Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/09/17

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

Subject: Film flatness etc. (was Ed at Modern)
From: Kari Eloranta <kve@dopey.hut.fi>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:06:58 +0300 (EET DST)

> From: Edward Meyers <aghalide@panix.com>

> My thoughts go to making photographs with lenses and that the lens
> doesn't stand alone. It's has a camera to go along with it. So,
> I lens should be tested with film on the camera, not on an optical
> benchwhich gives you theoretical answers that are electonically
> converted into make-believe prints.
> One concern is the film channel of a camera. Bob Schwalberg noted
> much about this to me during our many lunches in the big apple.
> For example: The screw-mount Leica's film channel is not so good.
> The M camera is much better. The old Nikon F was excellent.

Solid point!

In the process of sorting out the focusing problem in my M4-P I ended up
doing the following experiment as well:

Reload a strip of uniformly exposed film into the canister. Load it into
the camera as ususal, advance a few frames and leave the shutter open at
B. Remove the lens and look at the black film surface. In particular look
at the reflection of a circular light from the film. It can be anything
from oval to irregular and certainly varies from edge to center. And
depending on whether you have film with stiff base or a thinner one you'll
see different things. If you poke the film (with some blunt object) you'll
get a feel of how much play there is between the film and the pressure
plate at various parts of the frame.

This should convince anyone that testing a lens separately is not
sufficient if one wants to assess what the final image is like. And in
particular things like the image flatness of Summicron 35 ASPH versus the
non aspheric seem a bit of academic after this.

BTW my M4-P came back from the third service trip from the factory in
less than two weeks with apologies for the missing framelines. But it
still needed the bayonet changed. While all this was worked out I talked
quite a while with an experienced service technician. Among other things
he said that most M's are originally a bit "fat" - they are made perhaps
one or two hundreds of a millimeter too thick (distance from bayonet to
pressure plate) to accomodate the wear from lenschange. If the thickness
is at the tolerance limit the camera may have a focusing problem IF the
lens' tolerance it the same way i.e. the whole assembly puts the lens
too far from the film plane.

He also said that whenever any of their customers gets a Noctilux its
bayonet is matched to that of the body for the reasons above.


Kari Eloranta