Infinity Focusing/rangefinder accuracy (merged)

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not aware of that and misinterpreted your post. Thanks for the correction

[thighslapper]

I have spent an entertaining and instructive couple of days attempting to reconcile the issue of Rangefinder calibration in the face of 13 lenses, some of which are clearly inadequately adjusted from new...... and as a result I have a number of observations:

 

1). The adjustment procedure for both Cam and Roller a la Julian Thompson is pretty simple and straightforward...... laughably so in fact.... difficult to damage anything as long as the tools fit snugly and you use magnification.

 

2). ..... unfortunately the adjustable parts seem to hark back to another century and could hardly be described as sophisticated..... as someone who has spent many years repairing and adjusting watches as a hobby it appears we are talking spanners here rather than micrometer adjusters....

 

3). The adjustments required to get a 50/1.4 perfectly close focus adjusted wide open are almost imperceptible, even with magnification ... and are achieved more by luck than judgement.

 

4). The process did not seem to be predictably linear and iterative as Julian suggests ...... I found successive adjustments of the infinity and arm length after a certain stage just seemed to oscillate me back and forth between the same points... I had to over-adjust the close focus to compensate for the fact that re-adjusting infinity put close focus out again.....

 

5). I used Jaaps intelligence that Solms uses a 50/2 as a reference .... I got the rangefinder adjusted to this very easily......

 

6). Unfortunately all the other lenses back-focussed close up .... so I used my 90/2.... but this seems to have very strange close focusing behaviour and was dumped as a reference.

 

7). Working on the principle that I needed my 90/4 macro and 50/1.4 spot on for close, I concentrated on these and managed to get infinity right for 9 of the 13 and close focus right for about half.

 

8). Mid range was another matter ... some are still inexplicably out while others are ok.... there is no pattern at all......

 

9). The ability to focus perfectly is mandatory...... I used a Japan Exposures magnifier with variable dioptre adjustment. If you don't have perfect vision the variability is really needed ...... standard dioptre correction is for infinity ..... it needs changing for close distances.

 

10). I managed consistent accurate handheld focus at all distances with no problem .... and judging where the focal plane was on the rear screen was also easy for close distances so I gave up transferring the images to my computer.

 

11). I gave up checking anything 24 or below and my MATE and WATE. All these seem very rangefinder error tolerant due to their angle and/or limited max. apertures.

 

12). I have a 90/2, 75/2, 50/1.4, 50/2, and 28/2 that no amount of rangefinder calibration will bring into the required range. 3 of these are less than a year old.

 

13). Unless there is a 'perfect lens' somewhere to calibrate things against the whole process of trying to get rangefinder and several lenses working happily together strikes me as very hit and miss. The lack of precision available in the adjustments and the time consuming nature of the testing process/calibrating process suggests to me that Solms must really struggle to get this done to the full satisfaction of some customers (like me).

 

14). The fundamental issue is ensuring the lenses are OK to start with. Without that everything else is pointless.

 

15). With that in mind my only solution is to send everything from 28-135 to be adjusted so they are as near perfect as possible and then tackle the rangefinder adjustment to suit. Thats the easy bit......

 

16). At least I've had a couple of days intensive rangefinder focussing practice.... I am now confident I can nail anything spot on..... any focussing issues aint down to me.....

[Guest #12]

...

 

unfortunately the adjustable parts seem to hark back to another century and could hardly be described as sophisticated..... as someone who has spent many years repairing and adjusting watches as a hobby it appears we are talking spanners here rather than micrometer adjusters....

...

 

someone here called the design "agricultural."

[pico]

Master Technika is a field camera...

I have got my answer offline, but thank you

 

The Super Technika's reputation has been sullied by idiots who place the optional Fresnel lens in the wrong side, or who have placed the ground glass in the wrong position. If they would just put their little tools away and USE the camera they would be just fine. Regarding the cams, they merely have to learn up = what fits what, serial numbers on the cam and the camera.

[EJohnE]

I may well be writing from a position of sour grapes here, as my eyesight is now woeful (everything is bokeh to me with/without vision aids), but I really feel the rangefinder's reign is now over. It reminds me of the beautiful electro-mechanical calculating machines I used in the 1950s & early 1960s. Full of precision-ground cams, levers, joints, springs etc. They required regular, expert servicing, cost hundred of dollar, and would today be left for dead by any $5 pocket electronic calculator.

 

EVFs have now up to 2 million pixels or whatever, can be magnified up to 14 times for more accurate focus with manual lenses, and (from complaints in another thread re fixed rangefinder spot) the desired focus spot can be both moved easily, and its size/angle of coverage changed. They can also show 100% of any lens's angle of view as it will be delivered to the sensor. They are not pretty, but they are on the way to being superior in function to the OVFs of any type.

 

John.

[Guest #12]

The Super Technika's reputation has been sullied by idiots who place the optional Fresnel lens in the wrong side, or who have placed the ground glass in the wrong position. If they would just put their little tools away and USE the camera they would be just fine. Regarding the cams, they merely have to learn up = what fits what, serial numbers on the cam and the camera.

 

How is the accuracy of the rangefinder? It is hard to find info. Is focusing something like this pretty similar to a small or MF rangefinder?

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I may well be writing from a position of sour grapes here, as my eyesight is now woeful (everything is bokeh to me with/without vision aids), but I really feel the rangefinder's reign is now over. It reminds me of the beautiful electro-mechanical calculating machines I used in the 1950s & early 1960s. Full of precision-ground cams, levers, joints, springs etc. They required regular, expert servicing, cost hundred of dollar, and would today be left for dead by any $5 pocket electronic calculator.

 

EVFs have now up to 2 million pixels or whatever, can be magnified up to 14 times for more accurate focus with manual lenses, and (from complaints in another thread re fixed rangefinder spot) the desired focus spot can be both moved easily, and its size/angle of coverage changed. They can also show 100% of any lens's angle of view as it will be delivered to the sensor. They are not pretty, but they are on the way to being superior in function to the OVFs of any type.

 

John.

 

John, I am following the development of EVFs with curiosity, but have found, that the up to recently still camera market leading EVF in the Panasonic GH-2 is inferior in any way to a well adjusted Leica RF for quick, accurate and reliably shooting Leica lenses.

This includes shooting as difficult lenses wide open, as the 50/1, 85/1.8 or even 100/2.

 

EVFs have their shortcomings, as long, as these are not fixed, I take the Leica RF over any EVF anytime. I suppose, Leica has figured this also during the projecting of the M8 and later M9 development, sticking to their opto-mechanical, proven RF, rather than including a EVF solution. The newest developments including Fuji X100 or upcoming Nex7 will not change that situation, as these EVFs suffer from the same issues, others do, just at a higher specced resolution and potential improvement regarding refresh rate and low light visibility.

 

There is only one solution for people with worsening eye sight - correcting for the eyesight issues via spectacles/ contact lenses and/ or diopters.

[thighslapper]

The focussing and accuracy is not an issue at all ....... as others will testify it is probably better than all other methods.....

 

It's just getting the damn thing adjusted in the first place to match all the lenses you have that is the problem....

[menos I M6]

The focussing and accuracy is not an issue at all ....... as others will testify it is probably better than all other methods.....

 

It's just getting the damn thing adjusted in the first place to match all the lenses you have that is the problem....

 

This is very well written ;-)

I have to second that, but also found one curiosity about Leica M compatible lenses.

While I had to either handpick/ adjust/ compromise rather recent (read: not older than 20 years) Leica M compatible lenses, I have found, that the older the lens, made by Leitz, the more precise it in fact focusses on my calibrated bodies.

 

My latest addition has been a 79 year old Leitz Hektor, which out of the box focusses spot on on my digital bodies - proof of statement:

 

wide open @ ƒ1.9, panning shot, ~ 2m of a upcoming bicycle rider (fast !):

Hektor 7.3cm ƒ1.9 *1932 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

 

wide open @ ƒ1.9, shot of "still" subject, ~ 2m of a traffic participant (fast looking !):

Hektor 7.3cm ƒ1.9 *1932 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

I admit, that I do these kind of shots of moving subjects all the time, shooting even motor sports with the Leica M and 135mm lenses, but it all really comes down to properly adjusted lenses (buying the oldest available helps obviously ) … and familiarizing with the RF.

 

It really is not just screwing with the infinity setting of your RF, but really understanding all technicalities involved (RF, lens couplings, focussing mounts, etc …) and appropriately bringing all variables into line or being best friend to somebody, who does exactly that.

[melissah]

Hi all!

Ok I've read through the thread to get comfortably confused.

So on to my problem.

I have an M9 an M8

Lenses: older nocti, 28cron,35cron,75lux-f2, and I just bought

A 1983 50cron.

My 28 is my main lens but lately I've been using my 75 indoors

And for portraits. Lately I've noticed focusing is off

So I'm guessing an adjustment is in order.

Btw this is my M9 were talking about...

 

Yesterday my new/old 50 arrived. When focused at infinity

The rangefinder show double image. So it isn't going to

Infinity. At no point going to infinity does it focus.

Realizing my M9 is out of wack I put it on my M8 to

See and same thing just not as bad.

 

So can this be tweaked? Do I send all lenses to

Repair with the camera? Or?

The guy I bought it from had a 3 day return, but has said he would

Refund if I'm not happy.

Other than the alignment it's a lovely lens.

Tia

[steelduck]

I would do some focus tests... like put a pencil on a newspaper and take some pictures from 30 degree angle with full aperture. Then look at the pictures in full size if it focuses right in short distances.

ed

I have noticed that Leica's and lenses are individuals and it takes time and effort to find "pairs" that focus right. When I find a lens that passes my focus tests (and quality) I keep it. If not, I sell them as they will probably work just fine on somebody else's Mx.

 

I have a few friends with digital M's and we once did a test with a Zeiss 50/2. It focused perfectly on my M8 - infinity and close focus, It front focused on my friends M8 and M9. The Summicron that focused spot on with my M9, front focuses on my friends M8. The Summilux that is spot on with his M8 is not OK with my M9.

 

ie. It takes some effort to get a good set. Two ways to do it. Keep on testing lenses until you find the ones that focus ok or get the lenses you want and adjust them to your M.

[jaapv]

I don't know - if systems are properly set up the lenses and bodies are fully interchangable. On LUF meetings we regularly try each other's lenses out and I cannot recall a single instance of misfocussing problems. As oon as a camera and a lens are calibrated "to one another", though, these compatability problems may occur. I would strongly advise against using a service that operates that way. Bodies must be adjusted against a reference lens and lenses to a reference body.

[bocaburger]

I don't know - if systems are properly set up the lenses and bodies are fully interchangable. On LUF meetings we regularly try each other's lenses out and I cannot recall a single instance of misfocussing problems. As oon as a camera and a lens are calibrated "to one another", though, these compatability problems may occur. I would strongly advise against using a service that operates that way. Bodies must be adjusted against a reference lens and lenses to a reference body.

 

+1. I was almost 100% certain that since the vast majority of my more than a dozen lenses mis-focused exactly the same amount on my M9, that the rangefinder was the culprit, and so I adjusted it. But there was still that minute doubt. Only when I sent the couple lenses to DAG that still mis-focused, and he confirmed with his reference standard that those lenses did indeed mis-focus exactly as they did on my self-adjusted M9, was I completely 100% certain that I had made the correct assumptions and done the right thing adjusting my rangefinder. Once he calibrated those lenses to his reference standard, they now focus perfectly on my M9, and I know that if I were to buy any lenses in the future and they don't focus correctly, it's the lenses' fault. Likewise if I ever get another digital M body and my lenses misfocus, I will know that the new body is at fault.

[andybarton]

 

I admit, that I do these kind of shots of moving subjects all the time, .

 

They move so fast they've moved off Flickr...

 

To be honest, IMO, there's not much point in linking through to some Flickr shots as an illustration of a point, if you are going to delete them from Flickr within a week of posting them.

[nunnzzzz]

I sent my new M9-P and all my lens to Leica so they could be calibrated.

[menos I M6]

They move so fast they've moved off Flickr...

 

To be honest, IMO, there's not much point in linking through to some Flickr shots as an illustration of a point, if you are going to delete them from Flickr within a week of posting them.

 

Andy, I don't delete shots from flickr.

Flickr did something strange during the last two weeks or so, when direct links died, while the photos are all still there.

 

You can use the link below the embedded photos and get straight to the photos.

 

I don't bother with editing broken links on internet fora, especially not on a image unfriendly place as LUF. People, who are genuinely interested will go through the pains of clicking a link, that's enough for me

[Fgcm]

I never had a focusing problem with both M9 and M6, but, after reading this tread, I was curious to test my lenses, both at 1,5 m and infinite. Infinite means very far away, so I focused the tower of the church about 500 m away.

 

I tested on M9:

Elmarit 28 asph

Summarit 35

Summarit 50

Summilux 50 asph

Summarit 75

 

At 1,5 m all the lenses focus perfectly.

To test lenses, I used several bar-codes sticked on L shaped metal joint for forniture.

The focused one is the one showing moire.

Easy.

 

At infinite, all lenses (but the Summilux 50) are perfectly focused when the focus is perfect in the finder.

The sense is that I have to focus a little before the infinite lock of the lenses.

Just a very little before.

This at 2,5 aperture.

At 5,6 the difference in focus is meaningful in real photography.

 

The summilux is simply perfect and the focus is perfect in the finder at the infinite lock on the lens barrel. It is a summilux.

 

My conclusion is that tolerances seams very very tight and that all lenses focus quite good when in focus in the finder.

Trust the finder!

 

Just a question: is it possible that Summarits and Elmarit 28 are all set very little beyond the infinite because they share the new helicoid design?

Who knows?

 

I hope this can help.

Franco

[algrove]

I don't know - if systems are properly set up the lenses and bodies are fully interchangable. On LUF meetings we regularly try each other's lenses out and I cannot recall a single instance of misfocussing problems. As oon as a camera and a lens are calibrated "to one another", though, these compatability problems may occur. I would strongly advise against using a service that operates that way. Bodies must be adjusted against a reference lens and lenses to a reference body.

 

I admit to being a novice with RF Leicas. I am trying to learn. Maybe too late.

 

I have a late 2010 M9 and have a 135 APO (early 2011), 90/2 APO (early 2011) and a 35 Lux-latest (mid-2011), plus some old Leica lenses like a 135 Hector and a 90/2 made before the current APO, an old 90mm 226g lens plus 3 Zeiss lenses (18, 25, 50 Sonnar).

 

I have been traveling now for about 6 months and have taken around 25k images. I have not been home to look at these images on my 30" screen-that will only start in January.

 

It never dawned on me that I could have mechanical focus problems. Heck, human focus problems for me are enough to have to deal with. I went blind in my left eye a year ago and that has been operated on to get me back (with my old glasses) to 20/40. My right eye (the only eye I use focusing the M9) continually corrects to 20/20.

 

My real worry is after reading all of this thread, what should I do first to verify if my camera/lenses are OK? Yes, it's a little late after shooting 25k images, but now this thread has me wondering if my camera or lenses are out of focus.

 

When I zoom onto most shots after taking them they fall apart at maximum zoom on the screen. Yes I know it's a JPEG image. Yes, it could be me who is out of focus.

 

Should I take some shots as someone suggested up close say 1.5m and then take shots at infinity at all apertures with all lenses? Then what can I do on the road since I only have an 11" Air with me.

 

When I got the Hector my first shot at about 5 meters of oranges in a bowl was very good to me on my computer at home since I could clearly see the pores on the oranges skin. The Zeiss lenses including the 1.5/50mm all seem fine to me. A dealer in Europe blew up a photo for me to 20x30" (I had used the 50 Zeiss) and he thought it could go to 30x40 and still hold its sharpness.

 

But my analysis is not as scientific as some suggest here. No chance to view images 1x1 except on the LCD camera screen. Guess that could be one of the worst places to view image quality.

 

Do many of you zoom in to maximum on your camera screen out in the field to see if you have "nailed" the focus?

 

Someone kindly help alleviate my worst fears.

 

What do I do first, second , etc.? Thanks.

 

Sorry for any stupid questions, but right here is where a little knowledge is dangerous.

[jaapv]

 

My real worry is after reading all of this thread, what should I do first to verify if my camera/lenses are OK? Yes, it's a little late after shooting 25k images, but now this thread has me wondering if my camera or lenses are out of focus.

Just look at your prints. If you are happy your system is fine

When I zoom onto most shots after taking them they fall apart at maximum zoom on the screen. Yes I know it's a JPEG image. Yes, it could be me who is out of focus.

That is par for the course. That screen is s**t for judging focus on the M9. After using the M8 I was shocked. It simply cannot handle the file.

Should I take some shots as someone suggested up close say 1.5m and then take shots at infinity at all apertures with all lenses? Then what can I do on the road since I only have an 11" Air with me.

Leave it. That way lies paranoia. Concentrate on content. Sharpness is fine but cannot compete with the impact of the subjet.

 

When I got the Hector my first shot at about 5 meters of oranges in a bowl was very good to me on my computer at home since I could clearly see the pores on the oranges skin. The Zeiss lenses including the 1.5/50mm all seem fine to me. A dealer in Europe blew up a photo for me to 20x30" (I had used the 50 Zeiss) and he thought it could go to 30x40 and still hold its sharpness.

See? there are most probably no problems at all.

 

.

Do many of you zoom in to maximum on your camera screen out in the field to see if you have "nailed" the focus?

Yes - but it does not help much...

 

Someone kindly help alleviate my worst fears.

 

What do I do first, second , etc.? Thanks.

Nothing

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[algrove]

You are most kind Jaapv to answer my long and rambling question. Just one last comment. I did not have the 35 lux until recently and when the histogram pops into its second JPEG image with this lens it is most impressive versus all other lenses I have with me, Leica or not.

 

This 35 Lux has convinced me Leica glass reigns.