Infinity misaligned with non zeiss's lens?

N

nevin

Established
Local time
3:07 AM
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
74
Location
Hong Kong
View My Gallery
Hi everyone,

It seems there might be a problem with my ZI. Last week I took it with a Konica Hexanon 50/2 with me to Australia and found that the viewfinder cannot align (horizontally) at infinity. I thought it might be the "Konica" thing. So tonight I attach a Leica Elmar 50/2.8 (current ver) onto the ZI and again, I got misalignment when I try to focus at infinity....

Finally I attach a Zeiss C-Sonnar 50/1.5 and bingo...it aligns perfectly. I have to conclude that in my case, my ZI is non-compatible with any non-Zeiss lens.

Do you have similar case? Or it is just my ZI need to be calibrated?
 
Before drawing any conclusions try to focus on the moon, and if still in doubt take some wide open shots for comparison. The C Sonnar is not a good benchmark for focusing, I wold d try a Planar instead. ZI wide rf base makes for an extremely precise focus, so infinity is not aligned correctly unless it is VERY far away.
 
Hi mfogiel. 🙂

I've used an object that's about 10 km away but that does not matter here actually. When I try to turn the focus ring from near to infinity, the image in the yellow patch is moving from right to left, and when the focus ring reaches to the infinity end, the images shown in the viewfinder should aligned right? But in my case it's not. I can still see the two images still apart maybe by a hair width. And I cannot turn the focus ring any further to move the image to move further left.

I do no have this problem with the C-Sonnar compare to the Leica and Konica lens. That's why I suspect in my case my ZI is not compatible with non Zeiss lens. :-(
 
The Konica system is known to have a slightly different film plane distance then Leica, but AFAIK this does not create problems for most users when matching Konica lenses or bodies to other lenses or bodies. Your Elmar might be off slightly if it is old too. I would however advice you to shoot a focus test at a close range ( 1 meter) at 45 degrees, and see if your lenses focus correctly. If they are ok at close range, they will be ok at infinity too. The ZI rangefinder is in most cases more accurate than it is necessary in real life photography.
 
mfogiel said:
The Konica system is known to have a slightly different film plane distance then Leica, but AFAIK this does not create problems for most users when matching Konica lenses or bodies to other lenses or bodies. Your Elmar might be off slightly if it is old too. I would however advice you to shoot a focus test at a close range ( 1 meter) at 45 degrees, and see if your lenses focus correctly. If they are ok at close range, they will be ok at infinity too. The ZI rangefinder is in most cases more accurate than it is necessary in real life photography.
Click to expand...

Hi mfogiel,

The Elmar is the modern version which I bought new a couple years back, and it's fine when it's on a Leica body, as well as the Konica. I doubt it will create any problem with infinity given the DoF will kick in at such distance.

However, my curiosity tells me that I ought to know if it's a problem, design flaw, QA variants, or just incompatibility between the body and the lens. 🙂 That's why I create a thread here and see if anyone has similar issue.

The picture I got from the Konica is a bit soft when looking it briefly. So as you said I should probably conduct a more serious test at close distance.
 
The ZI rangefinder alignement is perhaps a little bit more fragile than that of latest Leicas, but most of the problem is born out of its extraordinarily long rf base, so even a tiniest shift becomes visible right away. I got used to my ZI rf quirks, and I just shoot a target at 1m with the Planar occasionally, when I am in doubt - this normally should be dead centered. I also use an 0.85x M7, and I can detect no difference in focus acuracy even with the 90mm lenses, between the two cameras.
 
Yes I agreed that the long base RF is superb and make the focus easier. However, if it's fragile to daily use, and need to take it back for realignment once in a while, then I must say I prefer not to have it :-D
 
I have also noticed that the RF does not always line up at infinity, though I cannot recall if it was with any particular lens (I have Zeiss, Leica, and Rollei in the m-mount) or not. More importantly, it has never resulted in any misfocusing, either at infinity or up close. I sold my 0.85 M7 to keep the ZI as the ZI was so much easier to shoot, primarily because of the accurate focusing (and viewfinder, of course, oh yeah and, AE lock, and light weight, and extra shutter speed, and whatever else I am forgetting). I guess I just really like the ZI and would not trade it for any non-aligned or re-aligned or just maligned or whatever Leica. A little oddity in the RF at infinity does not ruin the camera for me.
LJS
 
RF focus alignment has always been a pet peeve with me even though it's only critical with fast 50's and longer focal lengths like the 90 or 135. I would try the 50 Sonnar on a Leica M body that aligns well with the Elmar and Hexanon. If the Sonnar focuses slightly past infinity, you know the Sonnar is slightly off. If that's the case, have both the Sonnar and ZI checked for correct focus calibration to Leica standards. If it were me, I'd ignore the issue as long as the ZI focuses correctly with a 90. If the focus issue with the other 50's is just a hair off, it's not a big deal as it's better to have the lens back focus the subject a tad than to front focus due to small amounts of spherical aberration normally present in most lenses.
 
well, interesting question
none of my four zm lenses on my zi align perfectly at infinity...
I was always wondering whether it is a normal feature or a failure

the images appear ok to me but it is always a question what you consider 'tack sharp' at infinity distances with wide and normal lenses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom