eudemian Posted February 6, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted February 6, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have looked at Carstens coding page and noticed that the coding for the Macro-Elmar and the macro adapter are slightly different. Â My question is do you think this could be significant? Could the camera software take into account the way the 90Macro Elmar is attached and perform it processing differently, or is it purely for the exif information? Even if there is no difference in processing at present does it leave open the option that future firmware updates may use that information to correct problems that may occur later on down the line? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 6, 2007 Posted February 6, 2007 Hi eudemian, Take a look here Macro Adapter. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted February 6, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted February 6, 2007 Put a coded 90/4 on the camera and the info window says 90mm. Put a coded macro adapter on and it says... 90mm. Of course, you get the same even if there is no lens mounted. Â I suppose there may be some difference in processing but they probably just took the opportunity to know what's what if they need to at a later date. Sadly, they did not have the foresight to do the same thing with the WATE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eudemian Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share #3 Â Posted February 6, 2007 I see what you are saying Mark but why didn't they just keep the same coding for both lens and adapter because as far I am aware the adapter can only be used for the 90 macro elmar? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted February 6, 2007 Share #4 Â Posted February 6, 2007 Thomas, we don't really know what, if any, image correction is applied with the 90mm lens but it's possible that when the decision to code them separately was made, there might have been some intention to handle the two focussing ranges - 0.5 - 0.76m and 0.8 - Infinity differently. Â The decision to code the lenses was probably taken quite some time ago, before the actual performance of the sensor was known and they coded them separately, just in case. Before the IR issue was known, coding was even seeming a bit irrelevant but as it's turned out, it's going to be important when the camera is used with IR filters, though maybe not with 90mm lenses. Â I'm sure that Leica can look back on the development of the M8 as an amazing learning experience and with the benefit that 20/20 hindsight delivers, see things that they should have done and things that they need not have done. All part of their learning curve... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted February 6, 2007 Share #5 Â Posted February 6, 2007 Whether the adator is on or not affects the amount of light reaching the sensor, and from which area of the lens it comes (it uses a middle crop with the adaptor, as far as I know). Hence it could affect the calculations for vignetting reduction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted February 6, 2007 Share #6 Â Posted February 6, 2007 Whether the adator is on or not affects the amount of light reaching the sensor, and from which area of the lens it comes (it uses a middle crop with the adaptor, as far as I know). Hence it could affect the calculations for vignetting reduction. Â But I don't thinks a 90mm lens of any design is going to have a vignetting issue. Certainly the cos4th vignetting will be close to 0 Â Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted February 6, 2007 Share #7 Â Posted February 6, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) It might need some cyan correction. Anyway, it is clearly beneficial to keep the two distinguishable, in case of anything else in the future. Having to go back and change one would be awful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.