M9 Calibration

[Jinxter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My M9 has just come back from Solms along with four of my most used lenses, for re-calibration.

 

I am utterly delighted with the service from Leica. Not only are all the lenses now spot-on with the camera at all focussing distances as far as I can judge, which they weren't before, but everything has been beautifully cleaned, the focussing rings on all the lenses now have a consistent resistance, and the sensor has been cleaned.

 

I wasn't really conscious of just how far out the focussing had become on the 50 Summilux in particular, assuming focussing errors, especially at wide apertures, were my errors, but its now simply a joy to use, accurate and easy to focus at any distance, any aperture.

 

Wonderful!

 

Good to hear Mine should arrive the next days after a few weeks in Solms (upgrade to M9-P chrome and calibration of four lenses)... It's really hard to use the backup DSLR gear if you get used to the M

[thighslapper]

Chicken? Dead right!

 

The sort of defective mechanisms I'm used to dealing with have arms, legs and big holes to make noises with, not cams and adjustment locks.

 

Quite a few loose screws though!

 

Oh dear ..... sounds like we are vaguely in the same line of business.......

[Peter H]

Good to hear Mine should arrive the next days after a few weeks in Solms (upgrade to M9-P chrome and calibration of four lenses)... It's really hard to use the backup DSLR gear if you get used to the M

 

If my experience is anything to go by, you're going to be a very happy photographer very soon!

[A.G.]

I am a little confused - if I have 3 Leicas (M7, M9 & MM) and 5 lenses - can they all be calibrated to work correctly with all lenses or can just one camera be calibrated correctly to work with the lenses?

[pop]

All of those cameras are supposed to be adjusted to the same standard, independent of any lenses. The lenses in turn are supposed to be adjusted to the same standard, independent of any body. Hence, every lens should work on every body just perfectly.

[darylgo]

All of those cameras are supposed to be adjusted to the same standard, independent of any lenses. The lenses in turn are supposed to be adjusted to the same standard, independent of any body. Hence, every lens should work on every body just perfectly.

 

I think we are back to square one. Can you explain further and shed light on this subject?

Furthermore, why are so many cameras and lenses sent back to Leica for adjustment?

Thanks.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is hard to see what else could be explained. If you have a system everything must be adjusted to the same standard. Otherwise you would have to adjust everything each time you wanted to use another lens or another body.

The reason that so many older lenses have to be recalibrated is that film was more forgiving than a sensor, so the adjustment tolerance could be wider. If you have an old lens that is spot-on it will be fine on a sensor, if you have one that is just within tolerance on film, it will be out of tolerance on a sensor.

It is not the first time this is explained on this forum....

[darylgo]

Sorry mods but your posts are only confusing matters, at least for me:confused:. If we are talking theoretical calibration everything you say makes sense;), but we know that things are not so in the real world, sorry, I don't mean to ruffle your feathers. Maybe you could shed further light.

[jaapv]

You've lost me here. Everything we said is the real world, as you call it. Could you be more specific about your confusion?

[darylgo]

My confusion stems from the need to have Leica calibrate almost every new body and lens I purchase. If cameras are calibrated to a standard and lenses are calibrated to a standard (that match perfectly) why the need to have Leica recalibrate?

[jaapv]

Almost every? I hardly recall 50.000 threads on the subject. :pOf all seven newer lenses I have only one that had to go back and that was because a part in the floating element mechanism was out of spec, and I have had six (two loaners) cameras new out of the box and all were spot-on. You only read about problems on the internet, not about things that are unproblematic.

~however, that has to do with quality control and carelessness in transport, not with the way the M system is calibrated.

Even if you send your lenses and camera in together, they will be adjusted separately. Only with very critical lenses like the Noctilux or Summicron 90 will Leica do an extra fine-tuning by matching the tolerances.

[darylgo]

Well, maybe I am unlucky with my new purchases. M9 body, 50mm Summilux, 50mm Noctilux, 75mm Summilux (used), 75mm Summicron, 135mm Tele-Elmar (used) all need or needed adjustment. Recently, a 21mm Summilux was sent back defective with a severely stuck aperture ring right from the box, it was unstuck but the lens was unsharp and had focus issues, a second copy was spot on.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

If you see the rig that Leica uses plus the interference instruments and collimator you realize that they can simply do it better.

 

Not always, unfortunately. One of my M9's just returned from a trip to Solms for a new sensor and vertical rangefinder adjustment. But upon return the horizontal adjustment, that was perfect when it left, was out. It took me about an hour with my 135 APO and 90mm 2.5 to get it perfect again. All my lensea are now perfect except for my CV 35mm 1.2II which doesn't reach infinity and needs to go away for adjustment.

 

My tip would be to make sure you use a tripod and test chart for the near focu test. I use the Jeffrey's Focus Test Chart with a big "X" drawn through the centre focus line and it makes the whole process a doodle.

 

Gordon

[jaapv]

Well, maybe I am unlucky with my new purchases. M9 body, 50mm Summilux, 50mm Noctilux, 75mm Summilux (used), 75mm Summicron, 135mm Tele-Elmar (used) all need or needed adjustment. Recently, a 21mm Summilux was sent back defective with a severely stuck aperture ring right from the box, it was unstuck but the lens was unsharp and had focus issues, a second copy was spot on.

And how many of those are older lenses? As I've explained, lenses from before 2007 are likely to need adjustment, as that was the year Leica introduced the narrowed tolerance span. As for the 21 and M9 that is indeed the quality control problem I mentioned. It should not happen, given the checking that is done it cannot happen, but it does happen, and more often than Leica and their customers like. But that is another long story that has no place here.

[pop]

... If we are talking theoretical calibration everything you say makes sense;), but we know that things are not so in the real world...

My explanation was indeed of the theoretical kind. Ever since Leica introduced the "standard" model, they designed their cameras and their lenses in such a way that each had to be adjusted to a certain well-defined standard. The intent was that every lens could be used with every body. This is in contrast to the time before when an individual lens was matched to a particular body.

It is, of course, true that the adjustment of some lenses and some bodies are not within the specified tolerances by the time they reach the customer and that the adjustment might "work off" in the course of time and usage. This is obviously relevant for the user of such gear but it is no contradiction to the statement above, that they are supposed to be adjusted to a defined standard.

We lack the data to tell whether the number of the cameras and lenses which are not within the tolerances set by Leica is large or small. We can not tell about cameras and lenses which reach that state in the course of time, either.

[thighslapper]

Sorry mods but your posts are only confusing matters, at least for me:confused:. If we are talking theoretical calibration everything you say makes sense;), but we know that things are not so in the real world, sorry, I don't mean to ruffle your feathers. Maybe you could shed further light.

 

This is not as straightforward as you assume.......

 

..... for a start, Leica users fall into 3 groups.....

 

1. the completely unobservant for whom even photos with the lens cap on are 'ok but a bit underexposed'

 

2. those who will live with minor miscalibration as long as there are no 'real world use' adverse consequences

 

3. those that want prefection because they have given half the cost of a car to Leica and expect nothing less

 

...... compounded by the fact that.....

 

* some Leica lenses, particularly with floating elements such as the 50/1.4 seem to be hard to adjust perfectly..... and others with very narrow DOF such as the 1.4's and longer lenses such as the 75/2, 90/2 are very unforgiving.

 

* my MATE, WATE, 90/4, 50/2.8, have all worked perfectly with all the miscalibrated bodies I have had. At 2.8 and above you will find little trouble.

 

* the only time you will get noticeable issues with a sub 35 lens is when its adjustment for infinity is miles off (my 28/2 suffered) .... otherwise the DOF masks any faults.

 

Leica hope, and expect, their customers to be in groups 1&2.

 

Those of us in group 3 are a pain in the backside for them .... and unless the numbers are beyond a certain point they will not change their factory tolerances or adjustment procedures.

 

The one lens you would expect most trouble with ..... the 50/0.95 rarely seems to feature ... and that is presumably down to the fact that a handful of very capable dedicated technicians assemble this lens ... over several days... and that great care is taken in the adjustment and alignment of all the elements. I suspect the 50/2 asph will turn out to be similar....... it's a flagship product and needs to be faultless......

[pop]

1. the completely unobservant for whom even photos with the lens cap on are 'ok but a bit underexposed'.

 

:D

[wattsy]

particularly with floating elements such as the 50/1.4 seem to be hard to adjust perfectly...

 

Yes, that is the one lens Leica have never been able to adjust for me without some backfocus in either the close range or middle range (3-5m). I've had three examples of varying vintage (my first I bought in 2005) and none of them could be adjusted to my full satisfaction.

 

the 50/0.95 rarely seems to feature ... and that is presumably down to the fact that a handful of very capable dedicated technicians assemble this lens ... over several days... and that great care is taken in the adjustment and alignment of all the elements.

 

Yes, that sounds plausible and my experience of this lens (I owned one for a few months) was entirely satisfactory. That said, I'm not sure this lens, with it's 1m minimum focussing distance (and huge focus throw), presents the same adjustment challenge as the 50 Summilux ASPH.

[CaptZoom]

My rangefinder off: all lenses back focus. The camera (M9) took a very hard but cushioned hit. The lens (CV 50 1.5) that was us way off! So I'll be sending in the M9 off to NJ for a checkup (I'm neither confident enough nor have the tools to do the calibration myself). That said, I have a few questions for you lot:

 

0) The rangefinder was always slightly off horizontally. I just learned to slightly front focus.

 

1) What's the ball park figure I'm looking at for calibrating the rangefinder by Leica?

 

2) Should I send in my 90mm f/2.8 as well and ask them to ensure optimization for the lens wide open?

 

3) Who do I send the Voigtlander for CLA?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[charlesphoto99]

Got my new Monochrom today and guess what? Yep, rangefinder is out of calibration. Not by much (a couple of inches up close) but enough. Probably going to get out the allen wrench and watch phillips on this one. What's going on with quality control at Leica? This isn't the first time I've had this happen to a new body.

 

Otherwise it's an amazing camera. And I find the shutter on mine to quieter and the release better than my M9's. Interesting...