Jump to content

Proof of concept regarding self coding of lenses


mike prevette

Recommended Posts

Ah cash and carry...We have that here :o)

 

Thanks. I am now off to my local staples for sharpie, may stop off for a butty on t way followed by a nice steaming hot mug of rosie lee.

 

... or stop at yer' local for a gargle and a packet of scratchin's, or a ruby ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ah cash and carry...We have that here :o)

 

Thanks. I am now off to my local staples for sharpie, may stop off for a butty on t way followed by a nice steaming hot mug of rosie lee.

 

 

Just don't stop by the Firehouse or the Stop Light without your eraser, or you could end up with a scratchie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica told me at Photokina that the lens coding is being done at cost or close to in order to maintain compatability. So the loss of revenue is unlikely to have the guys in finance jumping out of the window.

 

i guess the good thing about Leica prices is now they can only afford to live on the ground floor

 

Riley

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just don't stop by the Firehouse or the Stop Light without your eraser, or you could end up with a scratchie.

 

This thread had me all cracked up :D

 

ps: I m one of those who had to google "sharpie" when I first read the thread. I googled "rosie lee" but turned up nothing useful...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread had me all cracked up :D

 

ps: I m one of those who had to google "sharpie" when I first read the thread. I googled "rosie lee" but turned up nothing useful...

 

cockney slang, ryming slang from London

 

rosie lee ... tea

 

Riley

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even those totally lacking in vision cannot fail to see and appreciate the innovative entrepreneurial solutions offered on this list. The management at Leica should consider participating here, even if it has to be done on the sly. Who knows what unforeseen solutions and ideas could be generated for them, and by extension, for us? Sending lenses off to have them coded is one of the most widespread and unappealing issues facing us. You guys might want to save this thread as a PDF in case some less imaginative folk delete it. That would indeed be unfortunate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have placed the entire list here:

 

Leica M8

 

I have taken the liberty to change the scheme slightly. I have kept the clockwise reading, which is a good idea. However, I have chosen 0 for black (like 'off') and 1 for white (like 'on'). This is more commonly used, and allows reading the codes as binary numbers, a convenient short-hand. I will add more codes as we find them.

 

Perhaps we should have a quick vote as to which way is more likely to be what Leica uses, and then settle on that. It is better for some of us to change the way we think (me included) than having two standards out there.

 

I vote for 0=black, 1=white.

 

By the way, although the numbering scheme is not obvious, it does allow to deduce some of the codes with high probability, for example, that the Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 (pre-ASPH.) is going to be 36 (100100).

 

Actually, I will nix my own suggestion and go with 0=white, 1=black, for two reasons, one minor and one very strong.

 

The small reason is that Leica always lists their lenses with the wide-angle lenses first, and so it seems likely that their numbering system reflects this, with the smaller numbers being wide angles, and the larger ones the teles.

 

The stronger reason though is this: With white and no marking at all having the same effect, as proven with the sharpie technique (now there is a brave guy :)), this means that black must be the 1. Why? Because as several people have commented already, 64 different codes does not seem like a lot. Leica being the brilliant people they are have surely thought of this, and have made their system future-proof. To add more numbers, one must add leading digits, meaning that one could equally well read the current 6-bit codes as being the same numbers but in 7-bit, with a leading zero. Since there are no codes out front of the 6-bit code at the moment, this means that chrome/white must be zero. In future cameras, all Leica needs to do is to add an extra sensor out front, and have all the new lenses start with a black dot, and voila! 7-bits, and an extra 64 combinations. Future-proof. Brilliant.

 

There is also the nice side-effect that all-white is the same as all-chrome, and is what is displayed for non-coded lenses, and has a value of 0.

 

I will update my webpage when I get home. So: 0=white, 1=black. The clockwise reading is surely right, since this way all similar lenses have similar numbers, which would not be the case if the numbers are read backwards. I think we have this code figured out. The sharpie was the trigger. Great find!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, one of the other uses for a "sharpie" was to renovate tired rangefinders. I did this on an old XA a few years ago. If you blacked out the area of the rangefinder in the viewfinder (not the whole viewfinder!) this improved the contrast no end.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Decimal equivalent from binary codes-

 

added 90mm f4 from previous post

 

21 f2.8 0XX000 = 24

24 f2.8 0XX00X = 25

28 f2.0 0XX0X0 = 26

28 f2.8 0XXX00 = 28

35 f1.4 0XXX0X = 29

35 f2.0 0XXXX0 = 30

50 f1.0 0XXXXX = 31

50 f1.4 X00000 = 32

50 f2.0 X0000X = 33

50 f2.8 X000X0 = 34

75 f2.0 X00X00 = 36

90 f2.0 X00XX0 = 38

90 f4.0 X00XXX = 39

 

Interesting? I would guess the 75 lux to be X000XX =35

Link to post
Share on other sites

The clockwise reading is surely right, since this way all similar lenses have similar numbers, which would not be the case if the numbers are read backwards.

 

Carsten- This is all great stuff, and thanks for your contribution here. Just playing around with a bit this AM, and I found myself wanting to mark the lens with the correct spot on the mount positioned at the 6 o'clock position. Easier for me to write that way. Which meant I was looking at the code "in reverse," ie counter-clockwise. Kind of hard to explain... I just had to keep track of which end of the code was which.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...