John Milich - very disappointed

[robert_parker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes but if was an LTM adapter its working perfectly, you may have needed a CV adapter.

 

A lot of LTM lenses were designed to be offset to the left looking from the rear, so people could read the focus scale if an accessory was mounted in the hotshoe of an LTM body. So if an adapter mounts a lens offset its designed to mount LTM lenses. And the reason you would want the LTM lens to remain offset if you use an adapter is because the focus throw begins and ends in the original position. Mount the lens on an adapter that makes it sit square and your finger ends up blocking the viewfinder window at close distances. Most if not all of the Chinses LTM adapters you are criticising are doing everything right in maintaining that offset. But if you put a CV or other lens on it (for instance) the lens may be offset, so you needed a CV adapter for M39 which may mount it square.

 

So, so many people have a go at the Chinses LTM adapters for this perceived 'fault' it needs clearing up, they are right, you are wrong.

 

 

Steve

 

No, it's 90 degrees out and faulty. They refunded the money .

[stunsworth]

Offset yes, but by 90 degrees? The ones I've seen were more like 30 degrees.

[pico]

So your logic is as follows:

 

I have one Chinese adapter that is faulty. Ergo, all Chinese adapters are faulty.

 

The kind of error is what is striking. It is clear when an adapter mounts the lens 90 degrees off that the copying was not thoroughly considered, the product not tested, but they had the temerity sell it regardless. I hate it when that happens.

[M. Valdemar]

How many dozens of complaints have been posted on this forum about Leica product faults right out of the box?? Lenses misaligned? Cameras not functioning? Lugs falling off!

 

These kinds of errors are striking!! They had the temerity to sell them regardless!! Shocking!!

 

(and these are not $13 but $7000+)

 

 

The kind of error is what is striking. It is clear when an adapter mounts the lens 90 degrees off that the copying was not thoroughly considered, the product not tested, but they had the temerity sell it regardless. I hate it when that happens.

[AGeoJO]

How many dozens of complaints have been posted on this forum about Leica product faults right out of the box?? Lenses misaligned? Cameras not functioning? Lugs falling off!

 

These kinds of errors are striking!! They had the temerity to sell them regardless!! Shocking!!

 

(and these are not $13 but $7000+)

 

Ouch, there is some truth in that and I experienced it first hand . My brand new Noctilux couldn't focus beyond 2m straight from an unopened box; the focusing ring simply stopped at that setting and refused to go beyond that. I had to send that in to Leica before it finally works properly.

[bpalme]

My cheap adaptors on M43 worked perfectly and solid. I guess it could be more important on a rangefinder.

[papimuzo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@ jaap:)

I don't know why M. John Milich is not responding for now. I must say that he produced 4 LTM rings for me, all perfectly machined and working (on VC lenses). He also machined a flange coming from my Summilux 50/1.4 PreASPH. Finally I got from him an adaptor for the CV 15/4 with special filter arrangement and the 4/3 -M adaptor for an eventual use on the G3.

All this through the North-Atlantic travels, and - yes - with sometimes some.... hum.... impatience, BUT I can't have suspicion again this man. He makes all that as a hobby, having a certainly time-consuming work. He was also reluctant to reply at e-mail.. but at the end all was fine.

Keep patience and mail him anyway. Courage.

Will this help????

[jaapv]

Thanks Marcel. Indeed I had excellent dealings with him before.

[bocaburger]

Jaapv, do you intend to code the lens as a 75 Summarit? If so, have you tried the menu code yet? I wasn't terribly happy with it. I found the 75 CV works better image-wise with no coding (leaving the lens recognition "ON" is totally ok) even though the FL and max. aperture are then missing from EXIF. Not sure why the coding produces a bit too much red in the corners, perhaps the CV and Summarit have different vignetting properties.

[epand56]

I just want a codable one for my new CV 75.

 

Jaap, am I wrong or the new CV LTM adapters hava a permanent codable groove?

It must be the same groove you find on new M-mount CV lenses. My 15 is hand coded with black matt enamel since I bought it and the code is still there in spite of mounting and dismounting the lens several times.

[stunsworth]

With JM's adaptors you don't have to worry if the coding is in the correct place.

 

I have a couple of his adaptors and they're excellent. I just wish his communication was better.

[jaapv]

Indeed communications. I would have had no problem had he hit the send button on something like this:

 

"Dear valued customer, we received your order but unfortunately our production facility is slightly overstrained as we have to build two aircraft carriers this month. We are, however, confident that we can ship your article within 18 weeks. Thank you for your understanding, yr.obt.svt."....

[M. Valdemar]

The big problem here is that he doesn't think that he's your obedient servant.

 

I hear that on Thursday, it's "newspaper hat day" in the lunatic asylum. Many choose to make Napoleon Bonaparte hats and wear them all day.

 

"This may not be our Waterloo, Watson, but it's certainly our Marengo"

- Sherlock Holmes

[jaapv]

Slight lack of historical knowledge? That is the Victorian salutation on Naval despatches. Rather appropriate I should think.

[wizard]

My brand new Noctilux couldn't focus beyond 2m straight from an unopened box; the focusing ring simply stopped at that setting and refused to go beyond that. I had to send that in ...

 

This must have been a sample of the secret CF, a.k.a. close focus Noctilux special edition. It was never officially sold .

 

Andy

[M. Valdemar]

Slight lack of historical knowledge? That is the Victorian salutation on Naval dispatches. Rather appropriate I should think.

 

I would think by my post you would find that my comprehension of your salutation was obvious.

 

I remain, your most humble correspondent,

 

M. Valdemar