Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/05/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

To: Mark Bishop <Mark_Bishop_at_IPC-KRT-SPEC1@ccgate.ipc.co.uk>
Subject: Re: lens tests
From: Tom Hodge <thodge@charweb.org>
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 09:52:56 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us

Mark,

Great points!  I think your comments are right on target.  In particular,
the comments about Leica's long and well deserved reputation for perfectly
flat film plane relationships.  I don't know whether or not their
lens-to-body perpendicularity is any better or any worse than any other
high-quality removeable lens camera nowdays given modern manufacturing
methods but the film flatness thing has always been one of their fortes.

And yes, an optical bench - separating the lens totally from the camera 
body - is the only way to evaluate one if doing a true lens test and 
nothing else.

Rgds,

Tom Hodge
Davidson (Lake Norman), North Carolina

On Tue, 21 May 1996, Mark Bishop wrote:

> I believe that many of the optical tests performed today are undertaken *minus*
> the camera body, ie the lens is mounted on a rigid stage on a test bench. This
> may discriminate in favour of those camera makers whose lens bayonets may not be
> as flat and as accurately positioned as a Leica's or whose ability to hold film
> perfectly flat - something which Leica Ms are reputedly very good at - is less
> than perfect.
> 

Replies: Reply from Edward Meyers <aghalide@phantom.com> (Re: lens tests)
In reply to: Message from Mark_Bishop_at_IPC-KRT-SPEC1@ccgate.ipc.co.uk (Mark Bishop) (lens tests)