Two Dead M9s

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... None of my repairs have taken over a week with overnight shipping both ways....

Dammit, Manley!

 

It's people like you who need the camera who make us ne'er-do-wells wait and populate the forum with our service complaints!

 

Well, anyway, thanks for 'fessin' up, ding-nab it.

[wlaidlaw]

Things are looking up at service in Germany. My M9 has come back from Solms in half the time estimated by Leica UK, although admittedly I arranged for it to go direct and not via dealer and/or Milton Keynes (thank you Gabriele!) The rangefinder vertical alignment is now spot on and the infinity also. it still has a fraction more front focus at near distances than would be absolutely ideal but so small, that I would suspect that any fiddling could end up with back focus, which I would definitely not want. I did not in any case ask them to adjust this. A touch of front focus sits quite nicely with one of my most used lenses anyway a version 1 35mm ASPH Lux, so that by f4, the modest amount of aperture shift that my 35 Lux has, brings the focus fields to just over half in front of focus point and just under half behind - perfect. Solms have also cleaned the sensor, which makes a difference from when my M8 went for the upgrade, when it came back looking as if someone had been trying to do some gardening on the sensor. That is the one and only time I went and had it cleaned professionally, by someone who had a instrument vacuum cleaner to get out what looked like metal filings sitting on the sensor.

 

Wilson

[marknorton]

Leica's forte is in lens production and there, their QC is of a high order. How often do we we hear of a lens needing to go back because of bad grinding, centering or coating of lens elements? Rarely.

 

The great majority of QC problems stem from the design of the rangefinder and the need for both camera and lens to each be perfectly aligned to independent standards to allow lens interchangeability and proper operation. This is made all the more complex by the possibility (tendency?) for these critical adjustments to go out over time and with use.

 

It's a simple truth that even if Nikon and Canon IQ are not up to the highest Leica standards, their cameras simply do not demand this level of fettling; living with a Nikon D3/D3s/D3x is so much easier than a Leica M9 and the much sought after IQ of an M9 is only available if it is perfectly aligned together with all the lenses you might want to put on it.

 

That's why I'd like to see a new platform for M lenses, to harnass the superb optical performance we pay so dearly for without this constant worry - and actual experience - that the camera or lenses, most probably both, are off.

 

I'd even go as far as saying that the Leica shouldn't necessarily stay in camera production.

[AlanG]

 

That's why I'd like to see a new platform for M lenses, to harnass the superb optical performance we pay so dearly for without this constant worry - and actual experience - that the camera or lenses, most probably both, are off.

 

 

Leica has had 55+ years to improve the rangefinder and linkage mechanism but prefers to introduce limited edition models instead. Since the camera now has an LCD and a computer inside, I don't see why the rangefinder cannot have a simple electro-mechanical trim control that can be fine tuned by the user with values stored for each lens. Maybe the six bit coding is adequate for this. Perhaps the lenses will also require a simple RFID for identification or even another more sophisticated chipped method to communicate with the body. Add easy user adjust-ability over the vertical rangefinder alignment and the system would require fewer trips to a repair shop and be more accurate.

[wlaidlaw]

Alan and Mark,

 

Prepare for incoming fire from the traditionalists. From my POV an electronic confirmation of focus would be great, especially for low light use with fast lenses. If it were trimmable and lens specific, so much the better but I don't see that happening in the next 10 years I am afraid.

 

Wilson

[AlanG]

Alan and Mark,

 

Prepare for incoming fire from the traditionalists. From my POV an electronic confirmation of focus would be great, especially for low light use with fast lenses. If it were trimmable and lens specific, so much the better but I don't see that happening in the next 10 years I am afraid.

 

Wilson

 

 

With my suggestion, the rangefinder and lenses could be basically the same. There would just be an internal mechanism that could fine tune the rangefinder to each lens. It could recognize the lens via the 6 bit coding and if the lens is not coded, via a menu selection. (Assuming you won't use two versions of the same lens.) The firmware would have to support a way for the user to fine tune the lenses and store the data.

 

A more sophisticated system would require electronic camera/lens linkage so that aperture info could also be sent to be used with the focus info (from the rangefinder) to determine focus shift when stopping down. Of course this would require a major modification to the lenses and cameras.

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alan--

How big is an RFID chip?

[AlanG]

Alan--

How big is an RFID chip?

 

They can be small, very flat, and inexpensive... like a stick on label. They are embedded in all kinds of things today in order to send out a signal when charged via a reader. They are used a lot in retailing.

 

I am not suggesting that this is the only way to I.D. a lens but it would be a simple one to retrofit existing lenses if they want to go beyond the 6 bit coding in order to identify a specific lens. I think it could work, but it is not 2 way or nearly as sophisticated as the current communication between chipped lenses and cameras. (Which I think Leica missed the boat on by going with the optical 6 bit system.)

 

Separately, I don't see why adjusting the rangefinder alignment should be any more complicated to make user accessible than the diopter correction on many simple cameras.

 

Radio-frequency identification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

You'll love this:

 

"In 2004 Conrad Chase offered implanted chips in his night clubs in Barcelona[61] and Rotterdam to identify their VIP customers, who in turn use it to pay for drinks."

[giordano]

How big? I tried shining a bright light through several cards that use short-range RFID technology. In the only one translucent enough to give a clear view (a Westin hotel key card I forgot to return), the chip itself is maybe 4mm square but the antenna is an oval loop not much smaller than the card itself. My local public library switched from bar codes to RFID a few months ago; the RFID labels in the books are again the size of a credit card (though much thinner) and again the chip is tiny but the antenna loop is nearly as big as the label. And most of the visible size of the chip is of course packaging and connections.

 

These antennae have to be quite big because the chip's only source of power - to send the signal carrying whatever data is involved - is the energy the antenna picks up from the card reader's signal. I've no idea how this would be affected by mounting it on a metal lens rather than a plastic card.

[giordano]

From my POV an electronic confirmation of focus would be great, especially for low light use with fast lenses. If it were trimmable and lens specific, so much the better but I don't see that happening in the next 10 years I am afraid.

 

On the basis of the thinking done in a couple of recent threads I reckon that making the M rangefinder trimmable and lens specific would be a lot easier than giving it a focus confirmation signal.

 

The former just involves replacing the mechanical linkage between the current cam follower and the swinging lens in the rangefinder with a digital position sensor attached to the cam follower and a stepper motor (or a voice coil plus position sensor) to drive the swinging lens - and of course some electronics and firmware to link the two and feed in the corrections.

 

OTOH the only place in the current M range/viewfinder where there's a real image that a focus sensor could use is on the user's retina, and with or without RFID we're some way off being able put a chip there. So electronic confirmation of the rangefinder focus point means a total redesign and almost certainly more bulk and a dimmer viewfinder.

 

Putting a separate focus sensor behind the lens turned out to be a serious challenge if one wants to retain the M form factor or lens mount, and using a live view sensor would sacrifice the snappy focusing we all love. Indicating in the optical viewfinder the exact spot covered by a behind-the-lens focus sensor at all focusing distances is also, I think, an underrated problem (people say that the Contax G series didn't have a solution for the related problem).

 

In short: if we want to use a rangefinder camera I think we're stuck with the rangefinder.

[sidmuer]

Hi Roger, can you please explain what the sensor line problem is?

 

And yes, I fully agree, that it seems a new out of the box m9 does need calibration and a full day of good testing.

I do not agree that it should be this way. But it is.

It almost turned me off Leica.

I know of people that were turned off Leica because of it.

 

 

Jeff

 

I have had and used 8 different Leica digital M bodies since the M8 was introduced. All but one required service and a few bodies more than once. They have had a backlog and been "overwhelmed " since the initial M8 with few exceptions. They don t recognize that service delays,long turn around , non existent communications and shoddy quality contol at the source .

 

The first lesson learned was check you body the day you get it with a reference lens you know is perfect, Return any defective body the day you get to whom ever you bought from. DAG is a great source for lens and body calibration . If you can buy a M9 and a 28 summicron you can afford to spend another $2-300 to get it right. This is particularly important if the lens is not new. This doesn t void you warranty although you can t expect Leica to adjust the RF for free if someone messes with it. If I would have done this from the beginning I could have saved 70-80% of my issues with service.

 

The second lesson is the digital M s are in no way reliable (others experience may differ ..in which case they don t know much about service). I have had two misaligned sensors ,the coffee stain LCD ,a broken sensor and the sensor line problem in 8 bodies . These are things that only Leica can fix and are quality control issues either with leica or their suppliers.

 

I have been lucky in that I haven t shot myself in the foot by dropping my equipment or damaging it . I ve been lucky . But if I break it I expect Leica to fix it in a less than 3 months.

 

Since I shoot with two bodies and would prefer not to spend days waiting for Leica to respond ....I always have a 3rd body . Wasteful... depends on how important it is to have 2 working bodies and not suffer with calibration issues .

 

Now add to this that when I sold my 2 M8.2 and my M8U that had been recently upgraded . Two were found to have defects . The coffee stain and the sensor line . These are bodies that had less than 5000 actuations but enough that I should have found them . So blown sales ,delays of weeks and relistings at lower prices for problems that are acknowledged component failures.

 

Two of the 3 M9 required calibration against lenses that had just been calibrated for the M8.2 s .

 

Leica has no intention of changing or addressing any of these issues . To expect otherwise isn t realistic. The M9 is the perfect camera for most of my shooting and its worth it to me to maintain a fully operation kit . Your experience or needs maybe different but this is a pretty decent amount of history .

[AlanG]

How big? I tried shining a bright light through several cards that use short-range RFID technology. In the only one translucent enough to give a clear view (a Westin hotel key card I forgot to return), the chip itself is maybe 4mm square but the antenna is an oval loop not much smaller than the card itself. My local public library switched from bar codes to RFID a few months ago; the RFID labels in the books are again the size of a credit card (though much thinner) and again the chip is tiny but the antenna loop is nearly as big as the label. And most of the visible size of the chip is of course packaging and connections.

 

These antennae have to be quite big because the chip's only source of power - to send the signal carrying whatever data is involved - is the energy the antenna picks up from the card reader's signal. I've no idea how this would be affected by mounting it on a metal lens rather than a plastic card.

 

I am not expert in RFID and I don't even think it is necessary to make a Leica M rangefinder that can be fine tuned for each lens. But there seems to be plenty of room around the lens mount or body covering for a reader and the RFID chips can be very tiny. (Do you think they are implanting credit card card size chips in people and pets?) The system only has to activate as a lens is inserted into the camera mount and the lens position (and therefore the RFID position) can be very precise and close to the reader... thus not requiring much power.

 

If everyone is happy with things as they are, then no more development is necessary. But I think some see that this mechanical interface has reached passed its tolerance limits for the precision that some are expecting from a high resolution system that uses very fast lenses.

 

In any case, I think the RFID method would be a half-assed way to go. The only reason to do it would be to make it easy to retrofit old lenses. I think at some point Leica will have to find a way to fully link the lenses electronically with the bodies despite the costs and hassles to legacy gear. That is the only way the rangefinder will know what lens is being used at a given distance and f stop. And as Sony has shown with the A55 camera that uses a semi-silvered mirror for the AF, there are also creative solutions out there for focus confirmation and AF.

[wlaidlaw]

John,

 

The RFID's that we use to chip our dogs are tiny. Including the very impermeable membrane, the most recent one was about 1.5mm in diameter and 3mm long. The latest one gives a temperature reading and blood oxygen levels. My car insurance company is apparently going to send me at the next renewal, a pack of 5 tiny 5mm square RFID's to distribute about my car as a theft recovery/stolen car ID device. All UK ports will have a detector for these.

 

I think focus detection might have to be built into a new series of otherwise M compatible lenses. I have tried to think of various ways it could be incorporated into the body (not the RF, as it is lens focus you want to detect to eliminate RF errors) but there is no way you can have a focused/nonfocused image with a focal plane shutter, as the focus plane lies behind it and is therefore concealed. The alternative is to do away with the shutter as the timing device and use a CMOS sensor. The shutter opens when you part press the release and the focus is detected on the sensor. The exposure is controlled like a shutterless P&S currently is.

 

Wilson

[AlanG]

John,

 

I have tried to think of various ways it could be incorporated into the body (not the RF, as it is lens focus you want to detect to eliminate RF errors) but there is no way you can have a focused/nonfocused image with a focal plane shutter, as the focus plane lies behind it and is therefore concealed.

 

Sony is using a semi silvered mirror to do precisely this.

 

Sony SLT-A55 Review: 2. What's new: Digital Photography Review

[wlaidlaw]

Sony is using a semi silvered mirror to do precisely this.

 

Sony SLT-A55 Review: 2. What's new: Digital Photography Review

 

Alan,

 

Would not that mean you would have to go to retro-focus lenses and therefore lose M lens compatibility. If you think how far some of the wide angles protrude into the body, I am not sure there is room for a semi-silvered mirror. It would certainly stop the arguments about whether you can safely collapse a 50 Elmar. I suppose it could be on a flip down arm like the photo-cell on an M5.

 

Wilson

[ho_co]

... I don't see why adjusting the rangefinder alignment should be any more complicated to make user accessible than the diopter correction on many simple cameras....

 

Alan--it already is. How many hundreds of posts on adjusting the rangefinder have appeared here?

 

 

As for an electronic mechanism to intercept the mechanical one: Where? How?

 

Don't just say "it would be nice if...," but diagram it and see where it would go and show us. When I try to think it through, I can't come up with a way to adjust the finderframes for parallax without installing a motor or at least a second cam roller; and you know what difficulty sloped-cam lenses have already caused for some of us old-fashioned M users, with only a single cam-tracker.

 

Erwin Puts, Wilson, John and Mark have variously made the point, I think, that a new body is needed, that will neither look nor feel like an M, if we're going to move forward much beyond where we are.

[AlanG]

Alan,

 

Would not that mean you would have to go to retro-focus lenses and therefore lose M lens compatibility. If you think how far some of the wide angles protrude into the body, I am not sure there is room for a semi-silvered mirror. It would certainly stop the arguments about whether you can safely collapse a 50 Elmar. I suppose it could be on a flip down arm like the photo-cell on an M5.

 

Wilson

 

Yes, some lenses would work on the system and some wouldn't. I guess the mirror could be locked out of the way for lenses that protrude and you wouldn't have the electronic focus confirmation on them, just the rangefinder.

[AlanG]

Alan--it already is. How many hundreds of posts on adjusting the rangefinder have appeared here?

 

 

A lot of people seem to be sending their bodies and lenses in for adjustment. And how does the current system allow users to adjust each lens? A clickstop dial around the red dot that could be turned to align the rangefinder is one simple way to do that.

 

I think trial and error with a hex wrench is a pretty crude "solution" for a precision adjustment on a new $7000 body in this day and age. If you bought a new car and had to break out some tools and learn to adjust the steering, would you find that acceptable? "Here's your new Leica, sir. The focus might be a little off so I suggest you get a small hex wrench and go to the Leica forum to learn how to adjust this. If that doesn't do it we'll be happy to send the camera and all your lenses in for adjustment."

 

Here is where an electronically adjusted trimmer would solve several problems at once and you could still have a mechanical rangefinder linkage. Or maybe, as someone else proposed, replace the mechanics with an electronically controlled method of moving the rangefinder. Something like the mechanical reader arm in a harddrive seems like it would do the trick.

 

Anyway, I don't have all the answers. For all I know, Leica feels the current system is perfectly fine and has no plans to look into changing it. But surely good engineers can come up with numerous "improvements" if that is their goal and they have the resources to spend on it.

[giordano]

I suppose it could be on a flip down arm like the photo-cell on an M5

 

I spent a bit of time trying to diagram this and simply couldn't make it work. As I see it (1) the mirror has to be big enough to capture a decent part of the "cone" defined by the exit pupil of the lens and the point on the image plane where focus is to be measured, and it has to be at 45 degrees or thereabouts to the lens axis so it can reflect the light to the actual focus sensor. And (2) the distance from the centre of the mirror to the focus sensor has to exactly equal the distance from the centre of the mirror to the main sensor. (3) During the exposure not only the mirror but the focus sensor itself must be outside the light path from the outer edge of a wide-open Noctilux exit pupil to any part of the main sensor.

 

Getting all those conditions to hold behind the M mount seems to require not just a retracting mirror but also a retracting focus sensor, and there just isn't the space to accomplish that inside the M form factor.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

I spent a bit of time trying to diagram this and simply couldn't make it work. As I see it (1) the mirror has to be big enough to capture a decent part of the "cone" defined by the exit pupil of the lens and the point on the image plane where focus is to be measured, and it has to be at 45 degrees or thereabouts to the lens axis so it can reflect the light to the actual focus sensor. And (2) the distance from the centre of the mirror to the focus sensor has to exactly equal the distance from the centre of the mirror to the main sensor. (3) During the exposure not only the mirror but the focus sensor itself must be outside the light path from the outer edge of a wide-open Noctilux exit pupil to any part of the main sensor.

 

Getting all those conditions to hold behind the M mount seems to require not just a retracting mirror but also a retracting focus sensor, and there just isn't the space to accomplish that inside the M form factor.

 

Considering how small the Sony Nex camera is, I wonder if the M form factor is meaningful anymore. Maybe a lot of the stuff inside the camera body now can be made somewhat smaller.

 

A swinging mirror may not be a sensible approach considering there is no mirror box as in an SLR. (e.g. there is not enough room.) A fixed semi-silvered mirror would be the solution as in the case of the Sony A55 if there is enough room. And the mirror could slide sideways into a slit if necessary for access to clean the sensor. Or access the sensor from the back.

 

I don't know which lenses would work with this and which wouldn't. And I don't know if this is doable nor am I proposing it. But Sony and others have sure shown that creative minds can come up with unique solutions.