ho_co Posted February 20, 2010 Share #21 Posted February 20, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... users have reported there was no visble difference in correction whether you use one or the other for a different focal length. In other words, you do not need to return to the menu when you switch angles, except if you want to have exif correct. I wish I shared their experience. On my M8 with UV/IR-cut filter, the WATE's correction differs with the focal length setting, as I said before. There's a big difference in the extinction of visible light by the filter between a FoV of 75 degrees and one of 90 degrees. Example here--EXIF shows 16mm, don't know what the actual focal length was. (Jordan River, BTW--maybe it's just a visit of the Angel of Death, though I didn't notice her at the time. ) 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/113052-role-of-6-bit-code-vs-mount-in-vignette-correction/?do=findComment&comment=1232694'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 Hi ho_co, Take a look here Role of 6-bit code vs. mount in Vignette correction. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted February 20, 2010 Share #22 Posted February 20, 2010 Thanks, Howard. I'll take that one off my list Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted February 20, 2010 Share #23 Posted February 20, 2010 Yep, the superb Wide Angle Tri Elmar brings up the 28/90 framelines as does the modified Zeiss 18. If you want the Zeiss lens and you want to code it as the WATE you need that version. The non-modifed version brings up the 50/75 framelines and could be coded as the superb new Elmar 18. But either way you would need to add the coding to the mount, modified for 28/90 or not. For mine I actually just got a replacement mount (flange) from a very talented machinist in New York. (John Milich) rather than had the original mount altered. The same replacement mount also fits the Zeiss 2.8 21 but NOT the 4.5 21. You can code it as ANY Leica lens that brings up the 28/90 framelines. Confusing isn't it The WATE coding worked fine for me. Actually the dealer that you mentioned sent my (earlier) lens to Zeiss USA for me who sent it to Germany and they modified the original Zeiss mount for me to 28/90 as well! Personally I never found any temporary coding reliable and I don't recommend the kits to mark your own lenses. Others report different experiences with that though. I sold my Zeiss 18 and the 4.5 21 and got the Elmar 24. Perfect on an M9 :) So Geoff, if you buy the 18 with the M8 modification (28/90 frameline) then you code it as the WATE. If it is the normal 18 (50/75 frameline) then you code it as the Leica 18. Right? Or you do what everyone else does and get the coding kit and keep trying things till one works. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richfx Posted December 11, 2010 Share #24 Posted December 11, 2010 Can someone cut through these issues with the M9? I have a Zeiss Distagon 4/18 with normal factory flange, which brings up the 50/75 frame lines. Best IQ results in terms of vignetting and red edge has been manually coding it in the menu as a 21mm pre-ASPH (11134; second best 18mm Super Elmar 3.8 with Match Technical Coder 2.0 and last place WATE at 18mm). I'm thinking of a Zeiss Biogon 2.8/21 that has the Millich mount from Pop Flash which apparently brings up 28mm frame lines. Qs: (1) does the frame line matter since you really need an external viewfinder, (2) is the Millich mount a benefit only for the M8 and (3) does the Millich flange mount matter (either way) with the M9's manual menu coding options and Tim's Coder Kit? Thanks, Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 13, 2010 Share #25 Posted December 13, 2010 Yes- the frame lines matter as the camera takes BOTH the frame line settings AND the code into consideration to identify the lens. There is no difference between the M8 and M9 in this respect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted December 15, 2010 Share #26 Posted December 15, 2010 Yes—the frame lines matter as the camera takes BOTH the frame line settings AND the code into consideration to identify the lens. There is no difference between the M8 and M9 in this respect. As a matter of fact, the M8 and M9 are totally different in this respect. The M8 has a sensor which transmits the current frameline selection to the camera's electronic so the software always is aware of the actual framelines selected. The M9 does not have this switch; instead it will always assume the 2-bit frameline code that matches the current 6-bit lens code, regardless of which framelines are selected. In other words, the M9's software never knows which framelines actually are selected. It always assumes the framelines that normally go with the lens that got identified by the 6-bit lens code—or by the manual lens selection, a feature that is missing in the M8. So the M8 has an 8-bit input to identify lenses. The M9 has a 6-bit input only. On the M9, the frameline selection is a purely mechanical connection between the lens flange and the frameline display in the viewfinder, just like in film M cameras; there is no electronical connection whatsoever. The 2-bit frameline codes are as follows. On the M8 and M8.2: Code 0 (00) = undefined. Code 1 (01) = 28/90. Code 2 (10) = 24/35. Code 3 (11) = 50/75. On the M9: Code 0 (00) = various meanings, depending on 6-bit lens code. Code 1 (01) = 28/90. Code 2 (10) = 35/135. Code 3 (11) = 50/75. When using the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 Asph on the M9 with the automatic lens detection on then the focal length recorded on the EXIF data will always be '16 mm' and the vignette correction applied will always match the 21 mm setting. With the manual lens recognition set properly to match the actual focal length, the EXIF data will record the focal length selected, and the vignette correction applied will still always match the 21 mm setting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 15, 2010 Share #27 Posted December 15, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Interesting to know. I did notice that the manual selection does override the frameline input. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted December 15, 2010 Share #28 Posted December 15, 2010 I did notice that the manual selection does override the frameline input. Umm ... this statement could mean (at least) eight different things. Which camera model are you talking about (there are two)? Which manual selection are you talking about (there are two)? And which frameline input are you talking about (there are two)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 15, 2010 Share #29 Posted December 15, 2010 As a matter of fact, the M8 and M9 are totally different in this respect.... Really? I don't have an M9 and can't compare, but I think I've seen folks in the M9 forum trying to find out why a Zeiss lens which keys different framesets from the comparable Leica lens doesn't recognize the coded lens unless the preview lever is moved to the position the Leica lens would set. That would indicate that M8 and M9 have the same lens recognition features. (And that would also explain why this idea is new to both Jaap and me.) I'm glad the WATE's manual entries will display the focal length the lens is set to, but since it doesn't change the framelines at any focal length, it really isn't important in the present discussion. BTW, thanks for your comment that all three manual settings for the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 bring the same image adjustments to bear. That's what was supposed to happen as I understood it with the M8, until the firmware needed to compensate for the effects of the dichroic IR-Cut filter. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "the applied vignetting corrections are the same for all three focal lengths" instead of "the vignette correction applied will always match the 21 mm setting"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 15, 2010 Share #30 Posted December 15, 2010 Umm ... this statement could mean (at least) eight different things. Which camera model are you talking about (there are two)? Which manual selection are you talking about (there are two)? And which frameline input are you talking about (there are two)? Afaik only the M9 has manual lens selection, and last time I looked the camera had one frame selection mechanism, operated by either the lens coupling or the lever... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 15, 2010 Share #31 Posted December 15, 2010 Really? I don't have an M9 and can't compare, but I think I've seen folks in the M9 forum trying to find out why a Zeiss lens which keys different framesets from the comparable Leica lens doesn't recognize the coded lens unless the preview lever is moved to the position the Leica lens would set. That would indicate that M8 and M9 have the same lens recognition features. (And that would also explain why this idea is new to both Jaap and me.) Olaf is right, in that a coded lens will be recognised, despite the framelever being pushed over. On the M9. I don't know about miscoded lenses. I have none. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 15, 2010 Share #32 Posted December 15, 2010 Thanks, Jaap. My head must not be distinguishing between M8 and M9 forums. I thought I had seen a couple cases of M9 users discovering that coded Zeiss lenses still required the proper setting of the frame preview lever. Must have been in the M8 forum. My error. Thanks for the correction! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 15, 2010 Share #33 Posted December 15, 2010 I only knew after testing it out just now.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted December 15, 2010 Share #34 Posted December 15, 2010 AFAIK only the M9 has manual lens selection ... You said 'manual selection,' and that can either mean manual lens selection or manual frameline selection. Sorry we can only read your words, not your mind. ... and last time I looked the camera had one frame selection mechanism, operated by either the lens coupling ... ... one ... ... or the lever. ... two. Really? I don't have an M9 and can't compare, but I think I've seen folks in the M9 forum trying to find out why a Zeiss lens which keys different framesets from the comparable Leica lens doesn't recognize the coded lens unless the preview lever is moved to the position the Leica lens would set. I suppose you're confusing M8 and M9 here. I'm glad the WATE's manual entries will display the focal length the lens is set to, but since it doesn't change the framelines at any focal length, it really isn't important in the present discussion. Oh, but it is! How do you think does the focal length information get transmitted to the software? By the 2-bit frameline code! WATE at 16 mm is coded as 16/1 (meaning 6-bit lens code is 16; 2-bit frameline code is 1), WATE at 18 mm is coded as 16/2, and WATE at 21 mm is coded as 16/3. This is entirely independent from the actual framelines selected. By the way, the Apo-Telyt-M 135 mm is coded as 9/0 ... which seems totally brain-damaged from the viewpoint of an M9 user; the code should be 9/2 instead. Obviously this was designed in 2005 or 2006 by a near-sighted person who back then was entirely unable to see the upcoming M9 at the horizon. From the viewpoint of the M8, using the frameline code 0 makes sense as the M8 does not have any 135 mm framelines. The Elmarit-M 135 mm is coded as 9/1 because due to the googles with their 1.5× magnification, it uses the 90 mm framelines which are available in the M8 (and in the M9). Still, even when applying the 6-bit code 9 to the 135 mm lenses with a felt-tip pen (or with any other device for do-it-yourself coding) it will not be recognized by the M9 ... and I guess not by the M8 either. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "the applied vignetting corrections are the same for all three focal lengths" instead of "the vignette correction applied will always match the 21 mm setting"? Formally, yes. But in practice, the vignette correction applied does correct the actual vignetting at 21 mm pretty well and clearly under-corrects the vignetting at 18 mm and 16 mm. So I feel fairly safe to say the correction "matches the 21 mm setting." When the camera would properly match the degree of vignette correction to the respective setting then you may get over-correction when the user selects the wrong setting. And while under-corrected vignetting always is better than uncorrected vignetting, an over-correction definitely will look weird and totally wrong. I guess Leica Customer Service has better things to do than to explain to furious customers that there is nothing wrong with their M9 but they are just too dumb to use their lens and camera properly. So Leica sure wants to painstakingly avoid any possiblity of vignette over-correction. By the way, this also is the reason why the f-stop-guessing feature always errs towards smaller apertures and never towards wider ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 15, 2010 Share #35 Posted December 15, 2010 You said 'manual selection,' and that can either mean manual lens selection or manual frameline selection. Sorry we can only read your words, not your mind. Wriggling.... ... one ... ... two. hairsplitting?.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 30, 2010 Share #36 Posted December 30, 2010 Olaf is right, in that a coded lens will be recognised, despite the framelever being pushed over. On the M9.... This would mean that a 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar is always recognized as the same focal length in the metadata, wouldn't it? After all the work Leica put in to make the lens set the right framelines, that would be surprising. Could anyone verify that with the MATE on an M9? (The M8 does identify the three focal lengths in the EXIF data, of course.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted January 5, 2011 Share #37 Posted January 5, 2011 Since this has emerged again in another thread, here are the results of my testing with the M9. The applied corrections in-camera are for the recorded lens, of course. I checked those values both in camera and in LR. The MATE does use focal length specific corrections, according to the M9 instruction book, : actual length--frame lever position (moving inwards)-- result 24--35&135--24, OK 24--50&75--0, FAIL 24--28&90--0, FAIL 28--35&135--28, OK!! 28--50&75--28, OK!! 28--28&90--28, OK 35--35&135--35, OK 35--50&75--0, FAIL 35--28&90--0, FAIL 50--35&135--50, OK!! 50--50&75--,50, OK 50--28&90--,0, FAIL 75--35&135--75, OK!! 75--50&75--75, OK 75--28&90--0, FAIL 90--35&135--90 OK!! 90--50&75--90 OK!! 90--28&90--90 OK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted January 9, 2011 Share #38 Posted January 9, 2011 Geoff—I’ve verified your M9 results on my M8; both behave the same way, duplicating what we saw in the M9 + MATE thread (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/158681-m9-mate-question.html). Both your results here and those reported by others in that thread demonstrate that 01af’s assertion in post 26 that the M9 lacks the frame lever detection switch is wrong. And another M9 user has proven the assertion wrong at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/159743-zeiss-18-vs-leica-18-wate.html, as I had also suggested here at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/116435-role-6-bit-code-vs-mount-2.html#post1549050. As Sandy said above (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/116435-role-6-bit-code-vs-mount.html#post1236662), both cameras use the same switch to index into a table; that location may or may not contain information. So basically, almost everything from http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/116435-role-6-bit-code-vs-mount-2.html#post1548836 forward is useless twiddle, either totally wrong or simply proving again what we knew when we came in. Wasn't it Puck who said, "Lord, what fools these mortals be"? I guess the forum equivalent would be the use of magyarman's “Ignorance” button. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 11, 2012 Share #39 Posted January 11, 2012 Interesting thread here folks. What about 21mm lenses? Do you think that vignetting and/or color shift correction is determined by both the 6-bit code and the mount of the lens, to the point that the use of a 24/35 flange (with same 28mm code), instead of the regular 28/90, could change this correction? If so, will the same change be produced by pulling the frame preview lever out to the 24/35 position? Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 11, 2012 Share #40 Posted January 11, 2012 21 lenses require the correct mount to be recognized on th M8. Thus the mount on the Zeiss Biogon 21 had to be changed by Zeiss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.