Flare?

[rolo]

In an M7 thread Eliot Rosen wrote:

 

<p>

 

"John. Can you tell us what you are referring to? I thought Leica

had addressed the VF flare issue (a problem that I have never

experienced myself) in the M7 by multi-coating the VF window.

Are they planning on another change to further address the

problem beyond that?"

 

<p>

 

I'm not John, but here's what I know. In his newsletter review of

the new M7, Leica enthusiast Erwin Puts wrote: "Everything can

always be improved. The finder windows have an anti-reflection

coating that diminishes clearly the flare of the rangefinder

patch that occurs in some situations when strong light sources

are shining obliquely into the finder."

 

<p>

 

The flare that "occurs in some situations" occurs on every M6 of

every flavor (.58, .72, .85) that I have ever owned or handled.

High-angle light sources (someone went so far as to peg it at

110 degrees) in a normal to dimly lit room (wedding receptions

are classic environments for this) will cause the rangefinder

patch to flare or "white out" unless your eye is situated perfectly

at the eyepiece. I wear eyeglasses, so I guess I never get my

eye in that "sweet spot." My M6's flare easily. Moving my eye can

sometimes clear the flare enough to focus, but at a great time

expense when working quickly. When shooting weddings, I slap

a strip of 3M Durapore surgical tape over the frameline

illuminator window and go to work. Looks bad, works fine.

 

<p>

 

Rich Pinto, a reputable Leica dealer in NYC, said that in the brief

time he had an M7 in hand, he could not make the rangefinder

flare in a situation that caused an M6 to flare readily. I have to

assume that the multicoating of the windows helps a great deal,

but it's not THE solution. Why?

 

<p>

 

Here's where the story gets interesting. In a post that appeared,

perhaps mistakenly, on the Leica Users Group and has yet to be

challenged as inauthentic, Erwin Puts revealed to a

correspondent: "But while I know the problem, the causes and

the solution, I was forbidden to mention it. But now Leica is

telling all of us that we have to upgrade our M7 in a few months

for a substantial amount of money, because they lacked the drive

and the time to add this solution to the current M7."

 

<p>

 

Fascinating, but inconclusive. For one, neither Erwin Puts nor

anyone else has clarified "the causes and the solution." Two,

the nature, price ("a substantial amount of money" !) and time

frame for this "upgrade" (nice spin on "correction of a 20-year

problem of our creation") is unclear, as is whether Leica will offer

a similar "upgrade" to M6 owners.

 

<p>

 

Knowing that a solution may be down the road is somewhat

reassuring. Being kept in the dark on the details is rather

annoying, but not really surprising.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

The "details" you seek appear to be the claimed use of a parabolic

mirror in the rangefinder mechanism. See the topic on this in the FAQ

at <A HREF="http://nemeng.com/leica/020b.shtml">nemeng.com/leica/

020b.shtml</A>

[rolo]

Actually the "details" I seek relate to time and expense. It's nice

to know that after two decades an answer may be at hand. But

how much will it cost and how long will it take? BTW, the Leica

comment about the partial solution being in the M6TTL and the

M7 is ambiguous. I have two M6TTL's, they both flare. My .58 is

a fairly late number, 272-something, and it flares as badly as my

1995 M6 and my 248-series .85 TTL.

 

<p>

 

We'll see. . . .

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

<I>Flare handling improved on late M6 TTLs?</I><P>

 

Yeah, I've been wondering about this as my M6 TTL can be

made to flare reasonably easily too. Maybe the Leica tech is

refering to M6TTLs made since the M7 started manufacture?