Paulus Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share #21 Posted May 9, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I once asked something like that and Will would not advise me to let something done by him which falls under Leica's warranty. I suspect this is a camera problem which should be covered by M240 warranty easily, it is not a question of repair or maintenance, it is a Leica production failure. (But I think I lost track here, shouldn't this thread be about the M246?) M246 or M240 are IMHO the same bodies. Logical that something which falls under Leica warranty is repaired by Leica. The issue is not, who repairs the combination lens/camera, but that more than one lens which comes out of the factory suffer a malfunction and have to be sent back, to a factory which has already a long waiting list of repairs. Yesterday I got a mail of a fellow who had a 75mm and a 35 mm which weren't sharp. Leica would or course take them back for repair under warranty. Only problem was, that the waiting list was 10 weeks now! Another thing is, that people who buy a Leica M body for the first time, could be under the assumption, that their way of focussing with this new camera is too difficult for them, because none of their photos are sharp. Disappointed they sell the camera and their set of lenses. This way this lenses arrive on second hand market, instead of being repaired by Leica under warranty in the first place. IMHO this is bad for Leica but also for the secondhand buyer, not knowing if the lens is trustworthy when buying it from a distance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 9, 2015 Posted May 9, 2015 Hi Paulus, Take a look here New Monochrom M ( Typ 246 ) and it lenses. Do we need to adjust.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
issv Posted May 10, 2015 Share #22 Posted May 10, 2015 Recently I noticed with some lenses I had, that they were not exactly sharp on the M240. My last adjustment was on the M8/ M9 I did a very simple test on the M 240 looking through the viewfinder and then looking at the live view if the sharpness of the picture was in order. I noticed that the newer the lens was, the more it was off: My "old" asph summilux 50 was great, my recently cla-ed summicron 50 was o.k. , my SE 21 was not really sharp , but who cares with a 21mm, but.. The new ( april 2014 ) 75 summicron I tested was totally unsharp at infinity. I wanted to buy this lens but I decided not to because of this result. Nearby it was great. Will people get issues with new lenses together with the new Monochrom or is this just a coincidence. I would like your imput on these. I bought APO Summicron-M 75mm ASPH at march 2014. I had no time to test it in shop. After a week i tried to use it and it was unsharp at infinity. I returned to shop and they sent it to Solms (under warranty). After 2 months I received it after CLA, and it was OK. I think Leica had some problems with quality control at that period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted May 10, 2015 Share #23 Posted May 10, 2015 M246 or M240 are IMHO the same bodies. Logical that something which falls under Leica warranty is repaired by Leica. The issue is not, who repairs the combination lens/camera, but that more than one lens which comes out of the factory suffer a malfunction and have to be sent back, to a factory which has already a long waiting list of repairs. Yesterday I got a mail of a fellow who had a 75mm and a 35 mm which weren't sharp. Leica would or course take them back for repair under warranty. Only problem was, that the waiting list was 10 weeks now! Another thing is, that people who buy a Leica M body for the first time, could be under the assumption, that their way of focussing with this new camera is too difficult for them, because none of their photos are sharp. Disappointed they sell the camera and their set of lenses. This way this lenses arrive on second hand market, instead of being repaired by Leica under warranty in the first place. IMHO this is bad for Leica but also for the secondhand buyer, not knowing if the lens is trustworthy when buying it from a distance. You are totally right Paulus. Btw, I actually don't know what Will would say in this actual context of waiting periods of 10 weeks and even more from what I've seen here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share #24 Posted May 10, 2015 You are totally right Paulus. Btw, I actually don't know what Will would say in this actual context of waiting periods of 10 weeks and even more from what I've seen here I don't Otto know what Will thinks either, because I can't look into his head, but I sure know what he said to me. It's not right to cite him IMO because that would be hearsay. If he had wanted to publish his opinion about it, he would have done it already I think. But if you read between your own lines, you can pretty well guess, I guess... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share #25 Posted May 10, 2015 I bought APO Summicron-M 75mm ASPH at march 2014. I had no time to test it in shop. After a week i tried to use it and it was unsharp at infinity. I returned to shop and they sent it to Solms (under warranty). After 2 months I received it after CLA, and it was OK. I think Leica had some problems with quality control at that period. Interesting: Didn't you have to sent your camera too, when they adjusted the 75APO. I keep on hearing stories, that one has to ( they advise , of course they don't actually force you ) sent lens and camera. It happened to me too first time ( with the M 8 and the lenses ) but when my 90mm apo got a CLA it wasn't. Still the 90mm is perfect as it is. Talking about it yesterday with a friend who has some knowledge about it, it was more logical tot sent both, because every camera is slightly different. On the other hand, this would be rather sad, because what will happen if you sell your lens and the new owners camera is slightly different? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 10, 2015 Share #26 Posted May 10, 2015 Interesting: Didn't you have to sent your camera too, when they adjusted the 75APO. I keep on hearing stories, that one has to ( they advise , of course they don't actually force you ) sent lens and camera. It happened to me too first time ( with the M 8 and the lenses ) but when my 90mm apo got a CLA it wasn't. Still the 90mm is perfect as it is. Talking about it yesterday with a friend who has some knowledge about it, it was more logical tot sent both, because every camera is slightly different. On the other hand, this would be rather sad, because what will happen if you sell your lens and the new owners camera is slightly different? Hi There With the old rangefinder on the M9, the tolerances were wider, and it was better to send both in to get them calibrated together. The new 240 and 246 cameras are calibrated by machine - so, as I understand it they will not be calibrated differently for different lenses . . . which means that there is no longer much of an advantage of sending them all in together. Rangefinders are out of calibration much more commonly than lenses. Certainly, when I was shooting two M9 bodies I used 1/2 my lenses with one body and 1/2 with the other . . . these days I don't need to worry (and the lenses haven't been changed) - this is probably because the cameras were further out of tolerance with the older rangefinder design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted May 11, 2015 Share #27 Posted May 11, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi There With the old rangefinder on the M9, the tolerances were wider, and it was better to send both in to get them calibrated together. The new 240 and 246 cameras are calibrated by machine - so, as I understand it they will not be calibrated differently for different lenses . . . which means that there is no longer much of an advantage of sending them all in together. Rangefinders are out of calibration much more commonly than lenses. Certainly, when I was shooting two M9 bodies I used 1/2 my lenses with one body and 1/2 with the other . . . these days I don't need to worry (and the lenses haven't been changed) - this is probably because the cameras were further out of tolerance with the older rangefinder design. Although interestingly I have developed a feeling of the M240 being rock solid with the RF. I know not statistically significant but out of 6 or 7 M9s, one needed RF adjustment and another 2nd hand one needed it but I gave it back to the shop and swapped it. Out of three M240s none needed any sort of adjustment. However interestingly I found my first lens that did, a 35mm summicron. In fact every M240 becomes a bit of a benchmarking tool to test lenses. LV of course is the killer feature to test the RF with, if you think you have a problem. Lastly FYI I was advised by someone in Leica that repair times have shot up since the M9 sensor corrosion issue was announced, as large numbers of people with M9s suddenly decided to send them in. Rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglou Posted May 11, 2015 Share #28 Posted May 11, 2015 Source? I " think " it was always the case. Why ? Long ago i bought a brand new pre-asph summicron M 35mm, had the seller open the box and we saw the diaphragm blades stuck and bent as if someone had his finger or something forced through them. Since there where lenses on both sides this could only happen during production and this particular lens went through al subsequent operations till packed in its little box with the inspection certificate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 11, 2015 Share #29 Posted May 11, 2015 . Talking about it yesterday with a friend who has some knowledge about it, it was more logical tot sent both, because every camera is slightly different. A common misunderstanding, but incorrect: The lens and the camera are adjusted separately to a common standard; the reason Leica likes to have both is that they want to make sure the whole system is calibrated properly. The only thing they used to do was tolerance matching, with the current adjusting process I doubt that that is still the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted May 11, 2015 Share #30 Posted May 11, 2015 I " think " it was always the case. Why ? Long ago i bought a brand new pre-asph summicron M 35mm, had the seller open the box and we saw the diaphragm blades stuck and bent as if someone had his finger or something forced through them. Since there where lenses on both sides this could only happen during production and this particular lens went through al subsequent operations till packed in its little box with the inspection certificate. If I remember correctly that's one lens where you can unscrew the lens groups and expose the diaphragm without any further disassembly. So that doesn't necessarily prove there was a QA problem. Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted May 11, 2015 Author Share #31 Posted May 11, 2015 A common misunderstanding, but incorrect: The lens and the camera are adjusted separately to a common standard; the reason Leica likes to have both is that they want to make sure the whole system is calibrated properly. The only thing they used to do was tolerance matching, with the current adjusting process I doubt that that is still the case. A common misunderstanding, but incorrect: The lens and the camera are adjusted separately to a common standard; the reason Leica likes to have both is that they want to make sure the whole system is calibrated properly. The only thing they used to do was tolerance matching, with the current adjusting process I doubt that that is still the case. Sounds logical. But...He said it was the case in every camera of all marks. Do I understand not with Leica M? ( or is he just not so wise as I thought he was? ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted May 11, 2015 Share #32 Posted May 11, 2015 What I meant by "shouldn't happen" and "must be a coincidence" is that if this happens on your M240, you should notice the same problems with these lenses on the M9. There shouldn't be any difference between the M9 and M240 if your rangefinder is adjusted correctly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 11, 2015 Share #33 Posted May 11, 2015 Sounds logical. But...He said it was the case in every camera of all marks. Do I understand not with Leica M? ( or is he just not so wise as I thought he was? ) If you don't have a common standard, you don't have a system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 12, 2015 Share #34 Posted May 12, 2015 Although interestingly I have developed a feeling of the M240 being rock solid with the RF. I know not statistically significant but out of 6 or 7 M9s, one needed RF adjustment and another 2nd hand one needed it but I gave it back to the shop and swapped it. Out of three M240s none needed any sort of adjustment. However interestingly I found my first lens that did, a 35mm summicron. In fact every M240 becomes a bit of a benchmarking tool to test lenses. LV of course is the killer feature to test the RF with, if you think you have a problem. Lastly FYI I was advised by someone in Leica that repair times have shot up since the M9 sensor corrosion issue was announced, as large numbers of people with M9s suddenly decided to send them in. Rgds They still must adjust the vertical alignment by hand ....... as it was off on my new M246 ...... Luckily it's a five minute job with an allen key ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share #35 Posted May 12, 2015 They still must adjust the vertical alignment by hand ....... as it was off on my new M246 ...... Luckily it's a five minute job with an allen key ...... So even when we don't have to adjust, we have to adjust? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted May 13, 2015 Share #36 Posted May 13, 2015 The film lenses have a wider tolerance span. With "adjust to digital" Leica means that they will adjust the lens to a more narrow tolerance as needed for a digital camera. The standard is identical across all M models. The most critical camera is the M8, because of the crop factor. Jaapv, I'm not sure about this statement. It is true that the lens flange to "sensor" distance is standard and has not changed. However film was never flat and it is known that some lenses were "adjusted" to optimise the image quality with film. Leica never publically acknowledged this problem but an old trick that photojournalists used was to buy a lens and film camera body and send then together to Leica for "alignment". Leica knew perfectly well what this meant. It was particularly necessary with lenses like the Noctilux and Summilux. Such people rarely changed lenses they tended to have as many bodies as lenses! When Leica converted my 50mm f/1 Noctilux-M to 6-bit some 6 months or so prior to the release of the M8 it took a very long time ~10 weeks. I was told, (In those days, prior to it becoming a marketing company, you could trust what Leica said.), that this was because the lens needed to be "re-calibrated" for use with a digital sensor. I was given to understand that it had been returned to Canada. I can't say that I noticed the difference on film because I hardly used it until the M8 arrived. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 13, 2015 Share #37 Posted May 13, 2015 Actually Leica only started to adjust lenses to "digital Standard" in 2007 when their new testing rig became operational. They never did the film flatness trick you describe for the simple reason that there is a difference between films. However, Zeiss did until quite recently. The operation you refer to was tolerance matching, which Leica still does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted May 13, 2015 Share #38 Posted May 13, 2015 They still must adjust the vertical alignment by hand ....... as it was off on my new M246 ...... Luckily it's a five minute job with an allen key ...... So even when we don't have to adjust, we have to adjust? ...... not unless you are as fussy as me ....... having waged war with a succession of Leica M's over the years that were not adjusted to MY tolerances ..... ie. as near perfect as is possible with as many lenses as feasible ...... the first thing I do with a new camera is check RF calibration. You can spot vertical misalignment easily once you realise ..... the images are just that tiny bit fuzzy as they don't align perfectly ..... and with a magnifying eyepiece it is obvious. Once corrected the difference can be quite dramatic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted May 13, 2015 Share #39 Posted May 13, 2015 Actually Leica only started to adjust lenses to "digital Standard" in 2007 when their new testing rig became operational. They never did the film flatness trick you describe for the simple reason that there is a difference between films. However, Zeiss did until quite recently. The operation you refer to was tolerance matching, which Leica still does. You remind me that "...tolerance matching" was indeed the expression used. It amounts to adjusting something and it is my understanding that was always the lens, because it was relatively easy. Regarding film the people I knew nearly all used Tri-X, with a very few using HP4/5. So this was effectively standardised. I'm quite certain that my Noctilux was adjusted to "A Digital Standard" - that is why, in addition to 6-bit coding, Leica UK wanted to "service" all my lenses prior to the launch of the M8. Whether this was the eventual Digital Standard I have no idea. They did not want to see my 135mm f/3.4 APO-Telyt which they had already decided was not suitable to be used on an M8. For what it's worth the very best LTM camera bodies with respect to lens flange / film plane alignment and accuracy in the 1960/70 era were made by Canon not Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
issv Posted May 21, 2015 Share #40 Posted May 21, 2015 Interesting: Didn't you have to sent your camera too, when they adjusted the 75APO. I keep on hearing stories, that one has to ( they advise , of course they don't actually force you ) sent lens and camera. It happened to me too first time ( with the M 8 and the lenses ) but when my 90mm apo got a CLA it wasn't. Still the 90mm is perfect as it is. Talking about it yesterday with a friend who has some knowledge about it, it was more logical tot sent both, because every camera is slightly different. On the other hand, this would be rather sad, because what will happen if you sell your lens and the new owners camera is slightly different? Paulus, you are right. Manager offered me to send to Solms both lens and body (APO 75 mm and M 240). He said that adjusting will be more "accurate" in this case. But I asked him about my other lenses, which had worked correctly with body. My most useful lenses were Summicron 28 mm and APO Summicron 50 mm ASPH, and both worked excellent with M. After adjusting one lens together with body how can you hope, that your other lenses can work properly with this body as before? So, to CLA was sent only Summicron 75 mm lens. Best regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.