Leica MP Light Leaks

[Joanone]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, jankap said:

Well done. Could it be the lens? I think no, but there are minor leaks at 20-20a. The mount?

 

Thanks so much!

When the camera was sent back to me and I encountered that the problem was persisting in the first roll I shot, that was my first guess, because there were some weird flares. But, since I use the Summicron with the M4-P and haven't had any issue, I took the lens out of the equation, but it could be a problem with the lens mount.

My guess is: If the problem comes from the front part of the camera, it wouldn't affect the sprockets, isn't it?

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 October 25, 2021 by Joanone

[Advertisement]

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

[jankap]

1 hour ago, Joanone said:

When the camera was sent back to me and I encountered that the problem was persisting in the first roll I shot, that was my first guess, because there were some weird flares. But, since I use the Summicron with the M4-P and haven't had any issue, I took the lens out of the equation, but it could be a problem with the lens mount.

My guess is: If the problem comes from the front part of the camera, it wouldn't affect the sprockets, isn't it?

 

Guess.... that was my thinking too. Difficult; what to do? Send camera + lens to Wetzlar and be without lens for another couple of weeks? I would trust Leica QC for the camera alone (your very first guess).

Another try would be to use the cap of the camera (no lens but the cap of the camera). Or tape the mount with or without the lens being on the camera. I should have proposed that earlier.😬

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by jankap

[jankap]

The M4-P was produced from 1981 until 1987. The production of the MP started in 2003. A clue?

[Mute-on]

Sounding more like a displacement of the light baffles behind the lens mount and in front of the film chamber. If the film advance tulip side relies on the baffles to deflect internal reflections (it may, I don’t know), then a displaced baffle could cause an issue. 
 

Hope this gets resolved in any event.

Good luck!

 

[250swb]

You could put a film strip back in the camera (upside down) and take note of where the light is coming in by lining a frame up with the shutter open on B. Then look around and line up with anything inside the film chamber, edges around the shutter curtain, etc. that could be projecting the light. Unclip the rear door and check if the upper light seal is in good condition but I'm sure you'll have done that already. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by 250swb

[Joanone]

56 minutes ago, jankap said:

Guess.... that was my thinking too. Difficult; what to do? Send camera + lens to Wetzlar and be without lens for another couple of weeks? I would trust Leica QC for the camera alone (your very first guess).

Another try would be to use the cap of the camera (no lens but the cap of the camera). Or tape the mount with or without the lens being on the camera. I should have proposed that earlier.😬

Thanks for your input, Jankap!

Your comment made me think about the lens and just checked in my contact sheets if it just happened when using the 50mm Summicron. The leaks also appear in the shots when I used the 90mm Tele-Elmarit, so I can discard a lens issue.

About Leica's QC, I trust them. They tested the camera and sent me a strip of 6 test shots, but I guess the Sun in Wetzlar is not as bright as in Spain at noon  😅 In case I send the camera back, it'll be for another 3 months there.

46 minutes ago, jankap said:

The M4-P was produced from 1981 until 1987. The production of the MP started in 2003. A clue?

Sure! I tend to rely more on the M4-P than the MP. Mine was produced in 1982 and it's been with me since 3 years ago, with the only issue of having the slow speeds off. Nothing that a simple CLA solved.

I'm a bit disappointed with the MP, I bought it new because I wanted an M body with a built-in lightmeter and given the prices of the second hand market for an M6 went for it, as I'd have a new camera with no mechanical issues 🤔

[Joanone]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

46 minutes ago, Mute-on said:

Sounding more like a displacement of the light baffles behind the lens mount and in front of the film chamber. If the film advance tulip side relies on the baffles to deflect internal reflections (it may, I don’t know), then a displaced baffle could cause an issue. 
 

Hope this gets resolved in any event.

Good luck!

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I'm a bit confused, as there are many varibles that can cause the problem. I'll keep you posted!

[Joanone]

5 minutes ago, 250swb said:

You could put a film strip back in the camera (upside down) and take note of where the light is coming in by lining a frame up with the shutter open on B. Then look around and line up with anything inside the film chamber, edges around the shutter curtain, etc. that could be projecting the light. Unclip the rear door and check if the upper light seal is in good condition but I'm sure you'll have done that already. 

That's a good one, I'm going to check it later, thank you!

Regarding the light seals, I did it, in fact, they changed all of them and they did a full CLA in Wetzlar when I sent them the camera in January. That's my concern.

[jankap]

OK, do you have a possibility to test with an M-lens made after 2002?

Edited October 25, 2021 by jankap

[jankap]

23 minutes ago, Joanone said:

 I'm a bit confused, as there are many varibles that can cause the problem.

A missing punctuation mark in a COBOL program gave remarkable results. Also in 1982.

[Joanone]

52 minutes ago, jankap said:

OK, do you have a possibility to test with an M-lens made after 2002?

Uhmm...Not a Leica one, but I have a Voigtländer 35mm Color-Skopar. I haven't experienced any issue using it with the MP, but I've used it in a very few occasions, compared with the 50mm Summicron and the 90mm Tele-Elmarit, which are the lenses I use the most. Maybe I should do the test with the Voigtländer attached, to see if anything changes.

Is it a common issue using new Leica film cameras with old lenses?

[earleygallery]

I don't think the lens will make any difference whatsoever.

Areas that I've heard of light leaks on M's are rear door, viewfinder/rangefinder, lens mount (if loose), strap lugs (if loose), and - I think - the shutter button assembly.

It's obviously a light leak so the only way to resolve this is to return the camera - I would ask for a replacement if you only bought it recently.

[Joanone]

15 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

I don't think the lens will make any difference whatsoever.

Areas that I've heard of light leaks on M's are rear door, viewfinder/rangefinder, lens mount (if loose), strap lugs (if loose), and - I think - the shutter button assembly.

It's obviously a light leak so the only way to resolve this is to return the camera - I would ask for a replacement if you only bought it recently.

Cheers James, just shot another test roll under the same circumstances I shot the last roll (this time with the lens cap off) but with the following combos:

10 shots with the Voigtländer 35mm Color-Skopar

10 shots with the Leica 50mm Summicron V5

10 shots with the Leica 90mm Tele-Elmarit (fat version)

6 shots with the Voigtländer 35mm Color-Skopar again.

I'll develop the roll as soon as I can and I'll share the results

[250swb]

I also don't see how the lens can be at fault, the sprocket holes are fogged, how does the lens fog the sprocket holes?

[jankap]

2 hours ago, earleygallery said:

I don't think the lens will make any difference whatsoever.

Areas that I've heard of light leaks on M's are rear door, viewfinder/rangefinder, lens mount (if loose), strap lugs (if loose), and - I think - the shutter button assembly.

It's obviously a light leak so the only way to resolve this is to return the camera - I would ask for a replacement if you only bought it recently.

James I think, there is a compatibility problem with the mount. Between 1982 and 2003 Leica has probably changed something. Tolerances, perhaps a minor design change. Perhaps one could test that with a scrunchy. But the camera was in Wetzlar, they sent test pictures they made. So I think, the camera fulfills the QC of today.

On the other hand, what can Joanone do, if he finds the cause of the problem? Buy a new set of lenses? I agree with you, the decision to send the camera back, is due. Can he get a restitution? In the EC the company has the right, before a restitution is paid, to try to repair the product. But does Leica offer downwards compatibility?

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by jankap

[earleygallery]

34 minutes ago, jankap said:

James I think, there is a compatibility problem with the mount. Between 1982 and 2003 Leica has probably changed something. Tolerances, perhaps a minor design change. Perhaps one could test that with a scrunchy. But the camera was in Wetzlar, they sent test pictures they made. So I think, the camera fulfills the QC of today.

On the other hand, what can Joanone do, if he finds the cause of the problem? Buy a new set of lenses? I agree with you, the decision to send the camera back, is due. Can he get a restitution? In the EC the company has the right, before a restitution is paid, to try to repair the product. But does Leica offer downwards compatibility?

 

I don't think so. As Steve has noted above there appears to be an 'image' of sprockets on part of the film.

If there were lens mount design issues we'd surely have heard of lots of instances of this. The M mount is about as simple as they get and has been proven to work since the 1950's. If there is a problem it's a problem with this particular camera. I would be asking (demanding) a replacement rather than repair again.

Edited October 25, 2021 by earleygallery

[250swb]

6 hours ago, jankap said:

James I think, there is a compatibility problem with the mount. Between 1982 and 2003 Leica has probably changed something. Tolerances, perhaps a minor design change. Perhaps one could test that with a scrunchy.

 

Utter rubbish. My MP can use any Leica lens, an M lens, or an LTM with an adapter, or any other aftermarket lens such as Voigtlander, and there is absolutely no problem with compatibility. I can't imagine why you are inventing such ideas, it's this sort of false news that infects generations to come with rumours and innuendo, it only takes one person to believe you. The testing with a scrunchy idea came from the M9 where the area around the coding sensor would leak in long exposures, but this is a film camera and the fogged edge of the film isn't even exposed to light from the lens. Do you use a film camera?

[jankap]

11 hours ago, 250swb said:

Utter rubbish. My MP etc.

Good morning. I think, you wrote to the wrong address. There is a problem with Leica equipment. The camera in question has been sent to Leica. I suppose without the lens.  They sent it back with testfilm, so the camera is according to Leica QC ok. There is a problem still. Perhaps you have an intelligent proposal to solve this?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

10 minutes ago, jankap said:

Good morning. I think, you wrote to the wrong address. There is a problem with Leica equipment. The camera in question has been sent to Leica. I suppose without the lens.  They sent it back with testfilm, so the camera is according to Leica QC ok. There is a problem still. Perhaps you have an intelligent proposal to solve this?

No, to the right address, to the person who suggests a lens or even a leaking lens mount can fog the sprocket holes on the film in the way the OP's are fogged. If you need it explaining to you I think it's a far more profound problem than can be dealt with here, go read a book about how film cameras work.

[wattsy]

I agree that the lens mount is very unlikely to be at fault and there is no reason to speculate about lens mount changes after 2003 or anything like that. However, I really don't see any justification for rudeness, let alone this level of vitriol. Bizarre really.