Leica My Leica Kit - Joining The "Cult"

[gryphon1911]

I just want to know if you got off work as foreshadowed.

Yes....no work for me for the rest of the day!

 

[gryphon1911]

Is it possible that the Zeiss Planar 50mm f/2 may be improperly calibrated?

I tried both the 35 and the 50 and the 35 seems to be OK, but the 50 when I try and use the rangerfinder patch, never seems to be able to hit. I am trying to nail it wide open, so I do have that going against me and the light in my office is poor and not helping....it just seems to be having troubles getting anything in focus. I'm double checking that I'm not too close either trying to stay beyond the 2.3ft/0.7 meters.

I did try it in live view and it did seem better, but still not great - maybe I got a dud 50mm. Will wait until I have more light and better weather conditions.

 

[rayvonn]

Is it possible that the Zeiss Planar 50mm f/2 may be improperly calibrated?

I tried both the 35 and the 50 and the 35 seems to be OK, but the 50 when I try and use the rangerfinder patch, never seems to be able to hit. I am trying to nail it wide open, so I do have that going against me and the light in my office is poor and not helping....it just seems to be having troubles getting anything in focus. I'm double checking that I'm not too close either trying to stay beyond the 2.3ft/0.7 meters.

I did try it in live view and it did seem better, but still not great - maybe I got a dud 50mm. Will wait until I have more light and better weather conditions.

If the focus isn't right through live view as well as the RF then I'm not sure it's calibration. Could be something as simple as the previous owner dropping the lens? But I'm only speculating. Good luck.

 

[gryphon1911]

It very well could be me or I guess it could be the RF is out of calibration.

I’ve tried 3 lenses and out of the 3 only the 35 seems right.

Could also be my eyes, I guess but never had any issues like this manually focusing lenses before.

Problem is I know of no one near me that has a Leica I can test against. Being new to it, not sure how I can verify.

A little disappointed, but I don’t want to get too down about it until I get a chance to shoot in better light.

 

[William Lewis]

You might find some helpful information here: M240 lens focus test

 

[rayvonn]

It very well could be me or I guess it could be the RF is out of calibration.

I’ve tried 3 lenses and out of the 3 only the 35 seems right.

Could also be my eyes, I guess but never had any issues like this manually focusing lenses before.

Problem is I know of no one near me that has a Leica I can test against. Being new to it, not sure how I can verify.

A little disappointed, but I don’t want to get too down about it until I get a chance to shoot in better light.

Don't hesitate to be ruthless here - if the camera is out of calibration, either pay and send it off for calibration or send the camera back, get a refund and buy another one elsewhere.

 

[gryphon1911]

Don't hesitate to be ruthless here - if the camera is out of calibration, either pay and send it off for calibration or send the camera back, get a refund and buy another one elsewhere.

I will for sure. Given the age of the camera, it may not be a bad idea to get it calibrated anyway. Does Leica do it even if you are not the original owner or would there be a third party that anyone would recommend if I have to go that route?

 

[William Lewis]

This page has Leica US's repair info. I'd call the number on it first and, if not them, KEH.com is good without too obscene a wait.

Repair & Maintenance | Leica Camera US

leica-camera.com

 

[rayvonn]

I will for sure. Given the age of the camera, it may not be a bad idea to get it calibrated anyway. Does Leica do it even if you are not the original owner or would there be a third party that anyone would recommend if I have to go that route?

Having never sent in RF gear for calibration/ repair all I can offer is an observaton from a Leica forum I frequent that sending your gear to Leica New Jersey is a bit of a no-no.

 

[MoonMind]

Is it possible that the Zeiss Planar 50mm f/2 may be improperly calibrated?

I tried both the 35 and the 50 and the 35 seems to be OK, but the 50 when I try and use the rangerfinder patch, never seems to be able to hit. I am trying to nail it wide open, so I do have that going against me and the light in my office is poor and not helping....it just seems to be having troubles getting anything in focus. I'm double checking that I'm not too close either trying to stay beyond the 2.3ft/0.7 meters.

I did try it in live view and it did seem better, but still not great - maybe I got a dud 50mm. Will wait until I have more light and better weather conditions.

Another hunch: Are you checking the images on the rear display? If yes, there's a pretty severe catch: The JPEG preview embedded in the RAW file is rather low resolution, but you can still magnify beyond 100% RAW resolution. So, while checking general sharpness works (about half way into maximum magnification), judging pixel level sharpness on the rear screen really doesn't - it *will* look mushy. It's the same way on my M 262. Check the images on your computer screen at any rate. Paradoxically, if you shoot RAW+JPEG, the JPEGs themselves are nice (full resolution, of course, and often quite appealing in character). However, even then image review still uses the embedded JPEG of the RAW file. I haven't tried shooting JPEG only yet which may or may not resolve that issue ...

Other than that, I have to echo other recommendations: Either get the camera and lenses checked or return/replace ... Pity, but not unheard of. Also, sending a lens tumbling *can* result in it being decalibrated - been there, done that

I hope things can be resolved - if not, it's really kind of a bummer.

M.

 

[William Lewis]

Oh, GOOD point. Download the images and check them on you computer rather than the camera.

 

[John King]

Paradoxically, if you shoot RAW+JPEG, the JPEGs themselves are nice (full resolution, of course, and often quite appealing in character). However, even then image review still uses the embedded JPEG of the RAW file. I haven't tried shooting JPEG only yet which may or may not resolve that issue ...

An interesting fact. With Olympus cameras shooting RAW only, the (lousy) embedded JPEG is displayed for review.

If, OTOH, one shoots RAW + JPEG, the JPEG is displayed at whatever resolution and compression has been selected (there is a truly staggering number of choices, all the way down to postage stamp size, about 56 KB). However, if one selects LSF JPEG (2.7:1 compression), the displayed review image is noticeably superior to that displayed if one has selected LF JPEG (4:1 compression), even though both are the full dimensions. There is diminishing quality with each step downwards in the JPEG resolution set.

It sometimes pays to know exactly what your specific camera is doing behind one's back!

Other than that, I have to echo other recommendations: Either get the camera and lenses checked or return/replace ... Pity, but not unheard of. Also, sending a lens tumbling *can* result in it being decalibrated - been there, done that

Agreed.

 

[John King]

An interesting, if somewhat technical article about how autofocus works by Roger Cicala (of Lens Rental fame) here:

How Autofocus (Often) Works

Clarke’s Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Clark’s Law: Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. J. Porter Clark My Apologies Nothing in online forums demonstrates the two laws above better than discussions involving camera autofocus systems. Clarke’s law because very, very few people have the slightest grasp [...]

www.lensrentals.com

 

[rayvonn]

Another hunch: Are you checking the images on the rear display? If yes, there's a pretty severe catch: The JPEG preview embedded in the RAW file is rather low resolution, but you can still magnify beyond 100% RAW resolution. So, while checking general sharpness works (about half way into maximum magnification), judging pixel level sharpness on the rear screen really doesn't - it *will* look mushy. It's the same way on my M 262. Check the images on your computer screen at any rate. Paradoxically, if you shoot RAW+JPEG, the JPEGs themselves are nice (full resolution, of course, and often quite appealing in character). However, even then image review still uses the embedded JPEG of the RAW file

Excellent point, never judge the image solely on what the back screen shows you. I’m so used to that as being normal and treat that as normal, I completely forgot to mention that.

 

[gryphon1911]

So, I did get a chance to get out and shoot a little bit. I tried shooting with the Zeiss 50 planar at f/2 and f/4 and Zeiss 35 at f/2.8 - all images wide open.

A quick observation. Is it just me or when the range finder is locked in, it feels like it is very apparent that it is locked....at least it felt that way with the 35mm lens. It seems to be the easiest rangefinder experience I've ever had. So bonus there!

I'm working on images now and will share here soon. The camera was setup with DNG + JPG, but I did later change it to just DNG. I didn't realize that the embedded JPG had some mush to it...good to know.

 

[gryphon1911]

OK, samples. Take into account the time of day and the fact that I am shooting wide open in most cases (unless otherwise stated) and high ISO for this camera. After seeing the state of the image noise, I will most likely cap my color shots at ISO 1600 and the monochromes I'll probably let ride all the way to 6400.

From the 35mm Biogon, 100% crop of the subject and what I focused on. This is acceptable to me and what I was hoping to see.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

After getting frustrated with the rangefinder experience with the 50mm planar - see this image to know why (focused on dog's left eye - imager right):. Both the images of the dog shot at f/2.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I used the live view and peaking from the same distance and got this:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Another example of the issue with the rangefinder versus live view. Focused on the face to the left and that portraits left eye
Rangfinder version

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Focus peaking - live view

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Some other shots via rangefinder focusing - Planar 50mm f/2 at f/4

Focused on the "Broad & James" line

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

To me, the 50mm seems like it is having issues. At 1/125 and f/4 ISO 200 - that should have been a sharp shot, same as below image.

Focused on the AIR POWER USA line - at the USA part....weird how much more in focus the cinder blocks are.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Now, jumped to the Biogon 35mm f/2.8 - all of these shot wide open.
Images have been cropped

Focus was on the S in Stone

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Focus patch on the DIARY in OHIO DAIRY line

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Close focusing with the 35mm f/2.8 - yes, there is a lot of noise here, but I can still tell that I focused on the horse's eye and it is sharp - even given the ISO 6400 levels of noise here.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Full frame from the 35mm

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Followed by a generous crop - focused on the arched part of the glasses over the bridge of the nose

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Last one - Full image of the Nationwide Insurance sign.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Now, cropped in to show the focus area, which was on the last name SLYMAN.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Given the shooting conditions, I believe that the 35mm Biogon is doing a great job here. It also leads me to believe that the rangefinder is not miscalibrated...but one lens is not enough to know.

The 50mm seems to be having an issue.

I'm hoping the weather is better tomorrow so that I can get out and try them both out again as well as take the Leica 90mm f/4 for a spin and see if it runs any better than the 50mm. If the 50mm does not get better it may have to be returned if I can rule out rangefinder calibration issues. It was the only one they had, so might have to look at another 50mm, like one of the Voigtlander Nokton f/1.5 of the like.

 

[William Lewis]

I'm inclined to wonder about that 50 as well.

Just as a reference, I do shoot outside/daylight at 200 and use 3200 max indoors/night time. I set it to those two specifically and don't use the auto iso feature.

Hopefully you'll see the joys of this brass and steel beastie

 

[gryphon1911]

I plan on putting the camera on a tripod tomorrow and running it through a focus checker.

I was messing with the 90mm and it too had a disparity between the live view as well as rangefinder.

Hopefully it can point me in a direction if it is a lense issue versus a rangefinder issue

 

[TraamisVOS]

I will for sure. Given the age of the camera, it may not be a bad idea to get it calibrated anyway. Does Leica do it even if you are not the original owner or would there be a third party that anyone would recommend if I have to go that route?

You could send it to any Leica authorised technician and they can do it for you.

Having said that - in all the years I've had my cameras, I've never had to calibrate my M8.2, M9P, or my M240.

I have had to calibrate my M10 but only because I dropped it. It was perfectly calibrated before I dropped it.

I'll just add that I bought the M8.2 used from a amateur photographer, from eBay. The M9P was also used, I met the seller (an amateur photog) for a handover. The M240 was used, and also from eBay from a professional photographer. So they weren't brand new or anything like that.

The M10 I bought direct from Leica as an ex-demo camera but very hardly used demo camera not long after the M10 was actually released.

 

[TraamisVOS]

I'm guessing most people will be disappointed. There is no fuss. Hardly any features. Certainly no kool aid. It's mind numbingly simple. Iso/aperure/shutter speed/OVF are pretty much all one has to work with. It's why I tell the lay man not to bother with a rangefinder. But I love it and I reckon you will too.

I love it because it's mind numbingly simple. I'm not a fan of cameras that have a million buttons all over it, a 1000 page menu with 10,000 settings. When I bought my A7 years ago, I spent hours going through the settings, set everything the way I wanted it and never looked into the menu ever again. I set it up to be as simple as possible.