M10 Rangefinder Patch issues

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, your car uses a windscreen-wiper when it rains, doesn't it?

 

No - I just tried what caused my irritation by differing brightness of the framelines:

 

Fully charged battery and pressing down the shutter release button half way for quite a long time: no reaction of the frame-lines. I don't think that my theory of power cunsumption by the memory lock  is valid (it is valid for the EVF: it starts "flickering" when you use metering memory lock) 

 

 As  digitalfx described above the framelines react rather quickly to changes of light in your surroundings. When I aimed at a lamp they where very bright, a small turn to a darker area let them get much dimmer, a further turn to an area which was a little bit lighter made them bright again. Same reaction when I took the turn in opposite direction.

 

There certainly is a ratio behind this: in bright surroundings you might ask for brighter lines for contrast. In dark surooundings too much light from the frames might be  bothering. Though at the moment I think they are changing too much, which is irritating as I never saw this before. Perhaps I accustom.

 

Is this new for the M10 or do the lines for the M (typ 240) change as well?  The manual for the M10 doesn't mention this.

Yes they do, rather unobtrusively. I think there is a separate sensor for them.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pixelstrata]

I was looking at the M10 in the Leica store this afternoon. Came in after a few hours of shooting with M9. Found it very difficult to use the focus patch on the M10. 

 

Very difficulty to see the second image. I focused on a variety of contrasty and non contrasty subjects. Same issue - very difficult to see the split image. The lens though - 50mm Summicron f2 APO - clearly 'snapping' into alignment and that part was very good, it 'felt' like I had nailed the focus. However that was kind of guess work because I still could hardly see the split image on most objects I focused on. It was much easier on objects that were closer. I was standing in the shop shooting across the street. The lighting in the shop was very bright, perhaps this had some effect? It was sunny outside. I check repeatedly that I wasn't covering the focus window. Perhaps it had some grime, though I did wipe it too. 

[105012]

...

I think a dirty RF secondary window is the most likely culprit for the OP's problem. I've accidentally smeared a greasy fingerprint across mine from time to time with similar difficult focusing results. This is not a fault of the M10 so much as an occasional issue with any Leica M. The M10's slimmer body could be throwing off where the OP is holding the camera a little bit and making it more likely that the window is smeared or the ambient light sensor is covered... 

"any Leica M" ... except the M3 which provides frames which both guide your fingers away from the windows and, especially in the case of the small RF window, lift them preventing contact with the glass and hence smudging. With electricity free framelines, naturally lit, and 0.92 magnification, truely a grand experience amongst M's.

[adan]

The M10 viewfinder is heavily redesigned. I have noticed two slight effects with the M10 finder, having to do with eye position behind the viewfinder.

 

1. as mentioned in this thread, the RF patch is slightly prone to "veiling flare" if one's eye is lower than centered on the eyepiece, and there is a bright backlighting source up/left of the place the patch is aimed. And, yes, I immediately checked for a fingerprint on the RF window - been there, done that

 

It is similar to the RF patch "flare" that plagued Leica Ms after the redesign of the finder in the M4-P, right up until the M7/MP. Of course, in those cameras, the source of the flare was the "third" serrated frameline illumination window on the front, which is no longer used since the M240. It looks to me like some kind of internal flaring in the RF image "pipeline," which is full of reflecting prisms and its own lenses...

 

See long red light path here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QomDizboK-A/TNlQKxQqnwI/AAAAAAAAE0o/O7VNeWE_F_Y/s1600/LEICA%2BM9%2B0.68x%2BVIEWFINDER%2BCOUPLED%2BTO%2BCOINCIDENCE%2BRANGEFINDER.jpg

 

It appears whether the camera is on or off - so it's not due to the LED illumination for the framelines.

 

2. If the eye is off center to the left - the two RF images "split" as through the lens focus ring has been turned - even though it hasn't. Which obviously would lead to misfocus if one then refocuses the lens to bring the RF images together from that off-center position.

 

This second issue cropped up with other "additional finder size/FoV" cameras I used over the years - the M6 with .58 viewfinder, and the Konica Hexar RF's .62 finder (which in addition had a large "high-eyepoint" eyepiece like the M10 - but the Konica's movement/misalignment was so severe I really could not trust that RF for lenses longer than 50mm).

 

The solution to both is - naturally - to be sure to keep one's eye dead center on the eyepiece. If you want to see the effects, it's easy - just move your eye around behind the eyepiece. The M10 finder is not tolerant of sloppy eye positioning.

 

However, for those of us who wear glasses, and whose eye is therefore not glued as tightly against the eyepiece (~ 1 cm of standoff), this requires extra concentration. Especially when using longer lenses, where one's attention is directed only to the center of the viewfinder (you kinda notice if part of the 35 or 28 framelines are getting cut off, but not with the smaller 90/135 lines).

 

It is slightly disappointing to see these two issues return - but as I say, they seem to simply be a function of any Leica-type RF/VF with an expanded field of view and larger eyepiece, that allows one's eye to get off center. I just take a little more care in making sure my eye stays centered on the viewfinder window, especially when I am otherwise concentrating on the narrow 90/135 frame areas.

 

BTW - I compared with my more "cramped" M9 viewfinder - could not get the flare (M9 uses the improved illumination optics introduced during the M7/MP production), COULD get the splitting of the RF images if my eye was extremely far off to the left or right.

[lct]

[...] I compared with my more "cramped" M9 viewfinder - could not get the flare (M9 uses the improved illumination optics introduced during the M7/MP production), COULD get the splitting of the RF images if my eye was extremely far off to the left or right.

 

 Same for my M240 which has no flare issue and doesn't require eye centering at all. My favorite OVF vs my M3's, M4-2's, M6J's and M8.2's. I have no experience with the M10 though . 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

In the German discussion the solution now is that there is a hight misalignment on the rangefinder. I had it once by myself. While you can focus accurately sometimes, it is very difficult. I dropped my M8 slightly on a wodden floor this provoked the misalignment.

 

Adjustment of the vertical on an M10 is dead easy. Takes a few minutes with a 2mm Allen key. The M8 needed a special tool.

 

My M10 vertical was out when I received it and it is as you have described. I have read other reports as well.

 

Gordon

[digitalfx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M10 viewfinder is heavily redesigned. I have noticed two slight effects with the M10 finder, having to do with eye position behind the viewfinder.

 

1. as mentioned in this thread, the RF patch is slightly prone to "veiling flare" if one's eye is lower than centered on the eyepiece, and there is a bright backlighting source up/left of the place the patch is aimed. And, yes, I immediately checked for a fingerprint on the RF window - been there, done that

 

It is similar to the RF patch "flare" that plagued Leica Ms after the redesign of the finder in the M4-P, right up until the M7/MP. Of course, in those cameras, the source of the flare was the "third" serrated frameline illumination window on the front, which is no longer used since the M240. It looks to me like some kind of internal flaring in the RF image "pipeline," which is full of reflecting prisms and its own lenses...

 

See long red light path here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QomDizboK-A/TNlQKxQqnwI/AAAAAAAAE0o/O7VNeWE_F_Y/s1600/LEICA%2BM9%2B0.68x%2BVIEWFINDER%2BCOUPLED%2BTO%2BCOINCIDENCE%2BRANGEFINDER.jpg

 

It appears whether the camera is on or off - so it's not due to the LED illumination for the framelines.

 

2. If the eye is off center to the left - the two RF images "split" as through the lens focus ring has been turned - even though it hasn't. Which obviously would lead to misfocus if one then refocuses the lens to bring the RF images together from that off-center position.

 

This second issue cropped up with other "additional finder size/FoV" cameras I used over the years - the M6 with .58 viewfinder, and the Konica Hexar RF's .62 finder (which in addition had a large "high-eyepoint" eyepiece like the M10 - but the Konica's movement/misalignment was so severe I really could not trust that RF for lenses longer than 50mm).

 

The solution to both is - naturally - to be sure to keep one's eye dead center on the eyepiece. If you want to see the effects, it's easy - just move your eye around behind the eyepiece. The M10 finder is not tolerant of sloppy eye positioning.

 

However, for those of us who wear glasses, and whose eye is therefore not glued as tightly against the eyepiece (~ 1 cm of standoff), this requires extra concentration. Especially when using longer lenses, where one's attention is directed only to the center of the viewfinder (you kinda notice if part of the 35 or 28 framelines are getting cut off, but not with the smaller 90/135 lines).

 

It is slightly disappointing to see these two issues return - but as I say, they seem to simply be a function of any Leica-type RF/VF with an expanded field of view and larger eyepiece, that allows one's eye to get off center. I just take a little more care in making sure my eye stays centered on the viewfinder window, especially when I am otherwise concentrating on the narrow 90/135 frame areas.

 

BTW - I compared with my more "cramped" M9 viewfinder - could not get the flare (M9 uses the improved illumination optics introduced during the M7/MP production), COULD get the splitting of the RF images if my eye was extremely far off to the left or right.

 

Agree, I have noticed both issues as well. Since I wear glasses, its a definite challenge.

 

Adjustment of the vertical on an M10 is dead easy. Takes a few minutes with a 2mm Allen key. The M8 needed a special tool.

 

My M10 vertical was out when I received it and it is as you have described. I have read other reports as well.

 

Gordon

 

 

I have to wonder if the alignment issue is due to not having your eye dead center.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

 

I have to wonder if the alignment issue is due to not having your eye dead center.

 

Nope. Didn't matter how I lined things up. I tried all the available contortions. And now I've fixed it it doesn't ever feel less than perfect. I've also had several other rangefinder users look through my rangefinder since I fixed it and all of them thought it was spot on.

 

Gordon

[pnoble]

Nope. Didn't matter how I lined things up. I tried all the available contortions. And now I've fixed it it doesn't ever feel less than perfect. I've also had several other rangefinder users look through my rangefinder since I fixed it and all of them thought it was spot on.

 

Gordon

 

I'm having a similar issue myself and I do wear glasses.  Any further insight, instruction re this adjustment? Leica is really selling a $6,895 camera body that is misadjusted ex factory? 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I'm having a similar issue myself and I do wear glasses.  Any further insight, instruction re this adjustment? Leica is really selling a $6,895 camera body that is misadjusted ex factory? 

 

Do you need vertical or horizontal adjustment?

 

Hard to say if it's at the factory or something moves in shipping. Don't really care either. Once it's fixed you'll forget about it.

 

Gordon

 

Gordon

[UliWer]

...

 

1. as mentioned in this thread, the RF patch is slightly prone to "veiling flare" if one's eye is lower than centered on the eyepiece, and there is a bright backlighting source up/left of the place the patch is aimed. 

....

 

2. If the eye is off center to the left - the two RF images "split" as through the lens focus ring has been turned - even though it hasn't. ....

 

 

 

 

I did not notice those two issues yet. (I wear glasses).

 

After reading Adan's description I found that issue no. 1 happens - though only when I look into the viewfinder from a very unusual - I'd call it "unnatural" - position, pressing my front against the upper edge of the camera. Then the rangefinder patch seemed to disppear completely but "came back" after a slight movemant of the camera. I tried it with the M9: no chance that the patch disappered. With the M6 (0.85) there was some veiling but no complete disappearance. 

 

I could not see any splitting of the patch from whatever usual or "unnatural" eyposition I tried. Neither with the M10, nor with the two other bodies.

[pico]

I use this on all my late Leicas.

http://www.leicagoodies.com/shade.html

[adan]

Yep - but because the M10 (and all the cameras in the M240 family) no longer have or use a 3rd window on the front for frameline illumination, "The Shade" is pointless on them. There's no longer anything for "The Shade" to shade. The proverbial "screen door in a submarine."

[digitalfx]

 

 

I could not see any splitting of the patch from whatever usual or "unnatural" eyposition I tried. Neither with the M10, nor with the two other bodies.

 

 

that is strange...I just tried to replicate it and cant. But I defiantly notice this issue on occasions, not sure what the trigger is or why I see it some times and not others.

 

I do think my vertical alignment is just slight off...not enough to notice in most situations, but just very slightly off. I wonder if this has something to do with it.