jaapv Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share #21 Posted April 3, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) No, because the camera knows which framelines a lens brings up, irrespective if they make sense, like the WATE or a 21 on the M8, and if the code and the framelines don't match it will not record the lens. The lens mount is not needed for the use of the viewfinder but to program the camera in conjunction with the lenscode. You can throw a lens out of registration if you want during shooting (for instance to enhance vignetting) by pushing the framelever over during exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 3, 2007 Posted April 3, 2007 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Zeica 21/2.8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 3, 2007 Share #22 Posted April 3, 2007 You will be fine:D It will read the code for the 21mm that is what will count Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share #23 Posted April 3, 2007 I have a feeling we were talking at cross-purposes but saying exactly the same thing... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 3, 2007 Share #24 Posted April 3, 2007 Yes and just hang in there. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
portocar Posted April 13, 2007 Share #25 Posted April 13, 2007 Alright...Now I'm confused. I plan on getting the Zeiss 21mm 4.5 when it is released, to use witht he M8. Jaap seems to be saying that I will need to change its mount because along with applying the proper code. From what I understand Jaap explains that the software on the camera can recognize framelines, not just codes, and uses them for lens performance optimization. Guy, on the other hand, seems to be saying that all I need is the appropriate code, that of the WATE, and set the menu to 21mm. Leave the original Zeiss mount alone. Please clarify. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 13, 2007 Author Share #26 Posted April 13, 2007 Both is true. The WATE does not set the framelines for its different focal lengths and if a lens is coded as the WATE, there is a menu setting for 21 mm. I doubt whether the coding alone is enough, as I think that the lens mounted must have the same flange length (=frameline setting) as the WATE in order to recognize the code. That would be logical, as this is the case with all other lenses (unless changed in the last firmware, but I don't think so) So what framelines does the WATE bring up ? If it is the same as the Zeiss lens all is well, and you can code the existing mount. If not, the ring must be exchanged anyway and it is simpler to simulate a prime 21 mm lens, as that works around the menu setting. Edit: I just checked. With 1.102 the camera still needs the correct frameline setting in order to recognize the lens code. So: What framelines does the WATE bring up? Please-owners...????? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
portocar Posted April 13, 2007 Share #27 Posted April 13, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ok...Now I'm even more confused. Jaap, you start by saying, "Both is true." Further on you write, "I doubt wehther the coding alone is enough..." so, how can both be true. I ask again, is it necessary to bring up the proper framelines or is 6-bit coding all that is necessary for the M8 to apply image optimization? By the way, not only do I plan to get the Zeiss 21mm 4.5 in the future; I currently have a Carl Zeiss Hologon 16mm f/8 on its way to a machine shop to have its Contax G mount converted to an M mount. In the next day or so, not only must I decide how to 6-bit code the lens, but also if the flange length must be taken into account or not. I must get claryfication on this point urgently. I greatly appreciate all this input; So, Please forgive my obtusity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
argomazov Posted April 13, 2007 Share #28 Posted April 13, 2007 Edit: I just checked. With 1.102 the camera still needs the correct frameline setting in order to recognize the lens code. So: What framelines does the WATE bring up? Please-owners...????? Jaap, I don't own a WATE, but I do own a CV 15/4.5 which I plan to code as a WATE. I asked the same question as you yesterday, but no WATE owner has responded yet. However, Scott K. was kind enough to respond that even if he doesn't own a WATE, he saw posted on other threads that it brings up the 28/90 framelines. That's the assumption I am working with, unless we see a WATE owner say otherwise. Cheers, Luca Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 13, 2007 Author Share #29 Posted April 13, 2007 Sorry, I should eleborate: 1. If the WATE brings up the same framelines that the future Zeiss lens will, you only need to code the Zeiss for either the WATE and set manually or alternately code for 21 mm directly after changing the Zeiss mount. In that case both is true. 2. If the WATE brings up different framelines from the Zeiss you will have to change the lens mount on the Zeiss to the framelines of the of the WATE or the Leica 21 and code accordingly. If it so happens that the WATE brings up the same framelines as a Leica 21,then there is again a choice in codes. 3.If the firmware makes an exception for the WATE and recognizes it solely on the coding whilst disregarding the framelines, you can code for the WATE irrespectively. This case seems to me to be unlikely, but can easily be checked by a WATE owner. Just make a photograph with the frameline lever pushed out of position and check "info" if it is still recognized. My bet is it is not. Zeiss 21 mm lenses bring up 50 mm framelines. Leica 21 mm lenses bring up 28 mm framelines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted April 13, 2007 Share #30 Posted April 13, 2007 I ask again, is it necessary to bring up the proper framelines or is 6-bit coding all that is necessary for the M8 to apply image optimization? By the way, not only do I plan to get the Zeiss 21mm 4.5 in the future; I currently have a Carl Zeiss Hologon 16mm f/8 on its way to a machine shop to have its Contax G mount converted to an M mount. In the next day or so, not only must I decide how to 6-bit code the lens, but also if the flange length must be taken into account or not. I must get claryfication on this point urgently. I greatly appreciate all this input; So, Please forgive my obtusity. The 6-bit coding works in conjunction with the frame selected by the lens mount. For a lens to get recognized, it has to have both the right code on the mount and the mount has to be of the proper focal length. For the WATE code, your 16mm will need a 90mm m-mount on it and the wate code. Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 13, 2007 Author Share #31 Posted April 13, 2007 Jaap, I don't own a WATE, but I do own a CV 15/4.5 which I plan to code as a WATE. I asked the same question as you yesterday, but no WATE owner has responded yet. However, Scott K. was kind enough to respond that even if he doesn't own a WATE, he saw posted on other threads that it brings up the 28/90 framelines. That's the assumption I am working with, unless we see a WATE owner say otherwise. Cheers, Luca If that is the case, Luca, one cannot just code the Zeiss 21 as a WATE as the camera will not recognize it. The mount needs to be changed to a 28 mm one anyway and in that case it is more logical to code it for the Elmarit 2.8/21 and have the camera recognize it automatically. And the CV needs the 28 mm adapter. Can that be coded? I do not know about the cutout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted April 13, 2007 Share #32 Posted April 13, 2007 Hi All, Just to recap and expand: 1) The WATE triggers the 28/90 frame set, just as a 21 mm lens does. In order for a 21 mm lens to be hand-coded, it needs to trigger this same frame set. The Zeiss 21 mm lenses (I've tested both for a past review) both need to have a replacement bayonet mounted in order to trigger the correct frame set in the M8. So, step one is to have the bayonet swapped by Zeiss. 2) I did extensive comparisons among the 21 mm lenses, looking at vignetting, cyan drift patterns, etc. and those photos, with comments, are all part of the 21 mm lens review. The ZM 21/2.8 behaves much like a Leica 21/2.8 in these respects. Their response is not identical, however. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
portocar Posted April 13, 2007 Share #33 Posted April 13, 2007 Sean, I read your reviews and that is part of the reason I am planning on getting the Zeiss 21mm lens. As far as my Contax Zeiss Hologon 16mm f/8 is concerned, what do I tell the person making the conversion to an M mount. I don't know if he has any modern 6-bit coded lenses available, let alone the WATE, for comparison. He is a Leica expert, so I''m sure he is familiar with all older leica mounts and has many leica lenses in his shop. So, which Leica lens should I tell him to model the hologon's mount after, for teh M8 to properly recognize as a WATE? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 13, 2007 Author Share #34 Posted April 13, 2007 According to Luca and Sean it brings up the 28 mm lines, so you need a 28 mm Zeiss mount. The ordering number is in post # 16 For a CV adapter you need the 28/90 adapter, but I am not sure if that can be coded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
portocar Posted April 13, 2007 Share #35 Posted April 13, 2007 Jaap...I'm going to ask a really dumb question!! How do I find post #16. I can't find any numbers on the posts. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 13, 2007 Author Share #36 Posted April 13, 2007 Over the posts is a grey band. On the righthand side it contains the number of the post. You can, of course, also count down from the first post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 13, 2007 Share #37 Posted April 13, 2007 Jaap now that the new firmware is out and you can see it. If you code for the WATE than you will have to select the focal length because when you mount the lens it will think it is a WATE so that maybe a pain , you most likely are better off coding it for the leica 21mm that way the coding is automatic and don't have to make a selection. But if we read Seans reviews they are slightly different so the cyan cast maybe as well. But i still think that is the way to go. But if you did do the WATE than if the cyan cast correction is not enough you could select 18mm. This really needs someone to try this and see what the best choice are. So do the lens mount swap and the recessed holes but just make the marks removeable and try both the WATE and 21mm code and see what corrects the best. You actually have a option here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
argomazov Posted April 13, 2007 Share #38 Posted April 13, 2007 If that is the case, Luca, one cannot just code the Zeiss 21 as a WATE as the camera will not recognize it. The mount needs to be changed to a 28 mm one anyway and in that case it is more logical to code it for the Elmarit 2.8/21 and have the camera recognize it automatically. And the CV needs the 28 mm adapter. Can that be coded? I do not know about the cutout. As it has been said by others, only old Leitz adapters without the cutout can be coded. Since I've learned about this from Sean R., I have been collecting old Leitz adapters exactly for this purpose, as I think many others had done before... One word of caution though: there are "old Leitz adapters" with and without the cutout. So, when buying used adapters, one has to be careful about this. Just asking for a used "Leitz adapter" does not guarantee the fact that it will be without the cutout. For your other points, I think Sean R. recap above answers the questions. Cheers, Luca Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 13, 2007 Author Share #39 Posted April 13, 2007 As soon as I have my Leica filter, Guy. I don't think it makes sense to do this test using the B&W. On the other hand, the Zeiss with B&W or Heliopan may be an exact match for the Elmarit with Leica filter, who knows? Some testing is in order. I'll call Michael Huppert. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 13, 2007 Share #40 Posted April 13, 2007 Well it maybe awhile for the Leica 55mm . I would try it with the B+W or Heliopan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.