By Heinz Richter
Leica is often criticized for being too expensive, some even dismiss Leica cameras as being nothing more than a luxury item.
Of course, Leicas are not for everyone, just like Ferraris, Rolls Royces, Porsches etc. are not for everyone. They too are out of reach for many because of their cost. But most agree that such cars do offer much more than your everyday Chevy, Kia or VW.
The same is the case with Leica. Their manufacturing process alone sets them apart from virtually all other camera manufacturers. The reason is that almost all other cameras are mass produced, cameras as well as lenses. Leica does not mass produce anything, instead they use a bench making process, where each individual item is made with substantially higher precision.
Especially with lenses this pays off with better performance. There is no such thing as a perfect lens. Small deviations from the ideal lens will always happen, so in order to obtain a lens as good as possible, it is necessary to keep any deviations from the ideal to an absolute minimum.
For that reason, Leica applies substantially tighter tolerances than their competition. This starts with the raw optical glass used for their lenses. The various types of glasses necessary to make a lens must have a certain refractive index as well as a specified amount of dispersion.
Leica applies a standard of ±0.0002% for the accuracy of the refractive index. This compares to the international standard of ±0.001% as applied by other lens manufacturers. The accuracy of the Abbe number, the measure for dispersion, is ±0.2% for Leica compared to ±0.8% internationally.
These much tighter tolerances continue during the grinding process of the individual lens elements. Leica allows minimum production tolerance of no more than ¼ lambda or ¼ of the average wavelength of light which corresponds to approximately 500 nanometer or 0.0005mm for the accuracy of the lens surface. However, with some lens elements this accuracy is set for 0.0001mm or 0.1 μm (micrometer). In comparison, the tolerances applied by other lens manufacturers are ½ lambda or 0.001mm or 1 μm . Similar tolerances are used for the thickness of the elements and proper centering along the optical axis.
These are just a few examples of the extra input that Leica lenses receive. However, this would be useless if extremely tight tolerances were not applied mechanically as well.
The mechanical tolerances applied by Leica must conform to a minimum of 1/100 mm or 10 micrometers which equals less than 0.00039 inch for the accuracy of the lens mounts of both cameras and lenses, but also for the accuracy of the focusing mount of their lenses and for the rangefinder in the Leica M-type cameras. The same tolerances used to be applied to the accuracy of the focal plane in the Leica analog cameras. These needed to be increased substantially for the positioning of digital sensors since, unlike with film, sensors are totally flat. Other manufacturers apply tolerances of about half of these measurements. For the focusing mounts of all manual lenses, initial testing is done by machine. However, the threads of the focusing mechanism of these lenses are always finished by hand with hand grinding and polishing for one hour. These final test are up to an experienced individual who is trained to feel even the slightest imperfections in the smooth operation of the focusing mount. No machine is capable of doing that.
The next time anyone has a negative reaction to the cost of Leica cameras and lenses, let’s not forget that there is much more to that than a company selling luxury items.
For in depth information on this go to: Making Cameras and Lenses the Leica Way
For other articles on this blog please click on Blog Archive in the column to the right
For other articles on this blog please click on Blog Archive in the column to the right
To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.
All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.
_______________________________________________________________________
Buy vintage Leica cameras from America's premier Leica specialist
Hi,
ReplyDeleteWould this also be the case for lenses bought in from third parties (like Sigma and Panasonic) and then sold as Leica lenses?
Thanks,
Donald
Leica does set certain performace parameters for lenses made for them by other companies. Once received, these lenses are then individually checked to make sure that these parameters are met.
DeleteI have often published images made with the, now 20 year old, Leica Digilux 2 which had only a resolution of 5 MP yet it displays a performance level that belies its rather modest resolution when compare to other cameras with similar resolution. This is primarily the direct resault of a very high performance lens. Both the camera and lens were made by Panasonic. From personal experience I can say that the Panasonic counterpart did not quite match the performance of the Digilux 2.
My first Leica was the camera my father bought when I was born (a IIIf); It was bequested to me when he passed away in the late nineties and I had to send it to DAG for repair (cracked curtains, dirty innards, he had replaced it by a Canonet QL years before). The pathos caught up with me immediately and not long after I got my first M (M6), then the bug hit hard and the Leica replaced my Rolleiflex 6008, my Toyo 45 and my Nikons FM2. At the time I had been practicing photography (and advanced darkroom) for almost 40 years.
ReplyDeleteMigrating from film to digital on Leica is not easy. For many years I relied on Fuji to give my M lenses a decent platform and, had it not been for a stroke of luck, I wouldn't have been able to get my first 2017 M10. Later I upgraded to the M10-R which is much superior but then, it's worth every penny. OTOH, I find grabbing my modernized M2 and my early (2003) MP more than my M10-R. I love the simplicity of the former and as I dedicate the M2 to color negative (C41) I really don't need a meter.
It's true, like you say, that Leicas as well as Porsches are expensive (outrageously so) and they're not for everyone. Thus, it's a pity watching the kind of a***oles that use them to produce boring pictures of their pets, cars, expensive vacations or kids; same be said of Porsches or Ferraris driven on the boulevard by j**ks my age (77) with their rented bottle blondes, knowing I could leave them in the dust with a VW Golf R or pal fog their boring images with my {published, exhibited and sold} street, thematic and travel portfolios. Fortunately, also I have a formal income source and don't depend on photography to put bread on the table, I just lament that such fine instruments are paced on the hands of (there's a Spanish word that has no direct translation to English) "mamarrachos".
I'm sorry for publishing anonimously, for some reason your platform wouldn't let me register with my G account.
Thank you very much for your post. Not only gives it an interesting account of how you get onto Leica, I also found it to parallel my own experience. I grew up in the photography business of my father. He gave me my first Leica, a model III when I was 5 years old. Since then, I have never been without a Leica. It was also interesting to me to see that you too were using a Rolleiflex, although mine were two Rolleiflex SL66. My film days ended with a Leica M6, not that there is anything wrong with film, but besides my photography business, I also ran a custom black and white lab. That made me get very tired of film processing and printing. My first digital Leica was a Digilux 2 in 2004, then a Digilux 3, primarily for the interchangeable lenses. My first digital M was a M240. I am now contemplating to switch to a Leica Q3. I find it quite interesting that the current M cameras are still a direct descendant of the U-Leica from 1913. That is one of the reasons why I am having a hard time to switch to a Leica other than an M.
Delete