Rangefinders More Delicate Than SLR's - Please Clarify

[M9reno]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

135 mm lenses can be a pain in the proverbial backside, as they are basically outside the comfort zone of a rangefinder system with the parameters Leica has set.

A self-induced pain, since no one forced them to design something like the 135 APO Telyt, if it is indeed close to useless as a rangefinder-focused lens (customer service described it as a 'prestige lens' - whatever that means outside Leicaland).  Asking a customer of such a lens to use only small apertures, or only Live View, or to recalibrate the camera forgoing use of other lenses, or to send every lens to Germany... All true, and all grist for the Rockwell mill, since only a true Hermes-toting 'Leica Man' could be happy with such 'solutions'. 

[MarkP]

My 3.4/135 APO-Telyt and RF calibration is fine.  I have no problem using the lens up to f4.0-5.6.  

However, f3.4 can be hard work, certainly outside the comfort zone, and needs time and concentration and sometimes the EVF.

[Peter H]

I'm always surprised when I read of this "I never need RF adjustement", my M7 when used need it to be adjusted at least once a year! Of course if I let it rest on a shelf for a long time and only use it twice a year this is not necessary.

m

.............…

robert

I've been lucky or you've been unlucky.

 

I've been taking photos with Leica rangefinder cameras almost everyday since the 1980s and only once, about five years ago, has a rf needed adjustment.

 

I've also used T&SLRs and DSLRs with no problems except for a Nikon D700 that failed completely in the middle of a job due to a processor problem.

 

I don't think theres an intrinsic unreliability pattern, but cameras are not 100% dependable. Leicas and rangefinders are no worse than any others, in my experience.

[S.Rolf]

"..., my M7 when used need it to be adjusted at least once a year!"

 

What exactly is needing to adjusted and why exactly is this so?

How much use are we talking about?

 

[pico]

The only cameras I use are rangefinders and viewfinders (manual guesstimate focused lenses). Sometimes I will consult a ground glass. Rangefinders are generally robust, with Leica's being the superior, by far, of its kind. The Zeiss Super Ikonta type which uses a rotating prism and coincidence to focus is near bulletproof, but would not work for a Leica.

 

Besides Leica's acute attention to manufacture, it chooses superior optical components. They rarely yellow or fade out over time except in dire circumstances. The rest do. Like many here, I have not had a Leica RF failure, but I do not pixel-peep. Perhaps my standards are low, but are they effecting the outcomes?

 

--

Linhof Super Technika - rangefinder

Busch Press D - rangefinder

Five Super Ikontas - rangefinders

more Leica Ms than I can remember - rangefinders

Two Veriwides (one 6x8, one 6x9) - viewfinder

Hasselblad SWC - viewfinder (w optional ground glass)

Custom 4x5" super wide - viewfinder

 

Life is good with Leica

[adan]

I won't list all the quotes I'm referencing here, since it gets complex, but:

 

@ pico (earlier post) - while it is possible to adjust lenses, really, the variable with RF lenses for focusing is a solid chunk of metal, the focusing cam. "Adjusting" a lens really means: taking it apart, possibly remachining some parts, and rebuilding it from scratch. The real fix for lens adjustment - which Leica appears to have improved (based on my experience with a recent "Leica Park" 75 Summicron and 135 APO)  - is tighter tolerances and "adjustment" at the time of manufacture. (NB - floating elements are separate from the raw focus calibration, but obviously may sometimes need adjustment).

 

The Leica body/RF is the part of the system that has freedom for easy "adjustment" - lots of moving bits with adjustment screws, requiring no disassembly (except removing the Red Dot on the front to uncover an access port). It was designed to be adjusted, on the clear understanding that it can, at some point, under some conditions, go out of adjustment.

 

@ M9reno - you mention (in jest) getting a second body for one of your lenses. That's no joke. Over 40 years ago, the Rock photographer Jim Marshall (RIP) said that "when I find a lens that works perfectly on one of my Leicas, I never take that lens off again." Which is why he is usually seen carrying 4 of the little buggers: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d-rM9afxjgQ/UWMX_CMRMVI/AAAAAAAAAEw/lmNgPIf7IxE/s1600/jim-marshall-slide.jpg

 

28/35/50/90 - and one camera for each.

 

I don't go to that extreme myself - but I do always test any lens, and particularly any lens over 50mm, on my own camera, before purchasing. If it doesn't work, I "adjust" it by returning it (or by not buying in the first place) and trying another.

 

As to: "A self-induced pain, since no one forced them to design something like the 135 APO Telyt, if it is indeed close to useless as a rangefinder-focused lens....et seq."

 

I use a 135 on my M9, all the time, no live view, any aperture - and win national awards with it. I thank the deities that Leica makes one for the M. It is possible that the mediocre middle find it "close to useless" - but why on Earth should I be limited in choice by the limitations of the mediocre middle?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[M9reno]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you, Adan.  I always benefit from reading your posts.  What most surprised me at Mayfair was the implication that, if I were to buy the APO-Telyt expecting to rangefinder-focus the lens at full aperture, then I should just give up the thought.  Whether it was done in an excess of honesty or ignorance, I still can't make up my mind.

[adan]

I just linked to this chart over on the "focusing 75 f/2 vs. 90 f/2" thread on the "M lenses" forum: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00E/00EUiN-26943584.bmp

 

which does indicate that the calculated limit for focusing a 135mm on a digital M is f/4.5. More details on using the chart on that other thread.

 

And the situation may be worse (require an even smaller aperture) viewing at 100% pixels, rather than a slide/negative with an 8x magnifier, or an 8x10-inch print.

 

Of course, the 135 f/3.4 was designed in the era of film, and available 0.9 (M3) and optional 0.85 (late M6 et seq) finders.

 

Leica's manual gives the same warning as your Mayfair salesman, which is support by the science - and Leica tends to be very conservative about science. So I would call it precise honesty. My practical experience is that, so long as one knows one is on the ragged edge, the results can be quite a bit more positive. When I can use f/8, I do (my 135 f/4 TE improves overall down to that aperture anyway). If I need full aperture, I chimp a little to make sure I'm getting what I want.

 

There is a "black hole" between about 30 feet/10 m, and infinity, where the rangefinder's "triangle" for triangulation progressively gets so skinny as to be useless. Something I discovered way back with a Contax G camera, where the infrared/sonar RF thought anything beyond 45 feet was "infinity." Which was not accurate enough even for the Contax's 90mm at f/2.8 - 45 feet is NOT infinity. AT infinity, of course, you just set the lens to the infinity mark (assuming the lens is in spec).

 

I've just learned that, with my 135 and my M9's RF, to back-focus a tad if beyond 50 feet, front-focus a tad between 30 and 50 feet, trust-but-verify the RF below 30 feet, and set infinity for anything beyond 200 feet/60 meters. I'm trying to get photographs, not match numbers.

 

When I tried a recent 135 APO from Leica's new factory, I found it to be very usable @ f/3.4 - with some similar limitations in the "black-hole" region. Clearly better adjustment than my decades-old TE (which still works acceptably, most of the time).

 

in short, Leica doesn't want every 135 APO being sent back for "adjustment" just because it will, by the numbers, be inconsistent at some distances at some apertures. There's no adjustment that will fix basic physics.

 

So they warn people, in person or in print, based on the "worst case." I tend to shoot on a "real case" basis, instead.

[M9reno]

Thank you, Adan - that's very reasonably put.  The 'real case' for me is that, since every 135mm I tried (both the four that I own and the APO from the store) was back-focusing hopelessly on my M240, the camera has had to go back to Germany after having just been there last year.  I just couldn't see a way around that.

[Herr Barnack]

I've had to have rangefinder calibration done twice - once on my former film MP and once on my former M240. Both required adjustment after what I would have thought to be minor mishaps; they certainly pale in comparison to Adan's smacking his M8 on the asphalt after jumping off the top of a van (post #10 above).  I think he is right - the geometry of the impact seems to play a significant role.

 

All is well with my Safari M-P so far; must be the olive paint and skin...

[robert blu]

 

"..., my M7 when used need it to be adjusted at least once a year!"

 

What exactly is needing to adjusted and why exactly is this so?

How much use are we talking about?

 

 

 

 

Not much use, the worse was last year when just after realignementba went for a short holiday ancd after 8-10 rolls it was already out of alignement. The camera didn't fall or had any mechanical shock!

I brought back home the camera last week after another adjustement and hopefully it will be better...crossing fingers...

robert

[S.Rolf]

Not much use, the worse was last year when just after realignementba went for a short holiday ancd after 8-10 rolls it was already out of alignement. The camera didn't fall or had any mechanical shock!

I brought back home the camera last week after another adjustement and hopefully it will be better...crossing fingers...

robert

 

I wonder why this format is so favored by photo journalists if they're that delicate?

I understand size is a factor but you'd think a camera needing to be a VERY robust workhorse would be the main reason.

Seems counter intuitive to me and not very encouraging.

I'm new to RF's and the MP so I guess I'll just have to wait and see.  

[menos I M6]

You have to take Ken Rockwell with a healthy Priese Salz.

 

His general message though in regards of RF vs SLR camera in practical terms is correct.

 

 

My regularly used Leica M bodies do need a proper RF calibration checkup about at least once a year. Some problematic bodies do take a little more attention (I basically do a quick RF calibration check before any major trip or use of these cameras and set them aside for a calibration when convenient and just use another body instead).

 

The SLR bodies I used regularly do need less to no attention at all over the same time.

 

I have a Nikon D3 I bought shortly after they were introduced and have used it over the years regularly - this camera did not spend one single second in service, nor did it need any other attention due to malfunction (of course regular sensor cleaning is a must with any digital).

I have a beaten up Nikon F3, which I used sparingly but which shows signs of it's former user(s) and it doesn't have had the slightest hick-up, working flawlessly to this day - it also has admittedly sat for a few years now and then and just keeps working perfectly (something you definitely do NOT want to do with a Leica M).

Same goes for any other Nikon cameras I used over the years.

 

It seems that the established SLR camera manufacturers have over decades long development, manufacturing and services on their products found the perfect receipt for bullet proof cameras.

 

A Leica rangefinder camera does need regular attention (but I find them extraordinary reliable and the time span between necessary services is reasonable).

My Leica M bodies with regular use ride on a daily basis in messenger bags, backpacks, over a shoulder by foot, bike, thrown in the back of a car, transported on shaky flights in the over head bin, … and they survive admirably with reasonable amounts of service needed.

 

The rangefinder does need a more regular checkup. Period. But it is a need that can be anticipated, planned and performed when convenient - it's like having to wash your car, having to have your hair cut, having to clean your windows or bringing out the trash - it needs doing and that's all.

 

I wouldn't hesitate to bring a Leica M into rough conditions because an internet marketer made a comment on a website.

[pico]

in short, Leica doesn't want every 135 APO being sent back for "adjustment" just because it will, by the numbers, be inconsistent at some distances at some apertures. There's no adjustment that will fix basic physics

 

Leica lenses push against the rangefinder roller in a linear manner. Do you think they could make a ramp that turns with the lens so that it accommodates specific distances? Linhof's RF cams do.

[menos I M6]

Leica lenses push against the rangefinder roller in a linear manner. Do you think they could make a ramp that turns with the lens so that it accommodates specific distances? Linhof's RF cams do.

 

Leica's RF lenses work exactly in the very same principle to Linhof's rangefinder coupled lenses - the 135/3.4 APO included.

There is one single focal length (51.6mm) where the actual curve is linear and any other focal length lens, deviating from being 51.6mm has a rangefinder coupling via a non linear curve that translates the linear movement of the optical cell into another linear movement by "translating it" to the rangefinder roller arm in the camera body.

 

Lenses (mostly telephoto lenses) like the 135/3.4 do not have this mechanism fully visible on the rear of the lens but rather show only a "finger" that connects to the camera body's roller arm.

That finger though is only an additional mechanical complication with the actual rangefinder curve being hidden inside the lens (it's principle exactly as with other lenses).

 

This of course adds another complication to exactly those lenses which are difficult to focus with precision with the rangefinder camera to begin with - it adds additional mechanical tolerances which further reduce precision in focussing to the already stretching long focal length and it's large deviation from the linear (ideal) focal length to the rangefinder, being 51.6mm.

 

The 135/3.4 APO shows exactly those shortcomings - any sample of it will have significant "slack" in it's focussing mechanism, that it's calibration for critical use on a Leica M poses a difficult task.

Leica went out of their own way in stating from the beginning of digital Leica M cameras, that this lens is best used stopped down and even went so far as not really supporting it on the Leica M8 by entirely refusing to 6-bit code and and even committing the 135mm frame lines entirely - which proved unnecessary later on, as we learned.

 

The very best choice one has with a 135/3.4 APO is to go to a specialist shop and have it custom adjusted to the way you want to use it.

The mechanical slack based on it's mechanical construction cannot be fully eliminated but the lens can be adjusted to one style of focussing with it.

 

The basic rule is to always focus with this type of lens from one side only (either start always from infinity or from close focus - of course from the side the lens matches the camera's rangefinder).

[adan]

As menos|M6 says, 50mm lenses move in and out, and simply move the camera's roller. In the original concept.

 

Other focal lengths need to move the camera roller a "50mm" amount - while moving the glass a smaller amount (wide angles) or larger amount (longer than 50mm lenses).

 

This is normally done with a second helical - which does rotate with the lens. In the newest lenses it is blackened, but in lenses from 1980 or perhaps earlier, up until the 2006 Summarits, the "cam helical" was/is a bright brass tube with a heavy thread, easily seen in the curved cutout on the top of the lens mount, as you can see in this 75 Summicron:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/images/thumb/0/0a/M-75f2-c.jpg/500px-M-75f2-c.jpg

 

It turns along with the focus ring, and the brass threads move the brass edge in and out to move the camera roller. My 75 f/2, and Mandler 35, and 21 all have a really visible brass helical like that.

 

Now - some 50mm lenses also have the brass helical for differential movement. Why? Because Leica has 3-5 different "50mm" focal lengths: 52.2mm, 51.3mm etc. - and each needs to move a different amount for correct focusing! One surface won't work for all of them.

 

https://prosophos.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2012-prosophos-current-lenses.jpg

 

Again as menos|M6 says, on some larger lenses (90 Summicron AA, 135 APO, 135 TE early, 75 f/1.4 original version) - to save weight, that brass helical is way up near the focus helical, with a lightweight pushrod or "bar" of some type transmitting the motion rearward to the lens mount and camera. The last (1990s, built-in hood) version of the 135 Tele-Elmar didn't have such a pushrod, but a complete metal tube cam, and, man, is it heavier!

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/135mm-f4-tele-m/D3S_7665-1200.jpg

 

Some Leica lenses have actual ramps (sloped surface) cut into the rear surface - notably the 40mm C for the CL. (Not sure about the 90 C). Saved size, weight, and probably cost, over a second helical. Small problem with the ramp is that if the lens or camera roller is a fraction of a mm off to the left or right, the roller touches the wrong part of the ramp, and the focus is off. The flat surface that moves in and out as a unit eliminates that chance of error.

 

http://www.jumboprawn.net/jesse/cams/gear-profiles/summicron-40mm/summicron-40mm-2.jpg