Lss
Well-known
That's focus shift, not a camera problem.
David_Manning
Well-known
I've been very happy since I finally gave in (I said I would never give in) and bought a used M9. Nice thing about a recent used camera...it's been operationally checked!
I'm overwhelmed when I shoot it like I shot film in my M6...I'm underwhelmed if I shoot it like a modern digital camera (which it's not).
All in all a good experience.
I'm overwhelmed when I shoot it like I shot film in my M6...I'm underwhelmed if I shoot it like a modern digital camera (which it's not).
All in all a good experience.
eef
Established
Turtle
Veteran
I was very pleased with my new MM until I put my 75mm Summarit and 90 Elmarit-M on it. My 50 planar was not good wide open either, but tolerable.
The Leica UK line was that it was lens calibration issues and I knew that to be tosh, because the longer lenses were a country mile out - far more than sensor vs film differences would account for and all had been perfect on film. Because my Elmarit -M was non-6 bit they wanted to charge 200 Euros to adjust this one but the rest was free as the camera was new and the lenses recent. I declined the adjustment on the 90 Elmarit and all the kit was returned. Well guess what? They obviously adjusted the body because every lens was now spot on, including the 90 elmarit and the 50 ZM planar that had not gone to Leica.
Now that everything is set up, I find I get perfect focus every time and with no misses. All in all, things are more perfect than my digital SLR and I can be sure of perfect optical performance as long as I focus properly.
The MM is of course largely a M9 and I'm very pleased with the performance of the camera. It runs rings around my 5D III for B&W. The slow writing of files and ridiculous screen grate once in a while though. Lens/body calibration seems to be part of the initial set up really and now that mine is done, it is hugely rewarding to use. I felt a huge sigh of relief when I realised that I genuinely possess a digital M and can use it as I would my film bodies i.e. intuitively, with comfort and no BS I dont need.
The Leica UK line was that it was lens calibration issues and I knew that to be tosh, because the longer lenses were a country mile out - far more than sensor vs film differences would account for and all had been perfect on film. Because my Elmarit -M was non-6 bit they wanted to charge 200 Euros to adjust this one but the rest was free as the camera was new and the lenses recent. I declined the adjustment on the 90 Elmarit and all the kit was returned. Well guess what? They obviously adjusted the body because every lens was now spot on, including the 90 elmarit and the 50 ZM planar that had not gone to Leica.
Now that everything is set up, I find I get perfect focus every time and with no misses. All in all, things are more perfect than my digital SLR and I can be sure of perfect optical performance as long as I focus properly.
The MM is of course largely a M9 and I'm very pleased with the performance of the camera. It runs rings around my 5D III for B&W. The slow writing of files and ridiculous screen grate once in a while though. Lens/body calibration seems to be part of the initial set up really and now that mine is done, it is hugely rewarding to use. I felt a huge sigh of relief when I realised that I genuinely possess a digital M and can use it as I would my film bodies i.e. intuitively, with comfort and no BS I dont need.
x-ray
Veteran
Sam N
Well-known
Did they ever say what was causing the color shifts or what they replaced?
"A few weeks" seems like a long time for "expedited" repairs. I can see why many hesitate to send in their cameras.
"A few weeks" seems like a long time for "expedited" repairs. I can see why many hesitate to send in their cameras.
x-ray
Veteran
A few weeks was fast for Leica.
They replaced the main board and sensor. Color is perfect now. I did a lengthy shoot with it today and skin tones were beautiful.
The CCD in the Leica is closely related to the CCD in my Hasselblad back. The both have beautiful skin tones and saturation. Both have no blur filter and are very sharp. The Hasselblad CCD has about three stops more dynamic range and captures 16 bit color. The images look very similar despite that.
The perfect RF would use a CCD full frame, 16 bit color, much deeper buffer, use Leica glass and have the dynamic range of my D800. 14.4 stops.
They replaced the main board and sensor. Color is perfect now. I did a lengthy shoot with it today and skin tones were beautiful.
The CCD in the Leica is closely related to the CCD in my Hasselblad back. The both have beautiful skin tones and saturation. Both have no blur filter and are very sharp. The Hasselblad CCD has about three stops more dynamic range and captures 16 bit color. The images look very similar despite that.
The perfect RF would use a CCD full frame, 16 bit color, much deeper buffer, use Leica glass and have the dynamic range of my D800. 14.4 stops.
Lss
Well-known
Ok, sorry. I read through this very quickly and thought you were saying that the focus was adjusted and the problem thus fixed. My bad.
MCTuomey
Veteran
We can dream ...
x-ray
Veteran
I think it's possible we could have the dream RF in a few years. It might not have a CCD but a CMOS chip is ok too. What about a FF Fovion type chip? Who knows what's on the drawing board. CMOS and CCD's aren't he end all. We're not that far away now.
Wouldn't it be interesting if NIkon did this in an SP RF body with modern glass and the electronics and chip of the D800E.
Wouldn't it be interesting if NIkon did this in an SP RF body with modern glass and the electronics and chip of the D800E.
Pioneer
Veteran
I think there are an awful lot of people who would say that the perfect rangefinder was already built. They would say it was the M3 or M2 depending on which focal length you preferred.
MCTuomey
Veteran
x-ray
Veteran
Yes, digital RF.
It's really a tossup as to which is the BEST film RF IMO. The M series are superb but so is the Nikon SP. When I was debating which system to go with in 1968 a friend let me shoot with his S3 and SP system. Another friend let me use his M system. Really the big thing I didn't like about the SP / S3 was the focusing wheel. I hated that wheel and how easily it locked at infinity. The locking infinity on the M lenses of that period drove me crazy too but it was easier to unlock. What was on their minds? The Nikon loaded easier but the removable base of the M and the removable back of the Nikon were a pain too. I still hate the removable backs and baseplate. I was a young photo journalist at the time and it was just one more thing to drop and damage when hurrying. The Nikon had a longer base on the RF if I remember correctly but I didn't like the lens mount as well as the M mount. I liked the selectable frame lines of the leica better than having most of the frames in the VF all the time but the Nikon SP had a 135 frame in another window. No external VF needed.
Overall I liked the Leica just a little better but not by much. I've used Leica M's ever since and had a couple of Nikon RF's but sold them because I'm so conditioned to Leica.
Long winded answer but yes I was talking digital.
It's really a tossup as to which is the BEST film RF IMO. The M series are superb but so is the Nikon SP. When I was debating which system to go with in 1968 a friend let me shoot with his S3 and SP system. Another friend let me use his M system. Really the big thing I didn't like about the SP / S3 was the focusing wheel. I hated that wheel and how easily it locked at infinity. The locking infinity on the M lenses of that period drove me crazy too but it was easier to unlock. What was on their minds? The Nikon loaded easier but the removable base of the M and the removable back of the Nikon were a pain too. I still hate the removable backs and baseplate. I was a young photo journalist at the time and it was just one more thing to drop and damage when hurrying. The Nikon had a longer base on the RF if I remember correctly but I didn't like the lens mount as well as the M mount. I liked the selectable frame lines of the leica better than having most of the frames in the VF all the time but the Nikon SP had a 135 frame in another window. No external VF needed.
Overall I liked the Leica just a little better but not by much. I've used Leica M's ever since and had a couple of Nikon RF's but sold them because I'm so conditioned to Leica.
Long winded answer but yes I was talking digital.