Re: [Leica] Impact and lens mount of R8, Focus shift?

["David W. Almy" <dalmy@comcast.net>]

Martin,

I have had two R8 lens mounts replaced due to camera lens mount warping,
probably due to some sort of impact damage or improper support of the
lens/camera with too heavy of a lens mounted. $600+ each time, ouch. The R8
lens mount is not stainless, as the lens mount metal is. Hold the camera up
to your eye with the lens mount parallel to the sky. Without a lens mounted,
look at the rubber mount seal and see if it rises or falls as you rotate the
camera. The symptom of a bad mount, other than what you described, is focus
that is tack sharp on one side of the photo and out on the other.

Hope that helps.

David W. Almy
Annapolis

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin Krieger" <krieger@usc.edu>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 2:32 AM
Subject: [Leica] Impact and lens mount of R8, Focus shift?


> About two months ago I tripped and fell head first, my R8 (with a
Schneider
> Super Angulon PC 28mm lens) in my hand. The camera went down lens first,
> still in my hand, the lens hood now well bent out ofshape. The metal lens
> hood protected the lens itself, but the focus was stuck and the lens is
now
> being repaired somewhere in Leicaland. The body seemed fine, and the
slides
> I shot later that day were as good as the ones shot before the fall (the
> lens had stuck in a suitably close to infinity position, so that I could
> continue shooting "in focus").
>
> I recently decided to be sure, and shot some test shots using the 35-70
3.5
> lens (at both 70 and 35mm), and Kodachrome 200. It would seem that the
best
> focus for very distant points, discovered in the split image finder, was
not
> infinity. In fact, the infinity setting gave less definition than did the
> split image finder setting, which was shorter than infinity (but these
were
> quite distant buildings). I examined the slides with a 22x loupe, looking
> for patterns of mullions on a high rise.
>
> I am now thinking that perhaps the lens mount was a bit pushed in due to
the
> impact (not at all apparent from visual examination of the body). Normally
I
> shoot with the 28mm PC or the 19mm 2.8 Elmarit lens. And I use the grid
> screen, normally, so I do not have split image. So the focus for distant
> points is not readily differentiated on the screen, and depth of field
> charts would so indicate. (Tests of the lens mount with the 19mm were
> inconclusive, and hence the use of the longer focal length lens that I
> happen to have.) But under a 22x magnifier on the slides, one can see
> differences. They are much harder to see with a 8x magnifier.
>
> Does it make sense to think the lens mount is in trouble. Or am I asking
too
> much? Or is it that one should just ignore the marked distances, and rely
on
> one's eye and the screen (maybe with a magnifier in the eyepiece?).
>
> Yes, these are handheld images. So none of this would pass muster as
> "serious" testing. And I used K200 in part to have a higher shutter speed
> and in part because it was the film in the camera and I had some shots to
> finish off.
>
> Martin
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html