M240 6 bit recognition......

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As the new coded Novoflex R-M adapter seems rather variable in it's ability to work with various purchasers cameras I did a bit of experimenting......

 

On all my M's (M9, MM, M) there is a very small bit of play in the lens when attached and clicked into place ....you can move it back a tiny bit ....

 

with several lenses .... most notably the 50/0.95, 75/2 and the Novoflex adapter this backward play is enough to 'de-recognise' the lens.... and adapter .... and for me happens quite regularly with the 50/0.95 unless I check to see it's ok. It's an intermittent nuisance rather than a big issue.

 

For the M the geometry of the sensor has changed such that you would have thought misalignment problem would be less (a curved sensor instead of a straight one reading a curved set of bars)..... so why it happens on my M and not the other cameras is a bit of a mystery......

 

Is the 'click stop' that locks the lens adjustable ? Looking at it there seem to be a number of stacked metal bits, but I cannot fathom if they play any part in how far the lens is turned before it locks.. As all the other components are drilled and screwed together in fixed positions, this and poor coding accuracy seem the only possible culprits.....

 

Anyone else had problems ??? Anyone know if this mechanism can be adjusted ??

[wlaidlaw]

My experience is that the M240 is more difficult to hand code for than the M9, which was very easy. It is similar to the M8 in my view. You have to be very accurate with the markings. I cannot get my M240 to recognise my Zeiss ZM 25/2.8 Biogon, whereas my M9 recognises it every time as a 24/2.8 Elmarit.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[satureyes]

As the new coded Novoflex R-M adapter seems rather variable in it's ability to work with various purchasers cameras I did a bit of experimenting......

 

 

Anyone else had problems ??? Anyone know if this mechanism can be adjusted ??

 

Actually I posted the very same issue - but with Leica M glass.. here's what I posted..

 

 

Anyone else having problems with lenses showing as uncoded/coded.

 

I just noticed tonight that the M240 seems very sensitive to the 6 bit coding.

The 50 'lux seems to flick between uncoded and coded - there is a little more play in the lens when it's on the camera and that tiny amount is enough to make the camera think there is no coded lens on.. can't be even 1mm.

 

Doesn't happen with my other lenses - so it could be specific to the 50 'lux.

 

Anyone else had issues?

 

Can the lens mount be 'tightened' so it locks with less play and therefore won't move on the camera? It can only be half a mm as it is.. but it's a little more than other lenses I tried.

 

Could of course be due to the LED sensor or the coding in the other lenses in relation to it - but wondering where the fault lies.. camera or lens?

 

 

Hoping this is 'simple' in terms of fixing..

[gravastar]

I replied to Rick's other posting I'd had similar problems with third party Screw to M adapters. What I have noticed in all cases is genuine Leica coding pits are slightly wider than the pits on all my adapters. Whereas the adapters are OK on the M9 none are reliable on the M(240).

 

Bob.

[furcafe]

Like others on this thread, I've definitely experienced differences between the M 240 & M8/M9 w/my Leica-coded Tri-Elmar (posted earlier here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/278248-auto-lens-detection-glitch-w-28-a.html ) as well as handcoded (using markers) M-mount lenses & LTM-M adapters. The M 240 seems to be much more sensitive.

 

As the new coded Novoflex R-M adapter seems rather variable in it's ability to work with various purchasers cameras I did a bit of experimenting......

 

On all my M's (M9, MM, M) there is a very small bit of play in the lens when attached and clicked into place ....you can move it back a tiny bit ....

 

with several lenses .... most notably the 50/0.95, 75/2 and the Novoflex adapter this backward play is enough to 'de-recognise' the lens.... and adapter .... and for me happens quite regularly with the 50/0.95 unless I check to see it's ok. It's an intermittent nuisance rather than a big issue.

 

For the M the geometry of the sensor has changed such that you would have thought misalignment problem would be less (a curved sensor instead of a straight one reading a curved set of bars)..... so why it happens on my M and not the other cameras is a bit of a mystery......

 

Is the 'click stop' that locks the lens adjustable ? Looking at it there seem to be a number of stacked metal bits, but I cannot fathom if they play any part in how far the lens is turned before it locks.. As all the other components are drilled and screwed together in fixed positions, this and poor coding accuracy seem the only possible culprits.....

 

Anyone else had problems ??? Anyone know if this mechanism can be adjusted ??

[satureyes]

Like others on this thread, I've definitely experienced differences between the M 240 & M8/M9 w/my Leica-coded Tri-Elmar (posted earlier here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/278248-auto-lens-detection-glitch-w-28-a.html ) as well as handcoded (using markers) M-mount lenses & LTM-M adapters. The M 240 seems to be much more sensitive.

 

Going to pop into Mayfair tomorrow - I cant believe it's the camera...

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After a lot of fiddling around, filling screw holes very carefully with either black or white filler, ever so carefully, I have managed to get my 25 ZM Biogon to code as a 24/2.8 Elmarit and 40 Summicron-C to code as a 50/2 Summicron III on my M240. Boy is it fussy. You have to be very exact with both the positioning and size of the markings. Also as my 240 has quite a tight bayonet, these markings will have to be renewed quite often. As there are screw heads in the wrong position on both lenses, it is difficult to have these milled for grooves. I am aware that people have done this but my engineering dint objects to milling a coding groove across a countersink.

 

Wilson

[furcafe]

It's probably not only the camera, e.g., I don't have problems w/my coded 28/2 'cron, but a combination of the specific lens + particular body. I tried having my Tri-Elmar &/or M 240 adjusted by Leica NJ, but they're not qualified to work on the M 240, yet, & I didn't want to send the combo to Germany.

 

Going to pop into Mayfair tomorrow - I cant believe it's the camera...

[satureyes]

This is a new M lens on a new M body - there should be no reason for them not to marry up properly. None at all.

[furcafe]

I agree. My Tri-Elmar was coded by Leica.

 

This is a new M lens on a new M body - there should be no reason for them not to marry up properly. None at all.

[satureyes]

Well.. the update is that my M and the 50 lux are on their way back to Solms.

 

Went to the Leica store - and my lens was totally fine on their M - and another lens was fine on mine.. so I decided to send them both back and let them sort it.

 

I think it will take a while. The good thing is though that the fault is repeatable easily - and at will- so hopefully the German technicians will also be able to find the fault.

[Foxie]

After a lot of fiddling around, filling screw holes very carefully with either black or white filler, ever so carefully, I have managed to get my 25 ZM Biogon to code as a 24/2.8 Elmarit and 40 Summicron-C to code as a 50/2 Summicron III on my M240. Boy is it fussy. You have to be very exact with both the positioning and size of the markings.

 

Wilson

 

Hi Wilson,

Coming from an M9 with my M240 just in my hands for a few hours I noticed that *all* my self-coded lenses (Zeiss 25/2.8 35/2 50/1.5 and Voigtl 21/4) are read as 'uncoded' by the M240. Only my factory-coded Elmarit-M 90/2.8 is correctly read by the M.

For coding I use a sharpie pen and the well-known Coder Kit and for the last 3.5 years this worked 100% with my M9. Reading your remarks, I suspect I need *a lot* more precision for trying to get a lens coded.

Can you give me some more suggestions about how you exactly 'managed' the screw-head om your 25mm? And do you use paint? I suspect the black ink from the sharpie pen might be too glossy so it reflects too much of the infrared light?

Any help welcome,

thanks,

Erik.

[satureyes]

Hi Wilson,

Coming from an M9 with my M240 just in my hands for a few hours I noticed that *all* my self-coded lenses (Zeiss 25/2.8 35/2 50/1.5 and Voigtl 21/4) are read as 'uncoded' by the M240. Only my factory-coded Elmarit-M 90/2.8 is correctly read by the M.

For coding I use a sharpie pen and the well-known Coder Kit and for the last 3.5 years this worked 100% with my M9. Reading your remarks, I suspect I need *a lot* more precision for trying to get a lens coded.

Can you give me some more suggestions about how you exactly 'managed' the screw-head om your 25mm? And do you use paint? I suspect the black ink from the sharpie pen might be too glossy so it reflects too much of the infrared light?

Any help welcome,

thanks,

Erik.

 

Well.. My M and 50 Lux have been looked at and repaired over in Solms. Apparently they've replaced the 6-bit reader in the camera as well as change the lens mount.

 

Hopefully she will be back with me before the end of the week.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[wlaidlaw]

Hi Wilson,

Coming from an M9 with my M240 just in my hands for a few hours I noticed that *all* my self-coded lenses (Zeiss 25/2.8 35/2 50/1.5 and Voigtl 21/4) are read as 'uncoded' by the M240. Only my factory-coded Elmarit-M 90/2.8 is correctly read by the M.

For coding I use a sharpie pen and the well-known Coder Kit and for the last 3.5 years this worked 100% with my M9. Reading your remarks, I suspect I need *a lot* more precision for trying to get a lens coded.

Can you give me some more suggestions about how you exactly 'managed' the screw-head om your 25mm? And do you use paint? I suspect the black ink from the sharpie pen might be too glossy so it reflects too much of the infrared light?

Any help welcome,

thanks,

Erik.

 

Erik,

 

I use a solvent based typing correction fluid, such as Tippex for white filling of countersinks. For black filling I use water soluble matt black paint. I tried all sort of pens but have come back to a Sharpie. Precision is the key. Make sure your Coder is properly pressed into the edge of the lens. I start off marking with a permanent ink fine liner, and then expand the mark after removing the coder, with a Sharpie. I have to admit that I am going to give up with hand coding for the M240. The bayonet on my M240 is very tight and tends to wipe off hand coding, depositing it over the LED sensors. When I get back to the UK in about 12 days, I am going to send off a selection of my uncoded lenses to Malcolm Taylor for the bayonet rings to be milled.

 

Wilson

[Foxie]

Erik,

 

I use a solvent based typing correction fluid, such as Tippex for white filling of countersinks. For black filling I use water soluble matt black paint. I tried all sort of pens but have come back to a Sharpie. Precision is the key. Make sure your Coder is properly pressed into the edge of the lens. When I get back to the UK in about 12 days, I am going to send off a selection of my uncoded lenses to Malcolm Taylor for the bayonet rings to be milled.

 

Wilson

 

Hi WIlson,

 

Thanks for the quick reply. I guess my M240 mount is as tight as yours, so I'm looking at the same problem. One more question: while trying to get a coded lens to work, did you only see the message UNCODED until the code was read correctly? Or did you manage to somehow have it working 'a bit' (maybe by turning the lens with the mount button pressed in) befor you managed to get the code working? I had some tries at adjusting the marks on the mounts, but I never see any other message than 'uncoded lens'...

BTW: I don't think I have a faulty sensor. Like I wrote in my previous message: my factory-coded Elmarit-M 90/2.8 is read correctly.

 

Thanks again,

Erik.

[algrove]

The bayonet on my M240 is very tight and tends to wipe off hand coding, depositing it over the LED sensors. When I get back to the UK in about 12 days, I am going to send off a selection of my uncoded lenses to Malcolm Taylor for the bayonet rings to be milled.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson-I also decided to do same while using my M9 which over time degraded the manual coding and it always seemed to misbehave when I was thousand of miles from home.

[wlaidlaw]

Hi WIlson,

 

Thanks for the quick reply. I guess my M240 mount is as tight as yours, so I'm looking at the same problem. One more question: while trying to get a coded lens to work, did you only see the message UNCODED until the code was read correctly? Or did you manage to somehow have it working 'a bit' (maybe by turning the lens with the mount button pressed in) befor you managed to get the code working? I had some tries at adjusting the marks on the mounts, but I never see any other message than 'uncoded lens'...

BTW: I don't think I have a faulty sensor. Like I wrote in my previous message: my factory-coded Elmarit-M 90/2.8 is read correctly.

 

Thanks again,

Erik.

 

Eric,

 

I just got "uncoded". Releasing the latch and fiddling did not produce any results.

 

One decision I have to make is whether to code my 40mm Summicron-C as a Summicron 50-III or have the framelines tab shortened to bring up 35mm framelines and code it as a 35 Summicron-IV. I am tempted just to leave as is, since wearing my glasses, I can see the 50 framelines but to see the 35 ones, I have to take my glasses off.

 

With my increasing age related presbyopia (long sightedness), I think the time may have come to try some diopters in the VF. I have given up on the Japan Exposures variable diopters, as I don't think the quality is quite high enough and the 1.15X magnification makes the wide framelines even more invisible. A visit to the Leica boutique in Mayfair is looming.

 

Wilson

[Foxie]

Eric,

 

I just got "uncoded". Releasing the latch and fiddling did not produce any results.

 

Wilson

 

Hi Wilson (and others),

 

Just an update: I cleaned all my previous coding marks (that worked 100% with my M9) and started all over. I bought an Edding white marker with a fine tip (the type you need to shake before using). My Zeiss Sonnar-C 50/1.5 has a small 'rim' in the mount for coding, so I only tried coding this lens.

Started out with neatly applying five white dots and a black one (111110). These were really spot-on, but this didn't work...

Then I decided to connect the white dots so the rim has now a small white line and a black patch at the end (1---10). This code is read correctly by my M240. Since the white and black sits in the rim, it's less prone to getting rubbed off by (un)mounting the lens. Looks like this one is fine.

Will try my Voigtlander 21/4 later today with this same method. This lens also has a rim in the mount.

I'm more worried about both my Zeiss 25 and 35 since they both have a flat mount (no rim). With my M9 usually the black needed some adjusting after ten or twenty (un)mounts. I think using both white and black is going to make a mess ;-\

The 35 can go uncoded, but I always found the 25 with my M9 was way better when using coded...

 

Gr,

Erik.

[lawman]

Erik - please post a photo of the coding that works with the M (240) - thanks, Larry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rafe]

On a previous thread I spoke about how my m240 reads my aftermarket coded MATE as uncoded, but reads a number of other primes, both factory coded and aftermarket coded properly. Today I tried my 50mm Sonnar C 1.5, which is not coded at all, and my camera reads it as a 1/50mm. Can't figure this one out.