MarkP Posted October 30, 2013 Share #81 Posted October 30, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's correct. Code 51 in conjunction with the 35/135 framelines was recognised as a "14/3.8" lens in older M9 firmware versions. I don't know if the current firmware v1.196 as well as the M (Typ 240) still recognise this code. I asked two Leica representatives about the allegedly upcoming 14 mm lens, and both said no, it's not going to come anytime soon. Sometimes, lenses are planned, and prototypes built, and then get cancelled still, for all kinds of reasons (technical, economical, whatever). What a shame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Hi MarkP, Take a look here M240 and some wideangles. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted November 25, 2013 Share #82 Posted November 25, 2013 Red edge with a coded 21mm Elmarit-M pre-ASPH on the M(240). A deal-killer for me, since the 21 pre is my main lens.... Firmware version not available - but it was a rep's demo camera, so should have been up-to-date. I do wonder how Leica managed to spend 18 months finally fixing this in the M9, only to end up back on square one with the M(240) - don't they learn from the past? I note, BTW, that in M9 metadata, the lens description is much more complete - "Leica Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8" - whereas in the M(240) metadata, it just lists a generic Focal length: 21mm Max Aperture value: f/2.8 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/207969-m240-and-some-wideangles/?do=findComment&comment=2473157'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2013 Share #83 Posted November 25, 2013 Looking at the image and beta test reports I suspect he was running the old firmware. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted November 25, 2013 Share #84 Posted November 25, 2013 Looking at the image and beta test reports I suspect he was running the old firmware. Lets hope so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted November 25, 2013 Share #85 Posted November 25, 2013 Red edge with a coded Elmarit-M 21 mm on the M (Typ 240). A deal-killer for me, since the 21 pre is my main lens ... Well—so far, I tried several 21 mm lenses on the M (Typ 240), including Tri-Elmar, Super-Elmar, Summilux, and Voigtländer Ultron. None of these has any problems with red edges. I note, BTW, that in M9 metadata, the lens description is much more complete—"Leica Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8"—whereas in the M (Typ 240) metadata, it just lists a generic "21mm; f/2.8" With regard to the lens used, there is no difference in the two cameras' metadata. The difference you're seeing is generated by the software you're using to look at the metadata. Firmware version not available ... If you can look at the lens metadata then why can't you look at the firmware metadata? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 25, 2013 Share #86 Posted November 25, 2013 Hi, 01af Software reading the metadata (for both cameras) is Adobe Bridge. It displays four data fields for lens data with the M9 (Focal length; Focal length in 35mm Film; Lens; Max Aperture Value). It only displays the fields previously mentioned, for the M(240). Those are in Bridge's "Camera Data (EXIF)" pane. Bridge has no field or slot for a listing of firmware version (nor does firmware version appear in PhotoShop's "File Data" pages.) Sorry. As I said, this is a Leica-owned factory demo camera. If anyone thinks it likely that Leica doesn't keep its own cameras updated with the most recent firmware - well, I'll hope you're right, and will give the 240 another try next time I run across one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 25, 2013 Share #87 Posted November 25, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) In the beta testing Stephen reported the 21mm super elmar was corrected and he had no problem. Others reported good results with the 21 SE. The first thing that came to mind when I saw your pictures was the beta firmware update which improved this lens. I know yours is the pre ASPH, but it may improve as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 25, 2013 Share #88 Posted November 25, 2013 ...I note, BTW, that in M9 metadata, the lens description is much more complete - "Leica Elmarit-M 21mm f/2.8" - whereas in the M(240) metadata, it just lists a generic... Then you've got the previous firmware probably. Not to say that 21mm lenses are totally immune from red edges though. I did some tests last summer with the beta firmware and found significant improvements with the asph version of the Elmarit 21/2.8 but red edges have not disappeared totally with this lens. I did not test the pre-asph version though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 25, 2013 Share #89 Posted November 25, 2013 Leica seems to have changed the way that EXIF data is handled from the M8/9. Only Lightroom now seems to be able to get the full lens data. Aperture and Capture One now only show the focal length. See below of images of EXIF data of the same photo in LR5, C1-7 and a C1-7 of an M9 photo, showing how much less info C1 can get from the M240 (left to right). Wilson 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/207969-m240-and-some-wideangles/?do=findComment&comment=2473255'>More sharing options...
MarkP Posted November 25, 2013 Share #90 Posted November 25, 2013 fwiw I have posted whitewall images in the thread below with the 21 SEM and 21 Summilux on M 240 with upgraded firmware. I don't have a 2.8/21 to test. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/303685-sony-a7-thread-merged-138.html#post2564594 posts #2758 & #2759. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted November 25, 2013 Share #91 Posted November 25, 2013 Bridge has no field or slot for a listing of firmware version [...]. Sorry. Sure it has. If you don't see it then it's disabled. Go into the metadata preferences and enable it. The field's name is 'Application.' Leica seems to have changed the way that EXIF data is handled from the M8/9. Not the EXIF data. Leica has screwed up the Maker Notes, so most metadata viewers/editors now are having a hard time interpreting the M (Typ 240)'s metadata properly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 25, 2013 Share #92 Posted November 25, 2013 I have just contacted Phase One and suggested that they contact Leica to get the location of the Lens Metadata and body serial number, so that they can pick this up, when the importer auto-detects an M240 image. On past experience, Phase One are very responsive to this type of request. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 25, 2013 Share #93 Posted November 25, 2013 Sure it has. If you don't see it then it's disabled. Go into the metadata preferences and enable it. The field's name is 'Application.' It is enabled. Was before. No firmware info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted November 25, 2013 Share #94 Posted November 25, 2013 It is enabled. Was before. No firmware info. Strange. Can you upload the picture once again (preferably from the OOC JPEG) but with all the metadata intact? The image format may be tiny and highly compressed as long as the metadata is not stripped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 27, 2013 Share #95 Posted November 27, 2013 Small jpg with EXIF included. I hope it IS dud firmware, because the 240 feels very good otherwise..... 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/207969-m240-and-some-wideangles/?do=findComment&comment=2474787'>More sharing options...
01af Posted November 27, 2013 Share #96 Posted November 27, 2013 Small jpg with EXIF included. Firmware was 1.1.0.2—i. e. not the current version. Checked with Phil Harvey's ExifTool. So there's hope that it might get better with firmware 2.0.0.11. The update does make a difference with some wide-angles—I checked with mine. However they don't include an Elmarit-M 21 mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted November 27, 2013 Author Share #97 Posted November 27, 2013 Somewhat conflicting views and experiences here... I think we all agree that the new firmware has been a good move. But some of us (and I am one of those) do still have to apply some weak PP in order to get rid of miscoloring towards the outer edges of the images when WA lenses are used on M240. Since today's weather is excellent for this kind of test , I add an example below taken with M240 (w/newest firmware) and 21 SEM. The upper image shows what comes out of the camera when the lens detection is activated, the lower image when it is off. The lens-detected image is improved, but has still some miscoloring. So M240 with WA lenses are good, but not perfect (the miscoloring can easily be removed by CornerFix or in LR/C1/etc.). As a side note for those following the discussion of WA M-lenses on A7®: The corner sharpness viewed at 100 % is (very) good for the M240+21SEM combo. f5.6 and focus in infinity for both images. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/207969-m240-and-some-wideangles/?do=findComment&comment=2475004'>More sharing options...
helged Posted November 27, 2013 Author Share #98 Posted November 27, 2013 Similar test with 28 Summicron, latest version (at top) and 35 FLE. As above, f5.6 for all images. Weak miscoloring when lens detection is activated. Outstanding corner sharpness for both lenses (at f5.6, focus on infinity). 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/207969-m240-and-some-wideangles/?do=findComment&comment=2475012'>More sharing options...
01af Posted November 27, 2013 Share #99 Posted November 27, 2013 Somewhat conflicting views and experiences here ... I don't see any conflicts here. The lens-detected image is improved, but has still some miscoloring. So M (Typ 240) with wide-angle lenses is good, but not perfect ... Exactly. No conflicting experiences here. And to add to your findings: With firmware 1.1.0.2, things generally were better with lens detection on than with lens detection off. Now with firmware 2.0.0.11, things have improved even further (with some lenses) ... but still aren't perfect. However the residual edge discolorations now are negligible in most cases and will require further correction in post-processing only in a few special cases. However I cannot say if and how much things have improved with the Elmarit-M 21 mm specifically, as I don't have access to this particular lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted November 27, 2013 Author Share #100 Posted November 27, 2013 I have used my 21SEM extensively on the M240 and have not had the color shift you have shown. In fact, I have not had to correct a single image. I just got my M and am pretty disappointed in the performance of the 21SE. It is a gem of a lens but I'm getting magenta along the right edge of the shot. Not massive but enough to be irritating. Well—so far, I tried several 21 mm lenses on the M (Typ 240), including Tri-Elmar, Super-Elmar, Summilux, and Voigtländer Ultron. None of these has any problems with red edges. etc. Not exactly agreement, as far as I can tell. More important than verbal interpretations, WA M-lenses on digital Leicas work very, very well after some light, digital post-massage. And 21SEM is a favorite of mine, despite the colouring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.