Jump to content

charles_nl

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About charles_nl

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Country
    Nederland

Converted

  • Your Leica Products / Deine Leica Produkte
    M10, M3

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for clarifying. But unfortunate in this case.
  2. In my last post submitted 2 minutes ago, I see after the + sign at the bottom 2 options in red: "Quote Edit" but in all my other posts in this topic (inlcuding the #1) there is only "Quote" after the + sign. Why can I not edit the others?
  3. But how to edit my first post? I really want to correct the wrong 114° angle and I cannot find how to edit my own post. Charles
  4. the flange was clamped on its rim with 3 standard clamps centered on the centered rotary table. The indent on the flange was used as reference (at -Y), the clamps were on +-X & +Y. The milling was done with the position of the bit rotated to -X but therefore the -X clamp had to be moved to -Y. I used a 2 mm endmill which was displaced over 1 mm, giving the 2x4 mm as extremes with a 0.3 mm depth setting. A 1.8 mm would have been better, the 2 mm left just a very tiny wall between the adjacent bits. I painted the odd ones first, let them dry a few hours and then the in between ones to
  5. A more general question: how can I edit my posts? I see sometimes an "Edited" comment below a posting, so it should be possible and I want to edit my 1st post to correct the incorrect 114°. I coded my Zeiss 2.8/35mm and a Voigtlander 1.5/50mm using the original flanges. I milled the 6 bits, painted them, they are correct and I am quite happy with the look of them. And the accompanying complications are actually part of the fun. Charles
  6. After measuring angles on 2 real Leica 6bit coded lenses, I have corrected the 114° above to 115° and coded my dummy Chinese Biogon flange accordingly as a test. It seems to be correct as the M10 accepted the correct code. The other lens I want to code is an Elmarit 2.8/135 which has a different flange and indeed a screw in the 6bit areas, somewhere in the midst of the 3rd and 4th bit, which is unfortunate because that needs to be the black. The Chinese flange I have on order has omitted that hole and comes with only 5 holes. Maybe you could fill the grooves of the screw hole with some bla
  7. I know Wil van Maanen does it. I think I have a Voigtlander 1.2/50mm which I bought used in the NL and which was coded, probably by him as he is in the NL as well. I can do it, I made some proper test dimples for testing, no problem. But I cannot decide on the 114°. I checked this position on the 2 Leica 6bit coded lenses I have and it seems 113° would fit better. Confused. And, btw it would be difficult for Leica to have threading holes in the coding area, so why should Zeiss have holes in that position?
  8. Thank you, I had seen most of it. Unfortunately, the Zeiss Biogon I have has a flange with integrated internal threading for the focus regulation which my (Chinese?) replacement flange has not and is thus useless as I don't want to transfer the original flange threading (if this were possible but I don't think it is). Moreover it is nearly 0.4mm thicker which makes 20% over a total travel of the focussing of about 2.1 mm, too much and the flange cannot be made much thinner because then the screw heads would fall through. The original flange has a circular recess apparently to use that for b
  9. After several failures hand coding the 6bit on a Zeiss Biogon 2.8/35 with black markers, paper etc., I have decided to make a proper pattern of recessed forms in de flange using a mill. However I am not absolutely sure about the layout. I seem to remember that somewhere at the net or maybe even at this forum somebody posted the exact layout with dimensions and angles and even tolerances but I cannot find it anymore. So if somebody knows what I mean and still can find it, I would very much appreciate. What I have done so far is to take the jpeg picture from bophoto and measured it. The dif
  10. Not sure this is the right forum, but here it goes. My first Leica ever is an M10, bought 2.5 years ago. At the time I was reading reviews and I noted that it had again the same approximate dimensions as the older analog camera's like M3. In particular is wasn't as fat as an M9 (if my memory serves me well). Then I got analog & b/w longing and bought an M3 1 year later and indeed the dimensions are very similar. It is a pleasure to work with the M3. A pity it did not have a built-in lightmeter. So my last acquisition is an M6 TTL, notwithstanding the reviews say that is was fatte
  11. Old thread I see, but I just returned a Dec 2017 Summilux 50mm lens for the 2nd time for a similar problem: the distance ring came loose in Mar 2018 and brought to the shop, was returned by Leica after ~8 weeks and returned to the shop last week for a "redo". A bit fed up I am. Charles
  12. M10 is set to dng & jpeg and jpeg to monochrom. It's not a bug, but an illogical design decision, because a b/w preview of a color dng picture is not logical.
  13. Yes, it seems so. Still a bit odd. The M10 produces a dng and a jpeg as 2 separate files. OK, the dng file is raw and in color and the jpeg file is b/w. I would have assumed (and preferred) if the embedded jpg in the raw dng was in color because my interpretation of "preview" is that it is a preview of the dng picture, which is in color. But that's just my view. When in preview of Lighroom for importing, it shows the pictures concerned in b/w (so LR uses the embedded jpg pictures), but after import it shows the real dng thus in color. Thanks for all comments.
  14. Yes, and also I wanted to see if the b/w produced on the M10 would be different/better from a b/w I could make from the colour dng. And then I was surprised to see that some viewers produced b/w when opening the dng file and I was wondering how this could be.
×
×
  • Create New...