with a proeminent rear component.  For example, any two of the Elmar-M 24mm/f3.8, the WATE and the Summilux 35mm/F1.4 cannot be used with it.  I resorted to using two regular back lens caps glued together back-to-back.

 

The "ideal" double-ended rear lens cap should have the depth to accept lenses with a proeminent rear component, like a regular rear lens cap, and only a very thin divider to keep the pocket lint and dust/dirt out (1 mm?).

 

"mmx-2", carry-on and build us the better, if not the best, mousetrap.  After all, that is what the 3-D printer is for!

 

Guy

So you know ho thick it is?

[mmx_2]

So, here is v3 (skiping v2 since it turned out to have some flaws )

 

 

It's 33mm thick in total and each side is 16mm thick. I will see if it's possible to print it, it might be tricky.

[Stealth3kpl]

A deep L39 would be useful to many. They're like hen's teeth.

Pete

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mmx_2]

A deep L39 would be useful to many. They're like hen's teeth.

Pete

The very fine L39 thread would be difficult to print... But let me try . Thanks for the tip! I guess then it should be deep enough to hold a collapsed Elmar or?

Edited November 23, 2015 by mmx_2