Hardly scientific...but??

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So you keep saying. It's not only extremely smug and patronising but quite simply wrong. There are countless instances of Solms readjusting the rangefinder and/or lenses to achieve better focus accuracy. I've had bodies (M8 and M9) and a lens (50/F1.4 ASPH) adjusted by Solms with excellent results.

It is wrong in theory, but it is extremely rare in practice. Slips do happen however. I have seen two of them.

 

Before the existence of the Super-Elmar, I bought a Zeiss Distagon 18mm from Leicashop in Vienna. It was very badly out of focus (about one meter at a distance of four). I returned the lens. Leicashop mailed me and told me that they had checked their other lens in store, and it too was faulty! They sent both lenses back to Oberkochen, and a properly focusing lens was promptly returned to me. But this was not Leica. It was not even Carl Zeiss (though they put things right, with some help from Leicashop). It was Cosina.

 

I did recently buy a mint 90mm Elmarit-M at an auction, and found that it misfocused pretty badly with my M8. No need for text charts! Something curious had obviously happened; the lens did not show any sign of having been tampered with. Leica agreed to fix it, but wanted to check my M8 too. They returned both, and the Elmarit focused tack sharp, and the M8 too remained tack sharp. And that Elmarit is tack sharp with my M9 too!

 

My guess is that something like 2/3 of the price we pay for a Leica lens is the price of utter, fanatical manual checking up during assembly. But people are human, and fallible. Remember, however, that when slips do occur, they are usually pretty obvious goofs. At the Cosina level, things are different. QC is one thing they skimp on. This is why most Cosina 'Voigtländer' branded lenses I have tested have been pretty clear cases of decentering -- one of the most difficult things to control.

 

So I go for Leica and Zeiss. Both have reputations to protect, and do so, both before and after the fact.

 

The old man from the Age of Scale Focusing

[SJP]

Anyway I can confirm Jaap's story - everyone was expecting abysmal failure and it turned out to be tack sharp. I have noticed that my focussing accuracy has improved over the past couple of years, but still I have hard time with my 90/2.8 tele-elmarit.

 

two examples here for my M8 & Jaap's 50 lux ASPH:

L1011743 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

L1011745 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[wattsy]

As shipped, everything (including my 35) was front-focusing slightly on the M9, just enough to drive me a little batty near close focus, anyway.

 

My first M9 was similar. It went back to Solms and is now spot-on. I wonder if they are set-up to 'lean' that way by default? (I've yet to read of any problems with backfocus but have read a number of reports of problems with frontfocus.)

[jaapv]

So you keep saying. It's not only extremely smug and patronising but quite simply wrong. There are countless instances of Solms readjusting the rangefinder and/or lenses to achieve better focus accuracy. I've had bodies (M8 and M9) and a lens (50/F1.4 ASPH) adjusted by Solms with excellent results.

That, Ian, is something completely different and not the subject of my post at all. I was responding to Ruben's post that the system is supposed to be outdated. What Ruben is saying is that the design and tolerances of the the mechanism are not up to the current demands. If that were true, Solms would be unable to readjust the system to a higher level. The majority of users have no problems out of the box, certainly, if this forum is any measure, far fewer on the M9 than on the early M8. And even the in front- or backfocussing threads the posters manage to misfocus their system consistently within a few mm, suggesting an accurate mechanism that is out of whack.

Given this, the detractors of the system should found their criticism by indicating what the current tolerances in a properly adjusted system are and what they should be in their view in a new design, allowing for human inaccuracy - that is what my post means.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

focussed on the spoon:

[k-hawinkler]

That, Ian, is something completely different and not the subject of my post at all. I was responding to Ruben's post that the system is supposed to be outdated. What Ruben is saying is that the design and tolerances of the the mechanism are not up to the current demands. If that were true, Solms would be unable to readjust the system to a higher level. The majority of users have no problems out of the box, certainly, if this forum is any measure far fewer on the M9 than on the early M8. And even the in front- or backfocussing threads the posters manage to misfocus their system consistently within a few mm, suggesting an accurate mechanism that is out of whack.

Given this, the detractors of the system should found their criticism by indicating what the current tolerances in a properly adjusted system are and what they should be in their view in a new design, allowing for human inaccuracy - that is what my post means.

 

L1011744 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

focussed on the spoon:

 

Jaap,

 

I don't know, but am very interested what current tolerances are.

Please, also see my thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/121373-factory-m9-lens-rangefinder-focus-tolerances.html

 

Thanks for a reply, K-H.

[wattsy]

That, Ian, is something completely different and not the subject of my post at all. I was responding to Ruben's post

 

I understand now, fair enough. I don't agree with Ruben either. For the type of photography that the M is designed for, the accuracy of the rangefinder is fine (even with fast lenses).

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No problem, Ian. I manage to confuse myself from time to time, let alone others...

[ho_co]

Larry--

I've actually met a person following Mike Johnston's advice. When I was in a camera shop a month or so ago, someone with a film Leica came over to our group and in conversation he explained that he had read the article and was following the suggestion.

 

He's younger than I, and probably younger than you, but I envy him the experience he's about to have.

 

But re-read the article. Mike has already responded to your comments: It's not just about black-and-white vs color. It's about doing away with automation, doing away with built-in metering, learning to see exposure as well as compensation, basically becoming one with the camera. It's about becoming a photographer.

 

Sticking with only b&w is a good start, but it won't take you as far as Mike and Lars and I are talking about.

 

As Mike says, it doesn't have to be a rangefinder, it doesn't have to be manual, it doesn't have to be a Leica, etc, etc, etc--but then you're simply not going to get out of the experience what it can teach.

[diogenis]

Basically I hardly believe Andalous is having ANY kind of problems with his M9.

Andalous is just a new user coming from the dSLR front and it is entirely natural for him to want to to try the waters, as a means of security before he shoots his pics, and to know obviously the limits of his camera. At least that is how I understand his requests.

Don't forget that leaving behind a dSLR for an M9, means that you take charge of a lot of small things you didnt had to.