kdriceman Posted July 8, 2013 Share #41 Posted July 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) It looks just like the edges of images from my Nex-6 using the SE21. It is important to know if the proper lens coding was used. Surely it was if the camera was set to auto-coding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Hi kdriceman, Take a look here Wideangles magenta shift. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
helged Posted July 8, 2013 Share #42 Posted July 8, 2013 Auto coding was used in my case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2013 Share #43 Posted July 8, 2013 Ah- now I see what we are talking about. I was thinking of something completely different. Apologies for mental density. Hard to tell with images with such strong gradients in them, but it certainly looks like a magenta shift to one side. My Super Elmar 18 does not show it on the few shots I have taken with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted July 8, 2013 Share #44 Posted July 8, 2013 This is a joke. Leica M camera supposed to work well with Leica M lenses.If not, what's the point? NEX-6 seems to work better with those wide M lenses... Seriously, is there anything good about this camera? Sensor s@cks, electronics s@ck, everything else is a joke. What an accomplishment! BTW 21SE is a brilliant lens... snowboarder, you have made some sweepingly derogatory comments here, all without backup evidence, just opinion. If you care to provide the evidence, you might come across as convincing. Until then, please stay polite in our company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2013 Share #45 Posted July 8, 2013 This is a joke. Leica M camera supposed to work well with Leica M lenses.If not, what's the point? NEX-6 seems to work better with those wide M lenses... Seriously, is there anything good about this camera? Sensor s@cks, electronics s@ck, everything else is a joke. What an accomplishment! BTW 21SE is a brilliant lens... If you crop the image down to the size of the NEX sensor you will see why this attempt at sneering is without content. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted July 8, 2013 Author Share #46 Posted July 8, 2013 Hi all..again :-) The camera is set to automatic lens detection and detects it as the 21 3.4 so that's working...the 35 'lux and the 75 'cron I both have are fine- but then you'd expect them to be because of their FL's. And it's rather poor that a recently released lens doesn't function properly on the flagship rangefinder. R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2013 Share #47 Posted July 8, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is indeed. If we go back in history it took a bit of time to get problems like these under control on the M9. Full frame and wide angles appear not to mix too well on rangefinders, as we well know Let's hope the cure will be faster this time around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted July 8, 2013 Author Share #48 Posted July 8, 2013 I agree with you, which is one of the reasons I'm holding off on the M240 (white balance not corners). What I'm saying though is that I wish Leica had implemented a better hardware solution with the new sensor rather than something that seems to be a step backward from the micro lenses. Also, I'm not talking about resolution, but when you start "pushing" around colors and increasing exposure in the corners of files from wide lenses, the resulting file will still have full resolution but won't be as "clean" at the edges. Oddly I don't find WB an issue. Aperture seems to handle it well and it's a fairly easy PP correction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted July 8, 2013 Author Share #49 Posted July 8, 2013 Perhaps rather naively of me to think that they would have sorted this on release. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 8, 2013 Share #50 Posted July 8, 2013 It is indeed. If we go back in history it took a bit of time to get problems like these under control on the M9. Full frame and wide angles appear not to mix too well on rangefinders, as we well know Let's hope the cure will be faster this time around. Indeed. However it must be said in Leica's defense, that the SEM 21 was designed in the M9 era and it behaves much better on the M9, although some faint color cast remains. It seems that the new CMOS sensor has more troubles with very oblique rays (and not only regarding color cast). Owners of both cameras could compare how much worse by shooting without lens profile on both cameras. I believe it is time for Leica to remove the "like" in "retrofocus-like" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted July 8, 2013 Share #51 Posted July 8, 2013 snowboarder, you have made some sweepingly derogatory comments here, all without backup evidence ... His comments were derogatory for sure, but not totally without reason. The evidence is very clear to see in this thread (albeit not his but Rick satureyes', kokoshawnuff's, and helged's). If I owned a Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph, I'd be equally pissed. Fortunately, the M (Typ 240) behaves just fine with my WATE and the Summilux-M 21 mm Asph ... and, according to Jaap, also with the Super-Elmar-M 18 mm Asph. So there is no reason why the M (Typ 240) is unusable with the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph. Leica Camera definitely needs to do something here, and do it quick! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2013 Share #52 Posted July 8, 2013 As I said I had only a few SE 18 shots and I was not looking for this. I took a sunny blue sky shot just now, and , the same thing albeit more muted than the 21. Yes - Leica needs to do something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2013 Share #53 Posted July 8, 2013 I changed the thread title as the discussion is now wider and more important than the CV12. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted July 8, 2013 Share #54 Posted July 8, 2013 It's interesting to me that Leica released firmware 1.1.0.2 so soon after the M240 began shipping which addressed vignetting for a number of lenses, including the 21/3.4 Super Elmar M. You would think this would have shown up in testing, but perhaps it did and the firmware corrections are still in the works. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindolfi Posted July 8, 2013 Share #55 Posted July 8, 2013 It seems that the new CMOS sensor has more troubles with very oblique rays (and not only regarding color cast). Owners of both cameras could compare how much worse by shooting without lens profile on both cameras. I believe it is time for Leica to remove the "like" in "retrofocus-like" Here a comparison using the 21/2.8 ASPH at f/8 on the M9 and M (typ 240). Extreme upper right hand corner of the image at 100%. Same settings in LR5. (tiff filesize 25 Mb). The 21/2.8 ASPH profiles were not used on either camera. Form your own opinion based on these images or do your own experiments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted July 8, 2013 Share #56 Posted July 8, 2013 Indeed.......I believe it is time for Leica to remove the "like" in "retrofocus-like" By at least one commonly accepted definition no Leica M lenses are retro-focus. As far as I am aware Leica only use the term “retro-focus like” in connection with the 21mm f3.4 SEM Asph. However, retro-focus or not, what is generally being talked about in this thread is the degree to which a lens exhibits image space tele-centric type behaviour - which is something quite different. Image space tele-centric type behaviour, (i.e. exit pupil distance tending towards infinity), has the property of reducing the angle of incidence of chief rays, (i.e. the rays which pass through the centre of the aperture), onto the sensor. In a true tele-centric design all chief rays would be incident normally onto the sensor. I'm certain Leica could design a lens with a focal length significantly shorter than 16/18 mm that would work perfectly well with the M240 sensor. In practice it is always going to involve a compromise between the complexity and size, and hence cost, of a lens and the capability of the software to deal adequately with the consequences of less than ideal angles of incidence onto the sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sydkugelmass Posted July 8, 2013 Share #57 Posted July 8, 2013 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/275357-m240-forget-biogon.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 8, 2013 Share #58 Posted July 8, 2013 If we go back in history it took a bit of time to get problems like these under control on the M9. Yes, but that was 4 years ago. You could excuse Leica then because it was their first full frame digital RF and they were, in a sense, learning on the job. Most reasonable people would have expected Leica to have hit the ground running (sorry for the cliché - maybe add this one to the list in the bar thread:)) when it comes to the latest M camera – particularly so when it comes to ensuring compatibility with the latest lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2013 Share #59 Posted July 8, 2013 The same thought crossed my mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted July 8, 2013 Share #60 Posted July 8, 2013 I have used the 18se with my m9 and no problem.odd that this should occur with the M240 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.