Some forum folk theorems need checking

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I understood that a nice accidental feature of the lens coding was that if you pressed the frame lever to bring up the wrong frame, the camera would stop recognizing your lens, even if recognition was enabled. Well, maybe that was true with firmware 1.06, but it doesn't happen with the 1.09 that came with my new M8. I put on the 28/2.8 and it showed up in the EXIF in pictures taken with the frame preview lever in all three places. Further more, the vignetting corrections were independent of the frame prview position. Don't have other coded lenses or lenses coded up just yet.

 

Jono Slack, or somebody else with the older TriElmar -- does the EXIF show the correct focal length for each setting? Under 1.09 only or already at 1.06?

 

thanks,

 

scott

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

On my 1.09 camera it still works the other way around; the camera only recognizes the Biogon (hand-coded) when I push the frameselector lever. And the Tri-Elmar old shows up all three focal lenghts correctly.

[danielt]

On my 1.09 camera, Tri-Elmar 1st version coded, Elmarit 28 coded, and Biogon 35 f2 coded manually, shows up all focal lenghts correctly,

[marknorton]

On mine, the Tri-Elmar works as expected with each individual focal length being recognised (unlike the compromised 16-18-21 lens). Put a 28mm Summicron on the camera and the correct focal length is reported, irrespective of the frame selector lever position, as Scott has reported. [This is of course different from the previous version which only recognised the lens when the lever is in the correct position - might make it easier to manually code CV and Zeiss lenses]

 

So it looks like the camera is only looking at the lever position when the lens code indicates it should.

[sean_reid]

I understood that a nice accidental feature of the lens coding was that if you pressed the frame lever to bring up the wrong frame, the camera would stop recognizing your lens, even if recognition was enabled. Well, maybe that was true with firmware 1.06, but it doesn't happen with the 1.09 that came with my new M8. I put on the 28/2.8 and it showed up in the EXIF in pictures taken with the frame preview lever in all three places. Further more, the vignetting corrections were independent of the frame prview position. Don't have other coded lenses or lenses coded up just yet.

 

Jono Slack, or somebody else with the older TriElmar -- does the EXIF show the correct focal length for each setting? Under 1.09 only or already at 1.06?

 

thanks,

 

scott

 

Hi Scott,

 

That didn't change with the firmware, it just applies to many lens codes though not all. The article is still in draft but I ended up coding the Zeiss 25 as a 28 Summicron and the coding is active with the 28/90 and 24/35 frame line positions (perhaps also the 50/75, haven't checked).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

So it looks like the camera is only looking at the lever position when the lens code indicates it should.

 

Exactly.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[artur5]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Scott,

 

That didn't change with the firmware, it just applies to many lens codes though not all. The article is still in draft but I ended up coding the Zeiss 25 as a 28 Summicron and the coding is active with the 28/90 and 24/35 frame line positions (perhaps also the 50/75, haven't checked).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

 

Sean, did you try to code the Zeiss 25 as a Elmarit 24 ASPH ?

If i'ts so, what results you got with the dif. frame positions ?

 

Regards

Arturo

[scott kirkpatrick]

So it looks like the camera is only looking at the lever position when the lens code indicates it should.

 

So it will be valuable if people with the less common lenses report to this forum if their lens shows up in EXIF with any frame line setting, or only a specific one. This can get saved in Carsten's website. It may turn out that none do now.

 

scott

[ho_co]

Calling it "the first Tri-Elmar" is misleading, since there are two versions of the same lens, and "the old Tri-Elmar" is ambiguous for the same reason.

 

Suggestions:

NOTE = Normal Tri-Elmar

EATE = Earlier Tri-Elmar

TEAT = Tri-Elmar Early

TETE = Tele Tri-Elmar (at least partly when used on the M8)

 

Just a thought. Would be nice to find some kind of parallel to WATE for the 16/28/21.

 

--HC

[marknorton]

HC, I think you need to get out more...

[ho_co]

HC, I think you need to get out more...

Thanks, Mark! I needed that, I guess.

 

But gosh... What happens if Leica comes out with another tri-focal before we know what to call this one?

 

We'd have the WATE, the FOTE (first-order TE) and the TOTE (third-order TE). So we'd have to name two lenses at once.

 

Better do it while we've got the time, I say!

 

And what if they redesign the WATE to make it more usable with the M8, as you've suggested? Would that be the M8TE, or the MOTE (Modernized TE)?

 

--HC

[sean_reid]

Sean, did you try to code the Zeiss 25 as a Elmarit 24 ASPH ?

If i'ts so, what results you got with the dif. frame positions ?

 

Regards

Arturo

 

Hi Arturo,

 

I was unable to code it as an Elm. 24 but it is doing very well coded as a 28 Summicron. The 24/25s article should be done by late next week (I hope).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean