M8 and Noctilux

[Olsen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have noticed that my M8+Noctilux combo back focuses about 10 cm at 2 -3 meters range, but it looks OK at infinity. So I called the Leica importer (Farnes) here in Norway. They said that 'the viewfinder of the camera might be out of order', - although it looks good at infitity.

 

I have two Leica lenes I want to have coded, the Noctilux and a 35/2,0. He told me that all this was only done at the plant in Solms and that the whole bayonette was changed - not just some white and black dots painted on, and the lense adjusted 'finer than it has ever been', due to that a digital camera demands smaller tollerances. The taging/adjustment process would take 5 - 6 weeks.

 

I have now tested my M8 together with my Zeiss Ikon 50/2,0. They are perfectly alligned with each other! Could this be right? Could really the Noctilux be so far off?

[wparsonsgisnet]

Tom, if you peruse this thread (get a cup of coffee, first)

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/17699-very-interesting-answer-leica-35mm-1-a.html

 

you will see that the jury is still out. Some have lenses that "focus funny" [my term, not in the dictionary of optics at Solms] and some have the so-called same lens that works well.

 

Do you have access to other M bodies in which you can assess the behavior of your 'nocti?

 

On the other hand, and assuming you can do without the lens for an extended period of time, the gnomes at Solms are promising via your contact to make this lens beautiful again.

[jsjxyz]

I have M8 and Noct (new version w/o coding yet) and it is perfectly match

 

Cantika photo - Jerry Justianto photos at pbase.com

 

I am glad and using Noctilux more than I had used with M6. Even though I just owned the M8 for less than 1 month.

[jsjxyz]

But I suggest for you to use the 1.25X magnifier to make it good.

[Olsen]

Tom, if you peruse this thread (get a cup of coffee, first)

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/17699-very-interesting-answer-leica-35mm-1-a.html

 

you will see that the jury is still out. Some have lenses that "focus funny" [my term, not in the dictionary of optics at Solms] and some have the so-called same lens that works well.

 

Do you have access to other M bodies in which you can assess the behavior of your 'nocti?

 

On the other hand, and assuming you can do without the lens for an extended period of time, the gnomes at Solms are promising via your contact to make this lens beautiful again.

 

Bill,

 

I have done some further tests with the UV filter off. That was clearly better! But still not perfect and it is still backfocusing slightly. It seems to me that my M8 is focusing OK. I will check this more thoroughly, but the results I get with the Carl Zeiss 50 mm 2,0 is just perfectly dead on. - So something must be 'off' with the Noctilux. I'll have it sent to Solms - together with a 35 mm 2,0, for coding & adjustment. And then we'll see.

 

That said; aparture 1,0 lenses are notorious difficult to focus correctly. I have long experience with Canon's EF 50 mm 1,0L - with which you can just forget AF. But, as with SLRs 'what you see is what you get'. Provided you can see it. It is more demanding on the eyesight and I regularly use a magnifier to get it right. But my M8 (- and MP, Zeiss Ikon etc.) are easier at such. Here a magnifier can't solve your problem. You won't get what you see....

 

The Farnes rep made a point of that digital cameras demand narrower focusing tollerances. Why is that? And sending 'old' lenses for tagging was a smart thing, he said. They change the whole bayonette and will adjust it to a standard that it has never had before...

[jackal]

are all your tests on a tripod with timer ?

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bill,

 

I have done some further tests with the UV filter off. That was clearly better! But still not perfect and it is still backfocusing slightly. It seems to me that my M8 is focusing OK. I will check this more thoroughly, but the results I get with the Carl Zeiss 50 mm 2,0 is just perfectly dead on. - So something must be 'off' with the Noctilux. I'll have it sent to Solms - together with a 35 mm 2,0, for coding & adjustment. And then we'll see.

 

That said; aparture 1,0 lenses are notorious difficult to focus correctly. I have long experience with Canon's EF 50 mm 1,0L - with which you can just forget AF. But, as with SLRs 'what you see is what you get'. Provided you can see it. It is more demanding on the eyesight and I regularly use a magnifier to get it right. But my M8 (- and MP, Zeiss Ikon etc.) are easier at such. Here a magnifier can't solve your problem. You won't get what you see....

 

The Farnes rep made a point of that digital cameras demand narrower focusing tollerances. Why is that? And sending 'old' lenses for tagging was a smart thing, he said. They change the whole bayonette and will adjust it to a standard that it has never had before...

 

The Farnes rep is right, but he or she is also wrong. Don't ya just love answers like that?

 

Anyway, first, I have plenty of backfocussing SLRs. One little jolt to the screen and what you see is not what you get anymore

 

Next, yes, digital cameras are a bit more demanding for focus, mainly because everyone sees their shots at 100% in PS right after they're taken But also because the sensor placement tolerances are tighter than with film evidently.

 

But here's the absolute bonus of the M8 1.33 crop...

 

With a 50 Nocti, you have an effective FOV (not magnification) of about 77mm--which is close enough to my 80R Lux for me Fabulous portrait lens.

 

But the effective DOF on the 50 Nocti due to the crop is increased quite a bit. In my estimation about two "stops worth" of additional focus.

 

So yes, you're not getting the full effect of f1 focusing on the M8 the way you would with film. However, it's a heck of a lot easier to focus a lens at f2 than at f1 Of course, you still have the light-gathering characteristics of an f1 lens!

 

So I've actually "shot from the hip" with the Nocti and guessed focused and hit the mark at f1.0, let alone having no trouble with the actual rangefinder!

 

So it sounds like your lens needs a slight adjustment if all your others are fine. But the recommendation for the magnifier is a very good one too!

[wattsy]

With a 50 Nocti, you have an effective FOV (not magnification) of about 77mm--which is close enough to my 80R Lux for me Fabulous portrait lens.

 

The effective FOV of a 50 is more like 67mm on a Leica (a wee bit longer with some Leica 50s which may be around 52mm or so).

 

 

But the effective DOF on the 50 Nocti due to the crop is increased quite a bit. In my estimation about two "stops worth" of additional focus.

 

In my opinion the effective DOF of a lens is reduced when used on digital (and when compared with using film). I understand the theory as to why it should appear increased but I find that the greater clarity and resolution of digital makes the transition from sharp to unsharp more obvious - and in the process makes the DOF seem less extensive.

[Jamie Roberts]

The effective FOV of a 50 is more like 67mm on a Leica (a wee bit longer with some Leica 50s which may be around 52mm or so).

 

Ooops!! Should never do math when I'm tired and sick (got a cold right now)!

 

In my opinion the effective DOF of a lens is reduced when used on digital (and when compared with using film). I understand the theory as to why it should appear increased but I find that the greater clarity and resolution of digital makes the transition from sharp to unsharp more obvious - and in the process makes the DOF seem less extensive.

 

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, of course, and you're right about the effect of digital in transitions.

 

But for DOF, I see increased DOF on cropped bodies all the time shooting the ff 5d and the M8 and 1d3 / DMR (which are all 1.3 cropped). When shooting something as simple as a portrait I can get away with wayyy more open aperture than I could on the ff body.

 

So if I'm shooting around 3.2 with the cropped bodies, I need to be well past f4.0 on the ff to get the same DOF effects.

[Shootist]

But I suggest for you to use the 1.25X magnifier to make it good.

 

If a lens doesn't focus correctly using the X1.25 magnifier will not help.

[Ben Marks]

Mine backfocused by one inch. A quick adjustment with a 2mm allen wrench and everything is right as rain. Ditto 75/2, 50/1.4, 90/2. Do a forum search for M8 & backfocus and you'll find the thread that explains how to do it. Oops. I just re-read your post and you said 10 cm. That might be a bit much for a tweak of the rf cam. Forget I suggested it.

 

Ben

[Olsen]

Mine backfocused by one inch. A quick adjustment with a 2mm allen wrench and everything is right as rain. Ditto 75/2, 50/1.4, 90/2. Do a forum search for M8 & backfocus and you'll find the thread that explains how to do it. Oops. I just re-read your post and you said 10 cm. That might be a bit much for a tweak of the rf cam. Forget I suggested it.

 

Ben

 

It is the Noxtilux that backfocuses. With about 7 to 10 cm at 1 meter distance. A test with my Carl Zeiss Ikon 50 mm 2,0 is dead on at 1 meter. - Not only that; it outperforms the Noctilux even with the latter at aparture 2,0 - by far! High contrast & sharpness, brilliance and colour rendition; the ZM 50 mm 2,0 is an awesome lense. To a fraction of the price of the Noctilux. So, when the guys at Oberkochen say that their new ZM range of lenses 'offer something better', they mean business.

 

(But aparture 0,1 has it's magic. I have the Canon version too. Even that is dull and contrastless compared to it's cheap & fresh little sister; the 50 mm 1,4. But it is aparture 1,0. With that you can shoot through the whole scandinavian summer night. Hand held at ISO160...)

 

My Nochtilux is soon to be sent to Solms together with my Summilux 35 mm 2,0 for tagging & adjustment. Then we'll see.

[Olsen]

The Farnes rep is right, but he or she is also wrong. Don't ya just love answers like that?

 

Anyway, first, I have plenty of backfocussing SLRs. One little jolt to the screen and what you see is not what you get anymore

 

Next, yes, digital cameras are a bit more demanding for focus, mainly because everyone sees their shots at 100% in PS right after they're taken But also because the sensor placement tolerances are tighter than with film evidently.

 

But here's the absolute bonus of the M8 1.33 crop...

 

With a 50 Nocti, you have an effective FOV (not magnification) of about 77mm--which is close enough to my 80R Lux for me Fabulous portrait lens.

 

But the effective DOF on the 50 Nocti due to the crop is increased quite a bit. In my estimation about two "stops worth" of additional focus.

 

So yes, you're not getting the full effect of f1 focusing on the M8 the way you would with film. However, it's a heck of a lot easier to focus a lens at f2 than at f1 Of course, you still have the light-gathering characteristics of an f1 lens!

 

So I've actually "shot from the hip" with the Nocti and guessed focused and hit the mark at f1.0, let alone having no trouble with the actual rangefinder!

 

So it sounds like your lens needs a slight adjustment if all your others are fine. But the recommendation for the magnifier is a very good one too!

 

Just for the record; I took my 1Ds with EF 50 mm 1,0L through the paces. It's dead sharp on closest focusing distance; 60 cm. Even with AF! And that is the 1Ds II that fell out of my car last winter and rolled down the hill we live in, like an apple, as an exposure went off and camera 'chewed' the focusing screen (...just the noise was heartbreaking...). The focusing screen is still in there, scratched and all. Impossible to get a spare one here in Norway.

 

Visited Farnes (Norwegian Leica rep) to send off my Noctilux and a Summicron 35 mm 2,0 to Solms. 10 weeks, it will take. That was the summer of 2007. And if it isn't sharp then I have to 'co-tune' the M8 and the Noctilux together as some old hacks here have suggested. That will be another 10 weeks and most part of 2007. But I am a young man. Æhum. With some silvery hair , here and there. If I live, I'll keep you posted.

[wattsy]

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, of course, and you're right about the effect of digital in transitions.

 

But for DOF, I see increased DOF on cropped bodies all the time shooting the ff 5d and the M8 and 1d3 / DMR (which are all 1.3 cropped). When shooting something as simple as a portrait I can get away with wayyy more open aperture than I could on the ff body.

 

So if I'm shooting around 3.2 with the cropped bodies, I need to be well past f4.0 on the ff to get the same DOF effects.

 

You are comparing DOF of full-frame digital with cropped digital. If you actually read what I wrote you'll notice I was comparing digital with film. That was the basis of my point.

[Jamie Roberts]

You are comparing DOF of full-frame digital with cropped digital. If you actually read what I wrote you'll notice I was comparing digital with film. That was the basis of my point.

 

Ian, no need to get nasty, but since you mention it, I did actually read what you wrote. Just because you didn't understand my point doesn't mean I didn't get yours

 

You're still welcome to your opinion, but in mine, a 1.33 cropped digital gives more effective DOF than either a full-frame digital or full-frame film body for the same lens and f stop.

 

YMMV. IMO.

 

In other words, the DOF from my 1ds2 with my 85 1.2L was just about the same as it was from any of my film EOS cameras.

 

It's not the same with the 1d2, or with any cropped sensor body. It's quite different, and at the extreme (a 1.6 crop like the 20 / 30d) your depth of field is so much greater that you literally gain a few stops of light. Of course, you also lose the out of focus areas that some people like so much!

 

So to me it's apparenty the effect of the cropped sensor, not the digital fact, that makes the difference (and I still agree that transition effects are more pronounced in digital than film--which actually was your original point, unless my readon comprehension is much worse than I think).

 

Having said that, since the subject is "M8 and Noctilux" perhaps my response was a bit more on point than yours, since we're mostly talking here about a digital camera with the Noctilux

[Jamie Roberts]

Just for the record; I took my 1Ds with EF 50 mm 1,0L through the paces. It's dead sharp on closest focusing distance; 60 cm. Even with AF! And that is the 1Ds II that fell out of my car last winter and rolled down the hill we live in, like an apple, as an exposure went off and camera 'chewed' the focusing screen (...just the noise was heartbreaking...). The focusing screen is still in there, scratched and all. Impossible to get a spare one here in Norway.

 

You are one lucky 1ds owner, but they are built like tanks!

 

My 1ds2 was perfect from the factory, but then I had some major screen problems / problems interacting with different focusing screens I had installed. Not changing them to begin with is probably the best idea, but I finally fixed them myself

 

But it's the same for the R series cameras; if the screen isn't fitted properly you get all kinds of nasty effects.

[wattsy]

Ian, no need to get nasty, but since you mention it, I did actually read what you wrote. Just because you didn't understand my point doesn't mean I didn't get yours

 

.....

 

Having said that, since the subject is "M8 and Noctilux" perhaps my response was a bit more on point than yours, since we're mostly talking here about a digital camera with the Noctilux

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as nasty. I'm not sure who was less on point first because I was responding to your suggestion further above that "you're not getting the full effect of f1 focusing on the M8 the way you would with film." That was the reason for my comments regarding the comparison of DOF on digital v. film. I stand by my original point that, cropped or not, the clarity of digital capture gives a noticeably more pronounced transition from in-focus to out-of-focus than film and, in my opinion, can give the impression of a narrower DOF. I can see that the snippet of your argument that I quoted didn't make clear what point I was actually responding to.

[wlaidlaw]

Unless I have wholly misunderstood the total concept of interchangeable lenses, this idea of tuning your body to a lens sounds like a complete nonsense to me. Your body should be tuned to a standard as should the lens. Any correctly set up M-fit lens should focus properly on any M-fit body (possible exception of Konica). There are 5 variables on a lens set up; centering, axis alignment, lens to imaging medium distance, focus cam slope and radial position of focus barrel in relation to focus cam. As long as these are set up on some sort of optical and mechanical jig to the defined standards within the permitted tolerances and a similar job is done on the body, there should be no need for "tuning". Am I getting something wrong?

 

Wilson

[wattsy]

As long as these are set up on some sort of optical and mechanical jig to the defined standards within the permitted tolerances and a similar job is done on the body, there should be no need for "tuning". Am I getting something wrong?

 

No, I agree with you. However, in conversations with Leica I have been told that the tolerances don't always overlap. I imagine that, like DOF scales on Leica lenses, the tolerances Leica have used in lens and body manufacture are no longer accurate enough for the digital age.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

My Noctilux has just arrived by courier, as I was reading the last post on this thread. I will run focus tests on it this afternoon using the Nikon D70 test printed at A3 and post some results.

 

Wilson