[Leica] rangefinder alignment

["Ting F. Lee" <javalee@email.msn.com>]

Well folks,
I dropped my Xpan waist level height (not intentional)... the rangefinder
went out of wack..
My puppy knocked a IIIa of a table.. no problem with the alignment

Ting

- -----Original Message-----
From: Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Saturday, March 13, 1999 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] existential pleasures of engineering (2)


>Has the "law of diminishing returns" no applicability to this
>group?  Is the economic status of this group (as I've noted
>before) so far into the stratosphere that economic issues are
>not a factor?.....(for those of you familiar with the allusion,
>are we all Harry Pearsons of "the Absolute Sound"?)
>
>Certainly, if one buys a new lens, and the difference between
>the immediately previous model and the current "APO" or whatever
>is 10-20%, one should opt for the new one....but in a real-world
>example, should I sell my 1970 EXC 50 Summicron for $300 and
>buy a new one for $1000?  or sell my 35 Summicron for $500 and
>buy the "APO" for three times that?  I think a dose of reality
>is in order.
>
>The top 1-2% performance gain IN ANY MANUFACTURED object costs
>an additional 100% or more (sometimes MUCH more)....and will
>make NO better pictures, better sound, better transportation, etc.
>
>Even though a person has the MONEY to do this kind of illogical
>purchasing, it is truly quest for the "holy grail"...a goosechase,
>etc....and is not prudent thinking....especially since most people
>have trouble with the bodies, and are in no way approaching the
>limits of thirty year old optics in their photography.  Lets
>request reliable, well adjusted RFDR bodies that stay that way,
>leave the lenses where they are until the rest of the system
>catches up.
>
>Cheers,
>Walt
>
>On Sat,
>13
>Mar 1999, Erwin Puts wrote:
>
>> Recently a Lugger got many messages as he noted that some older
generation
>> lens showed image 'defects' that the newer one had corrected. Many
persons
>> tried to convince him that the older lens still had its merits and that
he
>> should not go for the ultimate quality. My question here is simple: why
not?
>> What is wrong with trying to find the best equipment available,
disregarding
>> for a moment the ability to exploit this new image potential. There is
simply
>> an existential pleasure in knowing you have the best equipment and that
you
>> can improve on your own abilities and your equipment will grow with you.
>> In my view there is nothing wrong with selecting the best equipment money
can
>> buy in the 35mm world. And it is up to any buyer to define for
her/himself how
>> to use this equipment and enjoying the use or ownership of a product of
>> precision engineering.
>> The Leica M series is a remarkable adaptable instrument to many uses.
>> There are Leica users who sell pictures and make a living out of this
>> activity. There are Leica users who produce artistically pleasing
pictures of
>> great human interest.
>> There are Leica users who make pictures of real life objects and try to
excel
>> in capturing the finest possible details with the utmost clarity.
>> There are Leica users who try to combine all these approaches in one
style of
>> photography. (Emil Shulthess is one of these persons)
>> There is not any logical argument why any of these approaches is
inherently
>> superior or should be designated as the best (or the only) way to use
Leicas.
>> Recently it has been proposed that Leica users should stop searching for
the
>> best in image quality as the example of HCB 'proved' that great
masterpieces
>> can be made with the older equipment. Again this argument is not valid.
The
>> value content of HCB pictures is its representation of the human
condition in
>> its geometrical forms. HCB never was interested in any special optical
>> qualities of Leica lenses. His priorities were quite simply of a
different
>> order. The argument that what is good enough for HCB should be good
enough for
>> every Leica user, is a very thin one. Why should HCB's imagery be the
norm for
>> everybody? Again it boils down to the position that only a certain class
of
>> photographers are allowed to define what is the proper use of a Leica as
they
>> seem to claim to use the instrument in its proper way. This argument is
>> circular of course. HCB simply used the equipment available to him at his
>> time. As did Eisenstaedt. It would be a bit rash to claim that some
masters of
>> the Leica (artistically speaking) should be used as an example to limit
the
>> quest for the ultimate image quality. At least the Leica optical
designers
>> still think that the potential for improvements in optical quality is
very
>> real.
>> In this same category we find the often quite forcefully stated
expression
>> that photographically old and new lenses perform on the same level.
>> And that by implication the quest for improved image quality is futile or
at
>> least not necessary. Or it is said that the improvements are not worth
the
>> trouble. In any case we note a Luddite attitude here. Modern Leica lenses
have
>> a generally much higher level of aberration correction than earlier
versions,
>> much smaller blur circles and a very different balance of residual
>> aberrations, including the secondary spectrum. You can see this in every
>> conceivable image characteristic. It is a bit disappointing to note that
some
>> observers dismiss the improvements as irrelevant for contemporary
photography.
>> Of course if you shoot with the high sun in your back, use apertures of
1:5,6
>> and smaller and print on small-scale color prints, the differences will
be
>> small. Still the knowledgeable observer will note a higher overall
contrast
>> and a much crisper rendition of textural detail with the new lenses. And
not
>> every lens shows these improvements in the same scale. As example the
second
>> generation of the Summicron 50mm (from 1969) exhibits more aberrations
than
>> the third (current) generation. Still in practical shooting the chance
that
>> you will note these 'image defects' is small. But if you happen to take
>> pictures of objects with many very fine obliquely oriented textural
details
>> and high flare conditions, you will see the difference. And that is the
point
>> of current improvements: get optimum results whatever the level of
subject
>> detail or flare or contrast.
>> Sometimes these differences will only become visible under controlled and
>> comparative test sessions. And this brings us to the next story. Lens
testing
>> should not be representative of the demands of real life photographers in
real
>> life photo shooting sessions. I am not sure where this myth comes from as
the
>> supporters of this myth never explain what exactly they mean. It seems to
be
>> that the traditional test pattern (two dimensional and black-white bar
line
>> patterns as used by the USAF charts) is the scapegoat. Now no serious
tester
>> will base his conclusions on such a test pattern unless suitably educated
into
>> its interpretation. Used as a rough form of MTF related information it
still
>> has merits. Used as a simple resolution chart it is not of great use.
That you
>> may not interpolate from a two dimensional test pattern to a three
dimensional
>> reality is refuted by all optical handbooks and all optical design
programs.
>>
>
>