Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 14, 2007 Share #21 Â Posted March 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) It sounded like he started off wrong when started to thread it. I maybe wrong though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Hi Guest guy_mancuso, Take a look here WATE EXIF Data. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted March 14, 2007 Share #22 Â Posted March 14, 2007 The filter holder is an option. It has a female thread to attach to the front of the WATE and a conventional 67mm female thread for a normal filter. The lens, frankly, looks ridiculous with the filter holder and filter in place, there's no lens cap or lens hood and the holes in the filter holder let dust in and cause stray reflections. Otherwise, it's fine. Â The WATE thread has a stop, so that what you are screwing onto the lens always stops at the same point, required for a rectangular lens hood. To make sure the thread goes tight as this stop point is approached, there's a rubber O-ring around the rim of the lens which gets compressed as you tighten the hood/filter holder. It's this rubber O-ring which seems to have caused Reichmann problems. Â My take on the WATE is that they found the conventional sensor vignetting changed little with focal length so thought - at that time - that they didn't need to tell the camera the selected focal length which neatly side-stepped the complexity of communicating it to the camera. Along come IR filters where the cyan correction will depend on the focal length so suddenly it's needed. Â I'm mystified as to how the camera can know the selected focal length other than making some interpretation of the image which would be pretty hit and miss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 14, 2007 Share #23 Â Posted March 14, 2007 Mark pure speculation but i wonder if the meter can sense the distance of the rear lens elements to determine it or something of that nature Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 14, 2007 Share #24  Posted March 14, 2007 Mark pure speculation but i wonder if the meter can sense the distance of the rear lens elements to determine it or something of that nature  Remember that the camera can sense the focus distance, since there is a nice mechanical connection to the rangefinder. Of course we don't know if that is turned into any digital information. There is a place for that information in the EXIF, but it is usually not obvious and few EXIF readers decode it as it tends to be found in the proprietary Maker Notes. In the WATE the actual lens motion in focussing is internall, moving some elements in the middle, and the position of the rear element is a clue to the focal length, but it moves only slightly from 16 to 18 mm focal length, and more obviously from 18 to 21. But nothing mechanical would dare to touch that assembly, so how would the camera see it move?  scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hart Posted April 22, 2008 Share #25  Posted April 22, 2008 If we see a WATE report 21mm, I'll be really impressed. scott  I have just bought a nearly new WATE and it seems - so far - to be recording each focal length accurately in the exif data. I do the fiddly thing and select the correct f/l via the menu each time I change it.  These two show 21mm in the exif data in Lightroom (but, for some reason, it shows 22mm in Flickr):  Salmesbury Hall, Preston on Flickr - Photo Sharing!  Salmesbury Hall, Preston on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted April 23, 2008 Share #26 Â Posted April 23, 2008 Paul: Â I don't know if you noticed, but this thread was over a year old. The WATE exif bug was fixed in the revision of the firmware after 1.092, probably over a year ago. Â Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hart Posted April 23, 2008 Share #27 Â Posted April 23, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) You're right, I didn't notice - quick glance only, and thought it was an 08 post. Mea culpa! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.