Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hankg

Sign a petition for menu selectable lens profiles

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A manual lens selection option I would support would be for older Leica lenses only, the ones which cannot be coded. Leica could then genuinely say that all Leica M lenses can be supported.

 

If I was buying an M8 from scratch, my inclination would be to think of older Leica lenses as my entry point, not foreign glass.

 

There is no way for the camera to know what lens is on the camera and it would not be cost effective for Leica to code rarely used lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A manual lens selection option I would support would be for older Leica lenses only, the ones which cannot be coded. Leica could then genuinely say that all Leica M lenses can be supported.

 

If I was buying an M8 from scratch, my inclination would be to think of older Leica lenses as my entry point, not foreign glass.

 

It needs to include current codable lenses as well. You are doing this as a hobby and, while it may be inconvenient, can afford to have your lenses go away for many weeks while Leica codes them. A working photographer doesn't always have that luxury. With a lens menu, coding becomes an option for those lenses, not a necessity.

 

What is foreign glass? Foreign to where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso
But as we discussed this morning by phone, the real statement is:

 

"I (state your name) have bought or may buy the M8 and wish to see it work as a more open platform."

 

The M film cameras are, essentially, open platform. The question is one of supporting the M8 customer, who has paid (or who might decide to pay) to own this camera.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Yes will we get there is the question and will it be free or will it cost us. bringing this back to full circle i agree the menu code would be great for ALL M8 users but will we get it and will there be some cost to get it is the question we have to look at and what will best for leica and the end users so everyone walks away satisfied. That is the tough part.

 

Okay i have to get ready for a shoot but i just wanted to interject the other side of the coin so they see what leica see's and not just from there personal needs or wants. There are some real issues for them but it's there call either way, a petition is nice but it really does nothing because they already are dealing with it and the answer comes from the top on what ultimately to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica's own logic for coding seems a bit skewed. They do not code nor offer a code for the current 135 APO Telyt but do for the non-current 135 Elmarit. They do not for the 135 Tele-Elmar. I suppose their argument is that with the spectacles, the Elmarit is usable on the M8 the others are not, studiously ignoring the many people who are using APO-Telyt's and T-E 135's on the M8 with no problems. I am about to get the Sharpie out and code my T-E 135 as a 135 Elmarit.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It needs to include current codable lenses as well. You are doing this as a hobby and, while it may be inconvenient, can afford to have your lenses go away for many weeks while Leica codes them. A working photographer doesn't always have that luxury. With a lens menu, coding becomes an option for those lenses, not a necessity.

 

What is foreign glass? Foreign to where?

That was exactly my problem earlier in the year - and still is. I had to wait for the camera - wait for the filters - and try to get lenses coded. I was asked to photograph at a convention in Sydney, Leica couldn't guarantee to get the coding done in time so only none essential lenses were done. I've now been asked to do a similar exercise in LA at the beginning of november. Again it's 4-8 weeks for the coding and all I can do is hope. Leica's only comment has been I should have had the work done earlier when they weren't so busy - sigh.

 

Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hesitate to add to the smoke here, but will post. I have not signed the petition because, as I stated early in this thread, Leica knows this is desired and has been beaten up about it plenty.

 

The good doctor made the correct case -- Leica sold him an M8 body even tho no Leica lenses were included. But, the doc bot the body. Score: Leica, one body.

 

Guy used/s R lenses on Canons -- this is exactly what I was contemplating until Leica finally announced that the "M8" would be coming. I then put in my order and waited.

 

It's clear that Leica glass is outstanding. I did break down and buy a CV15 -- and I don't really like it. The images from it are NOT M-lens quality. But the WATE doesn't meet my needs and I'm waiting for a Fast, Wide, Prime (sorry folks, you must get tired of reading this particular whine, but there are echoes now and then on the Forum).

 

When Leica makes a FWP I'll buy it so fast that smoke will be coming off the bottom of my shoes.

 

However, Open System = Leica since ....

 

I still don't intend to send my lenses for coding. I'd really like to have the lens identifier in the exif file. This only makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It needs to include current codable lenses as well. You are doing this as a hobby and, while it may be inconvenient, can afford to have your lenses go away for many weeks while Leica codes them. A working photographer doesn't always have that luxury. With a lens menu, coding becomes an option for those lenses, not a necessity.

 

What is foreign glass? Foreign to where?

 

I think these "working photographers" as you like to call them will quickly tire of scrolling through a long list of lenses every time they change a lens and then hours at a PC sorting out the red drift they've got from accidentally selecting the wrong lens.

 

I do that from time to time with just the WATE menu, but then, even with 3 M8s and 17 Leica lenses (all but one coded) and one soon to be sold CV 15, I am only an amateur so it's really not surprising.

 

I think the actual day to day experience of using such a menu will be poor which will take them full circle to getting their lenses coded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think these "working photographers" as you like to call them will quickly tire of scrolling through a long list of lenses every time they change a lens and then hours at a PC sorting out the red drift they've got from accidentally selecting the wrong lens.

 

I do that from time to time with just the WATE menu, but then, even with 3 M8s and 17 Leica lenses (all but one coded) and one soon to be sold CV 15, I am only an amateur so it's really not surprising.

 

I think the actual day to day experience of using such a menu will be poor which will take them full circle to getting their lenses coded.

 

Mark,

thats not my experience at all with my D2x, with which I regularly use several MF lenses and the associated menu selction. I guess it all depends on the implimentation, and how often you change (its not quite so smooth with the F6 for example...)

Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was exactly my problem earlier in the year - and still is. I had to wait for the camera - wait for the filters - and try to get lenses coded. I was asked to photograph at a convention in Sydney, Leica couldn't guarantee to get the coding done in time so only none essential lenses were done. I've now been asked to do a similar exercise in LA at the beginning of november. Again it's 4-8 weeks for the coding and all I can do is hope. Leica's only comment has been I should have had the work done earlier when they weren't so busy - sigh.

 

Bob.

 

Right, and I get e-mails from other pros who are holding off on sending lenses in because they really can't be without them for weeks at a time (shoot to eat, eat to shoot).

 

People who are not in your boat may not even have considered your perspective.

 

Guy made an important point earlier that I've also made several times in the past. It would be helpful if people could look beyond their own needs when evaluating this issue. A well to do hobbyist who owns only the newest Leica lenses and has already had them coded (or who bought them coded) may have trouble understanding the needs of a working pro. People who can easily afford any lens they want may not understand the needs of people who can't. People who prefer the drawing of the newest Aspheric lenses may not understand why one might prefer the drawing of a 28 Ultron or a Zeiss or a Canon 28/2.8 RF or an older Leica lens.

 

So...flexibility...let the photographer have choices about what lenses he or she wants to use on the M8 (for whatever reasons) and also choices about whether or not those lenses will be sent in for coding.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think these "working photographers" as you like to call them will quickly tire of scrolling through a long list of lenses every time they change a lens and then hours at a PC sorting out the red drift they've got from accidentally selecting the wrong lens.

 

I do that from time to time with just the WATE menu, but then, even with 3 M8s and 17 Leica lenses (all but one coded) and one soon to be sold CV 15, I am only an amateur so it's really not surprising.

 

I think the actual day to day experience of using such a menu will be poor which will take them full circle to getting their lenses coded.

 

I actually agree that pros are better off with coded lenses because of the speed and convenience. And that, not coincidentally, is one USP the Leica lenses will retain. But, there will be times when that menu is very useful to various pros.

 

All of my 35 mm and wider lenses are coded (one way or another) but not everyone is in that boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

I'm all coded because i just don't want to play around but that was my choice and also all of my money. Hell I'm broke. LOL

 

I highly recommend it but waiting and money and all that come into play and it is a issue for many. The sooner it gets resolved the faster we can all move on. But like Sean said i still need the menu code i have a 24mm shift lens that there is no way to code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by sean_reid

It needs to include current codable lenses as well. You are doing this as a hobby and, while it may be inconvenient, can afford to have your lenses go away for many weeks while Leica codes them. A working photographer doesn't always have that luxury. With a lens menu, coding becomes an option for those lenses, not a necessity.

 

What is foreign glass? Foreign to where?

 

 

I think these "working photographers" as you like to call them will quickly tire of scrolling through a long list of lenses every time they change a lens and then hours at a PC sorting out the red drift they've got from accidentally selecting the wrong lens.

 

I do that from time to time with just the WATE menu, but then, even with 3 M8s and 17 Leica lenses (all but one coded) and one soon to be sold CV 15, I am only an amateur so it's really not surprising.

 

I think the actual day to day experience of using such a menu will be poor which will take them full circle to getting their lenses coded.

Regardless the profession(professed?), it's less about the tiresome scrolling and more about the "user error": the coding method is cleaner, more reliable and most consistent to implement firmware alteration of the data read on the sensor.

 

Nice ploy with the "open system" rhetoric... why must there be any firmware alteration of the data? Did the R-D1 do this? Ah, no, and was "open" to about half the available glass... M-mount, or "open" to use of LTM adapters. And those film Ms... "open" to whatever framelines are present... why should Leica support the unsupportable?

The quality of the data may be optimized with coding which a "user selectable" menu item may not. The system is "open" to changing lenses and so too optimizing the data written when a given lens is known to the software.

 

As Mark and others have posted, I too would rather not have the camera software assume the character of a lens and alter the data unpredictably, and likely inconsistently... this sort of "openess" I deem honest: "If you(the firmware) don't know, it's OK, you just don't know. Preferred over making assumptions about my shot!".

Now, IF there is a possibility to somehow get raw--not RAW--data written, to have the data the firmware "corrections" work with for post-processing... oh, but that re-introduces the "16bit" data topic!

 

And to invoke the "working photographer" moniker to bolster an argument about "open systems" is just a tad "closed" to those of us who both work, and make photographs... but it's understood to improve the "tools of the trade", and not exclude folks from the discussion, as foreigners!

 

rgds,

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless the profession(professed?), it's less about the tiresome scrolling and more about the "user error": the coding method is cleaner, more reliable and most consistent to implement firmware alteration of the data read on the sensor.

 

Preferred over making assumptions about my shot!".

 

It's no different then the camera works now. If you forget to switch the settings when you mount an uncoded lens or a lens without an IR filter, or forget to change ISO or your EV correction you can screw up your shot. Photographers don't need a nanny to make decisions for them. That's why point & shoot's exist. If users choose to scroll through profiles that need not be your concern if you choose not to.

 

If Leica implemented this it would have zero impact on users who don't use it. One more menu choice to ignore, like jpg's for those who shoot raw 100% of the time or the menu choice for setting color temperature by degrees Kelvin for those who use auto. It's all about giving the maximum control over all the cameras existing functions to the photographer where it belongs.

 

It's amazing that some people have such a reaction to something that is not going to have any impact on how the camera functions for them. The resources required to add a menu item to access functions that already exist are relatively modest and in any case will take a back seat to any bugs or reliability fixes. It seems more a social issue. Like letting the rif raf have a free ride will some how take some shine off the status of membership in their exclusive club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, we both can only speculate on sales for Leica. But the added flexibility that this system would give photographers is not speculative.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

In this case I fully agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Wilson,

 

It may be cold comfort but a 135 shouldn't gain much from coding.

 

Best,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

 

It was really to have 135mm shown on the EXIF's to remind me in two or three years time, which lens I was using. I have coded my Elmarit 90/2.8 for just this reason. I have ordered a 486 filter for the 135 and will put my e39 Leica UV/IR filter back on the 50 Elmar. I have found a big Hong Kong shop selling the B+W 486's at about 50% of German prices (the P&P is the same).

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

 

Wilson, we should think in selling our Noktons 35/1.2... Our M8s don't deserve such foreign lens... Goodness gracious me, it's like having Lady D (RIP) married to Dodie Al Fayed! The Queen will kill us!

 

 

(Just some humour)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's no different then the camera works now.

[snipped]

If users choose to scroll through profiles that need not be your concern if you choose not to.

 

If Leica implemented this it would have zero impact on users who don't use it. One more menu choice to ignore,

[snipped]

It's all about giving the maximum control over all the cameras existing functions to the photographer where it belongs.

 

It's amazing that some people have such a reaction to something that is not going to have any impact on how the camera functions for them.

[snipped]

It seems more a social issue. Like letting the rif raf have a free ride will some how take some shine off the status of membership in their exclusive club.

If I am implied as "some people", then I'll try to be more clear, less exclusive(?)... I do not find the notion of yet another menu item an issue. And while petitions are a social issue, coding software is not; that is, to merely say "it's just another menu you can ignore" avoids the issue of the f/w effectiveness to control the data via h/w.

 

To suggest that a photog--perhaps working as a Nanny!--will have restored to him "maximum control" by including a function that will apply the "24mm Elmarit" algo to his B+W 486 filtered ZM 25mm is, at best, control over having mis-applied a color correction algo to his data. Sure, the option offers choice and flexibility, but is the outcome desired? The argument of "control over what is less false"(is certainly a social phenomenon:D), but makes a poor design goal...

 

I would happily use this feature, if it truely improved the system and data. Why demand(petition) for half-truths and unqualifiable outcome? For the opportunity to measure the degree of processing failure?

 

rgds,

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

apply the "24mm Elmarit" algo to his B+W 486 filtered ZM 25mm is, at best, control over having mis-applied a color correction algo to his data. Sure, the option offers choice and flexibility, but is the outcome desired?

 

I would happily use this feature, if it truely improved the system and data. Why demand(petition) for half-truths and unqualifiable outcome? For the opportunity to measure the degree of processing failure?

 

Well I might be selecting the profile for my uncoded 50/1.4 Summilux which is supported and has a profile. As to users using profiles for 3rd party lenses. Your concern for the quality of their output is gratifying but they can make their own choices. Based on actual tests the profiles work quite well with other lenses and some times even better on some 3rd party lenses then the lenses they were intended for.

 

Remember that since the camera has no distance data and can only guesstimate aperture data it does not have enough information to make really precise corrections as can software like DXO with the more complete EXIF data from say a Canon lens. So the profiles can only give a very imprecise improvement. So you need not fret over compromising quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are over-stating your case. Excellent work done earlier this year by Scott Fitzpatrick showed that the corrections required were largely independent of shooting aperture. So to call them "very imprecise" is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy