Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hankg

Sign a petition for menu selectable lens profiles

Recommended Posts

Guest Olof

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Licence also implies a fee. In other words, Zeiss pays Leica a fee up front to get into the firmware and then a fee per lens sold coded. for these fees, Leica gives the Zeiss lens a specific code and Leica takes Zeiss provided details for the Cyan correction of that lens and programs it into the firmware.

 

Robert

 

This is the first reasonable idea i have read here !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, what could Leica do ? They could make a manual lens detection for their own actuall lens range. Then people can use their Zeiss lens, enable the Leice lens profile for it, became problems with Cyan and more and the .exif says "Hi these picture was taken with original Leica equippment" WHY should Leica do this ?

 

I can go in to the .exif file right now in post processing and make it say what ever I want. The purpose of the profiles was not to burn Leica copyright notices into photographers files it is to improve image quality.

 

Why should Leica do it. To improve customers experience with the camera. That's a no brainer if you can make your product work better for your customer you do it. Better customer experience = Happy customer = Loyal customer = Succesful business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
except you are asking Leica to do this for nothing on another companies behalf

 

wrong, wrong, wrong! Leica need to do this for Leica customers!

 

Leica messed up the Ir filtration, and that now makes lens coding much more important than it origonally was (before the need for IR filters I couldnt care less about lens coding)

 

Why the hell should Leica now make money out of their own mistake!!!???????

 

Sure a menu option would also mean that using 3rd party lenses is easier, SO WHAT!? do you really think that is going to hurt Leica sales? By making their product work as it should (i.e. without excessive IR response), in a way that also makes 3rd party lenses easy to use Leica will sell more cameras.

The menu option really is in everyones interest, but above all in Leica's own self interest.

Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first question I asked when I was at the store was how to manually select lenses in the menu. I thought the automatic lens detection was an extra when you spend some money on coding them.

 

I've been trying to code them with a permanent marker but can't seem to get it work. Maybe the leds are broken. So there you have another reason why manual selection would be very handy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the various ideas, arguments, etc. (related to the lens selection option) have been laid out pretty clearly in this forum (and elsewhere) over the past six months. I appreciate that Hank is trying to help keep this request in front of Leica's eyes. I can't imagine that I could comment much more in this thread without repeating ideas I've been laying out since last fall. It's Leica's camera and they will proceed with it as they desire. Good luck with the effort, Hank. I don't know that a petition will have much effect on Leica but I appreciate your interest at taking constructive action. At very least, these kinds of threads can remind Leica that many current and potential owners do care about having this option.

 

Unfortunately, as the Rolling Stones told us, "You can't always get what you want". But maybe the squeeky wheel approach will pay off in time.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first question I asked when I was at the store was how to manually select lenses in the menu. I thought the automatic lens detection was an extra when you spend some money on coding them.

 

I've been trying to code them with a permanent marker but can't seem to get it work. Maybe the leds are broken. So there you have another reason why manual selection would be very handy!

 

The coding sensors probably work fine but hand-coding is tricky.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can folks that have a wide range of various lenses (Leica, Zeiss, CV, etc.) comment on what may be needed for the UV/IR filter part only? I see this coding thing as now having two somewhat separate parts, but would like to get the confirmed. The software instruction sets that are designed specifically for Leica lenses are just that, lens specific, and were originally built to accommodate any vignetting issues. Correct? With the introduction of the need for the UV/IR filters, Leica has now introduced a new problem of the cyan cast on the wider angle lenses. My question is if this cast problem is lens specific or just focal length specific?

 

If it is lens specific, meaning that there are significant differences in how the cyan is handled on say a 28/2.0 and a 28/2.8 lens, for example, then the code table would be quite large. On the other hand, if the cyan problem when using filters is simply focal length dependent, then there are only 10 Leica FLs to deal with (16, 18, 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90 and 135), ad we know that 50 on up is more academic with respect to cyan in the corners. However, using the UV/IR filter, and more specifically the Leica UV/IR filter does introduce some changes to the color profiles that the camera uses for image handling (JPEGs).

 

 

The short answer is that some of the corrections needed are only focal length dependent, other contributions depend on the lens design. Even without a filter installed the CV15 shows some noticeable red vignetting towards the corners, because the green filter that is installed over the CCD is thicker (which means greener) when you pass light through it at a low angle. The WATE, used at a focal length of 16 mm without any filter, doesn't seem to be generating red vignetting, at least in examples I have seen posted (I don't own a WATE). So while the effect of adding a filter may be nearly the same, the full correction will not match up perfectly.

 

Even so, the result may be quite close enough for most of us, leaving only the most critical shots for post processing corrections. That will certainly be the case for more common focal lengths, like 28 and 35mm. For 21mm, we'll see.

 

scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Leica need to do this for Leica customers! Leica messed up the Ir filtration... Why the hell should Leica now make money out of their own mistake!!!?...The menu option really is in everyones interest...

Agreed. A closed Leica is no more a Leica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
except you are asking Leica to do this for nothing on another companies behalf

No, IR sensitivity and cyan shift is a DEFECT and it is in Leica's own interest that this defect have as little impact as possible on customers image quality and experience with the camera and that it does not cost customers unnecessary additional money and grief. I have a 50/1.4 and a 135 that I will eventually send in for coding but I can't be without the lens for 3 weeks. Do I need to buy backup lenses as well as a backup camera? How much additional cost and inconvenience should customers be expected to bear because of a defect in the product? Early adopters of this camera have had to suffer through dead cameras, banding, blobs and the unexpected IR sensitivity issue. You don't rectify a problem you caused by adding more hurdles for customers who have already had their patience tested with camera 'issues' and with a overloaded/overwhelmed service department.

 

Leica would make no warranty about using these profiles with any other lens (Leica or 3rd party) then those they were designed for.

 

Leica could have used a proprietary more digital friendly mount, forcing customers to purchase new Leica lenses and shutting out 3rd party manufacturers. They didn't do that because they knew it would fail in the market. True M mount compatibilty is a core M feature/value.

 

The possibility of 3rd party manufacturers licensing access to 6-bit coding/profiles is a seperate issue. It would be nice but we have no way of knowing if Leica has any interest in selling licenses or Zeiss/VC are interested in buying them, either way it has no impact on this request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

I have just signed the petition with this other point of view.

I think this feature should be available at least in order to get the focal lenght data in the EXIF without necessarily activating any corrections (vignetting, cyan cast, etc...) if they don't match perfectly that or that non-Leica lens.

 

Therefor the options could be :

- Automatic lens detection and correction ;

- Manual lens selection with correction ;

- Manual lens selection without correction (only EXIF).

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sign for a closed system. Leica is a small co. To survive needs not to produce bodies as usefull gadgets for everybody who wants to put his lens on it; because now they are Voigtlander, Zeiss, and so and so, but "what about Sygma, Tamroc,...and numberless companies?

 

Do you want to mix the body M8 without respecting its high stantard of quality? I'm positive Leica don't.

 

It`s impossible to think of Leica without a set of lenses, I agree, expensive lenses, able to give quality now and ten years after, than could be used for the young and old leicasters.

 

If Leica agrees to be a holder of many trades of lenses, Leica will lose his personality, and, of course his battle in the market.

 

And, to keep relaxed, I also take the oportunity to say that, please, please, don't ask Leica to transform the M8 in a multi-menu camera (able to do so and so). Now is a fantastic simple camera that can do more quality than others without the need to be a monster of capabilities.

 

I beg you pardon, once again, for my english.

 

Francisco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Francisco,

your english is fine, its your arguement that is the problem

 

it is too late to talk about a closed system, there have been other, more affordable lenses for M cameras for years.

The issue is that Leica are telling me to pay so that my camera works like it should, but I was one of the (few) customers who has supported Leica in the years where their sales, profilts and market share were going down. Thats why my lenses are not coded. I bought them new, at very considerable cost, before Leica even thought of the M8. But now, because Leica screwed up the IR sensitivity they think I should pay again just to use my Leica lenses.

No, I dont think so!

 

Besides, do you really think that anyone is going to spend 10 times as much on a lens, just because it is coded?? have you not read the threads from people coding lenses with marker pens, or having custom mounts made, or writing their own post preocessing actions? Leica will sell many more M8 to people who will steach to an M8, but use it with CV or Zeiss lenses, because either they cannot afford Leica's own lenses, or because they dont consider the extra cost worth it. If the M8 was a closed system those people whould not buy into it at all, which would be fewer customers for Leica.

 

Like I said, its in everyones interests.

Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The short answer is that some of the corrections needed are only focal length dependent, other contributions depend on the lens design. Even without a filter installed the CV15 shows some noticeable red vignetting towards the corners, because the green filter that is installed over the CCD is thicker (which means greener) when you pass light through it at a low angle. The WATE, used at a focal length of 16 mm without any filter, doesn't seem to be generating red vignetting, at least in examples I have seen posted (I don't own a WATE). So while the effect of adding a filter may be nearly the same, the full correction will not match up perfectly.

 

Even so, the result may be quite close enough for most of us, leaving only the most critical shots for post processing corrections. That will certainly be the case for more common focal lengths, like 28 and 35mm. For 21mm, we'll see.

 

scott

 

Scott,

This is pretty much the point I was trying to raise.....the separation of lens specific issues, such as vignetting, versus focal length specific issues when using the UV/IR filters. Not speaking for anybody else, but I would be happy to be able to select a FL from a menu that then uses the in-camera software to remove the cyan corners from my wider angle lenses when using the filters. That is the part that is the most difficult to correct in post, and is really only there now becaue we need to use the filters for color work. The vignetting problems would be nice to have corrected also, but those are easier to do in post than removing the newly introduced issue of cyan.

 

In the case of non-coded lenses, such as the CV 15, Leica has no real responsibility to make it work on their camera with respect to the red cast associated with vignetting. The user has to deal with that on their own. However, the cyan problem caused by the use of a recommended filter was introduced by Leica after the fact, and Leica should provide its solution for correcting this to all users, not just those with coded lenses. That does not seem too much to ask at all. Having the additional lens specific corrections for vignetting would be great also, but without coding, they may not be accessible. The cyan problem should be addressed by Leica for most lenses that are going to be used on the camera, regardless of make. While I would love having Leica "fix" the vignetting problem for my using the CV 15, I am not expecting that. However, I am expecting Leica to provide a mechanism in-camera to "fix" the cyan issue now introduced because I have to use a UV/IR cut filter with color shooting on wider angle lenses, including those that are not made by Leica.

 

I agree with you that most folks would be happy to have something close enough for the cyan problem, which is much harder to fix in post than other lens specific issues like vignetting. I can live with some darker corners on some wider angle shots taken with some non-coded lenses, but I should not have to live with the added cyan cast from using a filter that Leica specifically recommends be used. That can be corrected in-camera for their coded lenses, and for most folks that would be close enough for using non-coded lenses. If it is truly critical work that one is concerned with, then buy and use a coded Leica lens with the Leica UV/IR filter.

 

LJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francisco,

your english is fine, its your arguement that is the problem

 

it is too late to talk about a closed system, there have been other, more affordable lenses for M cameras for years.

The issue is that Leica are telling me to pay so that my camera works like it should, but I was one of the (few) customers who has supported Leica in the years where their sales, profilts and market share were going down. Thats why my lenses are not coded. I bought them new, at very considerable cost, before Leica even thought of the M8. But now, because Leica screwed up the IR sensitivity they think I should pay again just to use my Leica lenses.

No, I dont think so!

 

Besides, do you really think that anyone is going to spend 10 times as much on a lens, just because it is coded?? have you not read the threads from people coding lenses with marker pens, or having custom mounts made, or writing their own post preocessing actions? Leica will sell many more M8 to people who will steach to an M8, but use it with CV or Zeiss lenses, because either they cannot afford Leica's own lenses, or because they dont consider the extra cost worth it. If the M8 was a closed system those people whould not buy into it at all, which would be fewer customers for Leica.

 

Like I said, its in everyones interests.

Guy

 

 

I have just lost a long answer because a power problem at home. (not in my mind) I expect to remember all and write it tomorrow. Sorry,

 

Francisco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ww@lt

well I don't think, that Leica is going to open up this function.

 

But if they did, a good functionality would be, that in the camera firmware in a "lens profile" one could specify her/his lenses. Then after a lens change, the camera could prompt you for the lens according to the automatic viewfinder frame selection setting, or don't prompt at all, if one only has one lens for the particular frame selection.....

 

just an idea, may be I am not the first one to bring this up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well I don't think, that Leica is going to open up this function.

 

But if they did, a good functionality would be, that in the camera firmware in a "lens profile" one could specify her/his lenses. Then after a lens change, the camera could prompt you for the lens according to the automatic viewfinder frame selection setting, or don't prompt at all, if one only has one lens for the particular frame selection.....

 

just an idea, may be I am not the first one to bring this up!

 

Walt,

Not quite sure I understand what you are asking about here. As an example, I have two different 50mm lenses. One is a Leica 50/1.0 Noctilux that is coded, and the other is a CV 50/1.5 Nokton that I have not been able to get as successful coding onto myself. (I have been able to get my CV 15/4.5 to "look" like a WATE, and my CV 35/1.2 Nokton to "look" like a 35/1.4 ASPH to the camera via my own hand coding, but the 50 is still not working.) If I mount either to my M8, they both call up the 50/75 framelines. The Noctilux, being coded, automatically gets to call up any and all corrections that may be provided by Leica and stored in the firmware. The CV Nokton really only needs to access the new color profiles associated with using the UV/IR filter. There is no other lens correction needed. However, as it stands now, I can use the Noctilux with its filter and coding, or I can use the CV Nokton, with or without the filter that Leica recommends I use, but have to process those images differently for the differences in color rendering introduced by the filter. The camera sees both as a 50mm for the framelines, but does not "see" the CV Nokton for any other corrections. If I prefer to use it for its specific "look", or ease of focus, or whatever, I am not able to access the filter correction profiles from Leica for use with filters. That is not right, in my thinking. I really do not care about other lens correction for that lens, but I do care about the filter correction options with in-camera processing.

 

The situation is much more critical for any wide-angle lens used with a filter. The "cyan drift", as Sean keeps commenting on (rather than cast, corners or any other characterization), is a big issue and it is only there because of the use of the UV/IR filters that Leica recommends be used for color imaging. The cyan "poison" problem could have a simple and effective antidote availble through a menu-selected item for a given focal length of lens. Will it be as "perfect" as for a Leica 50/1.0, or 50/1.4 ASPH, or 50/2.0? Probably not, but for the cyan problem and other color profiling, it would sure be helpful and an easy thing for Leica to do and offer, since they are responsible for creating the issue in the first place.

 

LJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It never fails to amaze me that in spite of PR people, consultants, analysts and the like, how little companies understand the mechanisms and motivations behind brand loyalty and just what a fragile animal it is. If customers get to feel that a company is treating them as a walking wallet and a gullible one at that, they will leave the company's products on the shelf like a flash. Look what happened to Mercedes when their cost accountants persuaded them to drop the product quality. Look at the entire British motor industry. I like many other owners, will NEVER buy another Alfa Romeo, even though I had them for years. Sorry to keep using analogies to the motor industry but that is where brand loyalty has been best and worst understood. Porsche, BMW and Lexus do a pretty good job. My wife has a Lexus, which is not a great car but the dealership looks after her like royalty and she will probably get another. Porsche send me free magazines, invites to car launches and phone up just to see if the car is working well.

 

Guy and Sean have tried until they are blue (well cyan maybe) in the face to get Leica to understand that a large proportion of its currently loyal customer base will feel short-changed if manual lens coding is not included in a future firmware update. I would bet that a high proportion of M8 sales have been to people who have previously owned a Leica. It is irrelevant whether Leica feel they should or not, because it is a proprietary system. It is we, the customers, who buy the product, pay their wages and keep the company afloat. If a substantial proportion want manual lens coding and it is possible - for goodness sake just do it.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was doing some work for Mercedes (promotional brochures) in the late 80's. Before the quality problems, when the E was the industry benchmark. Lexus was just getting started. As I recall the dealers where all begging for cup holders in the cars along with other concessions to the US market that customers where clamoring for. Mercedes had an attitude of we know better then the customer what the customer needs. As a result the start up Lexus soon handed the invincible luxury brand their heads.

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