thighslapper Posted September 16, 2016 Share #161 Posted September 16, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) IMHO that not the case. The 0,58 M6 TTL should have a more tight tollerance. I did not have that, simply because the tolerance was enough for film. ( Or was not at all, because it is difficult make a sharp foto with it.) The tolerance of the M9 should be tighter, than the M6 series, but it wasn't. Until the M240 body things more or less stayed the same. Sometimes I have a lens, that is not sharp at infinity, through the viewfinder with the M 240 but is accactly accurate on the MP , I thought. My repairman just showed me, that the MP being less tollerant, did not see the tiny difference, just because it could not be sharpened so tight. One of the convincing reasons Leica adjusted the tight tolerance on the M 240 was, because you could instantly see the result in Live view when something was "wrong" with your rangefinder. With a less tight tolerance, one could see this in almost every occasion, which was not prefeable for such a well build camer. The main over-riding reason for improvement was the volume of cameras being returned for adjustment ...... which if you have ever done it yourself is time consuming, inherently inaccurate and fiddly. There are also issues with lens calibration and the forum is full of threads of both cameras and lenses making multiple trips back to Leica as it is difficult to tell whether camera, lens or both are at fault. In the past it was impossible to own more than half a dozen lenses and expect all of them to perform perfectly with the RF mechanism at all distances. The equipment and procedure for initial calibration has also changed (or so I heard) so tolerance is tighter and the chances of cameras leaving the factory with slight maladjustment ...... and hence possible mismatch with a similarly maladjusted lens is much reduced. Saying Leica did this for the users benefit I think is being rather charitable ........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here On The Meaning And Implications Of No New M At Photokina. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted September 16, 2016 Share #162 Posted September 16, 2016 The main over-riding reason for improvement was the volume of cameras being returned for adjustment ...... which if you have ever done it yourself is time consuming, inherently inaccurate and fiddly. There are also issues with lens calibration and the forum is full of threads of both cameras and lenses making multiple trips back to Leica as it is difficult to tell whether camera, lens or both are at fault. In the past it was impossible to more than half a dozen lenses and expect all of them to perform perfectly with the RF mechanism at all distances. [...] +1 and we don't watch at photos the same way as we used to in the film days. Now every amateur and pro photog can pixel peep on screen at 100% magnification. The least focus inaccuracy that we did not see at a normal viewing distance becomes obvious on a mere tablet or even smartphone display. Leica will go on selling optical RFs as long as there is some demand for them i guess but it has to adapt to realities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted September 16, 2016 Share #163 Posted September 16, 2016 The ideas of digital RFs are interesting but even after reading this thread I'm not sure how it would work. For a while there I switched from an M8 to a Sony Nex-7 using my Leica lenses. Focusing with the quite good EVF was fiddly. I programmed a button to magnify and was able to focus pretty well but it was slow. I tried edge identification (can't remember the term) which makes the in focus parts of the image supposedly outlined in red (for me). That was pretty good but the focus wasn't precise. Neither was really satisfying and I eventually bought a used M9. My eye is just not capable of looking at the whole image and judging sharpness especially with wide angles. I guess you could automatically magnify when you turned the focusing wheel on the center of the display but would that be better? Let's face it, the real way this is handled in most cameras today is auto focus with manual manipulation of the sensor pattern in the display that chooses where to focus. I don't think I want that either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 16, 2016 Share #164 Posted September 16, 2016 I have a couple of AF lenses for my Sony but they are less accurate than MF + focus magnification by far. I don't see that as a solution for M lenses unless a moving sensor can be implemented w/o adding bulk to the body itself... And even then, focus accuracy would still depend on the focal length and aperture of lenses... And this would be the death of the rangefinder... Thanks no thanks but YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted September 16, 2016 Share #165 Posted September 16, 2016 The main over-riding reason for improvement was the volume of cameras being returned for adjustment ...... which if you have ever done it yourself is time consuming, inherently inaccurate and fiddly. Why? The M6 and M8/M9 had lower tolerances so to notice an adjustmentfailiure was later than with the M240. Second, I would not fiddle with the adjustment of such a finetuned rangefindercamera. The chance that you make it worse is always there. My repairman adjust such a thing in 4 minutes, so why should I bother? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted September 16, 2016 Share #166 Posted September 16, 2016 In the past it was impossible to own more than half a dozen lenses and expect all of them to perform perfectly with the RF mechanism at all distances. Saying Leica did this for the users benefit I think is being rather charitable ........ I don't understand what you write. My half a dosen lenses perform perfectly well with the MP -and with the M 240. They always did. What I do notice, if when I buy a new or used lens, some of them are not wel calibrated of the camera. Especially the summicron 75 asph. Saying Leica did this for the users? For whom would they do it? For themselves? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted September 16, 2016 Share #167 Posted September 16, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The main over-riding reason for improvement was the volume of cameras being returned for adjustment ...... There are also issues with lens calibration and the forum is full of threads of both cameras and lenses making multiple trips back to Leica as it is difficult to tell whether camera, lens or both are at fault. In the past it was impossible to own more than half a dozen lenses and expect all of them to perform perfectly with the RF mechanism at all distances. On your first point, you may well be right although its not a problem that I have had on M8s or M9s in all honesty. Leica would obviously have wanted to sort out an issue like this for many reasons though. Yes lens calibration was/can be a problem. In the case where a body and number of lenses were out it would make sense to check all to ensure body was in spec and then adjust all lenses to be too. But in my experience the problematic lenses were usually older, longer ones (90s and 135s) although the 75mm Summicron may have been a frustration too with its close-focus group obviously needing very precise set-up. That said I'd disagree with your half a dozen lenses comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted September 16, 2016 Share #168 Posted September 16, 2016 errr.... the second hand lenses are usually fine .... as the dodgy ones have all been back to be recalibrated ..... but the newer ones, especially those with floating elements are often out (75/2, 50/1.4). If you have half a dozen lenses or more I suggest you check the focus accuracy at the closest point, mid focus and infinity, and the registration of the infinity stop against the RF image with a magnified viewfinder.... and I mean properly with a tripod and a suitable graduated scale. I would be very surprised if all are spot on. If they are I suggest you go to Vegas and try the million dollar one armed bandit as you are one hell of a lucky guy. Whether the errors are noticeable in everyday use depends entirely on what you photograph, technique , and how fussy you are. I'm fussy. I have had 2 M9's , and M9-P, Monochrom, 2 M's, an M-P and an M242 ........ and only the M-P and one of the M240's did not require me to adjust the RF mechanism to enable most of my M lenses to focus perfectly. There are multiple threads about this ..... the original RF mechanism and lens adjustment tolerances were appropriate for film but not for digital sensors ...... and although Leica have improved things considerably, because we are talking about mechanical linkages absolute accuracy is unlikely to be achieved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted September 16, 2016 Share #169 Posted September 16, 2016 Whether the errors are noticeable in everyday use depends entirely on what you photograph, technique , and how fussy you are. I'm fussy. I have had 2 M9's , and M9-P, Monochrom, 2 M's, an M-P and an M242 ........ and only the M-P and one of the M240's did not require me to adjust the RF mechanism to enable most of my M lenses to focus perfectly. Do I understand you rightly? You mean you tamper with the focussing of a camera, I assume your not a proffessional, and you are supprised that most your camera's are not finetuned? I had a dozen of M camera's and only one showed a flaw: The M 240 I now posses. The only flaw it had, was on a 35mm asph lens that could not focus on infinity. After extra finetuning- by a real proffesional who has the equippement, experience and the knowlegd of how to do this not easy job- , reajusting the already, according to Leica standards, right performing rangefinder, this lens also behaved perfectly. I have about eight lenses and they al work ( I tested it with the test you describe above ) flawlesly at the moment. So next oppertunity, I'm of to Vegas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted September 16, 2016 Share #170 Posted September 16, 2016 errr.... the second hand lenses are usually fine .... as the dodgy ones have all been back to be recalibrated ..... but the newer ones, especially those with floating elements are often out (75/2, 50/1.4). Well, I've had a LOT of lenses over the last 10 years and have traded up until I have a set which I'm am very happy with. Along the way I've had a few problems lenses - a 75 Summicron, a couple of 90 Summicrons and three 135s. But as far as I can remember that is it. And 2 x M8s, and M8-2 and 2 x M9s have not been adjusted or needed it. The 135s were the older E39 version of the f/4 Tele-Elmar and I've given up on this version and have the E46 version which is absolutely fine. My current 75 Summicron is spot on too. And I no longer use a 90 Summicron so I can't comment on this lens any longer. But all the other lenses that I've had have been fine including a very battered 90 Tele-Elmarit (very battered!). I'm not saying that your experience is not correct but I don't assume things either way. I have no doubt that newer cameras have been modified and adjusted more critically but I know from my own experience that not all M8 or M9 cameras have been problematic. Forums are not a good place to determine the scale of real problems from as they are full of people (understandably) letting off steam over their individual experiences. FWIW I have a 75 Summilux which was so, so far out before I bought it that is was obvious that something was very wrong indeed - but it was sorted by Leica prior to it being supplied to me and focusses very accurately indeed now. Oh yes and I am a working photographer with the view that equipment needs to work as intended and focus correctly for practical purposes and I do often shoot wide open when I have to and expect to achieve decent results. That said I rarely actually 'test' lenses specifically as I need them to work in the real world rather than under test conditions - take that as you will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted September 16, 2016 Share #171 Posted September 16, 2016 Leica went to great lengths to improve the rangefinder of the M (Typ 240) for one reason: live-view based focusing offered a higher accuracy than the existing rangefinder and Leica insisted that the rangefinder – still the prime focusing method with the M – should be on a par with the electronic viewfinder. With the M (Typ 240) Leica also introduced a new calibration method based on the live-view image. The old method continues to be available for calibrating older models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted September 16, 2016 Share #172 Posted September 16, 2016 Do I understand you rightly? You mean you tamper with the focussing of a camera, I assume your not a proffessional, and you are supprised that most your camera's are not finetuned? I had a dozen of M camera's and only one showed a flaw: The M 240 I now posses. The only flaw it had, was on a 35mm asph lens that could not focus on infinity. After extra finetuning- by a real proffesional who has the equippement, experience and the knowlegd of how to do this not easy job- , reajusting the already, according to Leica standards, right performing rangefinder, this lens also behaved perfectly. I have about eight lenses and they al work ( I tested it with the test you describe above ) flawlesly at the moment. So next oppertunity, I'm of to Vegas. All of the cameras I have had .... and currently have, are adjusted to work as accurately as is feasible with the 20 or so M fitting lenses I possess..... and to a tolerance better than anything that Leica have offered me. The adjustment mechanism of the rangefinder has not changed in 50 years and is a joke ..... the near point is adjusted by loosening and moving a lever ... the amount being 'guessed' by experience and re-tightening the lock screw inevitably shifts the adjustment. The infinity point is adjusted by allen key and also involves educated guesswork and increments so small it is hard to judge them. Altering one involves adjusting the other so you either overcompensate or do it by endlessly smaller to and fro adjustments. Every change involves checking at infinity and the near point with a lens attached ...... and at least with liveview you can do this much more accurately than before. It is a process that only involves patience and logical thought, and nothing more sophisticated than an allen key and a screwdriver. You do not need to be a professional. Plenty of users have self-adjusted their Leicas so there is no need to get snippy about it. Anything is better than waiting 6 weeks to have a camera back that is not adjusted as well as I can do myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 16, 2016 Share #173 Posted September 16, 2016 Leica went to great lengths to improve the rangefinder of the M (Typ 240) for one reason: live-view based focusing offered a higher accuracy than the existing rangefinder and Leica insisted that the rangefinder – still the prime focusing method with the M – should be on a par with the electronic viewfinder. And let's not forget that picky users now have an easy way to check focus. If Leica didn't do this, there would be a lot more service orders. The improvement benefits customers and the company. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted September 17, 2016 Share #174 Posted September 17, 2016 My experience with M bodies is that most are very well calibrated. All the ones I've used were perfectly spot on, except, coincidentally, the M240, which had a slight front focus with all my lenses, that got worse with longer ones. So no matter what Leica has theoretically improved in the RF mechanism, the truth remains that an inferior RF that is well calibrated will take sharper pictures than a superior RF with tight tolerances that is not well calibrated Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted September 17, 2016 Share #175 Posted September 17, 2016 The adjustment mechanism of the rangefinder has not changed in 50 years and is a joke ..... the near point is adjusted by loosening and moving a lever ... the amount being 'guessed' by experience and re-tightening the lock screw inevitably shifts the adjustment. The infinity point is adjusted by allen key and also involves educated guesswork and increments so small it is hard to judge them. Altering one involves adjusting the other so you either overcompensate or do it by endlessly smaller to and fro adjustments. Every change involves checking at infinity and the near point with a lens attached ...... and at least with liveview you can do this much more accurately than before. It is a process that only involves patience and logical thought, and nothing more sophisticated than an allen key and a screwdriver. You do not need to be a professional. Plenty of users have self-adjusted their Leicas so there is no need to get snippy about it. Anything is better than waiting 6 weeks to have a camera back that is not adjusted as well as I can do myself. I apologise for the inconvenience. Did not want to get snippy about it. 6 weeks is a long time indeed. I'm so greatful that I live in the vincinity of a good repairman, who can do the job while I wait, losing no more than half a day. If you are allright with your own finetuning, that's ok with me, but I realy would not tamper with mine, because I have no reason to assume that I can do a better, or faster job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted September 17, 2016 Share #176 Posted September 17, 2016 My experience with M bodies is that most are very well calibrated. All the ones I've used were perfectly spot on, except, coincidentally, the M240, which had a slight front focus with all my lenses, that got worse with longer ones. So no matter what Leica has theoretically improved in the RF mechanism, the truth remains that an inferior RF that is well calibrated will take sharper pictures than a superior RF with tight tolerances that is not well calibrated If your saying that your M 240 is not well calibrated, maybe, you have to get the M 240 calibrated? The chance exists that all lenses are spot on afterwards. Don't blame a good system, because of the induvidual camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 17, 2016 Share #177 Posted September 17, 2016 All of the cameras I have had .... and currently have, are adjusted to work as accurately as is feasible with the 20 or so M fitting lenses I possess..... and to a tolerance better than anything that Leica have offered me. The adjustment mechanism of the rangefinder has not changed in 50 years and is a joke ..... the near point is adjusted by loosening and moving a lever ... the amount being 'guessed' by experience and re-tightening the lock screw inevitably shifts the adjustment. The infinity point is adjusted by allen key and also involves educated guesswork and increments so small it is hard to judge them. Altering one involves adjusting the other so you either overcompensate or do it by endlessly smaller to and fro adjustments. Every change involves checking at infinity and the near point with a lens attached ...... and at least with liveview you can do this much more accurately than before. It is a process that only involves patience and logical thought, and nothing more sophisticated than an allen key and a screwdriver. You do not need to be a professional. Plenty of users have self-adjusted their Leicas so there is no need to get snippy about it. Anything is better than waiting 6 weeks to have a camera back that is not adjusted as well as I can do myself. Easier for me to drive over to Will van Manen and have him do it whilst I drink a glass of his Chardonnay...(Just one - I have to drive and he is quick ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted September 18, 2016 Share #178 Posted September 18, 2016 Easier for me to drive over to Will van Manen and have him do it whilst I drink a glass of his Chardonnay...(Just one - I have to drive and he is quick ) We have the same repairman. He is fast, he did it in four minutes last time. I drank cappucino, did not know that Chardonnay was an option... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted September 18, 2016 Share #179 Posted September 18, 2016 I realise that such a system of user-calibration introduces a new source of error from those users who are not yet experts at using opposed thumbs that evolution has given them. Species bias! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmathias Posted September 18, 2016 Share #180 Posted September 18, 2016 We have the same repairman. He is fast, he did it in four minutes last time. I drank cappucino, did not know that Chardonnay was an option... Who is that repairman? I would love to know. Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.