Jump to content

Rangefinders More Delicate Than SLR's - Please Clarify


S.Rolf

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was reading an article by Ken Rockwell on Rangefinders vs SLR's and was surprised and a bit perplexed at this statement with no clarification.  Can someone please elaborate?

 

 

"Rangefinders need constant service

The rangefinder mechanism is a delicate mechanical instrument. 

Even with the LEICA, it will need to be adjusted for optimum results every so often."

 
 
EDIT:  Mods - Please move to MP and film section.  I incorrectly posted this one.
Edited by S.Rolf
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some things to be considered.

 

With a rangefinder you are indirectly coupling the viewfinder and the rangefinder to the lens. It is manufactured with very high precision and is required to stay accurate for proper operation. This is different than a SLR or any kind of through the lens camera where you or the camera's electronics directly focus the lens.

 

History has shown several things:

1) SLRs have mirror problems from time to time. Mirrorless cameras and rangefinders don't have mirrors and so they are immune to these kinds of problems.

2) DSLRs with autofocus have occasional problems with their focusing mechanisms requiring adjustment. I haven't had a DSLR and so I'm less familiar with the nature of these but I believe that it has to do with the phase detect AF systems vs. contrast detect AF systems

3) Mirrorless cameras are slightly more prone to sensor dust because the sensor is more frequently exposed.

4) Rangefinders occasionally get knocked or in some other way require adjustment. There is a screw behind the red dot logo that does something for the RF adjustment.

 

The point is cameras are all high precision machines which require high degrees of accuracy. Each kind of camera is subject to different mechanical problems.

Another thing that history has shown is that Leica cameras seem to be valuable enough and repairable enough that it isn't terribly uncommon to find 50 year old cameras continuing to operate. However, it is uncommon to see a 10year old DSLR still in operable condition. I think that says something about the mechanical robustness of Leica cameras.

 

I do not personally have enough experience to say which one is more prone to problems. I can say that cheap mirrorless really doesn't last long for me and so build quality and repairability are two of the things that I respect about Leica.

 

I personally have not had to have any adjustments done to either of my M cameras and I'm not gentle with them. I regularly toss it in a backpack and go running to a location. Or run with it in my hand. The only problem I have had was the lens selection mechanism on my original M240 started sticking. Instead of waiting for it to be repaired, I traded it in at the Leica Store and got a M-P.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Only KR's rangefinders need constant attention - or maybe it is KR himself that needs it to feed his family ;). For nearly all us mere mortals they just do the job. There are far more decades-old rangefinders in use than there are SLRs.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about perspective. Rangefinder cameras are used in all the worlds conflict situations and always have been. They've served alongside Nikon F's (the benchmark of camera durability) through many wars, and this would be impossible if they constantly needed servicing, a photojournalist wouldn't risk all by having an unreliable camera. And you can see photographs of them around the necks of photographers banging together with Nikon's without taking damage and surviving the run's for cover. But if a rangefinder camera took a hard knock it may or may not cause the focusing mechanism to become inaccurate. If a Nikon took a hard knock it may or may not smash the prism, but you just throw that bit away and get a new one. The rangefinder camera on the other hand needed to be sent back for a service.

 

In situations like this the myth of unreliability was born, the perspective has been skewed for a long time, the subtext though is that while one photographer says his Leica is being serviced the other photographer says 'look at my new Nikon'.

 

 

Steve

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a manual-focus SLR, there is only ONE critical alignment issue. The moving mirror has to always return to the exact same place for focusing. The ground glass viewscreen positioning is critical, but since it doesn't move in normal operation, it can be more or less welded in place. The lenses need no critical adjustment, since you just turn them until the image is sharp (many SLR lenses focus "beyond infinity" to allow for heat expansion, but so long as the mirror is aligned - if you see it sharp, you will get a sharp picture).

 

AF SLRs are not much different - the mirror has to be correctly adjusted, and the non-moving AF sensor has to be "welded in place." Once you get into focus tracking, though, then the lens starts to need some calibration to track correctly. But that is a fairly recent feature.

 

Rangefinders (the actual mechanism in the camera, not the class of camera) have multiple moving parts that have to stay calibrated even while moving all the time - which is much trickier than calibrating a "fixed," unmoving part. There is the cam that touches the lens internally and transmits that motion to the camera. There is the prism or mirror that swings to move the rangefinder image, and there are several other moving levers and shafts that connect those two. All of which have to move freely, without getting even .001 mm out of calibration or position.

 

Here's an inside view of the Leica RF mechanism showing all the fiddly little bits that have to stay aligned: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QomDizboK-A/TNlQKxQqnwI/AAAAAAAAE0o/O7VNeWE_F_Y/s1600/LEICA%2BM9%2B0.68x%2BVIEWFINDER%2BCOUPLED%2BTO%2BCOINCIDENCE%2BRANGEFINDER.jpg

 

Anyway - because the RF parts have to be free to move to do their job, they are more likely to drift out of alignment over time than the hard-mounted parts of an SLR. But "over time" on average means a decade or so between clean-and-checks - unless you are really treating them roughly.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the last 35+years of SLR/dSLR/RF (25+ years of professional) use I haven't needed to have any of them adjusted for focus problems. In general most equipment is reliable enough, if treated acceptably, although occasional problems do crop up as with any complex gear. Sorry, but RF unreliability is simply another internet myth. Frustrating if you are someone who has had a problem in spite of looking after equipment, but in general most camera gear is pretty reliable. Treat equipment badly though, and it will require constant servicing, and as it gets older of course it wears. I had 2 x Nikon F4s which I traded for F5s with a pro dealership which offered fixed trade in values - mine were both well worn but still functioning as well as ever. I still can't figure which of us got the better deal, but it wouldn't surprise me if the F4s still work today despite heavy use. KR needs to treat his equipment better IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway - because the RF parts have to be free to move to do their job, they are more likely to drift out of alignment over time than the hard-mounted parts of an SLR. But "over time" on average means a decade or so between clean-and-checks - unless you are really treating them roughly.

 

In your "treating them roughly" category how does my running with one in my backpack sound?  It's a bunch of jiggle but not any hard blows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you bang a Leica M the rangefinder will possibly go out of alignment.

My M3 is nearly 50 years old and its happened once when it was nearly new (horizontal, and I fixed it myself as I was in the middle of a long trip) and again when it had a thorough clean and overhaul 20 years ago.

My M6 has been knocked twice in 12 years, once I fixed it myself and once it had a complete check over by Malcolm Taylor.

So its not really a constant and frequent problem, although in all that time I have never had an slr go out of register (One was out when I bought it, pooor qc I think!)

 

Gerry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Backpack jiggle - unlikely. Unless something is already "loose."

 

I jumped off the top of a van with my M8, stumbled slightly and the camera on its strap swung and clipped the asphalt. Put a dent in it, but didn't affect the RF. Had an M4-2 slide off my shoulder onto cement (3-foot free-fall) and that definitely whacked the RF alignment, as well as scattering shards of aging vulcanite/"leatherette" over a 10-foot circle. Multiple drops over the years from a car seat onto rubber/carpet floor mats (~12-15 inches) with no problems (so far!).

 

The geometry of the shock probably makes a difference: A fall flat onto the baseplate will likely throw out the vertical alignment, but less so the actual accuracy. A fall onto the end or corner (my M4-2) is likely to mess up everything. A fall onto the flat back may not affect the RF, but a fall onto the front, in addition to lens damage, may transmit a shock directly onto the RF roller/cam that the lens touches, and mess up its positioning.

 

My M4-2 accident was so severe that the (local, third-party) tech said he was just barely able to realign it - he was right at the limits of what could be "adjusted" with the adjustment set-screws, as opposed to needing a complete factory rebuild, or a new RF altogether.

Edited by adan
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used M cameras for 50 years, and never had an RF need adjusting, except when a technician messed it up during a CLA.

I've bought a couple lenses that were off, but once corrected they have been fine.

I have had focus issues with a couple of SLRs, where the "down-rest" mirror stop became inconsistent, giving the wrong mirror angle so focus would be off by quite a margin. Rare though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always surprised when I read of this "I never need RF adjustement", my M7 when used need it to be adjusted at least once a year! Of course if I let it rest on a shelf for a long time  and only use it twice a year this is not necessary.

m

Many years ago before the digital age I met in a workshop a famous NatGeo photographer, not sure if he was using M6 or M7 but I remember I was surprised when he said he had 6 of them because using in an exetensive way after each journ

 

ey at least a couple of cameras needed to be sent to technical service.

The good thing is that even with a RF out if you use a 35 lens you can easily zone focus. And the camera delivers excellent images :)

By the way in my case the RF was adjusted (free even if warranty was expired) a couple of times by Leica in Solms and I think they know how to do it properly.

My conclusion is that the compexity of the RF mechanism makes it more delicate, this is a price to pay for the joy to use these cameras!

robert

Link to post
Share on other sites

My M2 has been in our family since 1968. The rangefinder has never needed any adjustment.

 

My M240 has been with me for just over two years. The rangefinder has never needed any adjustment.

 

What do you guys do to your cameras? It's a mechanical device controlling optics. In order to go out of adjustment something needs to move it. Things don't move on their own. 

 

I find Ken Rockwell amusing but haven't based a buying decision on any of his utterings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My conclusion is that the compexity of the RF mechanism makes it more delicate, this is a price to pay for the joy to use these cameras!

 

My conclusion is that the photographer you met uses them a LOT more than most people (especially KR) and is/was somewhat heavy handed with them. I've met a few heavy handed photographers in my time - rarer beings these days if, as many now are, they are paying for their own gear and servicing ;) .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we need to differentiate between rangefinders on digital and film M's?  I've never had (or perhaps I should say: "noticed") problems with the latter - but digital is a different beast, where the ability to pixel-peep and to compare against Live View makes more than apparent any deviation from even very tight mechanical tolerances by camera, by lens, or by a combination of both.  My M240 is back in Germany due to the inability of its rangefinder to focus a number of 135mm lenses.  It's its second visit to Wetzlar in as many years, each taking unreasonably long waits, and (in the number of similar cases imagined) doubtless a pain in Leica's own behind - perhaps even prompting them think whether the combination of digital and opto-mechanical focusing in future M digital cameras is desirable or necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My M240 is back in Germany due to the inability of its rangefinder to focus a number of 135mm lenses.

 

I too have had problems with 135mm lenses on digital. I suspect that they are at the limit of what is possible with the existing rangefinder base length on FF dRF, plus 135s may not be as precisely adjusted as they might be, plus their cams may not be as precisely ground as digital requires for the reasons that you state. I don't bother with them as a consequence and personally think that the limit go dRF Leicas is 90mm which I find fine to focus. I don't see this as a failing of Leica dRFs but more as an inevitability as technology changes/progresses. Perhaps Leica should have stuck with their advice on the M8/135mm?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have had problems with 135mm lenses on digital. I suspect that they are at the limit of what is possible with the existing rangefinder base length on FF dRF, plus 135s may not be as precisely adjusted as they might be, plus their cams may not be as precisely ground as digital requires for the reasons that you state. I don't bother with them as a consequence and personally think that the limit go dRF Leicas is 90mm which I find fine to focus. I don't see this as a failing of Leica dRFs but more as an inevitability as technology changes/progresses. Perhaps Leica should have stuck with their advice on the M8/135mm?

 

Indeed, much the same was said by Leica customer service, but I insisted my camera be sent back to Germany.  They warned me that, if my camera's rangefinder were to be re-calibrated to a 'normal' 135mm, it would likely begin to back-focus my 50mm at  f/1.4!  To which I replied by asking (half-jokingly) whether perhaps the best solution might be to buy a second digital M - the one dedicated to the 135, the other to the 50 - turning the M240 a fixed-lens camera in this day and age!  Or perhaps (as per their actual advice) the solution would be to send every one of my 20-plus lenses to Wetzlar to be standardised to my M(240) - a return to the non-standardised Leica I C!  Either possibility makes nonsense of a rangefinder-focusing, interchangeable lens, standardised system camera.  Perhaps Ken Rockwell is putting it mildly when he speaks about 'adjustment' when in fact digital sensors and mechanical rangefinders just don't coexist very well from the very start.

Edited by M9reno
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, the system is supposed to be - and must be - adjusted to the common standard. This was adopted over ninety years ago.

135 mm lenses can be a pain in the proverbial backside, as they are basically outside the comfort zone of a rangefinder system with the parameters Leica has set.

Having said that, I have experimented with focusing 270 mm on the M 240 and have found that it can be done, albeit with difficulty and not quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it not seem to be more rational to standardize the body, then tune the individual lenses?

 

Absolutely!  Rational to the point where the offer to do the opposite can only be understood as a cynical offer to rake in more cash. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...