Preparing for the M

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Olaf,

 

You don't feel that you should be using the user name Thomas - Doubting Thomas?

 

See photos below taken this afternoon.

 

Wilson

 

I see you shoot with your left eye.......

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wlaidlaw]

There is no difference between "1.196 beta" and "the final firmware." These two are the very same thing.

 

I still believe there is something strange going on. Could you please check what lens code and frameline code actually are recorded in the MakerNotes section of the metadata of the image files taken with your automagically recognised Biogon 25 mm ZM lens?

 

Olaf,

 

I will have a look at this when I get back from some travelling. I am off to Switzerland for a few days business and then going straight on to South Africa for a family event.

 

Wilson

[UliWer]

I have to confess that I don't understand why one would worry about coding any adapter for non-M-lenses.

 

Imagine you have lenses of any non Leica brand in the range of 21-135mm and want to use it on the M without a coded adapter. I think you would find chances of setting an appropriate lens identification of an M-lens in the manual list. You get the data for focal length in the EXIF - even if it is an Elmarit and no Summicron. There is some disadvantage of this manual setting as you could forget to change the code when you quickly changed lenses. As you always will have to apply a manual setting for an individual R-lens, even if your adapter is coded, you won't get rid of this risk.

 

One might say that "original" lens recognition is always better than setting some other codes of "similar" lenses. We'll have to see, if this is really true. It was not always true for the M9: I have seen examples that lens recognition turned off showed the best results for a 50mm Summicron.

 

With the M9 there were differences for short focal lengthes.

I am not sure wether it was on Photokina that a Leica representative explained that the new sensor would not need any corrections for colour shift, "Italian-flag" etc. any more, but only for vignetting. I remember the statement that you could use any non-Leica lens on the M240 without limitations. Again we'll have to wait if this is true, though I think that there is some chance that it will be true.

 

For lenses longer than 135mm which perhaps will be the most important enhancement for the M-user, I don't think lens correction will be important: vignetting is no great problem. You will have no data in the EXIF. Is there really so much risk that you forget which photos you took with 280mm? You never saw any EXIF on film and most users of long focal lengthes used them for film when they bought them.

 

Is there really a big problem?

[jaapv]

It would be highly unlikely that Leica does no lens corrections on Leica R lenses it can identify and would benefit from correction. Case in point, DMR, M8, M8.2, M9 and M9P.

None of these do lens corrections on R lenses afaik. The DMR does recognize a ROM lens but dates back to a more simple era, I think.

Anyway, I would not be interested in shorter lenses, the M ones are too good. 01AF is right, there may be some distortion corrections implemented for those. For long lenses there is little to correct and many are not even supported.

[k-hawinkler]

No, no big problem at all.

Just very annoying to some of Leica's customers.

If Leica annoys enough customers it could become a big problem though for Leica.

I am convinced there will be mirror-less interchangeable lens FF cameras from other manufacturers in the near future.

Maybe they are more interested in getting my business.

I would still use my Leica lenses as I use them on NEX cameras now.

[jonoslack]

No, no big problem at all.

Just very annoying to some of Leica's customers.

If Leica annoys enough customers it could become a big problem though for Leica.

I am convinced there will be mirror-less interchangeable lens FF cameras from other manufacturers in the near future.

Maybe they are more interested in getting my business.

I would still use my Leica lenses as I use them on NEX cameras now.

 

Well, one thing we CAN be sure of is that Sony aren't doing lens corrections for Leica R lenses!

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

:D

 

Indeed I am happy they are not needed for my NEX-5N even for WA like the WATE 16-18-21.

[hoppyman]

Good question, and well-put.

 

 

 

Uh oh. Now you spoilt it. Of course, the M9 also needs the framelines to match the lens code, or it will ignore the code.

 

That leads to confusion. If Lens detection is set to MANUAL, the M9 ignores any lens coding and the frame lines and uses anything at all that you select. What you can not do is call up the R lens menu from there.

 

For the R to M adapter, we already know or rather we think will be the case) that you need the correct code to call up the menu of R lenses.

What is unclear is whether this will only work if the 28 90 pair is called up by the mount.

 

I think that this is a pretty unusual situation that Wilson is discussing and I doubt that Leica Camera even thought about this.

 

If I have it correctly from #324, Wilson has modifed an R 80-200 lens to M mount with a Leitax conversion? Now Wilson is exploring whether a 3rd party adapter can be used to allow it to be fitted to the R to M adapter?

I guess this discussion is about more than that one lens but I see a solution for that one

[robsteve]

None of these do lens corrections on R lenses afaik. The DMR does recognize a ROM lens but dates back to a more simple era, I think.

Anyway, I would not be interested in shorter lenses, the M ones are too good. 01AF is right, there may be some distortion corrections implemented for those. For long lenses there is little to correct and many are not even supported.

 

Jaap:

 

I am going to do a quick test with my 19mm and DMR and unless I imagined the results, there will be a difference between ROM and non ROM.

 

edit:

 

I also see you took it literally that the R lenses were corrected on the M, I actually meant any Leica lens that Leica can identify in software, Leica will correct for it. In regards to the M digitals I was using them as an example of correction being applied to identified lenses, ie 6-bit lenses. I think they also do correction for the S lenses and third party lenses that the S supports, though I have no experience with the S and the third party lens corrections may only be done in post processing.

[k-hawinkler]

That leads to confusion. If Lens detection is set to MANUAL, the M9 ignores any lens coding and the frame lines and uses anything at all that you select. What you can not do is call up the R lens menu from there.

 

For the R to M adapter, we already know or rather we think will be the case) that you need the correct code to call up the menu of R lenses.

What is unclear is whether this will only work if the 28 90 pair is called up by the mount.

 

I think that this is a pretty unusual situation that Wilson is discussing and I doubt that Leica Camera even thought about this.

 

If I have it correctly from #324, Wilson has modifed an R 80-200 lens to M mount with a Leitax conversion? Now Wilson is exploring whether a 3rd party adapter can be used to allow it to be fitted to the R to M adapter?

I guess this discussion is about more than that one lens but I see a solution for that one

 

 

Sorry, that's not my understanding.

[robsteve]

It took a few minutes to get the DMR and put a piece of thin tape over the ROM contacts of the 19mm. Here are the results, just shooting handheld a white screen on my iMac, so don't expect perfectly even illumination.

 

This is at f2.8, probably the aperture with the most vignetting and the profile may be optimized for a mid range aperture. You can see colour and vignette correction is applied by the DMR. It is visible even previewing them on the DMR's LCD.

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!

[robsteve]

If I have it correctly from #324, Wilson has modifed an R 80-200 lens to M mount with a Leitax conversion? Now Wilson is exploring whether a 3rd party adapter can be used to allow it to be fitted to the R to M adapter?

I guess this discussion is about more than that one lens but I see a solution for that one

 

I think Wilson is using the R to M mount adapter shown on the cinema camera page of Leitax. Some of the RED cameras come in Leica M mount. This adapter is attached to the R lens with screws, so each lens needs its own adapter. The adapter is also milled for the 6 bit coding. The question was if the Leitax adapters brought up the correct framelines to be recognized as a proper R to M adapter on the M 240.

 

Leica lens for Cinema cameras

[hoppyman]

Luigi,

 

I agree with all you say. For those reasons, I did not buy the Leitax permanent R to M adapter for my 80-200 until I checked it had coding pits milled into the mount. Anyone considering an older Leica R to M or non-Leica R to M adapter, would be wise to bear this in mind.

 

Wilson

Here is post #324 that I quoted. I also said that I guess there is more than one lens being talked about but I can see a solution for that R 80 200 lens that has been modified to M mount with a Leitax conversion in this case

[jaapv]

It took a few minutes to get the DMR and put a piece of thin tape over the ROM contacts of the 19mm. Here are the results, just shooting handheld a white screen on my iMac, so don't expect perfectly even illumination.

 

This is at f2.8, probably the aperture with the most vignetting and the profile may be optimized for a mid range aperture. You can see colour and vignette correction is applied by the DMR. It is visible even previewing them on the DMR's LCD.

Thanks, I did not know that, I have never used the DMR with short lenses.

I would use the Super-Elmar M 18 in that case.

[hoppyman]

Weird. Seems you're the only person for whom this set-up actually works. All the other owners of the Biogon 25 mm ZM needed to have their bayonets changed by Zeiss in order to make the 011001 code work ... or use the code for a 21 mm or 28 mm lens instead.

 

Which firmware version are you using? Maybe Leica has changed the behaviour of the M9 so it now accepts 25-1 just as well as 25-2 (which it didn't in the past), to make life easier for Biogon 25 mm ZM users ... however I can still hardly believe it. Can you also post a picture of the back of your 25 mm lens please?

 

My understanding is that the CZ mounts were changed during production.That was the case with my 18 at least.

So different individual samples may or may not have been delivered with the mount bringing up different frame line pairs. CZ did change some from the delivered state for free for some customers, including for me.

[robsteve]

Thanks, I did not know that, I have never used the DMR with short lenses.

I would use the Super-Elmar M 18 in that case.

 

It probably did it with the longer lenses too, but I am not taking my 400mm f2.8 out to do the test.

[jaapv]

I've a mixture of rom and non-rom lenses and to be honest, I've never noticed a difference in image quality other than the differences between the lenses. Except for distortion and vignetting on wide angles, I would suggest that the corrections, if any, are of little practical importance.

Only few long lenses are supported in the list provided for the M, for the rest the coding is irrelevant anyway.

[lct]

FF is more demanding than crop cams like DMR and coding cannot replace missing data anyway. Interesting to see what the new sensor will do with critical corners like this (Elmarit-R 28/2.8 # 11204 on 5D1).

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wlaidlaw]

Geoff,

 

I will be using a Vario Elmar R 80-200/f4 onto which I have screwed a semi permanent Leitax R to M adapter, directly on the new M-240, with no other adapters involved. I will be painting into the ready milled coding pits, the code 110111, however since I did not specify from Leitax any frame line, a standard 35/135mm adaptor was sent, this will not pick up, as we now know from Jesko. David Llado at Leitax has very kindly agreed to exchange the adapter for a 28/90 one for just the cost of the postage.

 

As I explained previously, my thinking on using this adapter is the ease of changing lenses in a bouncing Land Rover from say an RF coupled 135 to the 80-200 zoom, without the possibility of having to mess around with adapters. The reason I want the lens coded and working as coded is so that I can leave the body in Auto Lens Recognition. I have now all my lenses either coded or working hand coded, other than a few weirdos like the 16mm fish-eye.

 

It is too easy in the heat of the moment to forget to change the lens recognition setting and when you come round a corner with an uncoded long lens on the camera, set as such in manual, you find a wonderful panorama facing you. You then put on a wide angle lens, forget to reset the lens recognition and get results which need lots of PP, because the camera did not do any. In effect I am trying to do some pre-prevention of Murphy's Law (if anything can go wrong, at some time it will).

 

Wilson

[jaapv]

Wilson, as I understand it, the coding will only activate the manual R lens choice menu so you will have to enter the lens manually anyway.