Focus adjustment Odyssey

[Rand]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For jpk - As part of the "Leica Experience" you have to understand that it is never the camera - it's always You!

 

This wunderkamera and lenses can do no wrong. Its user error. Or you didn't do enough due diligence.

Though every camera I have used for 45+ years had a hinge on the bottom I was the idiot for not knowing Leica M doesn't have one.

Like if you bought a Leica car and when you tried to open the door you found Leica car doors don't open. Why didn't you know that?

 

Service times measured in weeks and months, hampered long exposure times, lenses that need adjustment, you are supposed to know all this going in.

 

The fact that most digital cameras run rings around the M, its not the camera its You!

 

Love the lenses, I just wish someone would make a FF digital  body that took Leica lenses with no problems.

Until then I limp along with my M, cause its all my fault

[AlanJW]

For jpk - As part of the "Leica Experience" you have to understand that it is never the camera - it's always You!

 

This wunderkamera and lenses can do no wrong. Its user error. Or you didn't do enough due diligence.

Though every camera I have used for 45+ years had a hinge on the bottom I was the idiot for not knowing Leica M doesn't have one.

Like if you bought a Leica car and when you tried to open the door you found Leica car doors don't open. Why didn't you know that?

 

Service times measured in weeks and months, hampered long exposure times, lenses that need adjustment, you are supposed to know all this going in.

 

The fact that most digital cameras run rings around the M, its not the camera its You!

 

Love the lenses, I just wish someone would make a FF digital  body that took Leica lenses with no problems.

Until then I limp along with my M, cause its all my fault

There are some legitimate points here but they are obscured by the screed-like tone. I don't read this thread as anything but a discussion of a rangefinder that can go out of whack, and how there are some do it yourself fixes if you don't want to send in your camera.   If you want agreement that some "features" of Leicas are annoying or that there are pieces that are not state of the art, I think you will find a good deal of agreement here.  No need for the rant.

[jdlaing]

There are some legitimate points here but they are obscured by the screed-like tone. I don't read this thread as anything but a discussion of a rangefinder that can go out of whack, and how there are some do it yourself fixes if you don't want to send in your camera.   If you want agreement that some "features" of Leicas are annoying or that there are pieces that are not state of the art, I think you will find a good deal of agreement here.  No need for the rant.

Not to worry Alan. It's not the first camera system he's had problems with. He's still searching for the Holy Grail. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Leica equipment is amazing, and like any tool requires operator skill. At 40m focussing distance you would barely turn the barrel 1 mm to adjust for the focus error that you did not like.  Who can determine THAT difference in the RF patch?  On my M4 I can do so a little better than with the M,  on my M3 even better.  But then film and digital differ in terms of DOF as well.  Open 90's are not easy to handle fully open, and why would anyone do that except for with a portrait?

 

More than likely this lens is perfectly ok, despite the prevalence of 'my xyz was sent back 3times...' on this forum.  More than likely we expect more of our equipment than we can objectively handle in terms of our understanding of skill in handling our equipment in a particular situation.  When it then comes to the result we complain, instead of having the skills to get the result with the tools we chose.  This forum has ample evidence of that.  

 

There is some interesting reading: ".....Therefore the quality of the Leica images was of paramount importance. The aperture of 3.5 gave excellent optical performance and more importantly, it had an extended depth of field. So even if the Leica user misjudged the distance a bit, he was assured of high quality images. Berek rightfully assumed that the user of this new instrument needed to gain experience with the wide aperture and the focusing. " E. Puts, Leica M lenses - Their soul and Secrets, 2002, p77. 

 

As said by others, LV does not lie.  I was surprised when I 'got the patch wrong' by half a mm, and LV resulted in perfect focus.  I even measured and both lens and LV were right, I was not.  Could not believe that and a very humbling experience.  I did sell my 2/90 Cron, and now my favourite 90 (rarely used) is an ugly but light old 4/90 that works perfectly stepped down, and does magic with portraits.   

 

Looking at the 1:1 crop I wonder: why would you want to shoot that scene with open aperture, would it even matter in a print, would zone focussing not be better, if you really want the handrail in focus would not a tripod and LV be the solution?   

 

The optical RF gives us so much, and is so superior to SLR/EVF.  But it has to be used in the context of its mechanical limitations.  And is that not something we knowingly take into account when we buy this amazing piece of hybrid camera technology? With film we always took multiple shots with slight change in focus, this is still a reasonable thing to do with digital.  Or rock slightly forward and back and take a few shots - one will always be the perfectly focussed shot.  

 

Here is a challenge:  use that lens and then post 2 perfectly exposed and focussed pictures with a DR of min 6 to max 10 stops.  One at distance, and one at under 5m distance.  Show us the full frame and a 1:1 crop somewhere to prove it.  Think about DOF.  Step down from f2, as the subject demands.  I am sure everyone will applaud.  We will learn something.  You will end up loving body and lens, with body and soul.  

 

I would think that unless you are able to hold the offending camera/lens in hand your assertion that it is likely that the lens is fine is nothing more than a wild guess. As responders to the OP all we can do is bring our own experiences in as conversation pieces. It's really up to the OP to do his own testing and make his own decision. I also don't think we are qualified to make judgement on how good he/she is with RF focusing or his/her skill level. For myself, when I complained to Leica I did so with 20+ years as a working photographer and I KNOW my gear was out because after threats of legal action my gear miraculously turned up working properly and it has done so to this day. I would like to think that the OP has the necessary eyesight and skills to know whether it's them or the gear.

 

Leica obviously think it's possible to accurately focus these lenses because they sell them. If they don't function wide open then they wouldn't be on the market. It's certainly not because of live view as the vast majority of current Leica lenses have been available for over a decade. It's also possible to add a magnifier if your eyes and hands aren't up to the task. When I buy a f2 lens I expect it will function correctly at f2 and all it's other apertures.

 

And, with respect, you're wrong about the DOF comment. DOF is a function of the size of the imager, the magnification by way of focal length, focus distance and print (screen) size plus aperture. The imager type has nothing to do with it. Any available DOF calculator can confirm this for you.

 

Gordon

[Exodies]

Isn't the diameter of the acceptable circle of confusion dependent on the imager type?

[jaapv]

Ultimately DOF is determined by the acuity of the eyesight of the observer and level of acceptance of the photographer. Thus it is a subjective perception masquerading as an objective phenomena. As far as I am concerned all formulas, tables, scales, etc. are no more than an approximate guide at best and rubbish at worst.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Isn't the diameter of the acceptable circle of confusion dependent on the imager type?

 

Yep. Sure is.

 

In the early days of digital there was some discussion as to whether the CoC would be different because it takes at least 9 pixels to make a "circle". This was when 3MP was cutting edge. DOF threads will never die. Arguments about DOF on the web are nearly as popular as porn.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Ultimately DOF is determined by the acuity of the eyesight of the observer and level of acceptance of the photographer. Thus it is a subjective perception masquerading as an objective phenomena. As far as I am concerned all formulas, tables, scales, etc. are no more than an approximate guide at best and rubbish at worst.

 

Couldn't agree more. Even I'm guilty of leaving off the word "apparent" before DoF.

 

Gordon

[harryzet]

i never had problems like this. but i use a canon 5dII with 2,8/40 at a fraction of the cost of your leica-equipment

[Exodies]

If you want problems, you've gotta pay for them.

[jdlaing]

i never had problems like this. but i use a canon 5dII with 2,8/40 at a fraction of the cost of your leica-equipment

Good for you!

[harryzet]

Good for you!

yes.

[jpk]

If you want problems, you've gotta pay for them.

 

Again this kind of helpful advice - many thanks!

 

Other very helpful forum members earlier in this thread stated that if the RF patch shows coincidence and the captured picture is out of focus the photographer uses his kit out of specs: which means it's within specs if the RF shows no coincidence but the captured image is sharp. So basically, if one uses the RF and gets a sharp image, ones kit is out of spec and needs adjustment, but if one improves her/his skills one can overcome this - at least that's what was suggested. And how to improve the skills was also made clear in this thread: using other systems, closing aperture, checking the pictures without magnification, using a tripod (this will definately affect focus accuracy!), and of course zone focusing.

 

But this is much easier: I want the problems, yes!!! Did I know that? No!!!

 

How stupid I am.

Edited August 19, 2015 by jpk

[lct]

Learning more is never a waste.

[jdlaing]

Learning more is never a waste.

Unless you learn bad habits from the wrong teacher. 

[tobey bilek]

Actually, we did...

I have a few of those.  The Omega /Peak with long mirror could go right into the corners.

 

Now I will tell the truth about the good old days with chemicals.   Film was not flat in a carrier without glass so either center or corners were out of focus.   If you were lucky,  Forotar 1 and 2 have curved fields , 1 worse than II.    The curved field was used to my advantage when printing mounted slides.  

 

The large front element model , actually an interim mode made by Schneiderl between 1 and 2,  the field was dead flat.  This lens best used with double glass carrier as is the 40 mm on V35.

 

Top glass is a help, but not 100% cure.  You need double glass and flat field lens for perfection.     I have a double glass for the V35 + 40.    I made a double glass for an Omega using slide mounting glass, AN for the top,  plain for the bottom.   Grain sharp right into the corners. 

 

I really do not remember complaining about those ills.

 

And Omega enlargers with lens cones.     Every cone is off throwing the enlarger out of alignment in a different way.   I set it up with 150 mm and shim every other lens cone to make them work.   Now here is the surprise,  a screw in rather than jam nut mount lens ,  alignment varied with the lens.    This tells me centering or something else is wrong with the lenses.  And I do not own and cheap lenses.

 

The only enlargers I bought that are aligned properly right from the box are Leicas.   Everything else, break out the Omega/Peak ,  figure out where/if alignment controls are,  and go through the painful process.   Never had a Durst which are reputed good.

 

You can trash auto focus on a camera,  but the lenses are adjustable  with fine tune.  Perhaps Leica with have something similar with hybrid RF .   

 

BTW, I have M8 & 9 and have not had a focus issue with either.     The only testing I ever did was real pics as the come up.   The 75 APO is really touchy as depth of field is nil at 500 ' and f 8.    Karbe likes out of focus to increase rapidly which makes critical focus mandatory.

Edited August 19, 2015 by tobey bilek

[jpk]

Learning more is never a waste.

 

 Very true:

 

The 75 APO is really touchy as depth of field is nil at 500' and f8. Karbe likes out of focus to increase rapidly which makes critical focus mandatory.

 

[lct]

Haha! I've learnt a new thing as well...

[jpk]

Just wanted to let you know that I received the last parts of my M system back from focus adjustment: happy end after all!!! But as you might have noticed I decided to part with some of my M gear (check the used gear section of this forum). This time I got an S while my M stuff was in for service: I feel much more secure with the S, can see better (I wear glasses), can control focus better and also the files look better. So finally the forum advice was right: that the M system might not be the right tool for me... I will try a combinatio of S plus some portable full frame camera - time will tell. Thanks again!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jpk]

Update: check out my S focus odyssey here!