Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hankg

Sign a petition for menu selectable lens profiles

Recommended Posts

The reality is that the corrections the firmware applies to coded Leica lenses are quite good but not perfect. There are several cases in which the M8's in-camera corrections work better for a Zeiss or CV lens than for the Leica lens that those corrections were nominally designed for.

 

Moreover, people who have no intention of using non-coded lenses on their M8s needn't worry about how these corrections will work for non-specified lenses. Those who dare to cross that line will often be pleasantly surprised with the results but they obviously do so at their own risk.

 

I say this based on my own very extensive testing, including the my tests that Scott used as a basis for his analysis. In a nutshell...

 

1. The degree to which a lens shows cyan drift is primarily set by its field of view and the type of IR cut filter mounted. This will vary a bit by aperture because contrast and saturation can change a bit with aperture. The final appearance of cyan drift, in the RAW file, is affected by lens contrast and saturation.

 

2. Lens vignetting, of course, varies by aperture. If a given lens (like the 28 Ultron) vignettes less than a specified lens (like the 28 Summicron Asph) corrections designed for the latter will sometimes over-correct the former at smaller apertures.

 

Overwhelmingly, however, my test results suggest that a firmware correction that works well for a given (say 35 mm) Leica lens will often also work well for other 35 mm lenses. The corrections are not nearly as specific and precise as some seem to think and they work better with some subject lighting than with others. (That's talking about coded Leica lenses.)

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hank,

 

I believe you're mistaken. If someone were to sell 6-bit coded M-mount lenses (that specifically violated the patent), I believe that would be illegal. Individuals modifying adapters or lenses on their own (or for others for free) isn't violating patent, to the best of my understanding. Attorneys on the list can clarify this further.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

 

There are 4,720 views of this important thread. Why aren't there nearly that many signitures on the petition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 4,720 views of this important thread. Why aren't there nearly that many signitures on the petition?

 

This thread has been up for months. Are there 4,720 unique users who looked at the thread or 3 or 400 people who have viewed the thread multiple times?

 

Many who would like to see this done didn't think a petition was an appropriate way to go about it (like Sean) so they didn't sign it but expressed their opinion to Leica. If you are inferring that 1,000's of users don't want this done why not put up a petition for users who don't want it done and see how many signatures you get?

 

In the end it all depends on whether Leica thinks it's a smart business move. That's what will determine if it gets implemented or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 4,720 views of this important thread. Why aren't there nearly that many signitures on the petition?

How often did petitioneers open this thread since april 2007, 10 times?

Then 322 x 10 = 3,220 so remains 1,500 : 10 = 150 people who are waiting for Leica to fix this highly strategic (and somewhat ridiculous) issue before they become M8 users i guess.

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/clindoeildroit.gif&key=e68721736bd6da128684ce4c56444c9af6870b3fa081dc7a6dde92c1d34416d5">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How often did petitioneers open this thread since april 2007, 10 times?

Then 322 x 10 = 3,220 so remains 1,500 : 10 = 150 people who are waiting for Leica to fix this highly strategic (and somewhat ridiculous) issue before they become M8 users i guess.

/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/clindoeildroit.gif&key=e68721736bd6da128684ce4c56444c9af6870b3fa081dc7a6dde92c1d34416d5">

 

I have no idea what the numbers represent in the way of actual unique visitors and neither do you. The M8 forum has about 28 people browsing right now as I write this. So the group of likely participants in a thread like this is pretty small. Certainly not in the 1,000's.

 

In any case it's got no bearing on whether providing user selectable profiles is a good idea. I don't know of anyone for whom this feature is going to be the deciding factor in a purchase decision. It's M8 owners who would be the beneficiaries. It's neither highly strategic or ridiculous -it's just a good idea. If it doesn't happen it wouldn't be the end of the world, there are always work arounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had forgotten about the petition and this thread both of which I initiated. In the last 3 days since the thread has come alive again about 50 more people have signed the petition. Now I know Sean and Guy and others who think this feature would be a good idea don't think the petition is the way to go. But I just put it up, not because a petition is going to add any weight to the idea. Leica is going to think it's something worth doing or not on the merits. I did it so that users who might not participate in a thread like this could have a way to indicate their approval, leave a comment, etc.,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no i don't dislike your idea at all Hank.

(must be my poor English sorry)

The issue i was referring to is due to Leica who created the IR problem and don't provide the necessary tools to fix it so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso
I had forgotten about the petition and this thread both of which I initiated. In the last 3 days since the thread has come alive again about 50 more people have signed the petition. Now I know Sean and Guy and others who think this feature would be a good idea don't think the petition is the way to go. But I just put it up, not because a petition is going to add any weight to the idea. Leica is going to think it's something worth doing or not on the merits. I did it so that users who might not participate in a thread like this could have a way to indicate their approval, leave a comment, etc.,

 

But getting the issues out in the open is a good idea and that is what counts. The hard part is whatever happens to this some folks will be happy and some will not. The key is making the Leica M8 world happy overall for what is good for the product itself and maybe not so much our individual needs. For the most part i don't have a need but i still support it for the overall use of the camera.

 

My last 10 or so posts were to put myself and to engage others in Leica's shoes and play devil's advocate so people think differently than there own needs. i think it may have helped but a decision needs to be made and they actually have to put the work in to do it. If this is what Leica decides to do bottom line though is not everyone will be happy and leica likes happy customers. Tough call for them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is what Leica decides to do bottom line though is not everyone will be happy and leica likes happy customers. Tough call for them

 

In terms of making customers happy. If they do it it will be done in a way that if you don't use the function you won't know it's there. So I can't see how it would have a negative impact on Leica's bottom line even with those users who think it's a bad idea. Is someone going to say "I'm not buying an M8 because some people might be using the profile for my Leica lens for their CV ! Leica's giving those cheapskates and peons a free ride so I'm selling all my Leica gear !"

 

It will just reduce the hassle for a lot of photographers and give them more options and more flexibility. That will result in more sales for Leica of both the bodies and lenses. Let me reiterate if this change would result in a net loss for Leica then if I were them I wouldn't do it. In business if it's not a win win for both parties it's not a good idea. But I think that is not the conclusion Leica will draw so I think there is a good chance this might happen eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think there are still more important things for Leica to work on in the M8 firmware than a lens table. For example, with the latest firmware, the high ISO got a little better. If you had a choise, would you want Leica to spend the time on better overall M8 performance or on lens tables?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think there are still more important things for Leica to work on in the M8 firmware than a lens table. For example, with the latest firmware, the high ISO got a little better. If you had a choise, would you want Leica to spend the time on better overall M8 performance or on lens tables?

 

The lens table is already there, they would not be making any changes to the profiles other then changes they had planned not related to the ability to select them manualy. But reliability and bug fixes should take priority. I won't speculate on what can be done easily without impacting other work. Only Leica can know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think there are still more important things for Leica to work on in the M8 firmware than a lens table. For example, with the latest firmware, the high ISO got a little better. If you had a choise, would you want Leica to spend the time on better overall M8 performance or on lens tables?

 

If they did try to improve high ISO performance, they failed - so maybe they should spend time on something they could accomplish, like adding a menu to select functionality that already exists in the code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they did try to improve high ISO performance, they failed - so maybe they should spend time on something they could accomplish, like adding a menu to select functionality that already exists in the code.

 

I'm quite happy with the high ISO performance and there are some who prefer the high ISO noise/grain to the smoother low ISO settings. So that's an 'improvement' that might not seem an improvement to some.

 

But I think there is truth in the statement that if indeed user selectable profiles are an easy to implement feature that won't tax stretched resources it's an easy call. Most of what photographers ask for in the way of improvements is difficult and requires a lot of resources and many cases is not feasable. When you can make customers experience better and it's an easy fix, why not do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm quite happy with the high ISO performance and there are some who prefer the high ISO noise/grain to the smoother low ISO settings. So that's an 'improvement' that might not seem an improvement to some.

 

But I think there is truth in the statement that if indeed user selectable profiles are an easy to implement feature that won't tax stretched resources it's an easy call. Most of what photographers ask for in the way of improvements is difficult and requires a lot of resources and many cases is not feasable. When you can make customers experience better and it's an easy fix, why not do it?

 

 

I did sample 2500 shot before and after the firmware upgrade to see for myself and if it changed it was insignificant. I agree that the grain is ok for some B&W situations, but for color it is not usable for me.

 

And yes the change to add a menu choice for lens selection is about as trivial as it can be for a coder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did sample 2500 shot before and after the firmware upgrade to see for myself and if it changed it was insignificant. I agree that the grain is ok for some B&W situations, but for color it is not usable for me.

 

And yes the change to add a menu choice for lens selection is about as trivial as it can be for a coder.

 

I should qualify what I mean by high ISO. I shoot color and 620 underexposed by 1 stop or a bit more is what I consider high ISO. That's giving me about the equivalent of 1600 ISO on a Canon 1Ds and I like the results much better. 2500 is not usable for me.

 

When I was using film ISO 100 slide film was as high a speed as I got. With medium format I'd do 800 speed color negative exposed at 640. So 1600 in color is incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think there are still more important things for Leica to work on in the M8 firmware than a lens table. For example, with the latest firmware, the high ISO got a little better. If you had a choise, would you want Leica to spend the time on better overall M8 performance or on lens tables?

 

Hi Rob,

 

A) They're a small company but not *that* small. They're able to work on more than one thing at once.

 

People's sense of what is most important is going to vary from person to person.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I should qualify what I mean by high ISO. I shoot color and 620 underexposed by 1 stop or a bit more is what I consider high ISO. That's giving me about the equivalent of 1600 ISO on a Canon 1Ds and I like the results much better. 2500 is not usable for me.

 

When I was using film ISO 100 slide film was as high a speed as I got. With medium format I'd do 800 speed color negative exposed at 640. So 1600 in color is incredible.

 

In that case, I find 640 fine as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think there are still more important things for Leica to work on in the M8 firmware than a lens table...

What is important IMO is Leica to respect their own words according to which almost all 16mm to 90mm lenses since 1954 can be used with the M8.

This will remain untrue as long as most Leica lenses from 1954 to 1979 and sometimes later cannot be coded and Leica don't provide solutions to solve their IR-compatibility issues with the M8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When lens coding was first announced in June 2006, Leica listed the current and discontinued lenses which could be coded and so benefit from in-camera image enhancements which at that time were unspecified. And so it has turned out.

 

Most other lenses manufactured since 1954 could still be mounted on the camera and used, but without the image enhancements. And so it has turned out.

 

When the IR problem was first recognised and disclosed (by, let's not forget, Pascal, not the army of sycophantic testers who had previously had access to camera), Leica's very first response was to say the solution to the problem was to use a Leica coded lens and a Leica IR filter. And so it has turned out.

 

Seems to me Leica have been completely consistent in what they claim for the camera and lens compatability.

 

If you bought camera or lenses making the assumption that things would change, so far, that assumption has proved incorrect.

 

Leica might put the function in, just to stop all this baying at the internet door, but my preference would be for them to fix bugs and improve the performance of the camera further.

 

An earlier post from Sean indicated patience will be required. 2012 would suit me fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When lens coding was first announced in June 2006, Leica listed the current and discontinued lenses which could be coded and so benefit from in-camera image enhancements which at that time were unspecified. And so it has turned out.

 

Most other lenses manufactured since 1954 could still be mounted on the camera and used, but without the image enhancements. And so it has turned out.

 

When the IR problem was first recognised and disclosed (by, let's not forget, Pascal, not the army of sycophantic testers who had previously had access to camera), Leica's very first response was to say the solution to the problem was to use a Leica coded lens and a Leica IR filter. And so it has turned out.

 

Seems to me Leica have been completely consistent in what they claim for the camera and lens compatability.

 

If you bought camera or lenses making the assumption that things would change, so far, that assumption has proved incorrect.

 

Leica might put the function in, just to stop all this baying at the internet door, but my preference would be for them to fix bugs and improve the performance of the camera further.

 

An earlier post from Sean indicated patience will be required. 2012 would suit me fine.

 

I agree Leica has been open and made every effort to back up the product with whatever resources they have and I have made no assumptions about what they would do. If they do it it won't be because they were 'forced' to but because they agree it's a good idea that will benefit users and the company as well.

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...