Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'calibration'.
Found 12 results
calibration of rangefinder fokos hfook
pierrres56 posted a topic in Leica Collectors & Historicahello, I got a rangfinder fokos hfook that need a calibration. That means: if I look for a house in a distance of about 1km the weel shows 1,5mm above the line of infinity. If I look something in a distance of 75cm also the weel is 1,5-2mm above the line of 75cm. Is there anybody who knows how to calibrate this rangefinder ? I think I only need to adjust the weel but the screw in the middle doesn't turn... Who can help me ? please...
m9 sensor misalignment
regular posted a topic in Leica M9 / M-EHello all, I have recently bought a Noctilux ASPH (under warranty), and decided to have it perfectly calibrated and matched with my M9 (out of warranty). So both were sent to Leica Solms. Now Leica's representative tells me that the M9's CCD sensor is misaligned and some repair should be charged. When I ask this person if the misalignment is due to some incorrect tolerance during the M9 assembly, he answers that it is most certainly due to some chock or bad usage like "skiing with the camera" (!). Have you met some similar issues if "sensor misalignment" before ? Was it due to unsifficient tolerance during assembly, bad QC, or some chock (how bad) ? Do you know if a sensor can really move that easily ? The only case I have found was due to bad QC checking : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/260171-some-thoughts-leica-quality-leica-nj.html Thanks & regards, David
regular posted a topic in Leica M9 / M-EHello all, I have sent my M9 (out of warranty) and my new Noctilux Asph (under warranty) to Leica Solms in order to have them both calibrated. Now Leica tells me that there is a CCD sensor misalignment, and some repair services have to be charged. When I ask if the misalignement is because of a tolerance issue during the body assembly, Leica representative answers it must be because of a bad usage and a chock, for example "skiing with the camera" (!). Have you heard of sensor alignment issues with the Leica M9 before, and do you think the M9 is so fragile that the sensor can shift ? Or is it a case of bad QC? My black-paint M9 does not have any sign of chock. The only similar case I have found is here, and it seems to be a tolerance/QC issue : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/260171-some-thoughts-leica-quality-leica-nj.html Thanks and Regards
Infinity focusing on fast M lenses
Elsu posted a topic in Leica M LensesI have been troubled by my 35cron ASPH and Monochrom. I have discussed about the issue in another thread, but here is a related question I wonder about. Even with very fast lenses, if you - push the focus ring to the very end and focus at infinity - the subject is very far away, eg 1 km shouldn't the subject be at least reasonably focused and sharp, even though the aperture used is f2 or even f0.95, and it is the maximum aperture? Attached is a comparison, 1:1 crop, left is f2 and right is f4. Those structures are at least 1 km away. Note that (mentioned in another thread) in close focusing tests I found this 35cron frontfocuses at least by 1.5cm. I have tried to look for some answer around, reading about hyperfocal distance, infinity, and used some depth of field calculator. From one calculator, with 35mm at f2 and subject distance 1km, DoP near limit should be 20m, far limit infinity, total infinite, hyperfocal distance 20.5m, circle of confusion 0.03mm. I have yet to try to focus my N095 at infinity at f0.95. But based on all the information I have read, I would think this 35cron of mine still has issue, and infinity should really be infinity, which does not need smaller aperture to pull out more focus/sharpness. Or then can a mis-alignment with the rangefinder body affect the inifnity focusing and sharpness in this case? Or can overexposure also affect the result anyhow?
50mm summilux focus help
skinner posted a topic in Leica M9 / M-EHi, Im a real beginner in the world of rangefinders and Leica but I'm lucky enough to now own a M9 with a 35mm f2 asph and a 50mm f1.4 asph. I'm loving it but I think I have a problem with the 50mm, it is new but after reading some reviews and this forum I think I have a calibration issue? Am I doing anything wrong or does it look like I have to send it off for fixing? The snaps on this quick site show some results first with the 35mm which seem ok with my limited manual focusing experience but then using the same technique the 50mm is way off? Lens detection is set to auto. The glasses in these test pics are about 0.5m apart. http://web.me.com/skinner73 Any advice is appreciated if i'm doing something wrong or even just confirmation that it needs to go to the Leica doctor! Just can't believe kit that costs this much might have to be sent back? Still loving everything about it though, don't worry! Thanks Steve
Custom Printer/Paper ICC Profiles
malcolm posted a topic in Digital Post Processing ForumI'm using a recently purchased ColorMunkiPhoto to create custom printer (Epson R2400) and paper profiles. Unfortunately, I don't know how to access/display the Printer Dialog Box (to turn off printer color management, adjust resolution and paper types, etc.) before printing and scanning the Test Charts. So far, neither Epson nor X-rite technical support have been able to provide useful guidance. Can anyone help? Thanks.
Noctilux 0.95 issue: focus calibration/rendering/shaking hand?
Elsu posted a topic in Leica M9 / M-EHi there, I have been working on a batch of photos I took in Paris some time ago with M9+Noctilux 0.95. That was the only lens I took along with me, so when it felt necessary, I also used other apertures other than just 0.95. There are photos that really make me wonder. I simply cannot tell whether they are just normal from the lens (concerning the details rendering), or I should send the lens to be readjusted with the M9, or were my hands actually shaking ... Here are two samples, both cropped from 1:1, without any post-processing. They were both taken from the top level of the Eiffel Tower after 19:00 in the evening. The top image was shot at 1/350s and the lower one 1/125s. In both photos I scale-focused, simply moved the infinity mark to the aperture f4. With that I would expect the image should be focused all through. So, this is as sharp/focused as I can to get in this enlargement from Noctilux in that shooting condition?
Leica M9 Rangefinder Alignment - Finnicky?
AGeoJO posted a topic in Leica M9 / M-EI received my M9 about a year ago. Right away I noticed that all my lenses that worked perfectly on the M8 were backfocusing. So, off it went to Jersey right away and when I got it back, it was all good and I was really happy. My M system has not been extensively, I would say about 3,000 shots in a year. Recently, I noticed that I started getting the same issue, albeit not as severe as before but definitely noticeable. Although I focus carefully the focus plane seems to fall behind the target slightly I didn't drop the camera, although I didn't really baby it but I never abused it; actually I handle it with sufficient care. When not in use, I store it in a protective bag. I couldn't think of anything that would have caused that to my camera. Has it happened to any of you and what can cause the RF go out of alignment actually? I am contemplating of shipping it back to Jersey but I would like to hear what others have experienced. Thank you, Joshua
strangeboy posted a topic in Leica M LensesHello. Looking for recommendations for lens calibration. DAG is only accepting Leica branded items at the moment because they're currently swamped. Thanx!
Forum images upload 'dark' despite local calibration.
piran posted a topic in Leica Q / Leica Q2Is there a profile/icc or something to which I can calibrate? It all goes pear-shaped after running the forum's image upload procedure - appears darkly dim. Have to lighten extensively just to apparently get something reasonable - in gamma terms. Keeping a spare set of edits hacked 'way light' - just for the Leica forum - seems an unduly crass process to have to adopt. My EIZO is self-calibrating. I REALLY don't have it over-bright (120 cd/m2) ...more the opposite. I find modern flat panels achingly bright. Tend to use 16bit AdobeRGB system-wide and downshift to 8bit sRGB for the WWW. W10PRO browser is Chrome (or Vivaldi - a Chrome fork). Edge (itself a virtual Chrome fork) is currently even more of a PITA after the latest updates [sic]. MS HQ hasn't twigged that (some) cookies are not being saved so everything from the wheel upwards has to be re-invented each access. While using C1 (Capture One 20 PRO) have tried outputting (Process Recipe in Phaseone-speak) using ICC profiles sRGB IEC61966-2.1 and Adobe RGB 1988 without satisfaction. 'Best' one so far has been Phase One Grey G2.2 but think I may need '2.4' or '2.5' to get anywhere near the forum's sweet spot - as it were. Any idea if these are available anywhere? Scratching head:-/
Calibrating a 7artisans lens for a Leica M10 using a visoflex 020Does anyone have experience using a visoflex 020 to calibrate a 50mm f1.1 7Artisans lens for the Leica M10 RF? Using the supplied focussing chart from 7Artisans as recommended seems more involved. Currently, I can see a discrepancy between the focussing using the RF compared to the visoflex 020 - no calibration has been undertaken to-date. Appreciate any advice or experiences e.g. do you recommend using the 7artisans chart as the method of choice ?
Why Leica? Why, Leica?
helged posted a topic in Leica M MonochromAmong the many possible answers to the first question – Why Leica? – my preference to the M-system has been the relatively small size and low weight of the bodies and the majority of lenses, the overall superb optical quality ranging from ultra wide-angle to medium telephoto, including a unique set of fast lenses, the brilliant optical viewfinder (when properly calibrated) and, with the digital Ms, mostly fine-quality, full-format sensors. Overall, the system has the feeling of being an instrument, not some plastic-stuff put together in millions of copies. The price of the instrument package is high. But instruments made in the western world are seldom cheap, so perhaps the price is what one could expect. And the majority of lenses last (almost) forever. When bodies and lenses work as they are supposed to, it’s a real joy to use the M-system. Now and then lenses and/or bodies need calibration or other adjustments or fixes or even being rebuilt. That’s all fine, like for most instruments. Within reasonable limits, that is. This leads to the second question: Why, Leica? First a backdrop: I have owned the last four incarnations of the digital M: M9, MM, M240 and M246. All of these, except the MM, were purchased new. The experiences with the new purchases are as follows: The rangefinder of the M9 was slightly off out of the box. I could live with this for some time, but I got eventually the rangefinder adjusted by Kamera-Service/van Manen during a visit to the Netherlands (handed in one afternoon, picked-up the following day). After that, the body worked as it should; with the feeling of having an instrument in my hands. Great! I sold the body when I bought the M240. The rangefinder of the M240 was also slightly off out of the box. In addition, the red digital numbers in the viewfinder didn’t work properly; typically only parts of the information were shown. The latter was not a big deal, but I wanted to get this error fixed. So I sent the M240 to Leica for adjustment and repair via the Norwegian Leica dealer. The battery charger was also sent to Leica; this did not charge properly, likely because of poor contact between the charger and the power cable. An early incarnation of 50APO was also returned to Leica in this batch – for a check and a possible rebuild linked to numerously reported problems with early units of this (otherwise) brilliant lens. The above package was shipped in mid April. A few weeks ago I picked up a brand new M246 in a local store. The rangefinder was way off, actually so off that it was next to hopeless to use the rangefinder at large apertures. Again, off to Leica for adjustment via the Norwegian dealer. In summary, both M240 and M246 are for the time being at Leica for adjustment/repair due to failure(s) out of the box. The adjustment/repair of the M240 (+50APO) will likely take 3 months. If I am lucky, I might get the M240 and/or the 50APO before I head for this year’s summer vacation. I have no idea when I can expect to get the M246 back from Leica. Therefore my question: Why, Leica? Why don’t you do a proper check of the bodies leaving the factory? Shouldn’t the rangefinder be as easily checked and rechecked on your side as by users (like me) on the purchasing side? Particularly now with focus peaking on the digital M? I would guess that the cost of adjustment/repairs during warranty must be non-trivial. Not to mention the frustration on the consumer's side. I simply don’t get it. Given the premium price – wouldn’t it be reasonable that bodies that are off out of the box get a priority that reduces the repair waiting time on your side? Alternatively, what with an option to offer a body for rent (possibly with a deposit or for a modest cost) during the repair time when the bodies are off out of the box? Or a replacement? From a user’s side, the absolutely most useless and expensive bodies/lenses are those that are being off for a repair for an extended period of time because of sloppy quality check on the factory side. It’s also frustrating to spend time on contacting dealers and service agencies with typically vague and non-definite responses. Leica – as any brand – exists because of the customers, not vice versa. I apologise for taking your time, but this is a bit more frustrating than I am comfortable with. Postscript: The Norwegian dealer states that they will likely be able to provide a body when I head for vacation. This is fine (given that the body is properly working, including a calibrated rangefinder). But the question - Why, Leica? - remains valid. And in the mean time, no body/bodies to use. Grrr... PS2: The attached images illustrate the position of the focus based in the rangefinder (assisted with a viewfinder loupe) and the digital focus peaking with 10x magnification. The focus should be on the last "I" in "MODIGLIANI", and the photo with the digital focus is spot on. Additional tests have been done with other lenses with similar result; the rangefinder is way off and rather useless for accurate focusing. (M246, 90 Summicron, f2, on tripod, no post-processing except reduced image size).