This has probably been covered, but any chance the "wobble" is an easy fix with, say, some tightened screws and a dab of Loctite? Or is it a done deal once it happens.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
This has probably been covered, but any chance the "wobble" is an easy fix with, say, some tightened screws and a dab of Loctite? Or is it a done deal once it happens.
I've opened the thing before and could not find a way to fix it...no screws to be tightened, it's just a flawed design. I'm hoping for a new and improved version.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
This has probably been covered, but any chance the "wobble" is an easy fix with, say, some tightened screws and a dab of Loctite? Or is it a done deal once it happens.
I just try to use the smallest/lightest lens and hope for the best (and some pixel peeping to be sure). Long heavy lens just seem like a sure thing to induce the wobble which may be irreversible. But this is just my opinion.
In the end I just said #$%&%%#$ and bought an M10 😉
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've opened the thing before and could not find a way to fix it...no screws to be tightened, it's just a flawed design. I'm hoping for a new and improved version.
Fred, can you tell where the wobble is coming from?
For example, is it wear of the bushings that ride against the two posts? Or the posts becoming loose from the rear housing? Or flexing of the housing?
IMO, the problem is that the system lacks support at the top. So, it moves forwards and backwards just fine but when a lens is attached, it starts to put force on all areas of the adapter but the top is the weak point. After a while it starts to bend. It will eventually happen with any lens but the wobble happens faster with heavier lenses.
If you see a wobble, IQ is horribly compromised. It's like using the tilt of a tilt and shift lens. Even if you don't see any wobble, the system will never be 100% parallel to the camera mount when a lens is added to the adapter. (Forget about using it for astro or landscapes)
Thanks Fred. I understand that part, I'm just trying to discern what has changed when the adapter transitions from "no wobble" to "has the wobble problem".
For that cantilever front mount to be wobbling, when it didn't previously show wobble, something in the adapter has to have either worn, slipped, loosened, shifted, or fatigued from flexing stresses...
Aerocolor wrote:
Thanks Fred. I understand that part, I'm just trying to discern what has changed when the adapter transitions from "no wobble" to "has the wobble problem".
For that cantilever front mount to be wobbling, when it didn't previously show wobble, something in the adapter has to have either worn, slipped, loosened, shifted, or fatigued from flexing stresses...
I'm not an engineer but it seems to me that the top of the adapter is missing a more rigid support. (like the other areas have)
You don't even have to wait for it to wobble. If you buy a new one, extend it to macro position and just push it down...it will flex. I think that's the problem.
LBJ2 wrote:
I just try to use the smallest/lightest lens and hope for the best (and some pixel peeping to be sure). Long heavy lens just seem like a sure thing to induce the wobble which may be irreversible. But this is just my opinion.
In the end I just said #$%&%%#$ and bought an M10 😉
Hahah! That was my “solution” too. Currently the only surefire fix for the wobble is a Leica M body. I’m with Fred, though in hoping they come out with a new, improved version because the concept is brilliant even if the current implementation is badly flawed.
Fred Miranda wrote:
IMO, the problem is that the system lacks support at the top. So, it moves forwards and backwards just fine but when a lens is attached, it starts to put force on all areas of the adapter but the top is the weak point. After a while it starts to bend. It will eventually happen with any lens but the wobble happens faster with heavier lenses.
If you see a wobble, IQ is horribly compromised. It's like using the tilt of a tilt and shift lens. Even if you don't see any wobble, the system will never be 100% parallel to the camera mount when a lens is added to the adapter. (Forget about using it for astro or landscapes)...Show more →
(I had one briefly when it debuted and sold it off after a day. There was a waiting list at that time. So,luckily, I could sell it quickly.)
Fred Miranda wrote:
IMO, the problem is that the system lacks support at the top. So, it moves forwards and backwards just fine but when a lens is attached, it starts to put force on all areas of the adapter but the top is the weak point. After a while it starts to bend. It will eventually happen with any lens but the wobble happens faster with heavier lenses.
If you see a wobble, IQ is horribly compromised. It's like using the tilt of a tilt and shift lens. Even if you don't see any wobble, the system will never be 100% parallel to the camera mount when a lens is added to the adapter. (Forget about using it for astro or landscapes)...Show more →
The LF photographer in me is thinking, "But front tilt is ideal for landscape!"
genji wrote:
Hahah! That was my “solution” too. Currently the only surefire fix for the wobble is a Leica M body. I’m with Fred, though in hoping they come out with a new, improved version because the concept is brilliant even if the current implementation is badly flawed.
Yes! I've posted before, when this adapter hits, it's a small miracle AF on Leica lenses. I have good days and bad days. The day I tested the Voigt VM 50 F1.2 with the TechArt and A7rIII/A9 I enjoyed a very high hit rate. I was nailing 1.2 AF shots on moving targets everywhere. There was however plenty of light and the targets were literally human size.
I found the adapter can struggle and stop working altogether if the backlighting is too strong, or target too far away but also easy to pick this up and adjust accordingly. Also hopping over to MF is super easy too to help the AF when it fails.
An improved version II would be an instant hit I think, I know I would buy it just for the fun of it.
LBJ2 wrote:
An improved version II would be an instant hit I think
It seems to me like the biggest issues with the current model are the thin parts and the rack & pinion drive mechanism, all of which were necessitated by the slim working distance between the Leica M & Sony E mount registers.
If "Version 2" was made in a different mount, say Canon EF instead of Leica M, you would gain enough space between the mounts to switch to a helicoid, giving a much stronger and rigid moving mount. Obviously some lenses would no longer be compatible... but a large number of common mounts would still work, and adapters to EF are widely available.
Aerocolor wrote:
It seems to me like the biggest issues with the current model are the thin parts and the rack & pinion drive mechanism, all of which were necessitated by the slim working distance between the Leica M & Sony E mount registers.
If "Version 2" was made in a different mount, say Canon EF instead of Leica M, you would gain enough space between the mounts to switch to a helicoid, giving a much stronger and rigid moving mount. Obviously some lenses would no longer be compatible... but a large number of common mounts would still work, and adapters to EF are widely available....Show more →
My first thought was that I'd buy a Techart EF->E adapter in an instant so that I could autofocus my Classic ZE lenses. My second thought was that the number of manual focus EF-mount lenses was too small for such an adapter to be economically viable. Somehow I'd managed to ignore your last sentence whilst simultaneously forgetting that, a couple of years after I'd discovered the Alt forum in 2008, I sold my Nikon D300, D700, & Nikon lenses and bought a Canon 5D. That meant I could then buy a bunch of Contax C/Y and Leica R lenses plus the chipped adapters that allowed them to be used on Canon bodies.
The number of legacy lenses in "Canon EF compatible" mounts (M42, Pentax K, Contax C/Y, Olympus OM, Leica R, to name a few) must be vastly greater than the number of Leica M/LTM lenses. Who could design and manufacture such an adapter? Metabones would be my choice.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm not an engineer but it seems to me that the top of the adapter is missing a more rigid support. (like the other areas have)
You don't even have to wait for it to wobble. If you buy a new one, extend it to macro position and just push it down...it will flex. I think that's the problem.
I bet they would have to stiffen the lower parts of the motion system. I think if a third shaft & bushing was added at the top, it wouldn't necessarily inhibit the vertical flexing, unless it had its own rack & pinion to provide a positive holding force on the in-out movement. A standalone additional bushing without this would remain free to move in and out as the lower part flexed... or worse, could be subject to binding if it was flexed and became un-parallel when the system was moving.
Aerocolor wrote:
I bet they would have to stiffen the lower parts of the motion system. I think if a third shaft & bushing was added at the top, it wouldn't necessarily inhibit the vertical flexing, unless it had its own rack & pinion to provide a positive holding force on the in-out movement. A standalone additional bushing without this would remain free to move in and out as the lower part flexed... or worse, could be subject to binding if it was flexed and became un-parallel when the system was moving.
Makes sense and I'm sure it's not a simple solution.
genji wrote:
The number of legacy lenses in "Canon EF compatible" mounts (M42, Pentax K, Contax C/Y, Olympus OM, Leica R, to name a few) must be vastly greater than the number of Leica M/LTM lenses.
The other significant difference here is that this is a moving mount, which allows an AF adapter to decouple the "mount" from that mount's specified flange focal distance. This opens up all kinds of possibilities.
For example, the Canon EF mount is 44.0mm from the sensor.
The Fujica X mount is 43.5mm, as is the Minolta SR.
For any normal static mount adapter, making these lenses work is a clear no-go situation, because 43.5mm is less than 44.0mm, and adapters can't be negative thicknesses.
However, for a moving AF adapter like this, you could simply design it to focus a few mm "past infinity" for that EF mount, with a collapsed thickness of say 42mm or so instead of 44. Then a simple mechanical-only (no optics) EF->X or EF->SR adapter could be used to permit those lenses to be mounted, with full infinity focus capability, even though this wouldn't be possible on any other EF-mount camera.
genji wrote:
Who could design and manufacture such an adapter? Metabones would be my choice.
Honestly, the only real magic in the TAP is that they reverse-engineered Sony's lens protocol. Without designing for production, someone with some modest machine shop experience could take the electrics out of a TAP (or PRONTO) and fabricate a helicoid adapter themselves using one of the inexpensive helicoid adapters available on eBay.
Converting a bellows unit to be AF with a "Frankenstein" TAP would be even easier. Significantly easier, actually.
genji wrote:
My first thought was that I'd buy a Techart EF->E adapter in an instant so that I could autofocus my Classic ZE lenses. My second thought was that the number of manual focus EF-mount lenses was too small for such an adapter to be economically viable. Somehow I'd managed to ignore your last sentence whilst simultaneously forgetting that, a couple of years after I'd discovered the Alt forum in 2008, I sold my Nikon D300, D700, & Nikon lenses and bought a Canon 5D. That meant I could then buy a bunch of Contax C/Y and Leica R lenses plus the chipped adapters that allowed them to be used on Canon bodies.
The number of legacy lenses in "Canon EF compatible" mounts (M42, Pentax K, Contax C/Y, Olympus OM, Leica R, to name a few) must be vastly greater than the number of Leica M/LTM lenses. Who could design and manufacture such an adapter? Metabones would be my choice....Show more →
Designing to the shortlest flange distance (Leica M) allows for other mounts to be used too though.
and plug that onto the Techart and your Canon lenses will autofocus.
I've done this with F mount on my Sony with the Techart.
Shawn
Umm, yes, I did cover that in considerable detail in the FAQ. You’ve missed the point of Aerocolor’s suggestion and my response which is that designing for a longer flange distance would enable the use of a helicoid in the adapter, thus addressing and fixing the wobble that is the fatal flaw in the Techart Pro’s design. Such a solution is impossible with the Leica M’s short flange distance.
.
