Jump to content

Lens coding is a myth and Leica are ripping us off ...


AbbeyPhoto

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At least that's what a dealer told me today!

 

He was adamant that the only function of lens coding (assuming you shoot DNG) is to provide the lens info in EXIF data and that no processing is carried out to compensate for colour shifts or vignetting or anything else. He claims that all of this processing happens only on JPEG files, so if you shoot DNG there is no benefit in coding lenses.

 

Mind you, he also told me that there is no need for a UVIR filter on the M8 if you shoot DNG (because you can fix the colour cast in Lightroom/C1 etc), which struck me as odd since the point of me phoning the dealer was to order one :confused:

 

Is any of this true, or is the dealer just mad?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For long lenses, true enough. Although in all cases the vignetting processing for JPEG and DNG is the same.

 

But for wide angle lenses, the fool or knave rule applies. Either seriously ill-informed, or someone with sufficient financial incentive that making blatantly incorrect statements is worthwhile.

 

Sandy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd find yourself another dealer if I were you...

 

Funnily enough that's exactly what I did

 

He didn't happen to be trying to sell you an uncoded lens at the time, did he?

 

No, just the filter, he started the rant all by himself.

 

I know the UVIR stuff is nonsense, but what about the DNG processing? The M8 manual is unclear on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The corrections are applied before the DNG is written. It has nothing to do with Jpg at all. that is taken from the same (corrected) data. If you want to see the differences, subscribe to Sean Reid's excellent site. I think it might be a good idea to indicate which dealer this was, making him avoidable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know the UVIR stuff is nonsense,

 

the uv/ir filter stuff is not quite nonsense, especially if you're trying to sell a BLACK instead of magenta golf bag on an online auction site :)

 

rick

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

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I know the UVIR stuff is nonsense,

 

the uv/ir filter stuff is not quite nonsense, especially if you're trying to sell a BLACK instead of magenta golf bag on an online auction site :)

 

rick

 

I think he was referring to the dealers nonsense of not needing an UV/IR filter. I think we all can agree that UV/IR is an essential piece of hardware for the M8/8.2

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a common misconception that "RAW" files (including .dngs) do not receive in-camera-processing (with any camera). 10 years ago in the infancy of RAW shooting, that may have been true, but it has not been so for a long time.

 

Today, all kinds of corrections get applied to RAW images before they are written to the card (it varies from one manufacturer to another): noise reduction, vignetting correction, Leica's IR corrections, etc.

 

Heck, Canon even produces "reduced-size" RAW files from the 5D - 10 or 5 Mpixel images from a 21 Mpixel sensor. Since I doubt they are physically swapping out the sensor every time you choose sRAW from the menu - obviously it is being done by processing the image before saving the data in "raw" format.

 

It is true that at or above 35mm or 50mm, depending on subject matter and one's own tolerances - lens coding may have little visible effect on M8 images. But show this dealer dngs shot with a 15mm and IR filter, with and without coding, and I expect he'll change his tune unless he is terminally brain-damaged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know the UVIR stuff is nonsense,

 

the uv/ir filter stuff is not quite nonsense, especially if you're trying to sell a BLACK instead of magenta golf bag on an online auction site :)

 

rick

 

In addition, if you use a metz flash in TTL (gnc) mode, you will be 1-2 stops underexposed without the UV/IR cut filter on an M8.

 

IR content of the preflash must be high.

 

Regards ... H

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a common misconception that "RAW" files (including .dngs) do not receive in-camera-processing (with any camera). 10 years ago in the infancy of RAW shooting, that may have been true, but it has not been so for a long time.

 

Today, all kinds of corrections get applied to RAW images before they are written to the card (it varies from one manufacturer to another): noise reduction, vignetting correction, Leica's IR corrections, etc.

 

 

Are you kidding! Back in the 90s', the Digital Camera Raw files still had Sprocket Holes in them to shift the image out!

 

4118519852_38d1cea3a4_b.jpg

 

Kodak DCS200, 1993.

 

(Actually, the calibration portion of the CCD got stored, but you had to write your own RAW processor to see them. Mine is in FORTRAN)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Seems your sensor was also quite IR sensitive :)

 

I paid an extra $4,000 to Kodak to leave the IR cut filter off of the sensor. The IR cut filter was integral to the CCD, and they did a custom run of 50 sensors for a limited production of DCS200ir's. It is one of the first "commercial off-the-shelf" Digital SLR cameras that was sensitive to IR.

 

And- I discovered the "Sprockets" when writing my own Raw convertor for the ".KC2" formatted files. Also discovered 12 columns and rows of pixels that the Kodak driver cropped, in addition to the "sprockets".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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