Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Finally got my M and have found some strange behaviour when trying to use my old canon 85 f1.8 (1961) it brings up the right frame lines and works fine on the M9 and in rangefinder mode on the M240 but when I try to go into live view it says 'attention no lens connected' any ideas

thanks

Edited by viramati
Link to post
Share on other sites

See this thread - different lens, but similar issue:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/278248-auto-lens-detection-glitch-w-28-a.html

 

Does the LTM to M adapter click into place? Try carefully wiggling the adapter a bit when mounted.

 

The M240 seems to be particularly sensitive regarding lens mount tolerances.

I have also had 6-bit code recognition issues with hand-coded 3rd-party adapters that worked perfectly on the M8/M9. Required a bit of cleaning, repainting and extending the marks - and wiggling in some cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you use the lenses with an LTM-adapter?

 

If you use an LTM adapter, has it got the usual spareout in the rim exactly at the position of the sensor for the 6-bit code?

 

When you use an adapter which completely covers the sensor for the 6-bit-code, live view should work.

 

The reason for this: the sensor for the 6-bit-code has an additional function with the Leica M Type 240: it signals to the camera if there is a lens attached. Without a lens, opening the shutter for live view will only result in a total overflow with light, so live view will be of no use. To prevent this, the opening of the shutter for live view will only work, if the sensor for the 6bit-code is completely covered.

 

With LTM-adapters which have a spareout in the rim exactly at the position of the sensor for the 6bit-code (this is usual for Leitz adapters and some Voigtlaender adapters) light leaks between the lens and the camera's bayonet to the sensor for the 6bit-code. This sensor will signal to the camera electronics: "There is light". The camera "thinks": "Oh, there ist light! So I have no lens, and so I should block live view" - and does so even if the lens is attached properly.

 

With an adapter which completely covers the 6bit-sensor, there should be no problem. It is not important, if the lens is coded or not; it is just the sensor with LEDs which was introduced for the 6bit-code originally for the M8/M9, which now has this additional function to signal to the camera whether there is a lens or not - and may err in the situation described.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you use the lenses with an LTM-adapter?

 

If you use an LTM adapter, has it got the usual spareout in the rim exactly at the position of the sensor for the 6-bit code?

 

When you use an adapter which completely covers the sensor for the 6-bit-code, live view should work.

 

The reason for this: the sensor for the 6-bit-code has an additional function with the Leica M Type 240: it signals to the camera if there is a lens attached. Without a lens, opening the shutter for live view will only result in a total overflow with light, so live view will be of no use. To prevent this, the opening of the shutter for live view will only work, if the sensor for the 6bit-code is completely covered.

 

With LTM-adapters which have a spareout in the rim exactly at the position of the sensor for the 6bit-code (this is usual for Leitz adapters and some Voigtlaender adapters) light leaks between the lens and the camera's bayonet to the sensor for the 6bit-code. This sensor will signal to the camera electronics: "There is light". The camera "thinks": "Oh, there ist light! So I have no lens, and so I should block live view" - and does so even if the lens is attached properly.

 

With an adapter which completely covers the 6bit-sensor, there should be no problem. It is not important, if the lens is coded or not; it is just the sensor with LEDs which was introduced for the 6bit-code originally for the M8/M9, which now has this additional function to signal to the camera whether there is a lens or not - and may err in the situation described.

thanks will check this out tomorrow

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more than this. The camera interprets a lens code of all-black as "no lens attached". Therefore, any mount which is not reflective to IR will give the same error. You can fool the camera into thinking there's a lens attached by holding a piece of tin-foil up to the sensor.

 

Novoflex have started painting a white area on their black adapters to make sure the camera recognises one is mounted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest solution to this is stick on chrome tape. You can get it from most car accessory shops or gift card shops. It is extremely thin and will not tilt a lens to any extent. If you are worried, put a matching strip at 180º on the mount.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

How thin, Wilson? The tolerance on the mount is 0.01 mm iirc.

 

Jaap,

 

The metallised sticky mylar film is extremely thin. Maybe not as thin at 0.01mm but it probably squashes down to that.

 

Wilson

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

bought 2 new converters from a store on ebay that was recommended on the other thread unfortunately the machining is so bad that the the 6 bit coding grooves are out of line and the lenses now don't focus properly. Hey ho lesson learn't

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more than this. The camera interprets a lens code of all-black as "no lens attached". Therefore, any mount which is not reflective to IR will give the same error. ....

 

There are different reports here that LTM-to-M-Adapters which cover the 6-bit-sensor completely don't lead to the "no lens connected"-error.

 

For example: Sully's post #18 in this thread which first dealt with the problem:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/274303-m-240-arrives.html#post2332055

 

He mentions an adapter for 90mm, which is right as these Leitz adapters didn't have the spareout exactly at the position oif the 6-bit code. Most other Leits adapters had this spareout, otherwise the focussing-knob of many lenses would collide with the adapter so you couldn't fix the lens at infinity-position. Voigtländer-adapters shouldn't have the spareout and should work - I don't know if they really do, as I have none.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

 

It can happen on expensive beautifully machined adapters as well. My otherwise lovely Amedeo Muscelli focusing Contax RF to Leica M adapter, has the coding pits in the wrong place. Not much comfort for you I admit. I have now said I will no longer buy "no-name" adapters from Fleabay, made in some Chinese back street on a worn out lathe/milling machine. The Leica M to Micro 4/3rd's adapter I bought last year was hopeless with the lens waving up and down in the breeze on it. I ended up buying a beautifully made Metabones adapter in its place for not a whole lot more money. I bought a cheapish Leica R to M adapter in the UK, in the continuing absence of the correct Leica one. It is just about OK but its radial alignment is wrong, which is very irritating for use of tilt shift lenses, where the vertical axis of the lens needs to be truly vertical.

 

The Adriano Lolli adapters are very nicely made and you can adjust the radial alignment as well. On the downside they have a tendency to send you something other than that which you ordered. I am still waiting for the correct LTM to LM ring to fit on the Contax CX/Y to Leica LTM to use on my M240, six weeks on. Luckily I had a Jinfinance one in a drawer, which works in the meantime but I still have not got what I paid for.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are different reports here that LTM-to-M-Adapters which cover the 6-bit-sensor completely don't lead to the "no lens connected"-error.

 

For example: Sully's post #18 in this thread which first dealt with the problem:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/274303-m-240-arrives.html#post2332055

 

He mentions an adapter for 90mm, which is right as these Leitz adapters didn't have the spareout exactly at the position oif the 6-bit code. Most other Leits adapters had this spareout, otherwise the focussing-knob of many lenses would collide with the adapter so you couldn't fix the lens at infinity-position. Voigtländer-adapters shouldn't have the spareout and should work - I don't know if they really do, as I have none.

 

The Jinfinance ones certainly work on the M240 and the coding pits are correctly aligned. I am not sure about the quality of all of their stuff but the LTM to LM rings seem fine and an 82mm Contax W1 lens hood plus the matching metal lens cap, were very nicely made indeed. The LTM rings are the correct thickness as well. They are about 1/3rd the price of the Voigtlander ones. eBay shop here: jinfinance | eBay

 

I have no connection with them other than being a satisfied customer.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think my old proposal should be considered for a firmware-update bei Leica.

 

The 6-bit sensor obviously has a new function to detect if there is a lens or not. We already have three options for the 6-bit-code with the M9: 1. off, 2. automatic, 3. manual.

 

I'd propose the function for detecting if there is a lens at all is left as it is for "off" and "automatic". But they might change it for "manual": if you manually choose a certain lens the camera will always function as if this choosen lens was always there; light on the six bit-sensor will not matter. So you could use all sorts of adapted lenses which have some sort of equivalent in the manual.

 

Then there could be a further step: If you attach a coded lens, the manial setting is overrode, and only the coding works. So you could avoid keeping a wrong manual lens detection if you attach a coded lens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jinfinance ones certainly work on the M240 and the coding pits are correctly aligned. I am not sure about the quality of all of their stuff but the LTM to LM rings seem fine and an 82mm Contax W1 lens hood plus the matching metal lens cap, were very nicely made indeed. The LTM rings are the correct thickness as well. They are about 1/3rd the price of the Voigtlander ones. eBay shop here: jinfinance | eBay

 

I have no connection with them other than being a satisfied customer.

 

Wilson

 

Hi Wilson. I did in fact follow your advice and bought from them. one for my canon 85 f1.8 and another for the CV 12 f5.6. I bought them with the coding grooves and have tried coding the canon as a 90 cron and the Cv 12 as the 21 f2.8 pre aspherical. My M9 will read the Canon as a 90 but not the CV 12. The M (240) will read neither apart from this the focussing dot on the lens is no longer in the upright position on the camera but off to the right (looking from the top). When I put my M-coder on the mount you can clearly see that the grooves are out of line. Basically shoddy workmanship but then they only cost $17 so I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised

Edited by viramati
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wilson. I did in fact follow your advice and bought from them. one for my canon 85 f1.8 and another for the CV 12 f5.6. I bought them with the coding grooves and have tried coding the canon as a 90 cron and the Cv 12 as the 21 f2.8 pre aspherical. My M9 will read the Canon as a 90 but not the CV 12. The M (240) will read neither apart from this the focussing dot on the lens is no longer in the upright position on the camera but off to the right (looking from the top). When I put my M-coder on the mount you can clearly see that the grooves are out of line. Basically shoddy workmanship but then they only cost $17 so I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised

 

David,

 

I must have been lucky or you were unlucky. It was Jaap that put me onto Jinfinance, as he had had good LTM to LM rings from them as well. The M240 seems much fussier on coding groove/mark placement than the M9 and it is back to the days of the M8, which was incredibly fussy on the positioning and reflectivity of both the white and black patches. I have a hand coded CV15 Mk.2 with M mount, which picks up perfectly on the M9 as a 21/2.8 Elmarit but no amount of fiddling with the marks will get it to pick up on the M240.

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I am a little annoyed to find that many of my LTM rings no longer work on the M. Even an original Leica one will not lock in and gives an error code 'no lens attached'. Does anyone know a good source for decent rings that definately work on the M? I just bought a Nikon to M mount ring from jinfinance so I can use my PC Nikkor 28mm shift lens on the M- I hope it locks in... I have purchased from Jin in the past and items have been good but now I need to get at least 3 new rings to replace my old ones... annoying. It seems Leica changed the little locking mechanism so that it now will not lock into many rings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...