swamiji Posted October 22, 2009 Share #21 Posted October 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The six bit code refers to the six bit on the lens. The lens selector is clearly used in determining the full code - otherwise the Tri-Elmar wouldn't work. Granted, but from the camera firmware, it sees a code... that appears to be greater than 6-bits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Hi swamiji, Take a look here 6 bit code for Apo-Telyt 135. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted October 22, 2009 Share #22 Posted October 22, 2009 Granted, but from the camera firmware, it sees a code... that appears to be greater than 6-bits. Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted October 22, 2009 Share #23 Posted October 22, 2009 I am just proposing that with the 6-bit + frame lines = 8-bit. the first 64 are reserved for the 6-bit coding, and few oddities like the MATE. Looking at the 6-bit coding chart I am not seeing a pattern that makes use of the frame selector out side of the MATE. The fact there are no duplicates implies that it's used little. I would expect that it's not used much because, it would restrict the frame line combinations that Leica could pair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 22, 2009 Share #24 Posted October 22, 2009 IThe fact there are no duplicates implies that it's used little. But it's available for use - the 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar shows that. Leica may not need to duplicate codes for lenses that being up different sets of framelines at the moment, but the opportunity is there if they exceed the 64 unique combinations offered by the 6 bit code. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitz Posted October 23, 2009 Share #25 Posted October 23, 2009 The 135mm 2.8 Elmarit code actually won't work for the Apo-Telyt in one case, that is when Leica flash is used. Since the goggles on the Elmarit block the sensor, flash works differently when that code is detected. If you don't plan on using flash with the Apo-Telyt, you'll be OK; you'll just get EXIF data for the wrong 135mm lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 23, 2009 Share #26 Posted October 23, 2009 I think we're being a bit too - binary - here. The M8/M9 firmware doesn't use the frame selector to add two bits to the lens code's 6 bits (e.g, for the 28-35-50). It checks the frameline setting (which is a three-way switch* likely read as a separate 8-bit representation of a decimal numeral 0, 1, or 2 (or 1, 2, 3), and then compares that to the 6-bit code it is reading via a whole different channel. If the 6-bit code reads "28-35-50", then the frame position is used as secondary data to make corrections and put data into EXIF. If the 6-bit code does not agree with the frameline selector (i.e, you mount a 135 f/4 coded as a 90, but bringing up the 35/135 lines) the firmware just ignores both the coding and the frame selector ("Does not compute" - literally) and behaves as if an uncoded lens is mounted - no corrections, no EXIF. *well, OK, two on-off switches and a null position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted October 23, 2009 Share #27 Posted October 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) On the other hand, how comes that a 135/3,4 coded as a 135/2,8 shows in the Exif as 135/2,8 ? The 135/2,8 is activating the 28/90 frames and the 135/3,4 the 35/135. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 23, 2009 Share #28 Posted October 23, 2009 Good question - maybe the M9 no longer checks the frameline position unless the coding is for the 28-35-50? It just assumes the coding is correct if it sees it? I don't have any "mis-coded" lenses to check that with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 23, 2009 Share #29 Posted October 23, 2009 Why ignore them? Steve, Because otherwise a lens with silver or black mount but no coding would be recognised as a lens with coding 00 00 00 and 11 11 11 respectively. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share #30 Posted October 23, 2009 Chris, If you can shoot a DNG with the code set to Apo Telyt 135 and post it somewhere it should be possible to pull the code from the MakerNotes; I think we understand them well enough to get that much out. Sandy Sandy - many thanks for the offer - interesting to see what you can come up with - you can download the DNG from this shot at: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/862415/L1002314.DNG (NB you have to register with DropBox to access the file) BTW - thought it's include the crop to show that you can focus the 135 pretty well... this was fully open.... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/101112-6-bit-code-for-apo-telyt-135/?do=findComment&comment=1086322'>More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share #31 Posted October 23, 2009 On the other hand, how comes that a 135/3,4 coded as a 135/2,8 shows in the Exif as 135/2,8 ? The 135/2,8 is activating the 28/90 frames and the 135/3,4 the 35/135. This has been one of the things I've been asking myself - at the moment I'm using a coded 135 3.4 A-T with a mount which brings up the 28/90 framelines - so there seems to be a degree of independence for this coding.... What I'm trying to sort out is a way of having the 35/135 framelines brought up + the correct 135/3.4 exif. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted October 23, 2009 Share #32 Posted October 23, 2009 There is no coding pattern for any 135 except the f/2.8 with goggles. Well, so far there was no code for the 135/3.4, as it was not intended to be used with the M8. Things have changed with the M9, however, and Leica officially confirms and even suggests (in the M9 brochure) the 135 apo may be used with the M9. I am quite sure that they now have a code for this lens, and that brand new lenses fo this type will come coded, too. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share #33 Posted October 23, 2009 I am quite sure that they now have a code for this lens, and that brand new lenses fo this type will come coded, too. Andy - my thinking too. I'm away from London at the moment so not near a Leica dealer. Is anyone in a position to have a look at a new 135 Apo Telyt 3.4? That would answer things pretty definitively! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted October 23, 2009 Share #34 Posted October 23, 2009 Sandy - many thanks for the offer - interesting to see what you can come up with - you can download the DNG from this shot at:http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/862415/L1002314.DNG (NB you have to register with DropBox to access the file) Well, the answer is interesting: Leica MakerNotes Lens Id: Elmarit-M 135mm f/2.8 (I/II) Frame Selector Position: Uncoded/Not detected So it appears that although it shows as a separate lens in the menu, so far as actual coding goes, Leica are just using the code for the 135 2.8 It may be that the actual menu selection, rather than a lens code, is recorded somewhere else in the MakerNotes, but that's the code. Regards, Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share #35 Posted October 23, 2009 Sandy - interesting. It seems to be (from my experience here) that the camera identifies my coded 135 as a 135 irrespective of where I put the frame selector lever. But will this different from what happens when the cam on the lens is engaging different framelines? This isn't clear to me... Ah well! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted October 29, 2009 Share #36 Posted October 29, 2009 I dont know if coding a 135mm lens or choosing the lens in the M9-menue does influence the image much. Recently I have stopped to manually choose the 135/3.4 when I use it on my M9, just leave the M9 in auto lens detection. This leads to the situation that the M9 will do no correction when using the 135 - but I wonder if any correction would help for such a long lens? I shall shoot some comparison images, but I guess there will be not much (if any) difference between shooting a 135 with or without correction? (besides you get the 135 in the exif) What do you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidomo Posted October 29, 2009 Share #37 Posted October 29, 2009 Good question - maybe the M9 no longer checks the frameline position unless the coding is for the 28-35-50? That would be very welcome. With the M8, having coded my 135/3.4 I need to pull the frameline selector for the 135 to be written into the EXIF. I forget most of the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 29, 2009 Share #38 Posted October 29, 2009 I dont know if coding a 135mm lens or choosing the lens in the M9-menue does influence the image much. Recently I have stopped to manually choose the 135/3.4 when I use it on my M9, just leave the M9 in auto lens detection. This leads to the situation that the M9 will do no correction when using the 135 - but I wonder if any correction would help for such a long lens? I shall shoot some comparison images, but I guess there will be not much (if any) difference between shooting a 135 with or without correction? (besides you get the 135 in the exif) What do you think? In some of Sean Reid and Erwin Putz' tests on longer lenses, they got better results with coding turned off. Now personally, I would like a third option so that the coded lens is recognised but no corrections applied. You would then get the correct lens shown in the EXIF but would have no in-camera corrections. In some cases you might be better off without them and in some cases you might want to use Sandy's Corner Fix as an alternative to in-camera processing. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbgronlie Posted October 29, 2009 Share #39 Posted October 29, 2009 In the M9 FAQ available on the Leica web site, the following sentence appears: "The current LEICA APO-TELYT-M 135mm/f3.4 will not be available in a 6-bit coded version." That seems pretty definitive:-). Best regards, Neal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 29, 2009 Share #40 Posted October 29, 2009 Here's an interesting question: Will coding make a difference with the 135mm Elmarit? And, for that matter, how much difference, if any, does coding do with 90mm lenses? The old man from when spies only used codes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.