farnz Posted July 7, 2011 Share #121 Posted July 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Actually, I noticed a strange "behaviour" with a CV 15 4.5, coded as Tri-Elmar and usually set at 16mm: I hat to redo the coding twice as it was constantly, i.e., after each shot, asking for a new choice between 16-18-21mm ans was even jumping between these "automatically". ... I used to have the same problem with my CV 15/4.5 and eventually started coding it as a 21/2.8 to avoid the problem. I felt that the 21/2.8 coding gave better correction than the 16mm setting for the Wide Angle Tri-Elmar too. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Hi farnz, Take a look here New firmware for M8 is online. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bobitybob Posted July 7, 2011 Share #122 Posted July 7, 2011 Bob, The new firmware detects the load on the M-mount and if the load is different to the load presented by the lens for which the coding is intended then the M8 won't recognise the lens. The 21/2.8 Elmarit is heavier that the CV 21/4 so there's the problem. <Joking!> I haven't heard this reported by anyone else and tbh it can only be the self coding. I've found self coding to be hit and miss at times whether using the M-coder or Milich LTM-M adaptor, which has the pre-milled slots. You might like to make sure there's no grease or dirt obscuring the LEDs on the M-mount if you haven't already. Pete. Pete Turns out you were bang on. After a couple of hours and half a dozen attempts I got it to work. Perhaps they have increased the sensitivity as part of the improvements in internal processes! Many thanks for the guidance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gverdon Posted July 7, 2011 Share #123 Posted July 7, 2011 I used to have the same problem with my CV 15/4.5 and eventually started coding it as a 21/2.8 to avoid the problem. I felt that the 21/2.8 coding gave better correction than the 16mm setting for the Wide Angle Tri-Elmar too. Pete. Thanks, Pete. I'll try that and let you know. Cheers, Gérald Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gverdon Posted July 7, 2011 Share #124 Posted July 7, 2011 I used to have the same problem with my CV 15/4.5 and eventually started coding it as a 21/2.8 to avoid the problem. I felt that the 21/2.8 coding gave better correction than the 16mm setting for the Wide Angle Tri-Elmar too. Pete. BTW, is it the 21/2.8 ASPH or not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 7, 2011 Share #125 Posted July 7, 2011 BTW, is it the 21/2.8 ASPH or not? I used the code for the pre-asph, which is very easy:D: 100000. Incidentally, the amount of correction is only my subjective view so please don't expect a huge difference. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulmichaelsnr Posted July 11, 2011 Share #126 Posted July 11, 2011 I, finally, summoned the courage and followed the instructions and installed the new firmware. All went well. Now I shall have a play around and see what differences I can see. Paul Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted July 11, 2011 Share #127 Posted July 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Glad to see the M8 is not been relegated to the trash heap. I will be upgrading the firmware on mine later today. Even if it is a small advance, it is still an improvement on a camera I continue to love for what it produces. The M8 remains as viable as ever :-). Life happened (surgery on my neck bones) and I didn't get around to updating the firmware until today 7/11/11. I immediately took a couple of shots with the existing natural light in my living room and I can perceive improvement in the noise department. First shot posted here is at 640, the second is 1250. This doesn't pretend to be a scientific test. I'm not a fan of noise so I am delighted to perceive some improvement. M8, 35mm Summicron ASPH wide open. Thank you Leica :-). 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/155034-new-firmware-for-m8-is-online/?do=findComment&comment=1730978'>More sharing options...
lct Posted July 11, 2011 Share #128 Posted July 11, 2011 Another victim of the famous firmware-update-placebo . Just kidding Wilfredo i've noticed this as well. Makes me gain one f stop as i now use 640 iso regularly which i scarcely did before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Etruscello Posted July 11, 2011 Share #129 Posted July 11, 2011 Thank you, Wilfredo, for the ISO 640 vs 1250 comparison on the M8. I never saw better noise control in an M8 image at 640. (I assume you did not use post-processing noise control.) I still cherish my M8.2. I'm hesitant to buy an M9 because I do not believe it has truly better noise control after the M8 image is post-processed. (I think the M9 noise control at 1250 is all in-camera processing, which can be duplicated with an M8 and Adobe CS5.) And I do not believe that the M9 is really full-frame-- not for me: I'm a wide-angle fan. From what I read about red-edge, I would have to crop 1/3 off the M9 image to avoid corner/edge discoloration and distortion -- which brings me right back to the M8, which I already have. Go figure! Best regards, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfokevin Posted July 12, 2011 Share #130 Posted July 12, 2011 The technical term for what you are experiencing is called: "internally optimized placebo effect" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted July 12, 2011 Share #131 Posted July 12, 2011 I rarely shoot at ISO 640 but will probably experiment with it more now. No noise reduction was applied to either of my images. I remain a fan of the M8. Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pklein Posted July 13, 2011 Share #132 Posted July 13, 2011 Wilfredo: ISO 640 was fine before the upgrade, and it will remain so, placebo effect or no. Those of us who shot available dark with ISO 400 film (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth) already have things better than we had before the M8. Except for Tri-X's several stops worth of highlight headroom that you could burn in when printing, but no digital camera has that. Check out my post #153 here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/190924-some-us-really-do-need-better-8.html Get out your fast lens and come play in the dark. It's fun, and the M8 delivers beautifully once you get to know its nightime behavoir. Expose enough for faces and important details, maybe crush down the blacks a little, and life is good. --Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.