New M-A, lens seating problem

[lldd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just received a new M-A today, mounted a 35 lux and there is some play between the lens and the camera.  When I twist the lens left and right while holding at the base, there is slight movement in the mount.  Tried my APO 50 cron, and got the same result, although a bit tighter fit.  These lenses mount rock solid on my M10.  Has anyone else seen this behavior on the M-A or other film camera?

[RoiDuNord]

There is no play on my M-A with any Leica lens.

[Advertisement]

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

[ShivaYash]

Did you buy online? Best to return for a replacement or refund. This sounds very odd. I guess it’s loose with all lenses? 

[otto.f]

Of course nobody has play on his mount, appalling this is. Send it back immediately, what a disgrace for the brand

[pedaes]

Of course this should not of been sent out like this, and surprising for a low volume film body. I feel your disappointment. If you want to try something yourself, you could tweek the tags on the rear of the flange a bit wider open. Personally, I would send it back. Good luck with whatever you decide.

[plaidshirts]

I don't have an M-A but none of my 3 much older M bodies do this.

[lldd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the feedback.  I bought it at a Leica store and have already sent it back.  They warned it may need to go back to Germany for repair due to lack of stock, but later provided an update that they may have a lead on a replacement.  Disappointing that a lens won't seat properly on the analog version of mechanical perfection.  I've now purchased two film cameras and both had to go back due to issues as brand new product (previous MP about three years ago where baseplate would not properly attach to camera).

[earleygallery]

I'd be inclined to demand a refund (assuming your consumer law supports this) if they can't replace it as it's holiday in Germany may be a long one! 

Another classic from the Leica QC guys! 

[lldd]

Returned the camera, and it was replaced with a new one.  Same issue, although not as bad.  I did a little experimentation, and discovered that the 35 lux involved also fits less tightly on the M10 than the APO 50 (although the lens doesn't move in the mount while focusing like it did on the M-A).  New M-A and 35 lux off to Germany to make them work well together.  This is a rather disappointing start, but if everything comes back top shape in a couple of weeks I'll at least know it was all calibrated to work as intended.

[indergaard]

I had two 35 Lux FLE's that both were slightly "looser" on a film MP than on digital bodies. There is a much wider tolerance on the mount on the film Leicas than the digital Leica's. When I compared, my 35 Lux was also slightly looser on my M240 at the time, but it wasn't as noticeable on the M240. My APO, Summilux 50 ASPH or Summicron 35 ASPH and all other lenses was all tighter on my analog MP than the two 35 Lux FLE's I tried.

I think what you're experiencing is within normal tolerance, and that it's also partially got something to do with how the 35 Lux FLE mounts to the camera.

People keep repeating that nothing but perfection is acceptable on the MP, since it means Mechanical Perfection. What people fail to realize and remember is that the Leica MP was introduced in 2003 - that's 16 years ago. Mechanical Perfection and manufacturing tolerances was quite different in 2003 than 2019... The current MP is still manufactured to the tolerances that was defined 16 years ago. I'm assuming the same applies to the M-A, since it is based on the exact same body with the light meter taken out, and the battery compartment hole is sealed, which means the exact same parts are used for both cameras.

Edited July 29, 2019 by indergaard

[otto.f]

Never had any problems like this with my M4

[Matlock]

6 hours ago, indergaard said:

I had two 35 Lux FLE's that both were slightly "looser" on a film MP than on digital bodies. There is a much wider tolerance on the mount on the film Leicas than the digital Leica's. When I compared, my 35 Lux was also slightly looser on my M240 at the time, but it wasn't as noticeable on the M240. My APO, Summilux 50 ASPH or Summicron 35 ASPH and all other lenses was all tighter on my analog MP than the two 35 Lux FLE's I tried.

I don't think this is correct as the mount is exactly the same on Digital or Film Ms. The protrusion connected to the release button springs into the recess on the lens and is a precision fit. The only problem I have ever experienced was with a 7artisans lens on some bodies as the lens partially depressed the release button preventing the lock to operate.

Also I am a little puzzled by the comment by the OP that the 35 lux was "rock solid" on his M10 and then in his last post state that he "discovered that the 35 lux involved also fits less tightly on the M10 than the APO 50". You can't have it both ways. It looks to me that it is a lens problem rather than a camera mount problem. 

[Matlock]

6 hours ago, Matlock said:

I don't think this is correct as the mount is exactly the same on Digital or Film Ms. The protrusion connected to the release button springs into the recess on the lens and is a precision fit. 

 

I will correct this statement as I should have said "exactly the same principle".

[TomB_tx]

I have several M bodies from 1955 M3 to M10, and indeed the tightness of the lens to the body (judged by the torque needed to fully mount it) varies quite a bit from body to body. My '55 Dual=Stroke M3 is by far the tightest, but I wouldn't describe any as "loose." The lenses also vary in how tight they fit any body. All manufactured items have tolerances to dimensions, so some variation should be expected.

[lldd]

It wasn't until after I had done some additional testing that I realized the 35 lux wasn't "rock solid" on the M10.  Here's the rundown: 50 APO won't budge on the M10, but moves slightly on the M-A.  The 35 lux fits the M10 like the 50 on the M-A, that is, it's mounted well but can be moved if you try (in none of these cases does the lens move in the mount when you try and focus).  With the 35 lux on the M-A, moving the focus tab moves the lens back and forth in the mount.  So the slightly looser M-A mount combined with the slightly looser fitting 35 lux leads to an unacceptable amount of play.

Edited August 4, 2019 by lldd
corrected a missing word or two

[pedaes]

17 minutes ago, lldd said:

It wasn't until after I had done some additional testing that I realized the 35 lux wasn't "rock solid" on the M10.  Here's the rundown: 50 APO won't budge on the M10, but moves slightly on the M-A.  The 35 lux fits the M10 like the 50 on the M-A, that is, it's mounted well but can be moved if you try (in none of these cases does the lens move in the mount when you try and focus).  With the 35 lux on the M-A, moving the focus tab moves the lens back and forth in the mount.  So the slightly looser M-A mount combined with the slightly looser fitting 35 lux leads to an unacceptable amount of play.

You Raised this on 11th July. Why have you not sent back yet? Sounds like body and lenses need to go for correction.

I have the same lenses as you, and these and others are rock solid to the point of being 'tight' to mount. As are my newish Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses.

[a.noctilux]

Years ago, some loose mount in my Ms, not the lenses mount/unmount cause that I think.

To cure this loose lens mount, by then Leitz/Leica tech took some minutes to bent the spring in the mount.

After that the Ms can operate without loose/wear for years.

I don't know if this kind of know-how is still available : just bending the spring but not too much or too little.

 

Have a look at these mounts from M4/MP/M-A.

M-A and M4, no "baffle" as seen on MP's chamber.

So with good amount of spring bending ( by good tech who knows how to do this of course ) without unmounting the lens mount,

this can be cured quickly.

 

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!

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by a.noctilux

[lldd]

Pedaes, I mentioned above the the first camera was replaced, and the second sent to the dealer to go to Germany with the 35 lux.  That was two weeks ago, and just found out the dealer hasn't sent them off yet.  I cancelled everything.  This was two M-A cameras, back to back, serial numbers only six digits apart, and they both had the same problem when mounting the 35 lux (which works just fine on my M10).  I give up.  I'll go to another brand for film work.

[adan]

On 8/4/2019 at 11:22 AM, a.noctilux said:

Have a look at these mounts from M4/MP/M-A.

M-A and M4, no "baffle" as seen on MP's chamber.

I don't the baffle has any affect on lens mounting - especially for the two lenses the OP mentioned.

It does have a lot to do with whether the camera has an internal meter, however.

No baffle, no meter - MA, M4 (and M4 variants)

Baffle, meter - M6, M6ttl, M7, MP

The baffle is there to prevent spurious light or flare hitting the meter cell and messing up the meter reading.

(BTW - I wish Leica would put a baffle into the M10 - it flares with any 90 I've tried and could use the extra "internal lens hood." But that's for another thread.)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LocalHero1953]

A contrarian view (if I have correctly understood the slight movement referred to) - all my Ms (M3, M2 (2x), M9, M240) have had slight twisting play in the mount - a very slight ability to twist the lens around its axis anti/clockwise after the final click. It has never worried me. If the lens could move across its axis (i.e. to left and right as viewed from above, or up/down) that would worry me - implying poor machining of the lens or body mount. A slight twisting movement would make no difference to the image, and allows just enough play for the lens to click into place. And on digital Ms I have never had a 6-bit lens recognition problem, which is where any issues would show up.

FWIW I have just checked my CL and SL, and they have the same slight twisting movement. That's good engineering in my book (a reliable attachment mechanism without compromise to performance).

Edited August 6, 2019 by LocalHero1953