Leica LTM First roll after service is a disaster!

[rfaspen]

I have a lens that looks much like the one shown above. Pitting, and obviously cleaned with some sand grains, and a little dust too. Mine is actually in better shape because only the front has been "hosed".
Images are *very* much impacted. Very obviously. That lens will not be as sharp as it could be. I know there are folks who say otherwise, but my empirical evidence says ......

 

[Steve Ruddy]

If you want to check the accuracy of the rangefinder, include a ruler or tape measure in your scene lengthwise away from the camera. Mark a spot, perhaps with some tape where you are placing the focus. If it is off at a given focussing distance, you will be able to determine an accurate number for how much it is off.

Good advice, I have a spider lens cal that I used last night. I plan on developing it today, so I will post the results later.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm very prejudiced against zoom lenses on my digitals because of my belief that the zooming action sucks dirty air onto the sensor. We know it does but millions of people continue making pictures in spite of this horror... but I can not force myself to do it!

I shoot with Olympus Micro 4/3 bodies for my color work, and the Olympus zooms for that system all have the rear element fixed in place (doesn't move forward and back like in most zooms) and sealed. No dust can get on the sensor from zooming. A perfect design that Canon and Nikon haven't figured out.

 

[Huss]

I shoot with Olympus Micro 4/3 bodies for my color work, and the Olympus zooms for that system all have the rear element fixed in place (doesnt move forward and back like in most zooms) and sealed. No dust can get on the sensor from zooming. A perfect design that Canon and Nikon haven't figured out.

You notice Bart Bart still has issues with dust? Even w/o using zooms?

I use zooms. I use fix focal lenses. Occasionally there is a dust spot. It gets cleaned.

Perhaps Nikon and Canon have not figured out how to make zooms that the rear element stays in place. But they have figured out how to make FF megapixel cameras which have a far higher effect on the technical quality of an image than using a micro sensor.

(and yes, I have an Oly PenF..)

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

You notice Bart Bart still has issues with dust? Even w/o using zooms?

I use zooms. I use fix focal lenses. Occasionally there is a dust spot. It gets cleaned.

Perhaps Nikon and Canon have not figured out how to make zooms that the rear element stays in place. But they have figured out how to make FF megapixel cameras which have a far higher effect on the technical quality of an image than using a micro sensor.

(and yes, I have an Oly PenF..)

I shot fullframe for years. The OM-D E-M1 mark II that I use for my color work now has nothing to apologize for. I regularly sell 16x20 prints that look flawless from it, and the camera paid for itself with commercial work the first couple weeks I had it.

I am in poor health and just plain can't carry around a gigantic camera and heavy lenses anymore. The equipment I have now works for me with no problems.

 

[css9450]

I change lenses constantly; my seat-of-the-pants assumption is I get more dust from changing lenses than I do from my zooms. I check for dust often but I don't think I get any unusual amount more than most people.

 

[Huss]

Back to the OP, his lens' condition most definitely will have an effect on image quality.

 

[Steve Ruddy]

Back to the OP, his lens' condition most definitely will have an effect on image quality.

Ha Ha thank you! I thought so too, and my tests should prove it. One of the my lenses will be a Zeiss Sonnar, which I think will blow away my Summitar in its current condition.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

"which I think will blow away my Summitar in its current condition." Almost any lens in good condition e.g. an early Elmar will blow away your Summitar (given its condition). I use a '30s Elmar 35mm on my CL and it's a fine lens.

 

[zauhar]

Hi, Steve Ruddy,

Don’t know who you are. I drop into RFF on occasion to remind myself why I avoid all social media .

So, dropping into the middle of this , I see a truly stunning image (is that yours? Dude you deserve gallery space !) coupled with some BS about lens sharpness .

Thanks for reaffirming my positive choices .

I purchased a Leica IIIf last year and threw in a roll of slide film to check it out. I discovered the curtain was riddled with holes but the shutter seemed fine and the images looked fairly sharp. So I sent it out and had a full service, which included a new curtain and rangefinder parts. I was very anxious to try it out so I loaded it without trimming the leader. It was a pain but I thought I did ok. Well it turns out it wasn't, and after I shot most of it, I get an email from my service guy saying he sent me his bottom cover by accident as he had his camera out for reference. Here are all the issues I had with my first roll.

1. Film not trimmed for easy loading
2. Wrong bottom cover (doesn't have film guide)
3. All images are into sprocket
4. images are not parallel to each other
5. Forgot to take my lens cap off for 8 images
6. all images look unacceptably soft

Here is a shot showing the two frame issues.

Hopefully trimming the leader next time and using the correct bottom cover will correct the frame problems. However I do have my reservations about the frames not being parallel. Also when I loaded the second roll I took off the lens and held open the shutter. When touching the film in the middle of the frame it appeared there as a bit of a gap. It is maybe .0001" however it seemed tight against the sides of the frame. I didn't notice any weird focus issues, other than everything looked soft so maybe it's the lens. It has a slight amount of fog and some scratches. Problem is I don't have a known good sharp lens to try in its place.

Focus was on the throttle levers which look very soft to me.

With a good lens I should be able to read the small type. Cant even make out my cats hair.

 

[Ste_S]

I have a lens that looks much like the one shown above. Pitting, and obviously cleaned with some sand grains, and a little dust too. Mine is actually in better shape because only the front has been "hosed".
Images are *very* much impacted. Very obviously. That lens will not be as sharp as it could be. I know there are folks who say otherwise, but my empirical evidence says ......

It's going to be based on how you shoot the lens, no ? I had a hazy canon ltm lens which was fine at f8/11, but troublesome shot wide open and/or where the subject was back or side lit (even with a hood).
Took it apart and cleaned it and it's much better now.

 

[splitimageview]

Haze can definitely impact contrast, but there are varying degrees of haze; light haze that can only be seen on close inspection with an LED flashlight is likely to not have any visible effect at all. If the haze is visible to the naked eye, that can seriously reduce contrast.

The lens in question doesn't have haze, just some dust and a few minor scratches which will have absolutely no impact compared to a pristine lens.

 

[rfaspen]

The lens shown above has considerable deep semicircular scratches on both front and back elements, and what looks like substantial pitting on front element, and a helping of internal dust, with a dollop of haze for a nice presentation. That lens may allow for acceptable photos if your expectations are commensurate, but will not give image quality near what would be possible if the lens were not so damaged. I speak from experience. Again, it is possible to get images that satisfy lowered expectations, and a less damaged lens (a few scratches on front element) would probably not be noticed even with high expectations, but lens shown above ......

 

[Huss]

The scratches on the rear element are way more significant to image quality than those on the front.
Same with dust.

 

[retinax]

So much rambling, so little looking! Cabin fever? I feel the need to repeat: The main issue sharpness-wise is clearly camera shake. Look at horizontal white lines in the cockpit picture or the letters on the tractor's hood in the second: clearly there are double lines. Vertical lines are reasonably sharp. Thus: Vertical camera movement.

Third one looks reasonably sharp although with shallow dof; for reading the small letters, the scan resolution is simply too low.

The lens may not be optimal, but it's not to blame for the large scale fuzziness. Maybe this small camera just doesn't sit in your hands as steadily as you're used to with other cameras.

 

[splitimageview]

There are many examples on the net of nearly destroyed lenses that still create decent photos, and this lens merely has a handful of hairline scratches and dust.

None of those flaws will affect photos.

 

[Godfrey]

There are many examples on the net of nearly destroyed lenses that still create decent photos, and this lens merely has a handful of hairline scratches and dust.

None of those flaws will affect photos.

Well, the truth of it is that ALL of these flaws will affect photos ... otherwise, why call them flaws? They will reduce resolution, increase flare, and cause some imaging artifacts. BUT whether their effects are going to be significant for casual hand-held exposures of casual subject matter is unlikely. 🙂

I spend a lot more time spotting out dust on film exposures than I spend spotting sensor dust on digital captures. LOL!

G

 

[splitimageview]

Well, they may be technically termed as lens 'flaws' as compared to a pristine example, but they are meaningless if they don't produce an effect in the final image, which these will not.

They do tend to reduce the resale price; more accurately stated, pristine lenses will sell for more. 🙂

I spend a lot more time spotting out dust on film exposures than I spend spotting sensor dust on digital captures. LOL!

No doubt! 😀

 

[Ste_S]

So much rambling, so little looking! Cabin fever? I feel the need to repeat: The main issue sharpness-wise is clearly camera shake. Look at horizontal white lines in the cockpit picture or the letters on the tractor's hood in the second: clearly there are double lines. Vertical lines are reasonably sharp. Thus: Vertical camera movement.

Third one looks reasonably sharp although with shallow dof; for reading the small letters, the scan resolution is simply too low.

The lens may not be optimal, but it's not to blame for the large scale fuzziness. Maybe this small camera just doesn't sit in your hands as steadily as you're used to with other cameras.

Or the shutter speeds are slow.