Risked life and limb to get this shot and the $7000 piece of crap let me down again

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter

I used f4 and 8 seconds I SO 200

 

Your picture is the perfect example of light leaks on digital M's of any type. Same place, same distinctive crescent shape. But it is unusual to have it happen at 8 seconds, it has only happened to me (M9 and MM) after the exposures get to 20 seconds plus, but I don't have a Noctilux. So perhaps the weight of the Noctilux does come into play and open up the gap a fraction more?

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

It is not impossible, Steve,the mount is on springs to pull the lens against the body. So it is not inconceivable that a heavy lens exhibits a miniscule amount of give.

[Guest borge]

NDs are well known to require "black tape" (gaffers tape works) around the filter mount. My guess is it's not the lens mount, but the interface between the filter and the front of the lens...

The Lee big stopper comes with foam glued to its edges for just that reason..

In my experience...

Bob

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

It might even be the ND filter itself. Filters are often not finished to very high standards. This is especially evident on polarizing filters where the B+W Kaesemann's are the only ones that are decently finished in my opinion.

 

OP: What filter are you using? And are you experiencing the same issues with other filters as well? Or are you just assuming that the equipment is the root cause without actually finding the real root cause by doing proper problem analysis?

[MarkP]

It might even be the ND filter itself. Filters are often not finished to very high standards. This is especially evident on polarizing filters where the B+W Kaesemann's are the only ones that are decently finished in my opinion.

 

OP: What filter are you using? And are you experiencing the same issues with other filters as well? Or are you just assuming that the equipment is the root cause without actually finding the real root cause by doing proper problem analysis?

 

I'll keep posting this tillI go blue in the face.

 

It is NOT a light leak from around the filter. Do the experiment yourself with a powerful focused torch beam at the base of the lens mount (especially at about 2-3 o'clock and you will see that the light leak is from between the lens and mount, and from nowhere else - end of story!

[jaapv]

Your picture is the perfect example of light leaks on digital M's of any type. Same place, same distinctive crescent shape. But it is unusual to have it happen at 8 seconds, it has only happened to me (M9 and MM) after the exposures get to 20 seconds plus, but I don't have a Noctilux. So perhaps the weight of the Noctilux does come into play and open up the gap a fraction more?

 

Steve

 

Actually, film Ms will do this as well.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

It might even be the ND filter itself. Filters are often not finished to very high standards. This is especially evident on polarizing filters where the B+W Kaesemann's are the only ones that are decently finished in my opinion.

 

OP: What filter are you using? And are you experiencing the same issues with other filters as well? Or are you just assuming that the equipment is the root cause without actually finding the real root cause by doing proper problem analysis?

I am using B&W filters and the problem is not coming from the filters............in a previous thread I did an experiment and covered the lens in the leather lens case that came with the lens along with the lens cap........the light still came in.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll keep posting this tillI go blue in the face.

 

It is NOT a light leak from around the filter. Do the experiment yourself with a powerful focused torch beam at the base of the lens mount (especially at about 2-3 o'clock and you will see that the light leak is from between the lens and mount, and from nowhere else - end of story!

+1..........thanks Mark some people just don't get it, or are in just for an argument

[MarkP]

+1..........thanks Mark some people just don't get it, or are in just for an argument

 

or more likely just can't possibly believe that these cameras don't have a perfect light seal at the lens mount and would like to blame anything else

[pop]

A 10 stop ND filter will pass one thousandths of the light. That's like sending a thousand times more light to the lens' socket than through the lens.

 

While I agree that the socket ought to be opaque, I can see how that particular situation might come a bit unexpected for the makers of the lens.

[jaapv]

Especially a mount designed in 1936...

[Guest borge]

or more likely just can't possibly believe that these cameras don't have a perfect light seal at the lens mount and would like to blame anything else

 

Not really, no. But from my experience people also tend to blame everything without actually bother to identify the root cause of a problem. I guess it's something I inherited from my work where I find that using Kepner-Tregoe's Problem Solving and Decision Making methods really speeds up acquiring real facts and evidence in troubleshooting cases rather than working with assumptions (which leads to nowhere...)

 

Anyhow, if this is a lens mount issue (on the lens itself or on the camera body) you should let Leica fix it. I would never accept a design flaw on this expensive equipment. For the price we are paying for our equipment only perfection and excellence is acceptable.

[Mr_Jones]

For the price we are paying for our equipment only perfection and excellence is acceptable.

 

I find it funny to see this kind of expression come up over and over again. It's not like these cameras cost £150,000. The kind of perfection being demanded belongs to a different price/type of manufacturing.

 

Excellence on the other hand I totally agree with. It is disappointing that these kind of problems exist but as others have pointed out a 10 stop ND filter is quite possibly overkill in this situation and has contributed to the problem.

[MarkP]

Not really, no. But from my experience people also tend to blame everything without actually bother to identify the root cause of a problem. I guess it's something I inherited from my work where I find that using Kepner-Tregoe's Problem Solving and Decision Making methods really speeds up acquiring real facts and evidence in troubleshooting cases rather than working with assumptions (which leads to nowhere...)

 

Gee. thats great

 

Whilst we're beating our chests about our credentials I've a PhD in medical research and spend my time analysing methodology in medical papers before applying their conclusions to patient care! all my work as a physician is problem solving.

 

So I applied scientific method to the problem rather than offered assumption. I initially assumed, before I 'd heard others with the same problem, that it was due to internal reflections between the 10xND filter and sensor.But I then formed an hypothesis on information available and given to me, did an experiment controlling for variables, and an commented on the results.

 

The results were that the light leak comes from the lens mount/lens interface, and is most prominent when the 2-3 o'clock position of the mount is exposed to a bright light source for a length of time. The light flare on the bottom right hand corner of the file is reproducible on my M9, Monochrom and M240 (but to a lesser extent) with a variety of lenses (Leica and Zeiss), does not enter the camera from the front of the lens or filter, and does not get into the camera from any of the rangefinder windows. It can be reproduce irrespective of whether any filter is fitted be ause the filter is not the problem. The light leak pattern is identical for all those others who complain of the problem! And yes, the black scrunchie works!

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...e-issue-2.html and post #22 in this thread.

 

I later spoke to someone from Leica Australia who said that he had reported on this in another forum some time ago!

 

Is that enough evidence. Maybe your Noctilux is a tighter fit or just hasn't been used in a situation that reproduces the experiences of others here.

 

 

We can complain all we want but I don't think Leica will redesign their whole lens mount system for daylight 10xND filter users. Jaap has even commented that this can be reproduced on film M cameras. Keeping the camera out of direct sunlight and the $1.00 black scrunchie is the inelegant (excuse the neologism) solution.

I may however have it looked at next time I send one of my cameras in for service and see what reply I get!

[Guest borge]

Gee. thats great

 

Whilst we're beating our chests about our credentials I've a PhD in medical research and spend my time analysing methodology in medical papers before applying their conclusions to patient care! all my work as a physician is problem solving.

 

So I applied scientific method to the problem rather than offered assumption. I initially assumed, before I 'd heard others with the same problem, that it was due to internal reflections between the 10xND filter and sensor.But I then formed an hypothesis on information available and given to me, did an experiment controlling for variables, and an commented on the results.

 

The results were that the light leak comes from the lens mount/lens interface, and is most prominent when the 2-3 o'clock position of the mount is exposed to a bright light source for a length of time. The light flare on the bottom right hand corner of the file is reproducible on my M9, Monochrom and M240 (but to a lesser extent) with a variety of lenses (Leica and Zeiss), does not enter the camera from the front of the lens or filter, and does not get into the camera from any of the rangefinder windows. It can be reproduce irrespective of whether any filter is fitted be ause the filter is not the problem. The light leak pattern is identical for all those others who complain of the problem! And yes, the black scrunchie works!

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...e-issue-2.html and post #22 in this thread.

 

I later spoke to someone from Leica Australia who said that he had reported on this in another forum some time ago!

 

Is that enough evidence. Maybe your Noctilux is a tighter fit or just hasn't been used in a situation that reproduces the experiences of others here.

 

 

We can complain all we want but I don't think Leica will redesign their whole lens mount system for daylight 10xND filter users. Jaap has even commented that this can be reproduced on film M cameras. Keeping the camera out of direct sunlight and the $1.00 black scrunchie is the inelegant (excuse the neologism) solution.

I may however have it looked at next time I send one of my cameras in for service and see what reply I get!

 

Stop being such a drama queen and focus on the problems in stead of overreacting and taking things personally. There's no need to get defensive.

 

A $18000 USD camera kit should not have these problems, no matter if the design is from a hundred years back or not. If Leica's M-mount system has design flaws that are inherent in todays designs they should have been fixed a long time ago. Precision engineering is laughably easy these days, and is - in all cases - much more precise than hand crafted work. I see the latter point being used as an excuse to allow flaws on these forums, when it should be the opposite. Quite funny. I hope next generation equipment will be robot assembled from Leica. That will allow for a much higher standard of precision and a higher average level of quality on their shipments.

 

Some of you guys are a strange people. You defend expensive things that are malfunctioning based on age, hand labor, and all sorts of weird stuff.

 

And to the guy saying that this isn't a $150.000 kit... Well, no. It isn't. The M-system isn't professional level equipment. It never has been, and it never will be. That's what the S-system is for. Still, though, the M-system costs on par with competing professional systems with professional grade level of service and quality. So Leica sort of has to deliver something that at least is on par quality-wise with it's professional competitors due to price alone.

 

I recently purchased a M240 + Noctilux 0.95 myself, and both are currently back in Solms. I'm not complaining. I expected to send both back when I purchased the kit brand new from a dealer - because I know Leica's quality-control is very poor. I guess it's just part of owning equipment made by this specific brand. You sort of have to expect that nothing works precisely as it should out of the box - even though the customers are paying a hefty premium for the so called precision engineering and hand crafted work. Quite funny and ironic.

[jaapv]

I always have a problem with the price argument as it implies as it implies there is a level below which equipment should not function properly.

[jaapv]

I always have a problem with the price argument as it implies as it implies there is a level below which equipment should not function properly.

[jdlaing]

Where is it written that for a set amount of money you get flawless?

DeBeers Mining is the only entity where you get advertised flawless for a price.

 

If this gear is too expensive don't buy it. You have choices.

[Guest borge]

I always have a problem with the price argument as it implies as it implies there is a level below which equipment should not function properly.

 

Well Jaap, that's how the world works. And especially now that other camera manufacturors are starting to make full frame and compact alternatives it will become even more so in the future. The M can't live on the merits of it's brass body and double price tag for another fifty years. It has to stand out - either with technological innovations and always being ahead of the others, or, by providing a premium crafted quality product with superb support and service.

 

I guess we all can agree that the M is not ahead of it's competitors in regards to technology and innovations. So that leaves us with premium quality and feel, which is something that I feel that Leica is trying to sell it's products based on. But in my experience (and many others) they don't deliver what they promise to do. Every single person I know that uses a Leica has had to return some or more of their products for servicing out-of-the-box because of poor quality control.

 

That's a crappy feeling when the much cheaper Sony or Nikon (Df) performs coherently and consistently right out of the box without any need for servicing for many years. A few forum members here defend Leica against anything. And that's fine. That's what fanboys do. But the general public and "everyday consumer" expects superb quality when they pay a premium over other brands. That's how the world works. And that's what Leica needs to understand and do something about.

 

Honestly I'm quite tired of shipping items back and forth to Leica all the time myself. It's becoming time consuming and tiresome, and I feel more like a middleman than a consumer, since I also have to do troubleshooting on the equipment myself to prove to Leica that hey - something is in fact wrong here! I guess it's just my luck that I like doing problem analysis and documenting deviations, otherwise, as a regular consumer I would be pretty pissed off (and rightfully so).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest borge]

Where is it written that for a set amount of money you get flawless?

DeBeers Mining is the only entity where you get advertised flawless for a price.

 

If this gear is too expensive don't buy it. You have choices.

 

I never said the equipment is too expensive. I have guitars that are worth far more than the M240 + Noctilux combined hanging on my wall, so, yeah.

 

But those guitars perform PERFECTLY. And they actually perform WAY better than a guitar half it's price. It's very very noticeable. And I have a lifetime warranty on them. And whenever I go to the local luthier to have them tuned I always get exceptional service.

 

A M240 is basically just a 35mm camera, like many of it's alternatives. And to justify it's premium price it has to perform and deliver accordingly. And it doesn't. Well, except giving you a good feeling when you hold it. The technical quality and quality control is actually below it's competitors. And that's very unfair towards the customers, who actually believe that they are paying for premium hand crafted quality...

 

Try to think outside of your red box for a moment. The M is just a camera, after all. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't sing, it doesn't scream, it doesn't do anything unique - it takes pictures - when it works.

 

I like Leica equipment for the experience. But damn, if I ever bought the Leica gear I've owned for the quality alone I would be extremely disappointed. The quality, service and support is the worst I've ever experienced in my life. And I'm fine with that now that I've gotten used to it, but I can understand that the general public and regular customer isn't.

[Mr_Jones]

 

But not perfection, which was my point. Perfection is not a legitimate expectation for a camera designed and manufactured to that price point.

 

As I said before, I agree excellence is a legitimate expectation. I think the M delivers that.