Preparing for the M

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Could you perhaps use a special profile to tell the camera: if you recognize the R-Adapter, then use the settings for a certain lens?

 

I don't know, as I never use the profile function?

[wlaidlaw]

Could you perhaps use a special profile to tell the camera: if you recognize the R-Adapter, then use the settings for a certain lens?

 

I don't know, as I never use the profile function?

 

Uli,

 

This is the sort of thing we can ask the beta testers to request as firmware updates. As I understand from Algrove's actual experience with the pre-production M, when it sees the R lens code with lens recognition set to "On", it automatically displays the R lens selection menu on the LCD. Now what I don't think we know, is what happens if you don't make a selection from this menu and press OK. Does it just use the last lens you selected on the R lens menu (which IMHO would be logical) or does it then revert to no correction at all, as if you had lens recognition set to off. If it works like the first option, then I don't think profiles come into the equation. You can't I think, use profiles to pre-set a particular WATE focal length and since I sold my WATE some time ago, I cannot now remember whether the M9 remembers the last WATE focal length you set. I have a feeling it did.

 

In other words if you had mounted a WATE, with Auto recognition set to on and selected 16mm from the lens menu, then mounted a different lens afterwards, when you remount the WATE, does it remember 16mm? I think it does. Again, I cannot recall whether you need to confirm this and what happens if you just take a photo without confirming. Anyone with a WATE who can test this?

 

Wilson

[01af]

... I cannot now remember whether the M9 remembers the last WATE focal length you set.

In the Manual lens selection mode, the M9 always remembers the last focal length you set, not just the WATE's. By the way, the last manual lens selection is included in the user profiles, so when you switch profiles then you'll also switch which lens is remembered as manually selected.

 

 

... if you had mounted a WATE, with Auto recognition set to on and selected 16 mm from the lens menu ...

Which is impossible to do. The lens recognition mode is either Auto or Manual, but not both at the same time.

[wlaidlaw]

Olaf,

 

You are misunderstanding what I mean. When you mount a WATE and have Auto Lens Recognition set to on, you are offered a sub menu to choose from 16, 18 or 21mm. That is the focal length lens menu I am talking about. If you have set to say 16mm, does the camera remember this for the next time you mount a WATE? Do you need to reconfirm this focal length or not? If you just mount a WATE (the second time) and press the shutter release, is the 16mm correction used? Can you set a profile so that whenever you mount a WATE, irrespective of what focal length you set last, 16, 18 or 21, it will automatically select say 21mm?

 

Wilson

[hoppyman]

Well—you're right, albeit in an unexpected way. The Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph (a.k.a. WATE) on the M9 does not call up a sub-menu. And the R Adapter on the new M camera also doesn't.

 

I may be mistaken on the 16-18-21 then? I don't have that lens. I thought I recalled that was the behaviour back when I had the ZM 18. The default value that was called up was 18. I maybe confusing this with my M8??

,

In my M9, using the manual lens detection you have the option of the three lengths to set although the actual correction is not varied. The camera has no means of detecting the focal length used in this one specific case,

Can any lens owner comment?

 

Are you disputing that the R to M adapter calls up a menu of R lenses to choose from?

I thought that was the basis of the whole discussion in this thread.

Or are you suggesting that the R lenses are listed at all times in the manual selection list whether or not the R to M adapter is present? That can't be right.

 

Have you handled the prototype camera perhaps? I have not.

 

Unless you are just objecting to the term sub-menu?

[01af]

When you mount a WATE and have Auto Lens Recognition set to on, you are offered a sub menu to choose from 16, 18, or 21 mm.

No, you aren't. You do own an M9 camera, and you used to own a WATE lens—so where do all these misconceptions come from?

 

 

That is the focal length lens menu I am talking about. If you have set to say 16 mm, does the camera remember this for the next time you mount a WATE?

If you have the lens recognition mode set to Auto then the M9 camera will recognise the WATE lens and assume it's set to 16 mm. No menu or sub-menu will pop up anywhere.

 

If you have the lens recognition mode set to Manual then the camera will remember the last selection you made, whatever that was, as simple as that.

 

 

If you just mount a WATE (the second time) and press the shutter release, is the 16 mm correction used?

A "16 mm correction" does not exist in the first place. There is only one single WATE correction, and it's the same for all three focal lengths. So no need to manually select the proper focal length in order to get the right correction applied. The only reason to manually select the actual focal length is to have it properly recorded in the EXIF data; otherwise it would always just say, "16 mm."

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In my M9, using the manual lens detection you have the option of the three lengths to set ...

In my M9, using the manual lens detection you have the option of about a dozen focal lengths to set—among them the three focal lengths of the WATE.

 

 

The camera has no means of detecting the focal length used in this one specific case.

That's right. So if you want the camera to know the actual focal length, you have to tell it via the manual lens selection menu.

 

 

Are you disputing that the R to M adapter calls up a menu of R lenses to choose from?

Yes, I do.

 

 

Have you handled the prototype camera perhaps?

Yes, I have.

 

Still, my knowledge about it is limited ... but as far as I understand, the M does not pop up a R lens menu automatically when mounting the R Adapter. Instead, you have to call up the lens selection menu explicitly. If you do then the list will offer R lenses only (and no M lenses). With no R Adapter attached, the same list will offer M lenses only (and no R lenses). If you don't explicitly call the lens selection menu after mounting the R Adapter then I guess the last selected R lens will be remembered—but I don't know for sure.

 

By the way, as far as I know there is no way to get access to the R lens menu when no 6-bit-coded R Adapter is mounted. So no R lens menu when using an uncoded 3rd-party R adapter!

[wlaidlaw]

Olaf,

 

Maybe I am thinking of an M8, on which I used the WATE far more than the M9, as I exchanged my WATE for a Summcron 28, soon after getting an M9. I cannot test it as although I still have an M8, I don't have a WATE. Then if it is the M8 that has a sub menu for the WATE, does that remember the last lens length you selected.

 

Again Olaf, your posts are coming over as very bad tempered. This is, I hope, a forum of friends and friends should speak politely and considerately to each other.

 

Wilson

[k-hawinkler]

In my M9, using the manual lens detection you have the option of about a dozen focal lengths to set—among them the three focal lengths of the WATE.

 

 

 

That's right. So if you want the camera to know the actual focal length, you have to tell it via the manual lens selection menu.

 

 

 

Yes, I do.

 

 

 

Yes, I have.

 

Still, my knowledge about it is limited ... but as far as I understand, the M does not pop up a R lens menu automatically when mounting the R Adapter. Instead, you have to call up the lens selection menu explicitly. If you do then the list will offer R lenses only (and no M lenses). With no R Adapter attached, the same list will offer M lenses only (and no R lenses). If you don't explicitly call the lens selection menu after mounting the R Adapter then I guess the last selected R lens will be remembered—but I don't know for sure.

 

By the way, as far as I know there is no way to get access to the R lens menu when no 6-bit-coded R Adapter is mounted. So no R lens menu when using an uncoded 3rd-party R adapter!

 

 

So, let me modify your last sentence and ask whether that modified sentence is still correct, based on Jesko's feedback:

 

So no R lens menu when using an uncoded 3rd-party R adapter or a coded 3rd-party R adapter with frame lines selection different from 28/90!

[chris_tribble]

 

Again Olaf, your posts are coming over as very bad tempered. This is, I hope, a forum of friends and friends should speak politely and considerately to each other.

 

Wilson

 

Par for the course - I put it down to intercultural pragmatics and know that I'd have problems if I was participating in German, or Norwegian or whatever

[chris_tribble]

So no R lens menu when using an uncoded 3rd-party R adapter or a coded 3rd-party R adapter with frame lines selection different from 28/90!

 

That is my current understanding. I'm having a couple of adapters coded by Malcolm Taylor as I write - and he's perfectly happy to adapt them to ensure that they bring up the appropriate framelines. Apparently not a major job - so no need to buy new adapters if you can get a machinist with the right knowledge to sort this out while the coding's being done.

[01af]

"So no R lens menu when using an uncoded 3rd-party R adapter or a coded 3rd-party R adapter with frame lines selection different from 28/90!"

Based on Jesko's feedback—yes, I am afraid the sentence still is correct. As always, in order to make a 6-bit lens code work on a 3rd-party product, the framelines selected must match the coded Leica product. I can see no reason to believe the R Adapter was going to be any different in this respect.

[01af]

Maybe I am thinking of an M8 ...

I don't know how the M8 handles the WATE—from what I read I assume it pops up a mini-menu with only the three WATE options when in automatic lens recognition mode. If that's the case then I understand that you're assuming the M9 did the same. But it doesn't. In order to select the WATE's actual focal length, you must switch from automatic to manual lens recognition mode (which doesn't exist in the M8 and has options for all manually selectable lenses, not just the WATE).

 

 

Again Olaf, your posts are coming over as very bad tempered.

I am sorry when you've taken offense. But then, please consider my feelings when you ignore what I say and accuse me not understanding what you mean.

 

Anyway—no hard feelings from my side. After all, it's just a discussion on an Internet forum. Please accept my apology when I hurt your feelings.

[Jeff S]

The 5D3 cannot support third party focus screens though which is a problem for photogs used to use split image and/or microprism screens with their 5D1 or 5D2. Not sure if the 6D has the same problem though.

 

But the 5DIII screen is now good enough for many without the need for 3rd party version. YMMV. My assessment is made based on use of a friend's 5DII and 5DIII; the latter is much better for me, especially with focus confirmation using his Zeiss lenses.

 

Jeff

[pico]

My only worry about the new M is rolling shutter effects from the CMOS sensor. I think I have got it correct that this will be particularly apparent when you are using low shutter speeds and panning a rapidly moving object. Will we be back to the early days of photography, where all racing cars had oval forward leaning wheels?

 

Referring to Jacques Henri Lartigue's photo here.

 

I wonder, too. It depends a upon how global reset is implemented. (The integration stage between frames.) There are different methods, two of which relate specifically to motion video and there are potential disadvantages in each. In the trade-off for less rolling shutter blur there may be inconsistent exposures across the frame (row oriented.)

 

A puzzle to me: the new M will apparently support only 24fps or 25fps for technical and political reasons (taxes?) that I do not understand.

 

Aside: We are entering a time when young people are less likely to have seen film motion pictures and expectations are bounded by digital video technology. There will be talk of interlacing vs frame, things like that.

[k-hawinkler]

That is my current understanding. I'm having a couple of adapters coded by Malcolm Taylor as I write - and he's perfectly happy to adapt them to ensure that they bring up the appropriate framelines. Apparently not a major job - so no need to buy new adapters if you can get a machinist with the right knowledge to sort this out while the coding's being done.

 

 

Hi Chris,

 

Many thanks.

That's very useful information.

I now know what to do.

[k-hawinkler]

Based on Jesko's feedback—yes, I am afraid the sentence still is correct. As always, in order to make a 6-bit lens code work on a 3rd-party product, the framelines selected must match the coded Leica product. I can see no reason to believe the R Adapter was going to be any different in this respect.

 

 

Hi 01af,

 

Many thanks.

With your and Chris' information I now feel comfortable with that aspect of the M-240.

I will have my Leitz and 3rd party adapters modified as necessary.

[wlaidlaw]

That is my current understanding. I'm having a couple of adapters coded by Malcolm Taylor as I write - and he's perfectly happy to adapt them to ensure that they bring up the appropriate framelines. Apparently not a major job - so no need to buy new adapters if you can get a machinist with the right knowledge to sort this out while the coding's being done.

 

Chris,

 

I had always assumed to go from a 35/135 to a 50/75 and then on to a 28/90, you would need to add material to the camming surface on the male mount, whereas the other direction, it is just a question of filing/grinding away.

 

Have I got this the wrong way round or is Malcolm going to have to weld a little bit onto your mounts, assuming you want to get them to 28/90?

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

Referring to Jacques Henri Lartigue's photo here.

 

I wonder, too. It depends a upon how global reset is implemented. (The integration stage between frames.) There are different methods, two of which relate specifically to motion video and there are potential disadvantages in each. In the trade-off for less rolling shutter blur there may be inconsistent exposures across the frame (row oriented.)

 

A puzzle to me: the new M will apparently support only 24fps or 25fps for technical and political reasons (taxes?) that I do not understand.

 

Aside: We are entering a time when young people are less likely to have seen film motion pictures and expectations are bounded by digital video technology. There will be talk of interlacing vs frame, things like that.

 

Pico,

 

Just a guess but anything over 25/30 fps may be regarded as a professional video camera and attract heavy import duties and restrictions when entering certain countries. I think for example, when you used to enter Burma/Myanmar, you had to have a permit for any camera that could be classified as a professional video camera. With the recent relaxation in rules/visa requirements for visitors, this may have gone by the board now.

 

Some years ago, friends who sailed up the Yangon river had a skipper who was a keen videographer. He did not have a permit for the pro level camera he had and had to leave it at Port Yangon customs, supposedly to be collected on their return downriver. When he returned the camera had been totally ruined and there was just a shrugging of shoulders, with no compensation.

 

Thanks for posting the Jacques Henri Lartigue photo. That is exactly what I was thinking of. Strange how it influenced cartoons of speeding cars, for many years after the phenomenon had disappeared from normal photography.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[01af]

I had always assumed to go from a 35/135 to a 50/75 and then on to a 28/90, you would need to add material to the camming surface on the male mount, whereas the other direction, it is just a question of filing/grinding away.

That's correct.

 

 

... is Malcolm going to have to weld a little bit onto your mounts, assuming you want to get them to 28/90?

I don't know but until proven otherwise I'd assume he simply replaces the whole bayonet mount with another that brings up the 28/90 pair of framelines.