Leica 007 - A Warning To Potential Buyers

[jecxz]

I've been doing some reading of other threads and it appears that everyone is having problems regardless of their system. Some are definitely more reliable than others and some provide better quality results than others. But if for some reason you decide to buy the less reliable system because it has features you want, the reps and company should stand behind their product. In fact, EVERY rep and company should stand behind their product!

I cannot agree that everyone is having problems. I am hard on the H gear I have; I shoot from -18F to 116F degrees; since those initial issues I mentioned (one was hardware and the other firmware - both corrected once I went to directy to H) I have not had a single issue over 7 years; I have driven to within a couple of hundred miles of the Arctic Circle on both sides of North America; I just returned from a very dusty shoot in the Dakotas, Nebraska and Missouri; I carry two bodies because most of the time I am not near a place where a replacement program would work - but the H bodies and lenses have been bulletproof for me.

Look, these are tools of the profession or artist and they must be dependable and used without thought. If you are worrying about them not working or are utterly unreliable then it was a waste of your money.

$85,000 is a lot of cash and if you can afford to lose it, cool for you, otherwise get an attorney who can represent your rights and do the right thing; if you let them off the hook they will do this to the next guy. Good luck!

Kind regards,
Derek

 

[justalexander]

You couldn't have rented one from anywhere? Plus you were already familiar with the Hasselblad system so what's to test? Sounds like jumping in with Leica carried the same risk, except everything is much worse than a Hasselblad except for the lenses. With Phase you could always get a tech cam for the ultra wides and they're the best of anything.

Unfortunately there are no Pentax for rent in Australia that I'm aware of. And why should I have to rent if I'm considering purchasing? Would anyone pay to rent a car from a dealer if they were considering buying it?

My Blad is a H3DII 22MP. The H5D is many generations newer. It also has a larger sensor which is CMOS and not CCD. As you say, the Leica has better lenses but the rep was also far more helpful. In the time I used my Blad (about 8 years) the distributor went through 4 different reps! While I loved my Blad, after 8 years I had to see not only how the competition had developed but also Blad itself. But if the distributor doesn't have cameras for me to test (because they're more concerned about their bottom line and so don't carry a full range of product for customers to test) and they've gone through 4 reps, I seriously didn't want to spend my money with them. The distributor did have one REALLY good rep that I wish was still there, but because he was so good they moved him into another division that made more money for the company. The Blad distributor is based in Melbourne, 1000km from Sydney. For a time they kept a Blad 'showroom' in Sydney with equipment that customers could test. A few years ago they closed the Sydney 'showroom' and took all stock back to Melbourne. And even then they stopped holding a large range of gear to test instead requiring customers to purchase sight unseen.

To make matters even worse, the local distributor has distribution of an incredible number of brands, Blad represents such a small proportion of their profits that they don't need to worry supporting it properly. I've seen the Blad market drop in Australia significantly while Phase has increased tremendously. Phase is VERY well supported here in Australia. I even attended an event at the local distributor when they released the XF. They had a senior person from Phase come to speak. Now that's the kind of support every brand should provide.

 

[justalexander]

I cannot agree that everyone is having problems. I am hard on the H gear I have; I shoot from -18F to 116F degrees; since those initial issues I mentioned (one was hardware and the other firmware - both corrected once I went to directy to H) I have not had a single issue over 7 years; I have driven to within a couple of hundred miles of the Arctic Circle on both sides of North America; I just returned from a very dusty shoot in the Dakotas, Nebraska and Missouri; I carry two bodies because most of the time I am not near a place where a replacement program would work - but the H bodies and lenses have been bulletproof for me.

Look, these are tools of the profession or artist and they must be dependable and used without thought. If you are worrying about them not working or are utterly unreliable then it was a waste of your money.

$85,000 is a lot of cash and if you can afford to lose it, cool for you, otherwise get an attorney who can represent your rights and do the right thing; if you let them off the hook they will do this to the next guy. Good luck!

Kind regards,
Derek

I agree Derek. I'm now discussing the matter with Leica and I'm sure we'll come to a solution. I made the statement that everyone is having problems based on reading other posts. It does appear that users of all systems have some kind of problems. I've heard of users with the new H6D 100 having some issues. Having said that, some brands have a far greater number of problems than others and in my personal use, my Blad had less problems than any other system I've used, but as you also state, it's not completely without problems.

Justin

 

[Earlstone]

I agree Derek. I'm now discussing the matter with Leica and I'm sure we'll come to a solution.


I truly believe that Leica will eventually sort this out. The SL is a success as is the Q. The new M will be very hot. In other words, the company isn't going anywhere. From what I have heard from people like David Farkas is the company does care about the S. For those of us who need something dependable it's not the S right now, but for those that use it for a hobby and have other hobby gear I think (emphasis on think) if we can be patient it will pan out. Of course, by the time they do they may well come out with a new body and the 007 will be worth a fraction (see the current 006 value). The image quality when nailed is like nothing else and to me I want to believe the problems will get sorted. Or not.

 

[ZHNL]

I agree Derek. I'm now discussing the matter with Leica and I'm sure we'll come to a solution. I made the statement that everyone is having problems based on reading other posts. It does appear that users of all systems have some kind of problems. I've heard of users with the new H6D 100 having some issues. Having said that, some brands have a far greater number of problems than others and in my personal use, my Blad had less problems than any other system I've used, but as you also state, it's not completely without problems.

Justin

Justin,

one question for you is: Is your S007 always mis focus? or it has to be certain distance or subject or both.

I have a strong feeling that even exchange the units won't satisfy you. As I mentioned the camera AF is inherent weak.

I have handle multiple S units as mention earlier in the thread, they behave very similar. How about your loan unit, are they meet your requirement?

S AF problem is in its AF algorithm, Can't lock focus or just focus wrong is different thing, I prefer former than later if AF is sloppy. At least I know it right away.

-Michael

 

[justalexander]

Justin,

one question for you is: Is your S007 always mis focus? or it has to be certain distance or subject or both.

I have a strong feeling that even exchange the units won't satisfy you. As I mentioned the camera AF is inherent weak.

I have handle multiple S units as mention earlier in the thread, they behave very similar. How about your loan unit, are they meet your requirement?

S AF problem is in its AF algorithm, Can't lock focus or just focus wrong is different thing, I prefer former than later if AF is sloppy. At least I know it right away.

-Michael

Hi Michael, there are 2 problems I've been having.

(1) Focus is just wrong - I photograph buildings and interiors its rare that there isn't a high contrast subject for me to lock on to somewhere in the frame. Even with a high contrast subject in good light the focus may be wrong.

(2) Distance Scale is wrong - Because the AF circle is so large, if there are multiple subjects at different distances within the circle it gets confused and while it may lock focus, it might not be on either of the 2 subjects; and so I use the distance scale on the lens or LCD but this is also wrong.

In a previous post are pictures (1) photographing a black can on a white background with the 70mm. The camera confirmed focus but you can see the can is clearly out of focus. (2) I photographed a building 500m away and used the distance scale to set infinity. Building was out of focus. When I used live view to focus the camera said the building was 8m away. A BIG difference!

I'm trying to be fair and not saying the AF system in the S system is completely wrong; every AF system has it's limitations. All I can say is that from my experience I can NEVER rely on it except when using live view. I used my 10 year old Blad H3DII a few times recently and it has no problems nailing focus in more difficult lighting situations than the S. The distance scale on the lens is also reliable so if I turn the lens to infinity, I can be sure that a building 500m away is in focus.

Leica think I may have a lemon and so I'm still discussing with them how to resolve the situation.

Justin

 

[ZHNL]

Hi Michael, there are 2 problems I've been having.

(1) Focus is just wrong - I photograph buildings and interiors its rare that there isn't a high contrast subject for me to lock on to somewhere in the frame. Even with a high contrast subject in good light the focus may be wrong.

(2) Distance Scale is wrong - Because the AF circle is so large, if there are multiple subjects at different distances within the circle it gets confused and while it may lock focus, it might not be on either of the 2 subjects; and so I use the distance scale on the lens or LCD but this is also wrong.

In a previous post are pictures (1) photographing a black can on a white background with the 70mm. The camera confirmed focus but you can see the can is clearly out of focus. (2) I photographed a building 500m away and used the distance scale to set infinity. Building was out of focus. When I used live view to focus the camera said the building was 8m away. A BIG difference!

I'm trying to be fair and not saying the AF system in the S system is completely wrong; every AF system has it's limitations. All I can say is that from my experience I can NEVER rely on it except when using live view. I used my 10 year old Blad H3DII a few times recently and it has no problems nailing focus in more difficult lighting situations than the S. The distance scale on the lens is also reliable so if I turn the lens to infinity, I can be sure that a building 500m away is in focus.

Leica think I may have a lemon and so I'm still discussing with them how to resolve the situation.

Justin

On 1, You use "focus maybe wrong" , I assume you can lock focus right sometime, this match what I see. The focus is more sensitive to vertical line than horizontal line in my field test. And I find critical focus is not consistent to fully appreciate sensor and Lens capability of. For f8, f11 stuff, I am fine as I can see focus myself if AF is wrong. just need slow down.

As for wide AF spot, yes, that is one of my biggest complain. There is no way you can nail the focus on eyes instead of eye slash with wide aperture, you don't know how AF algorithm implemented, is definitely not the cross point as you would think but whole circle, which is super stupid IMO. That is why I mentioned in my previous reply that subject distance for AF to work is important at wide aperture because at those distance DOF will cover the AF tolerance.

As for LCD distance scale, I would suggest you test other lens as well, it could be your particular lens problem. for the time I have S007(about 4 month), I don't find big error like yours, but I don't find it useful as well, I test 100cron at infinity, if I use it(screen) to focusing, I got inconsistent results. most of time, it is off.(not a lot but not sharp) I didn't test on 35mm Summarit, or anything wider(I have 35 but don't have SWA S lens), but you know the focus accuracy requirement is night and day different compare 24mm f3.5 lens to 100mm at f2.

So I guess this is most likely use for wide DOF stuff such as landscape, or long range subject focusing distance. However, I don't trust it as I don't know how this be generated, by AF rangefinder or by physical lens barrel location? In field, I don't need this gimmick, what I want is a reliable focusing so that I can focus at WO and shoot at shooting aperture. I can decide DOF and using aperture per scene by myself. What this stuff for? Can you use it shooting in studio portrait? This is totally nonsense IMO.

All I want to say is this system require attention for AF and replace units may not be able to solve your problem but showing 8M for infinity is seriously wrong I agree.

Good luck

-Michael

 

[erlingmm]

As for LCD distance scale, I would suggest you test other lens as well, it could be your particular lens problem. for the time I have S007(about 4 month), I don't find big error like yours, but I don't find it useful as well, I test 100cron at infinity, if I use it(screen) to focusing, I got inconsistent results. most of time, it is off.(not a lot but not sharp) I didn't test on 35mm Summarit, or anything wider(I have 35 but don't have SWA S lens), but you know the focus accuracy requirement is night and day different compare 24mm f3.5 lens to 100mm at f2.

-Michael

If you use the distance scale on the LCD for landscape/infinity, my experience is that the back and focus distance should be at infinity, but the front limit should be some number, otherwise you may focus "beyond infinity".

 

[ZHNL]

If you use the distance scale on the LCD for landscape/infinity, my experience is that the back and focus distance should be at infinity, but the front limit should be some number, otherwise you may focus "beyond infinity".

I did, that is very fundermental the problem is in my case the sharpest is not reach infinity yet about 80m.(back end) And if I fix back focus at infinity, it have a small range to show back at infinity but none of them as sharp as set 80M.
My take away is this: if I want use certain feature I have to test its concept and further understand what is it doing how reliable it is doing. Hence using toughest lens on this.
Again, only reason I am join this thread is not try to trash a system I love to use but want to give another data point which may be helpful for OP or any other potential buyer to judge themselves if system suit their need. It(AF) is annoy but no longer really bother as long as I am careful and know how to set my expectation.

 

[justalexander]

I did, that is very fundermental the problem is in my case the sharpest is not reach infinity yet about 80m.(back end) And if I fix back focus at infinity, it have a small range to show back at infinity but none of them as sharp as set 80M.
My take away is this: if I want use certain feature I have to test its concept and further understand what is it doing how reliable it is doing. Hence using toughest lens on this.
Again, only reason I am join this thread is not try to trash a system I love to use but want to give another data point which may be helpful for OP or any other potential buyer to judge themselves if system suit their need. It(AF) is annoy but no longer really bother as long as I am careful and know how to set my expectation.

Leica market this camera system as "built with the precise needs of professional photographers in mind" and WE must be careful to set our expectations? I DON"T THINK SO!!! If I turn the lens barrel to the infinity marking and set F8 with a 30mm lens, I should be able to bet my life on the fact that something 500m away will be in focus. If it isn't then the product is faulty. I should not have to be careful or change my expectations!

Companies lying to us to sell their product, and then not taking responsibility... it's the CAMERA company that should be careful with their expectations!

 

[Bernard]

If I turn the lens barrel to the infinity marking and set F8 with a 30mm lens, I should be able to bet my life on the fact that something 500m away will be in focus.

Coming from a motion picture background, I can tell you that this will never happen with any lens. Even $30,000 motion picture lenses need to be collimated on a regular basis, and they will drift if the temperature changes.

You have very high standards, so I'm not sure that you should rely on AF so much. It will get you in the ballpark, but it can't tell where you want to place your sharpest point. I am not saying that the AF system in your camera isn't broken, but even the best AF isn't good enough for highly critical work.

It's like depth-of-field tables. They were originally calculated for small prints viewed in a home environment. They don't apply if you are making wall-sized prints to be hung in a gallery and examined at close range.

 

[justalexander]

Coming from a motion picture background, I can tell you that this will never happen with any lens. Even $30,000 motion picture lenses need to be collimated on a regular basis, and they will drift if the temperature changes.

You have very high standards, so I'm not sure that you should rely on AF so much. It will get you in the ballpark, but it can't tell where you want to place your sharpest point. I am not saying that the AF system in your camera isn't broken, but even the best AF isn't good enough for highly critical work.

It's like depth-of-field tables. They were originally calculated for small prints viewed in a home environment. They don't apply if you are making wall-sized prints to be hung in a gallery and examined at close range.

Very high standards???

I'm going to assume you either haven't taken the time to read the posts or are joking... I'm not talking about perfect focus of a subject at 3 metres with an 85mm lens at F1.4. I'm talking about focus of a subject at 500metres with a 30mm lens at F8. This is a photograph of my HCD 28mm (which focuses perfectly btw). Are you honestly telling me that if I used this focus position on this lens at F8 I cant be assured that a subject 500 metres away (1640 feet) should be in focus? The lens markings indicate a subject from around 7 feet upwards should be in focus. You're willing to accept a $30,000 lens that can't ensure focus of a subject at 1640 feet?

As someone put it so perfectly earlier, it's the raison d'être of the distance and aperture markings. I'm sure everyone who posts on here is aware of the concept of a hyperfocal distance. It's a basic and fundamental principle of photography and one that Phase One have implemented in their XF with Hyperfocal Focussing.

Let's say you were driving your car and the speedometer indicted you were travelling at 30 kph (18.64 mph). Let's also say that you were in fact travelling at over 100 kph (62 mph) and were lawfully convicted. I'm not much of a betting man but I would say that you'd have a fair claim against you car manufacturer that your speedometer was faulty!

Justin

 

[glenerrolrd]

Let me just say what many of the posters are thinking . Justin what you present as facts just don t seem reasonable . For example ..how could you possibly have a misfocus of 30MM lens set at f8 with a target at 500meters ? Now if you are speaking to an acceptable spread of depth of field around that target ....then I could understand . But your technique just doesn t match your expectations . If you want precision in the placement of your focus point and depth of field ..you should be using live view .

You have been given excellent advice from many photographers that truly “Get It” about medium format technique ...yet you keep going back to YOUR expectations . :banghead:

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Justin,

I have great sympathy for your problems.

My impression is that:

• Your experience is inconsistent focusing
• That inconsistency may depend on the camera focusing on the wrong object or something else
• Distance information on lens barrel is grossly inconsistent with real focusing distance, so it cannot be used to sanity check focus
• Problems affect several lenses
• Leica says the system is within tolerances

A problem may be alignment between AF system and sensor plane. That of course conflicts with camera being within tolerances.

Have you checked consistency between live view and ground glass focusing?

My personal experience is that manually focusing a high resolution system on ground glass is very hard. So a well working AF is essential. That is the main reason I want live view. But, if I want to use live view, why would I buy a DSLR? Just to say, magnified live view is not very practical with anything that moves. Also, there is a lot of difference between

• Acceptable focus
• Good focus
• Accurate focus

And those differences may be masked by small apertures and small print sizes. But, for accurate work you need accurate focus.

Best regards
Erik

 

[fotografz]

Justin, be nice, the folks here are just trying to help based on their experience ... please don't take out your frustration with Leica on them.

Personally, after years of use I haven't been able to definitively figure out the AF anomalies with this system.

The other day I was at the beach and tried shooting some Pelicans resting on a rocky perch, bright day with over-cast sky. 180/3.5 CS lens with a mono-pod. Placed the cross hairs on the static bird and none of them were in critical focus. This lines up with your experiences as well as those of Lloyd. It would lead one to assume it is a distance AF issue. BTW, the S2 and S(006) do not have live-view, so that solution is not possible.

Out of curiosity, I then tried another lens as a test in my home at night and shot a ceiling fan with a light ... it front focused. I then chose another room subject approx. the same distance away ... a brass door handle on an off-white door. It was dead on focus.

What this makes me suspect is that it has something to do with gross contrast ... a subject surrounded by an intense light source ... the bright sky behind the pelican, and the relatively bright light in the over-head fan ... not just distance. I wonder if this is confusing the AF sensors in some way? I suppose a lot more testing would reveal whether this hunch has any validity. I may be way off course here, but it may be worth further trials when I return to Florida in a few weeks.

I mostly use the S system with lighting in studio or closer up for people work in decent ambient so this doesn't effect me 98% of the time. But it would be interesting to solve the mystery and know how to work around it when necessary.

- Marc

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think Justin's expectations are unreasonable. If you shoot architecture 500 meters away and the AF doesn't achieve critical focus at f/8 than that AF is not usable. Not much discussion about that.

Now, Justin's test shows that an image focused accurately using live view indicates 8 m on the focusing ring and indicates a DoF from 4.68 m to 27.67m the display must be a joke.

You may say that MFD technique needs magnified live view for adequate focus, thereby discrediting say Hasselblad or Phase One who seem to have functional AF, but that technique is essentially limited to the new CMOS backs.

So, I cannot see the relevance of your comment.

Best regards
Erik

Let me just say what many of the posters are thinking . Justin what you present as facts just don t seem reasonable . For example ..how could you possibly have a misfocus of 30MM lens set at f8 with a target at 500meters ? Now if you are speaking to an acceptable spread of depth of field around that target ....then I could understand . But your technique just doesn t match your expectations . If you want precision in the placement of your focus point and depth of field ..you should be using live view .

You have been given excellent advice from many photographers that truly “Get It” about medium format technique ...yet you keep going back to YOUR expectations . :banghead:

 

[Bernard]

Very high standards???
Justin

Justin,

That was meant as a compliment.
I think that anybody who follows this board has very high standards. It's the nature of the beast, we are all using high performance imaging systems, and are very critical of our output.

Your reply raises an other question. The 28 is a Hasselblad lens, used with an adapter on the S. Do you experience the same issues with native lenses? The adapter could have mechanical (tolerance) issues, as well as electronic interface issues. As far as I know, Leica reverse-engineered Hasselblad's lens communication protocol, there's a lot of proprietary knowledge that they don't have access to, especially with the 28 which is more critical of back-focus distance (and which is partly software-corrected in Hasselblad's system).

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Bernard,

Justin has problem with his native Leica lenses. He merely uses the Hasselblad lens as an example of a lens not having those issues.

What he says, in essence, that with the Leica S (typ 007)

• With AF he gets out of focus images
• With lens set at infinity marking he gets out of focus images at 30 mm focal length on object 500 away
• With magnified lve view he gets accurate focus but lens scale indicates 8.0 m
• Camera has been in Germany for repairs for three times in a year and Leica states it is OK
• My understanding is that this applies to several Leica S lenses he has

Best regards
Erik

Justin,

That was meant as a compliment.
I think that anybody who follows this board has very high standards. It's the nature of the beast, we are all using high performance imaging systems, and are very critical of our output.

Your reply raises an other question. The 28 is a Hasselblad lens, used with an adapter on the S. Do you experience the same issues with native lenses? The adapter could have mechanical (tolerance) issues, as well as electronic interface issues. As far as I know, Leica reverse-engineered Hasselblad's lens communication protocol, there's a lot of proprietary knowledge that they don't have access to, especially with the 28 which is more critical of back-focus distance (and which is partly software-corrected in Hasselblad's system).

 

[glenerrolrd]

The problem with this thread is that the comments jump around . Maybe try looking at what is most important .....can you focus a 30mm lens at f8 and nail infinity . If you have trouble doing this ....at this point give up .

I know very well how the AF system works in the S bodies and without a doubt it has limitations . This has been explained in a lot of detail but ultimately I have to determine my exact focus point with a visual inspection . So I focus on where I want the exact plan of focus and then I check it with a quick manual adjustment . Normally this is a very quick and smooth process ..no more difficult than using a range finder .

The reason you would use live view is to better control the “exact plain of focus “ and to inspect the depth of field . It is the best way to get a precise focus .

The auto focus could be completely disabled and it would not affect my technique for landscape much at all .

Of course the indicated focus distance on the lens should be more accurate ....but if you are using that scale to judge your depth of field ....assuming that everything will be sharp ....then you don t “get it” .

I will drop off this thread as I expect many others have . Excellent advice has been presented on both (1) how to insure the S system is functioning as designed and (2) the best practices in techniques to get the most out of the system . Doesn t appear that any of this input has been accepted by the original poster .

I have empathy for the frustration after a major investment when things don t appear to be working ...this has happened to me many times ...sometimes its the gear ....most of the time its me .

 

[justalexander]

Justin,

That was meant as a compliment.
I think that anybody who follows this board has very high standards. It's the nature of the beast, we are all using high performance imaging systems, and are very critical of our output.

Your reply raises an other question. The 28 is a Hasselblad lens, used with an adapter on the S. Do you experience the same issues with native lenses? The adapter could have mechanical (tolerance) issues, as well as electronic interface issues. As far as I know, Leica reverse-engineered Hasselblad's lens communication protocol, there's a lot of proprietary knowledge that they don't have access to, especially with the 28 which is more critical of back-focus distance (and which is partly software-corrected in Hasselblad's system).

Hi Bernard

Sorry but it's been a VERY frustrating 12 months with this camera and hearing that my standards and expectations might be too high having spend over $85,000 for a camera system designed "with the precise needs of professionals in mind" just came as a shock.

I was just using the 28 Blad lens as an example because it was sitting on my desk, it has F numbers recorded on it, and I've not had a single problem with it on my H3DII. I haven't actually used it on the Leica S.

In a previous post you will see how the simple task of focussing on a subject 500m away using the S system could not be achieved using either autofocus or the lens barrel markings or hyperfocal focussing. I had to use live view. This effectively turns a $35,000 camera lens combination from a rugged all weather tool into something more akin to a studio based camera system that requires tethering. That's not why I purchased the S; I already have the heavy Hasselblad for the studio but it appears the 10+ year old Hasselblad is still more reliable in every way than the S in the field.

In a previous post you will also see that the S couldn't even reliably focus on a black can against a white background at close range; a task that all of my other camera systems can do, repeatedly and consistently. It was after sending Leica this example that they changed their minds and said my camera wasn't operating within technical specifications.

Thanks for your input.

Justin