Small but expensive niggle

thanatos · 12-17-2006

So I received my IIIf back from Leica after a RF mirror resilvering and CLA. The local camera shop I took it to acted as go-between. The whole shebang cost 239GBP.

The first lens I put on it was my J8. I thought it strange that the distance scale was postioned on the bottom of the lens and the aperture scale off to one side but couldn't remember whether that was a quirk of the J8 fitting onto the IIIf. Anyway, I exchanged lenses for my 50mm collapsible Summar and that was all wonky too.

As an experiment I detached the threaded mount from the camera body and turned it thru 180deg and found that both lenses were back in their correct positions.

Not a major thing - and I know that 'these things happen' - but for that much money and from a (the?) premium camera company, I'd have expected some attention to detail.

Hey ho.

NL2377 · 12-17-2006

hmm... do you have official leica documentation for the corrections made??? I heard of a place in FL a while back that was doing repairs in-house, and charging them as if they were sent out to the Manufacturer.

erikhaugsby · 12-17-2006

I'd think that it should be possible to just unscrew the 4 screws on the lensmount and then rotate the camera 180 degrees and re-screw it on, no? Of course, I'd spend a roll of film on it to check the registration distances by focusing and rulers and the such...

thanatos · 12-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by thanatos

...I detached the threaded mount from the camera body and turned it thru 180deg and found that both lenses were back in their correct positions.

That's what I did, Erik.

EDIT: That isn't supposed to be as tetchy as it sounds...

erikhaugsby · 12-17-2006

Wow, I completely missed that entire part of your post. Oops...

xayraa33 · 12-17-2006

that is a very pricey CLA.
Ash mentioned that CRR charges 160 GBP for a CLA and a mirror replacement.

thomasw_ · 12-17-2006

wow, that is a serious lapse in attention to detail....and for such an expensive CLA?!

But, I am glad you solved it without further hassle or expense.

Thomas

colyn · 12-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by thanatos

As an experiment I detached the threaded mount from the camera body and turned it thru 180deg and found that both lenses were back in their correct positions.

If you look at the side of the lens mount at the 9:00 position you should see a line. That is the alignment mark used when replacing the mount.

Whoever replaced it either was not paying attention or didn't know what he was doing.

reagan · 12-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by colyn

If you look at the side of the lens mount at the 9:00 position you should see a line. That is the alignment mark used when replacing the mount.

I learn something new here all the time. Thanks colyn. One of mine has the "0" at the top of the mount and one doesn't, but both have the line.

colyn · 12-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by CVBLZ4

I learn something new here all the time. Thanks colyn. One of mine has the "0" at the top of the mount and one doesn't, but both have the line.

You are welcome..

The original interchangeable lens Leicas had to have lens modified to work properly on that body since the register had not been standardized. When Leitz went to a register of 28.8mm they engraved the "O" to indicate it was a standardized mount. They eventually did away with it but used up what they already had on hand.

NL2377 · 12-17-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by colyn

You are welcome..

The original interchangeable lens Leicas had to have lens modified to work properly on that body since the register had not been standardized. When Leitz went to a register of 28.8mm they engraved the "O" to indicate it was a standardized mount. They eventually did away with it but used up what they already had on hand.

I thought that leica was 27.8mm and FSU was 28.8... am I missing something?

Xmas · 12-17-2006

NL2377
M's are 27.8mm LTM's 28.8, the adopter you want should mike around 0.99mm or so...
Noel

ChrisN · 12-18-2006

Makes me wonder! I hope they shimmed the mount correctly for the correct register. Were there paper shims under the mounting flange when you reversed it to the correct orientation?

colyn · 12-18-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisN

Makes me wonder! I hope they shimmed the mount correctly for the correct register. Were there paper shims under the mounting flange when you reversed it to the correct orientation?

I never seen a Leica with paper shims under the flange.
My understanding is Leitz produced each part to exact specs..

thanatos · 12-18-2006

No shims, and yes there was a line at 12 o'clock when it should have been 6 o'clock.

And I found out about the good-deal-CLA after the camera had gone off to Leica. I'll remember that in 15 years time when it's due another one

ChrisN · 12-18-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by colyn

I never seen a Leica with paper shims under the flange.
My understanding is Leitz produced each part to exact specs..

Aahhh - that's good to know! I remember finding shims under the flange on my Zorki, but I guess they are not built to quite the same tolerances!

John Shriver · 12-18-2006

My Leica IIIa has shims. Leica certainly used them then.

I'm with ChrisN, Leica owes you a re-check of the spacing of the lens mount, since they clearly didn't have it in the right position.

What's alleged to be possibly different about the FSU cameras is the nominal focal length of the normal lens that the rangefinder is calibrated for. The Zeiss lenses they copied were about a millimeter longer in focal length than Leitz's lenses.

charjohncarter · 02-11-2007

I received excellent service on a CLA and shutter fix from Steve's Camera (I think, but maybe Steve Camera) in Culver City, CA. $238 USD.