M9 + MATE question

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Could someone with both M9 and Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 verify whether the camera does or does not identify in the EXIF which of the three focal lengths was chosen?

 

Also, can you record a different value in the EXIF with the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 by moving the frame preview lever to a position different from the one set by the lens?

 

I understand that the M9's lens recognition is different from the M8's, and I wonder whether the M9 still recognizes the focal length used with this lens.

 

Thanks!

[amedick]

I can confirm that the EXIF data is correct with the second 6 bit encoded version of MATE and M9.

 

I have never tried changing the frame lines while taking a picture, will give it a try later today and let you know.

 

John

[ho_co]

John, thanks for the information!

 

If you get a chance to try changing the framelines manually, I'm curious; but you've answered the main question.

 

I've seen some speculation that the M9 did not include the frameline sensor that the M8 has, and from what you say, that speculation must be in error.

 

I understand that the M9 processes lens coding information differently from the M8, but I couldn't believe that after all the effort Leica made in designing the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50, they'd have given it only a single identification in the M9.

 

I'm once again a happy camper, pinching pennies for an M9.

[michali]

Could someone with both M9 and Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 verify whether the camera does or does not identify in the EXIF which of the three focal lengths was chosen?

 

Also, can you record a different value in the EXIF with the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 by moving the frame preview lever to a position different from the one set by the lens?

 

I understand that the M9's lens recognition is different from the M8's, and I wonder whether the M9 still recognizes the focal length used with this lens.

 

Thanks!

 

Howard- I have a Vers. 1 MATE (my most used travel lens) which I use with the M9, which I've hand coded using a Dremel tool. All 3 of the focal lengths are most definitely recognized and identified in the EXIF.

 

As to moving the frame preview lever to change this; I've never tried this. Will give it a go and let you know.

[hoppyman]

Howard, more specifically the M9 will allow the frameline agreement to be defeated by manual setting of any lens selection (when the detection is off). I just did the experiment again with a new Summilux 35 ASPH on the camera. I selected every length of the WATE and MATE plus one of every focal length available (in lenses I don't have like the old Nocti, pre ASPH everything etc). Every setting was correctly displayed by the camera and in the EXIF in LR3.

 

The jury is still out on whether the corrections in fact differ for each focal length (or if that matters at all) for the MATE or WATE (neither of which I have)

Qualifier too is that you cannot manually select lenses that were never available uncoded of course.

Is there someone out there with lens they will mis-code and use with auto detection???? Knowledge is golden.

 

John, thanks for the information!

 

If you get a chance to try changing the framelines manually, I'm curious; but you've answered the main question.

 

I've seen some speculation that the M9 did not include the frameline sensor that the M8 has, and from what you say, that speculation must be in error.

 

I understand that the M9 processes lens coding information differently from the M8, but I couldn't believe that after all the effort Leica made in designing the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50, they'd have given it only a single identification in the M9.

 

I'm once again a happy camper, pinching pennies for an M9.

[Alnitak]

Is there someone out there with lens they will mis-code and use with auto detection???? Knowledge is golden.

 

What's the exact question you want answered? I'd be willing to fiddle around.

 

Jeff

[hoppyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jeff, entirely curiosity on my part and not specific to the MATE. I was earlier speculating whether a mis-coded lens (with code for a lens having different frame-lines) woud be read as that one on an M9 with lens detection on auto. For example a lens that brings up the 28/90 lines but coded as a 35/135.

 

The M8 would ignore the code in this situation but the M9 can have codes manually selected in the menu (when detection is Off) and does use whatever you set, irrespective of frame-line agreement.

 

The WATE and MATE are special cases with their selectable focal lengths. In the case of the MATE there is a very complex mechanism that does vary the frame-lines in the finder. That doesn't happen with the WATE.

[ho_co]

Mike and John, I appreciate your responses to my question.

 

I’m still curious about the results you get from the M9 + MATE when using the lens preview lever to change the frame lines displayed from those set automatically by the lens.

 

My guess is that it will behave the same as the M8.

 

 

Geoff’s question is different from mine, and I’m interested in it as well. But I would appreciate your taking the time to respond to mine if possible, just to get it out of the way.

[ho_co]

Please feel free to ignore this post. It is dry and boring.

 

 

 

On 02.01.2011, I tested my M8 (firmware 2.005) and MATE through the nine possibilities of lens setting and preview-lever setting. Here are the results:

 

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!

 

 

 

 

I've summarized the results in two different ways:

 

 

SUMMARY I:

 

When lens is set at 28 mm, frame preview is most strongly depressed by the lens flange. Moving the frame preview lever changes the finder frames but does not change the M8’s frame recognition switch.

 

When lens is set at 50 mm, frame preview lever is at its center position. Moving the frame preview lever changes the finder frames. Moving it to 28 mm causes the lens to be recognized as 28 mm. When the frame preview lever is moved to 35 mm, the lens’ mechanics override, and the lens is recorded as 50 mm.

 

When lens is set at 35 mm, the frame preview lever and switch are at their relaxed position. Moving the frame preview lever changes the finder frames, and also changes the recognition switch to record the focal length as set by the frame preview lever.

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY II:

 

The frame preview lever has three positions, two of which are set by the lens in use.

 

When no lens is mounted, the preview lever is moved by a spring in the camera to its ‘relaxed’ or ‘null’ position (my terms), the tip leaning away from the lens mount, displaying the 24 mm and 35 mm frameset in the M8, the 35 mm and 135 mm frames in full-frame cameras.

 

Some lenses move the frame preview lever to its ‘center’ or ‘one’ position (my terms), the tip directly above the pivot point when the camera is held horizontally. Here the camera displays 50 mm and 75 mm frames.

 

Some lenses move the frame preview lever so that its tip leans toward the lens mount, its ‘tensioned’ or ‘two’ position (my terms). The 28 mm and 90 mm framelines are displayed.

 

 

In all cases, changing the position of the frame preview lever manually changes the framelines displayed. When the mounted lens doesn’t move the frame preview lever from its null position, the position of the frame preview lever determines the output of the frame recognition switch.

 

When the mounted lens moves the frame preview lever away from its relaxed position, the lens-set position serves as a lower limit to the output of the frame recognition switch. That is, no lower number can be output by the frame recognition switch than that determined mechanically by the lens. A higher value (if available) may be generated by moving the frame preview lever toward the lens.

[amedick]

Howard

 

I took my M9 and MATE out this afternoon, and tried the tests you mention at an English football game. The preview lever did affect the EXIF reading similar to the way you mention. Did not have pen and paper with me to record all the combos.... But my 28 readings were always 28, no matter what the preview lever was seeing, just like your M8.

 

Will record the 9 combos in a table tomorrow....

 

Take care

 

John

[ho_co]

John, thanks for the information!

 

You've already done more than any rational person would, and I think you've confirmed my expectations already.

 

I had no idea this would turn out so complicated, and I really appreciate your efforts.

 

 

 

 

The original reason for my question was a comment in another thread. If I understood him/her correctly, the poster implied that the M9 lacked the frame recognition switch of the M8.

 

You’ve shown that’s not the case since the M9 automatically recognizes the three focal lengths of the Tri-Elmar.

 

Now I just want to confirm (to the degree possible) whether the frame recognition switch is wired the same between the M8 and M9.

 

The M9 is definitely programmed to disregard the frame preview lever in cases where the M8 considers it, so (I think) the MATE offers a good opportunity to find out whether the switch itself works the same on the M9 as it does on the M8. As I said above, my guess is that it does, and your test implies the same.

[Alnitak]

I'm sitting here with my MATE on my M9, set to auto-recognize the lens code (manually coded).

 

When the lens is set to 35mm, I can change the framelines to 50mm and 28mm and literally watch the focal length information change on the back of the M9's "Info" screen. If I take a shot with the frameline lever at 50mm or 28mm, the EXIF will record those focal lengths.

 

If the lens is set to 50mm, I can change the framelines to 35mm with the preview lever, but the camera will never show 35mm on the back or in the EXIF. If I change the framelines to 28mm, the camera shows that on the back and in the EXIF on a shot.

 

If the lens is set to 28mm, I can change the framelines with the preview lever, but the camera Info screen never shows any other focal length, and the EXIF always records as 28mm.

 

Bottom line: It's exactly the same as the M8, at least for this lens.

 

Jeff

[ho_co]

Jeff, thanks!

 

My question is answered, and I thank everyone for assistance in the matter.

 

 

Now, Geoff! Go to it!

 

The MATE was introduced before the M8, so I doubt that there's any difference in coding the various focal lengths for the M9. Purely speculation, of course.

 

When Leica introduced the WATE with the M8, before discovery of the camera's excessive IR sensitivity, they said the lens was designed to perform the same way at all focal lengths and could get by with a single ID code. Only the IR correction forced them to require the input of the focal length in use. For that reason, I doubt that there's any difference in choosing the menu-set focal-length options on the M9 except for the EXIF information. Purely speculation, of course.

 

I hope there's no difference in the firmware corrections applied because for me the WATE is impossibly complicated to use. I seem able to keep up with only two of the three settings I need to make with it on the M8, finder, lens focal length, camera correction focal length. I'm always changing the lens focal length and changing one of the other two to match. I either get the framing right with over- or under-correction for the filter, or I get a perfect picture completely misframed. Or sometimes both. I know, most people don't have that problem. I would hate to need to change the lens ID manually in the M9 menu, because I know I'd mess it up.

 

I'll be quiet. I'm very interested in your investigations of the various processing curves involved in the camera.

 

So I say again, Now, Geoff! Go to it!

[01af]

... for me the WATE is impossibly complicated to use. I seem able to keep up with only two of the three settings I need to make with it on the M8, finder, lens focal length, camera correction focal length. [...] I would hate to need to change the lens ID manually in the M9 menu, because I know I'd mess it up.

With the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 Asph, on the M9 you also need to change three setting whenever you switch between the focal lengths if you want everything to be perfect. But—the M9 will always apply the same lens corrections to the image (those matching the 21 mm setting), no matter what the menu settings are. So the manual lens setting in the menu only serves to get the focal length in the EXIF data right. If you can live without that then you may switch to automatic lens detection and forget about the lens menu, leaving you with only two settings to fiddle with, actual focal length and finder frame. In this case, the camera will always apply the lens corrections for the 21 mm setting (as it always does anyway, leaving the 18 mm and 16 mm focal lengths somewhat under-corrected), and the EXIF data will always say, 16 mm.

 

The 18 mm and 16 mm focal lengths being under-corrected is no major problem, as it manifests as slightly stronger vignetting only. There are no problems with sharpness or colour casts. Very occasionally you'd get reddish corners, depending on the lighting conditions ... but it gets no worse than it would with a properly coded Elmarit-M 21 mm Asph or Super-Elmar-M 18 mm Asph, and the proper lens setting in the menu wouldn't make any difference anyway. If it happens (not very often) then CornerFix will come to the rescue.

 

So bottom line is, the WATE is easier to use on the M9 than on the M8.

[hoppyman]

Howard my curiosity was not so easily sated but I don't have the hardware (a lens I can change codes on to play with) to resolve it. Only academic for me though.

 

Further to the MATE selections on the M9, I found the relevant text in the instructions.

Note that the camera IS making a focal length specific correction (not just recording length in EXIF and using one correction for all). So what ever focal length is generated by framelines and code logic dictates the corrections applied, even though there is only one actual entry in the manual selections.

 

Here's the text:

.............................

 

When using the LEICA TRI-ELMAR-M 16-18-21mm ASPH. f/4, the set focal length is not transferred to the camera and therefore is not included in the EXIF

data for the pictures. However, you can enter the relevant focal length manually if you wish.

• By contrast, the LEICA TRI-ELMAR-M 28-35-50mm ASPH. f/4 features the mechanical transfer of the set focal length to the camera necessary to activate the appropriate bright-line frames. The camera electronics detect the focal length and use it to set a focal length specific correction. However, due to a lack of space only one item number appears in the menu – 11 625. Of course, the two other versions – 11 890 and 11 894 – can also be used and the settings made in the menu also apply to them.

 

Olaf's remarks regarding the single focal length only correction for the WATE seem logical to me (since there's no auto detection of length going on) and consistent with the avoidance of over-correction (as Leica Camera does regarding aperture in use). I don't have any personal experience or definitive sources on that lens.

 

Jeff, thanks!

 

My question is answered, and I thank everyone for assistance in the matter.

 

 

Now, Geoff! Go to it!

 

The MATE was introduced before the M8, so I doubt that there's any difference in coding the various focal lengths for the M9. Purely speculation, of course.

 

When Leica introduced the WATE with the M8, before discovery of the camera's excessive IR sensitivity, they said the lens was designed to perform the same way at all focal lengths and could get by with a single ID code. Only the IR correction forced them to require the input of the focal length in use. For that reason, I doubt that there's any difference in choosing the menu-set focal-length options on the M9 except for the EXIF information. Purely speculation, of course.

 

I hope there's no difference in the firmware corrections applied because for me the WATE is impossibly complicated to use. I seem able to keep up with only two of the three settings I need to make with it on the M8, finder, lens focal length, camera correction focal length. I'm always changing the lens focal length and changing one of the other two to match. I either get the framing right with over- or under-correction for the filter, or I get a perfect picture completely misframed. Or sometimes both. I know, most people don't have that problem. I would hate to need to change the lens ID manually in the M9 menu, because I know I'd mess it up.

 

I'll be quiet. I'm very interested in your investigations of the various processing curves involved in the camera.

 

So I say again, Now, Geoff! Go to it!

[ho_co]

Geoff, I'm surprised about the various corrections for the MATE, but glad to learn something new!

 

So if I understand correctly, the only lens for which the M9 checks the selected framelines is the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar.

 

That would mean no current lens needs the switch assembly. As Mark Norton demonstrated, the camera has to be completely disassembled to get to the switch. So it's probably just as well that Leica doesn't do all the firmware cross-checking they did with the M8. The only people who will ever notice a broken frame-lever-detection switch on the M9 are those of us with the MATE.

 

Keep digging on the question of corrections. That's of ongoing concern to us all.

[hoppyman]

A slippery slope getting into this Howard! Careful with your logic

No, what we know with the M9 is that it ignores frame-line selections when lens detection is OFF. You can then freely select any lens model that was available un-coded.

 

If you mis-select frame-lines with a coded lens, (and detection to AUTO) then the M9 sets the actual or no focal length (as predicted by the MATE experiment). I just tried a (coded) 28, a 35 and a 50 with every combination.

 

Identical as with the MATE as it must be. Now we need someone to mis-code not mis-frame-line select!

 

I might just ask the Leica Camera engineers and see if they will explain it for us.

[hoppyman]

I just thought about that overnight.Sorry, too late to edit my post. That experiment is not needed. For a mis-coded lens, if the frame-line set is compatible then it must use the code given, of course. Duh!

 

..... Now we need someone to mis-code not mis-frame-line select!....

[ho_co]

Geoff, I'm lost completely. I'm going to have to look at the M9 manual and re-read what you've written. There's something you know and assume I know of which I haven't an inkling.

 

And my brain has just shut down again.

 

It'll take me a while to catch up to where I should be.

 

I'll be back, quicker than you can say Eyjafjallajokull.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hoppyman]

Leica Camera technical staff just replied to my question about the correction algorithims used with the WATE lens. They confirmed that the correction is the same for every focal length and the manual selection of focal length affects only the EXIF.