dust in eyepiece -- chapter 3

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by roger_michel, Aug 24, 2004.

  1. hi -- well, i did the job. it worked like the tech said. no apparent
    glitches. very satisfying to clean out the dust and fine sand (don't
    ask) from the eyepiece. the only caution i will add is that it is
    IMPERATIVE to use a high quality phillips screwdriver of the
    RIGHT SIZE or else you will damage the tiny screws. these are
    readily available at chain hardware stores. i have a set of the
    german wiha drivers, and selected #261 (PHOOx40). they cost
    about $4-$6 each.

    i smeared a very thin layer of silicone caulk on the mating
    surfaces. the hammertone, with its rough surface, makes an
    especially bad natural seal with the flat eyepiece flange. i used
    duco cement to reglue the rubber piece.

    seemingly good as new (actually better because there was
    always a smear inside). best of all didn't have to wait 6 weeks
    and pay postage.

    a very easy repair. a "2" on a scale of 1-10.

    the photos have had radical level adjustments to show contrast
    with the screws. the parts are actually an even matte black.

    i am posting this because it appears that a number of people
    have had to deal with this problem.
  2. be very careful to blow out the grit before you wipe the inner
    surface. it is coated. does anyone know why the outer glass
    piece appears to have a diopter adjustment??
  3. Gee Roger, where's ya take that thing, the Sahara?

    I think the diopter is a standard magnification for the viewfinder.
  4. Roger, thank you for posting this procedure and the pictures. If my MP ever gets dusty inside it'll save me shipping it to Leica but more importantly, if I do the cleanout I will re-seal it probably better than they'd do at Leica. I don't know much about CNC production but it's a pity they had to resort to this new design if that was the reason. Surely it can't be cheaper for them to drill and tap 3 holes, then attach the eyepiece, then glue on the rubber grommet versus simply screwing in an eyepiece as with all the previous bodies, so one has to think they probably had no way around it. Or at least hope that was the case, it's definitely a more complicated and less efficient design.
  5. Whoa! Forget the screwdriver, your camera looks like you beat the crap out of it with a hammer.
  6. The eyepiece is actually a lens. If you peek through the VF without the eyepiece, everything is blurry. The lens is not simply a diopter lens.
  7. You should consider writing a book about the whole experience.
  8. If the eyepiece is a lens, I wonder if one could swap the eyepiece of an .85 with, say a diopter to mimic a .72 view. Or put another way, is the eyepiece lens on a .85 and .72 the same?
  9. After seeing this series of posts, I can't help but wonder what other hidden production
    changes are lurking in this latest series of M cameras.
  10. Well done, Roger,

    Is this something that can be done at home on the M6, M7, and MP? Or only the M6?

  11. this is the procedure for m7 and mp only.
  12. Maybe "Huw Funny" will chime in with his underwater Hammertone MP conversion? ;) This is very sloppy work on the part of Leica for a product of this pricing calibre.
  13. Now you know why Sherry uses grease to seal the top plate when she does a CLA - not a speck of dust after two years!
  14. i thought about using waterproof grease, which in some ways would have been a better material. however, it can liquify or even vaporize when heated, and so i shied away. the acrylic-base silicone caulk will simply harden.

    as for whether this new attachment method for the eyepiece is a cost sutting move, i am really not sure of that at all. i don't see where there is any real savings. my guess is that the change was driven by something in the new CNC manufacturing process. all leica will need to do is back the eyepiece with a thin layer of silicone and they will have quite a nice seal. for what is, in many many ways (much more so than would appear simply by looking at the camera), the MP is suprisingly bug-free. same for the radicaly new m7. if nikon, with all its vast resources, were only as good as leica in this regard!!
  15. the MP is suprisingly bug-free. same for the radicaly new m7. if nikon, with all its vast resources, were only as good as leica in this regard!!
    It should be for something that has more or less unchanged since about 1953! One good thing about this new eyepiece is that you won't be losing any. The revolutionary M7's advanced features were introduced by Nikon in about 1970 on the Nikkormat EL, complete without ever-blinking lights and a viewfinder revision. I like Leicas but lets not try to make them something they are not.
  16. while the MP is outwardly similar to the M3, there are many changes in the design of the shutter assembly and of course the electronics. further, and perhaps more important, much of the construction technique is new to leica. it is rather rare for a small high end company to get things so consistently right the first time. leica engages in really serious beta testing over quite a long period of time. they deserve credit. as for the m7, there is no camera quite like it.

    however, i was never suggesting that the cameras represent unknown technologies in concept, merely that much of the execution is new and leica deserves credit for bringing these new-to-them products to market without very many bugs at all.

    finally, whether the new eyepiece attachment method is successful or not, there is nothing cheap about the construction quality. the parts are well-machined metal, and the screws fit very precisely indeed. all that is lacking is a gasket of some sort -- an easy update.

Share This Page