Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Robert, I was not blaming the equipment as such, except noting the apparent incompatibility between the new lens and the M3. I am still puzzled, since the rangefinder of the M3 is in general working correctly. As I wrote before, the pictures taken with the 90mm lens at f2.8 and a distance of 2.5m were spot on, while the same pictures (camera on tripod, stationary object) with the 135mm at f5.6 were soft. The depth of field is about the same in each case, so any general rangefinder problem should have manifested itself with both lenses and not just the 135. I am going to take the M3/135mm combo and have it checked. Nathan Robert G. Stevens wrote: > Nathan: > > Some of the LUG discussions of quality has caused you to blame a brand new > lens rather than a thirty year old camera. All this quality discussion on > the LUG has people making assumtions without any basis of fact. Yours was > a perfect example. > > Where was the M3 not focusing properly, at close or far distances? The 135 > would have very shallow defth of field at its closer limit and your > rangfinded would have to be dead on to focus it properly. Perhaps the > other lenses you used on the M3 have better depth of field. The cam system > on the leica lenses is a very simple arrangement and it would be wrong to > blame the lens for not focusing on the M3. If it focuses on the M6, the > problem must be in the M3. Both the M6 and M6 have rangefindeds that > expect the same input from the cams on the lens when focusing. > > These comments were not aimed at you personally, but at the general > attitude of the LUG lately when it comes to camera problems. > > Regards, > > Robert-- Nathan Wajsman Overijse, Belgium Photography page: http://members.tripod.com/~belgiangator/index.html Motorcycle page: http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/downs/1704/index.html