R&D - Rangefinder Testing

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How does Leica test the reliability of their rangefinders in 2019?

I'm curious if this is known or can be viewed when you tour Wetzlar. Do they sit the camera on some machine that vibrates for 3 months? 

Obviously they have human beta testers but I assume there is more. Curiosity is piqued.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[TomB_tx]

I think they rely on buyers to report...

[frame-it]

cool video

 

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by frame-it

[dkmoore]

3 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

I think they rely on buyers to report...

Not a chance. 

They absolute have equipment or a  testing method. 

[TomB_tx]

On the other hand, my M4, M5, & M6 have gone for decades of use without ever having the RF change adjustment, as have many others. Since the basic RF design has only had minor changes, I would expect them to rely more on the fine usage history and design analysis than experimental results. I believe the problems seen are less due to issues with the design than to individual attention by the assemblers locking things down and sealing adjustments. Once DAG re-adjusted my M9 it has been solid as my older cameras.

I expect recent changes have been more for cost containment and ease of precise adjustment (due to digital making it easy to pixel-peep), or more automation in adjustment. Vibration and other testing would be done on prototypes long before reaching production, so if they did much in recent years it would be long done by now, and not visible in the assembly areas that the tours would see.

[adan]

dk - I'm assuming you mean prototype or design testing, as opposed to individual product testing.

For the most part, a lot of the first was done decades ago (what we use today is still essentially the M2 rangefinder mechanism, with cosmetic updates (different slits cut in the frameline stencils, different glass curvatures or sizes for the various magnifications)). Leica has known that the "mechanics" work for 60 years, so there's not a lot to retest in that regard (except the experience of photogs diving into foxholes in Vietnam, etc.). Torque the nuts and screws correctly, make sure the springs have the correct "springiness" - if it's built to the tight mechanical specs laid down in 1958, it's good.

The M10 RF/VF, as I understand it, went through a bit of revision to the mechanics and materials, to "rationalize" some of the 60-year-old tech. So they may have done another more exacting system check ("rattling it around in a box for 3 months") when that was under development (2015-16).

But on the whole, it is a wheel that Leica doesn't reinvent very often.

As to individual units coming off the production line, I've seen an older video from the Solms factory (early 2000s - probably Luminous Landscape production) where the RF in each camera was given its final focus-accuracy check on a 10-meter optical bench - 7-8 targets at various distances, checked with a "known" factory-pet 50 Summicron. The vertical alignment is checked per unit as the cameras are being assembled (before they glue the red dot over the access port).

I expect the focus tests are done electronically now, with a collimation device that takes up less space (but maybe not).

Edited May 5, 2019 by adan

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, adan said:

dk - I'm assuming you mean prototype or design testing, as opposed to individual product testing.

For the most part, a lot of the first was done decades ago (what we use today is still essentially the M2 rangefinder mechanism, with cosmetic updates (different slits cut in the frameline stencils, different glass curvatures or sizes for the various magnifications)). Leica has known that the "mechanics" work for 60 years, so there's not a lot to retest in that regard (except the experience of photogs diving into foxholes in Vietnam, etc.). Torque the nuts and screws correctly, make sure the springs have the correct "springiness" - if it's built to the tight mechanical specs laid down in 1958, it's good.

The M10 RF/VF, as I understand it, went through a bit of revision to the mechanics and materials, to "rationalize" some of the 60-year-old tech. So they may have done another more exacting system check ("rattling it around in a box for 3 months") when that was under development (2015-16).

But on the whole, it is a wheel that Leica doesn't reinvent very often.

As to individual units coming off the production line, I've seen an older video from the Solms factory (early 2000s - probably Luminous Landscape production) where the RF in each camera was given its final focus-accuracy check on a 10-meter optical bench - 7-8 targets at various distances, checked with a "known" factory-pet 50 Summicron. The vertical alignment is checked per unit as the cameras are being assembled (before they glue the red dot over the access port).

I expect the focus tests are done electronically now, with a collimation device that takes up less space (but maybe not).

You are correct, prototype and design testing. 

Thanks for the information. It is amazing to think that they checked each rangefinder by hand before shipping out. Quite a feat.

*I still imagine they use some sort of box that jiggles and rattles the camera, not just for the M10, but the SL, CL, TL, Q, etc.

I'm still curious as to the exacts. For other folks looking at this thread my line of curiosity is not due to rangefinder issues or complaints. I really am just curious how they go about testing their new equipment. What kind of stresses do they induce?

[dkmoore]

7 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

On the other hand, my M4, M5, & M6 have gone for decades of use without ever having the RF change adjustment, as have many others. Since the basic RF design has only had minor changes, I would expect them to rely more on the fine usage history and design analysis than experimental results. I believe the problems seen are less due to issues with the design than to individual attention by the assemblers locking things down and sealing adjustments. Once DAG re-adjusted my M9 it has been solid as my older cameras.

I expect recent changes have been more for cost containment and ease of precise adjustment (due to digital making it easy to pixel-peep), or more automation in adjustment. Vibration and other testing would be done on prototypes long before reaching production, so if they did much in recent years it would be long done by now, and not visible in the assembly areas that the tours would see.

do you know this for sure, that the rangefinder has only had minor changes?

 

Note*this is not a discussion regarding rangefinder adjustment issues - more geared at manufacturing R&D.

[dkmoore]

12 hours ago, frame-it said:

cool video

 

 

The second video was very interesting.

[TomB_tx]

Back in the Leitz days there were articles about product testing in Leica Photografie (before LFI) about the rigorous prototype testing about the time of the Leicaflex SL. They did have extensive environmental and torture testing. 

That was back in an era when engineering would often make tests more severe until a design failed, so you knew what a design could take, then compare to what might be expected in its service life. Today design requirements are often specified up front in terms of ISO specs; so if it passes testing to the specified level it’s good enough, and may never be tested beyond that to failure, so you don’t know how much better it may be.

Now we hear of warranty claims being denied because of unquantified  “impact damage.” There was a time when the Leica “passport warranty” didn’t make such exceptions.

[Jeff S]

Stefan Daniel said in a 2012 interview with Thorsten Overgaard (since removed from his site) that almost everything in the M240 was new except for the RF, which was borrowed from the M9, but had improved accuracy.  He didn’t specify how that improvement was achieved.

Jeff

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

do you know this for sure, that the rangefinder has only had minor changes?

 

Note*this is not a discussion regarding rangefinder adjustment issues - more geared at manufacturing R&D.

while it doesn't directly address your original question, this article (translated from Japanese) about the mysterious W6 testing equipment device with about 200 kg of marble at its base, is interesting nonetheless:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdc.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2Freview%2Fspecial%2F1154064.html

 

[dkmoore]

3 minutes ago, hemlock said:

while it doesn't directly address your original question, this article (translated from Japanese) about the mysterious W6 testing equipment device with about 200 kg of marble at its base, is interesting nonetheless:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdc.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2Freview%2Fspecial%2F1154064.html

 

Very cool article. Thanks for sharing. 

[Jeff S]

Sherry Krauter once explained to me that the reason she repairs only film Ms is that the equipment required to test to digital tolerances would be cost prohibitive.

Jeff

[dkmoore]

16 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Sherry Krauter once explained to me that the reason she repairs only film Ms is that the equipment required to test to digital tolerances would be cost prohibitive.

Jeff

This makes sense to me.

What I am really looking for is how does Leica check the robustness of new products. For instance, they had to test the new 75 Noctilux for durability before shipping to customers or beta testers. Regardless of making lenses for 100 years they still need to verify their engineering.

When they changed the rangefinder in the M10, they most likely did more testing than just with beta testers. I'm curious what/how they do it?

[jdlaing]

It’s called tempest testing. It’s done in the hands of beta testers.

[Peter Kilmister]

As I have said before, rangefinders were developed for naval gunnery in the late 19th century. R&D meant getting into a mock battle situation, shooting the guns based on the rangefinder and if the shots all missed the target they would adjust the rangefinder. In a real life battle the best rangefinder would sink the opposition.