Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dante -- Fascinating. No doubt your choice of mountain-dwelling repairman was deliberate, in light of previous discussions? I'm still scratching my head about whether longer lenses or wides are where the film register problems manifest themselves; there's been plenty of debate on this, and I expect this will create more. I'm also puzzling over why a die-cast camera body will exhibit the same general behavior as an engine block, which of course is subject to far greater stress and isn't made of the same materials, but I'll take his word for it that it's true. I would have thought that materials would have improved in the 45+ years between when a Leica IIIc was made and a Hexar RF, such that the dreaded shrinkage would not occur. Finally, do we have any ideas on what constitutes an "early" Hexar RF? I think the serial numbers for the RF begin with 140001. Mine is 144480 and seems to be OK, though I certainly have never had it formally checked out or the film register measured. Perhaps we can get some sort of listing of numbers from RF owners and figure out when (if) the problem got fixed, based on who's had problems and who has not. Nick - -----Original Message----- From: dante@umich.edu [mailto:dante@umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 11:47 AM To: Leica Users; RF List; hexarRF@yahoogroups.com Subject: [hexarRF] Film register problems for everyone?! I was discussing the issue of film-flange register with a certain repair wizard who lives up on a mountain. The question was how you would check film-flange register on a given camera/lens combination. The conversation started with my idea of having my Hexar RF tested against a selection of lenses and concluded with my wondering if it was my M3 instead that needed to be checked. First, besides telling me that as a real world test it is impossible to do because the film starts to bow inward after a minute (relative humidity changing); he also shared this interesting insight: Leica late LTM (IIIc and on) and M bodies contract over time, enough to cause the body focus to change. This is the same principle which makes boring out old engine blocks more attractive than using new ones; the cylinders keep their shape. If I recall, he called it "seasoning" of the alloy. To be fair, this isn't just Leica, but anything with a diecast chassis (ever wonder why old SLRs sometimes focus a hair past infinity?). Leitz perceived this to be such a problem in the screwmount era that it advertised that they were made of metal stampings to improve precision and stability. Then they started die-casting and the party line became that die-casting was better (in reality, die-casting allows smaller tolerances but apparently does nothing to promote stability). Second, register problems do not manifest themselves with lenses like the Summilux 75 close-up, but rather with fast, wide lenses at infinity. Wide lenses have very little focus travel at the longer distances, and if there is a register problem (like body focus being too long), the lens will fall well short of focusing at infinity or focus well past it. This would tend to suggest that a lot of the people with troublesome Summilux 75s and Leica M6s close up are having rangefinder or lens problems, not register problems. Having used a 21/2.8 both on my M3 and my Hexar, both seem to be fine at f/2.8 at infinity at 50x. My interlocutor said that that fact suggested that it was unnecessary to test either camera. My personal conclusion from this is that is that a lot of old M cameras probably have less than ideal body focus and that the modern Ms (of whatever brand) are heading that way. It also makes me think twice about all of this (probably manufactured) argument about the Hexar RF's register distance being slightly longer, (1) because most people who have complained about focusing problems have complained about long lenses not focusing (=rangefinder alignment); (2) because the Leica frame of reference on any camera before the M6 (1985) is a moving (contracting) target; and (3) given the nominal dimensions of the Hexar FFR (28.00 +/- 0.03mm) vs. the Leica M (27.95 +/- 0.01), it seems just as likely that after 10 years, a Hexar RF could have a FFR closer to Leica spec than a Leica does. I suspect that the Hexar RF is now mfd to the same FFR as the Leica (27.95 to the inner rails). because it seems that everyone who has had real register problems has had a low-S/N Hexar. Even then, the majority of complaints I have seen have centered around focusing long and/or fast normal lenses. I surmise that Konica figured out the problem fairly early on. The solution to all of this seems to be checking body focus (on any camera) every 10 years or so. Strange. - ------------ Dante Stella http://www.dantestella.com - ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/DdIolB/TM - ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: hexarRF-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html