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

[Mr_Jones]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

It seems a pretty simple fact of life to me. If I ask my dentist for the cheapest fix for my rotten tooth it's likely to be the least effective, durable or fitting. There is a point where paying more allows for the manufacturer to concentrate on details which enhance the products capabilities. Then further expense allows for rare materials or those that are difficult to work with.

 

Basic functionality is not the same as not functioning properly, right?

 

If for example Leica chose to fix this problem by whatever means necessary it would almost certainly cost more in the manufacturing process, just to add a functionality that only a small percentage of instances require.

[DigitalHeMan]

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.

 

.

 

 

I bet your guitars take rubbish photos though

[wildlightphoto]

... 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.

 

I'm also frustrated when I have to ship my Leica equipment to Leica's service department several times before it comes back 'right'. But who among us has several years' experice with either the Df or a7 / a7r?

 

I've been ignoring any and all Df discussions, but the a7r apparently is quite consistent at shaking the camera at certain shutter speeds and smearing corners when using numerous lenses, and probably will do so for many years no matter how often it's serviced.

[250swb]

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.......

 

A good way to problem solve is to read the thread.

 

You would discover links to an even older thread. In that older thread the flare was investigated and found to be a light leak, and a reproducible light leak, nothing to do with reflections or filters.

 

So suggesting that it could be the filter makes me think you don't have a real grasp of Kepner-Tregoe's theories at all. The first premise for any investigation is to listen closely and pay attention to the details.

 

Steve

[MirekE]

 

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.

 

Ok, you were able to reproduce this thing by exposing a leak. I was able to reproduce that by inducing a lens/filter glare. Person XY might reproduce it by shooting with long exposure in the wind against water spray that creates this effect in the air, before the light reaches the camera. It is quite possible that the actual problem in the attached photograph is a light leak, but what I am missing is an information how the other possibilities were ruled out and how it was verified with the actual setup that was used to take the picture, that it actually is a light leak. Because someone can imagine other possibilities does not necessarily mean that he "doesn't get it".

[250swb]

Because someone can imagine other possibilities does not necessarily mean that he "doesn't get it".

 

Well you can reproduce it indoors photographing a plain wall using a torch to shine at the lens flange for 30 seconds. Imagination is great, but when it turns to fantasy just for the sake of argument, that's the time to stop.

 

Steve

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FWIW I did a test with my Nex 6 camera today to see if I could duplicate the "problem." Consider the sensor is pretty close to the lens flange on this camera so it is probably easier for leaking light to hit the sensor.

 

I used a 3 stop ND, polarizer, lenscap and set the lens to f22 to make sure no light was coming in from the lens itself. I used ISO 3200 and held the camera 5 inches directly over a 500 watt halogen bulb... rotating it continuously for 30 seconds of exposure. I got a little flare sometimes and a lot of flare the other times... always from the same spot. Repeating this at ISO 100 produced no flare. I consider this the most extreme test. I guess one could try with different lenses and adapters to see if they make any difference. If planning to shoot in this extreme condition, the lesson is to test it in advance with any camera to see if your possible combo might have a problem.

[thighslapper]

I seem to be on a different planet.......

 

So an 80 yr old mount design that leica have kept to retain backward compatibility with previous lens designs has a light leak when used in extreme circumstances for which the camera was never intended .........

 

Big deal ........

[Guest Emile de Leon]

For a small cam in this price range..to not be compatible with certain heavy lenses and medium length exposures..and leak light..is pure bullshit...

My M6 took 1 to 2 min exposures with no problems at all..but with small lenses..

And my new box cam...this one...with almost 200 year old technology...

Better be able to sit for 45min straight...with no light leaks...and it does...

And its just a box...hahaha!

[jaapv]

FWIW I did a test with my Nex 6 camera today to see if I could duplicate the "problem." Consider the sensor is pretty close to the lens flange on this camera so it is probably easier for leaking light to hit the sensor.

As light does not bend ninety degrees on its own accord it is safe to assume that the flare does not come from the light beam itself but from an internal reflection either of the lens or the lens mount. If so the register distance plays no role.

[Guest redge]

For a small cam in this price range..to not be compatible with certain heavy lenses and medium length exposures..and leak light..is pure bullshit...

My M6 took 1 to 2 min exposures with no problems at all..but with small lenses..

And my new box cam...this one...with almost 200 year old technology...

Better be able to sit for 45min straight...with no light leaks...and it does...

And its just a box...hahaha!

 

I too shoot 8x10, and also 5x7 and 4x5. Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but light leaks are a notorious problem with large format cameras and can have any of a number of possible causes. Do a search for the phrase "light leak" on the large format forum and you'll get over 1,000 hits.

 

Here's a summary of possible light leaks with a large format camera, including yours: Large format photography: Light leaks

 

New, your 8x10 (assuming that it's a full feature model) runs $7-10k. If you get a leak, it doesn't mean the camera is rubbish, it's just part of life

 

It is really, really hard to sympathize with the complaint in this thread.

[thighslapper]

As light does not bend ninety degrees on its own accord it is safe to assume that the flare does not come from the light beam itself but from an internal reflection either of the lens or the lens mount. If so the register distance plays no role.

 

Yup ....... Everything is shiny bright and polished. Looks nice but possibly not the best solution for avoiding light entry .....

[farnz]

… I guess we all can agree that the M is not ahead of it's competitors in regards to technology and innovations. ...

No I guess we can't all agree. For starters you'll need to show me another camera with a rangefinder that is able to produce such precise focus with a wide open 50/0.95 Noctilux lens. (Innovation is evident in the improved rangefinder accuracy and clarity over the other M series cameras.)

 

Pete.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

I bet your guitars take rubbish photos though

Funny shit

Now back to the B&W conversion, maybe if Leica shipped a copy of Nik software along with the Lightroom software that would solve this argument:):)

[jaapv]

It does not take much effort to find Nik software for free.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

It does not take much effort to find Nik software for free.

Not sure Leica would be interested in promoting counterfeit software.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

After reading all the replies this morning, it seems to me that there are those who will defend the crap we get from Leica no matter what and those like me that when we buy something whether it be a bus ticket or a Lamborghini we expect to get what we paid for................

[jdlaing]

After reading all the replies this morning, it seems to me that there are those who will defend the crap we get from Leica no matter what and those like me that when we buy something whether it be a bus ticket or a Lamborghini we expect to get what we paid for................

 

I think I got what I paid for. It is what it is.

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

I think I got what I paid for. It is what it is.

 

I didn't know they had Leica in Mexico.........

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

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.

 

Borge,

 

I was not being defensive but I found your statement offensive to me by implying that my comments were just assumption rather than based on analysis compared with your superior analytical skills

 

 

Regarding the light leak, I completely agree with you that it is unacceptable.

The camera and lens unit should be completely free of light leaks. As Jaap says, the lens mount is a 1936 design so in fact they have had 77 years to make subtle modification to perfect it. Not being able to take a daylight long exposure because of light leaks around the lens mount is inexcusable and Leica must be aware of the problem. In fact, what surprises me the most is that it has only come to light (pardon the pun) in this Forum in more recent months. This is a major issue for me as I like taking long daylight exposures, and in fact a day's work of my son's for a school photography project on water using a 10xND filter in bright daylight was ruined by this light leak. Thank god for the scrunchie!