Sign a petition for menu selectable lens profiles

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

LJ wrote:

 

"I think they will have greater success by opening up key parts of the system to make it easier for many more to participate."

 

I agree and that's my essential concern in this.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[hammam]

This is not going to happen because it effectively renders the 6-bit coding scheme useless and bogus ... am I not right?

 

Right. And it also allows us to buy non-Leica wide-angle lenses and non-Leica IR--cut filters (if there is such a thing as a «Leica» IR-cut filter). I think THAT will be the main obstacle. Let's keep the pressure on.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[hankg]

209 signatures in 4 days, last I checked. I don't know if 209 should be considered a groundswell of support or an anemic response for something like this. But if you'd like Leica to know that you'd like menu selectable profiles, consider signing:

 

Leica M8 selectable lens profiles Petition

[wilfredo]

I just became signiture 210!!!! This is a great idea!

 

Cheers,

Wilfredo

Benitez-Rivera Photography

[Artichoke]

and I just did as well

an open platform camera has been the tradition at Leica & the folks at Solms should understand this

I only hope this does not slow up my ir/cut filter delivery

[hankg]

I posted this in the Firmware thread but it probably belongs here.

 

Perhaps the best of all solutions would be a Leica software smart transfer utility, the sole purpose of which would be to transfer files from card to disc. My PC and Mac both occasionally refuse to recognize my M8 SD's anyway. I assume all the corrections are just non-destructive instructions attached to the RAW files by the firmware. The ingester could contain all the profiles and would allow you to swap profiles, change names, alter EXIF, add copyright and other meta info. The user could choose to have the computer instead of the camera take care of lens corrections. Leica could leave the menu in camera as is preserving their original vision for the camera's user interface. It may be that swaping profiles may require attaching the camera to your PC rather then a card reader but if you needed the functionality it would be worth it. The output of the transfer would be RAW DNG files ready to process in C1, etc.,

 

It's a solution that provides the best of both worlds. A simple in camera menu, plus the flexibility to correct errors in menu selection or accomodate non-coded lenses in post. A computer software interface can contain a lot more choice then a camera interface. You are also using the interface at a time when it's not competing with your subject for your attention. Down the road Leica would have the option to provide a developers pack at a price to third party vendors to develop plug-ins (additional lens profiles, incorporation into apps like iView, Extensis Portfolio) of their own to the transfer utility.

[LJL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I posted this in the Firmware thread but it probably belongs here.

 

Perhaps the best of all solutions would be a Leica software smart transfer utility, the sole purpose of which would be to transfer files from card to disc. My PC and Mac both occasionally refuse to recognize my M8 SD's anyway. I assume all the corrections are just non-destructive instructions attached to the RAW files by the firmware. The ingester could contain all the profiles and would allow you to swap profiles, change names, alter EXIF, add copyright and other meta info. The user could choose to have the computer instead of the camera take care of lens corrections. Leica could leave the menu in camera as is preserving their original vision for the camera's user interface. It may be that swaping profiles may require attaching the camera to your PC rather then a card reader but if you needed the functionality it would be worth it. The output of the transfer would be RAW DNG files ready to process in C1, etc.,

 

It's a solution that provides the best of both worlds. A simple in camera menu, plus the flexibility to correct errors in menu selection or accomodate non-coded lenses in post. A computer software interface can contain a lot more choice then a camera interface. You are also using the interface at a time when it's not competing with your subject for your attention. Down the road Leica would have the option to provide a developers pack at a price to third party vendors to develop plug-ins (additional lens profiles, incorporation into apps like iView, Extensis Portfolio) of their own to the transfer utility.

 

Hank,

I am not sure the files contain only instruction sets. My understanding of what the firmware does is to instruct the processing engine how to interpret the data before it writes it to the DNG or JPEG file. That is not non-destructive (sorry for the double negative there). The DNG file as it is written has all of the capture parameters as part of the file, so corrections made by camera instructions at the time of capture are what get recorded, not a simple RAW file with another associated instruction set for how to process. I may be way wrong here, but this is how I have seen and understand things for my Canon files also. Once the RAW file is written, that is what you have. You may have a lot more latitude for change in your processing, but there are limits there also.

 

LJ

[hankg]

Hank,

I am not sure the files contain only instruction sets. My understanding of what the firmware does is to instruct the processing engine how to interpret the data before it writes it to the DNG or JPEG file. That is not non-destructive (sorry for the double negative there). The DNG file as it is written has all of the capture parameters as part of the file, so corrections made by camera instructions at the time of capture are what get recorded, not a simple RAW file with another associated instruction set for how to process. I may be way wrong here, but this is how I have seen and understand things for my Canon files also. Once the RAW file is written, that is what you have. You may have a lot more latitude for change in your processing, but there are limits there also.

 

LJ

 

I suspect you may be right. However if you chose no in camera correction (which you would if you had no coding) you should be able to apply the profiles post. You just would'nt be able to change an incorrect in camera profile after the fact.

[wlaidlaw]

Can anyone point me in the direction of the post with the PDF drawing of the 6 bit code recesses? I am ordering a 28mm bayonet ring to fit on my 21mm Biogon tomorrow and I want to put a recess in for bit #5 (to code it as a WATE) so I don't get black ink on the M8 lens mount any more.

 

Wilson

[Woody Campbell]

Count me as not supporting this petition - respectfully because I recognize that there are substantial arguments for an open system.

 

My reasons are here:

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/21777-leica-stubborness-will-hurt-sales-2.html#post229404

[jlm]

wlaidlaw:

 

look here, about post 44

[

 

rl]http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/13272-self-coded-35mm-summicron-m-asph-4.html?highlight=jlm:[/url]

[hankg]

Count me as not supporting this petition - respectfully because I recognize that there are substantial arguments for an open system.

 

My reasons are here:

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/21777-leica-stubborness-will-hurt-sales-2.html#post229404

You assume Leica has opted for a "closed system" when the fact that the coding is now a must for wide angles rather then an option is a complete accident. Something that was neither planned nor intended as the consequenses of the IR problem where totally unanticipated. If there was no IR problem their would be no need to have access to the profiles. It's a proposed work-around to an unanticipated defect in the product, not an issue of whether the system should be opened or closed.

 

All of my lenses are Leica, but it will be a while before I can part with some of them for the time it takes to code them. Eventually I'll have all my lenses coded, as I prefer the simplicity of Leica's coding set up, in the meantime this option would improve the results from my camera now and that should be Leica's chief concern less problems, more quality for the client.

[marknorton]

Well, JaapV on another thread has shown that a hand-coded Zeiss 21 with B+W filter is not properly corrected in 1.102 because it is fundamentally different to the Leica 21mm Elmarit ASPH. You can shout all you like, sign up to whatever, stamp your feet, but if it doesn't work, what's the point?

 

The answer: buy Leica lenses. If not new, then used ones which can be retro-coded.

[hankg]

Well, JaapV on another thread has shown that a hand-coded Zeiss 21 with B+W filter is not properly corrected in 1.102 because it is fundamentally different to the Leica 21mm Elmarit ASPH. You can shout all you like, sign up to whatever, stamp your feet, but if it doesn't work, what's the point?

 

The answer: buy Leica lenses. If not new, then used ones which can be retro-coded.

 

Sean's much more extensive tests showed that using the existing profiles provided much improved results to not using them (on non-supproted lenses). Many lenses will go from unusable to fixable in photoshop, some will be OK out of the camera. Would the Leica coded lenses be a better choice? That's the choice I made but it should be the photographers choice.

 

I am neither shouting or stamping my feet. I am however offering my opinion what would make the system work better for me. All my lenses are Leica's and they eventually will all be coded. I don't see why I should get less then the best my camera is capable of in the meantime, because of a fault in the camera. Especially when Leica has the means to provide a workable option.

[Woody Campbell]

You assume Leica has opted for a "closed system" . . ..

 

The six bit coding system was always closed - the intended incentive to use it was that the coding permits the firmware to correct for vignetting. The IR issue in effect ups the stakes. At the heart of the users' dismay is that it's one thing buy a Zeiss lens and live with vignetting (which has existed with wides since the beginning of time) but another thing entirely to have use coded lenses or to be forced to choose between magenta cast or cyan corners. That's the argument for telling Leica that its only fair for them to open the system, an argument that I respect, but in the end I have to give substantial weight to Leica's own assessment of its economic best interests.

[hankg]

The six bit coding system was always closed - the intended incentive to use it was that the coding permits the firmware to correct for vignetting. The IR issue in effect ups the stakes.

 

True, but it did nothing to close the camera. It merely provided the convenience of in camera processing and exif info to those who thought it was worth the price. The cyan drift issue with IR filters is entirely different. It is a defect that makes a lot of lenses unusable that whould have been usable if not for the IR problem. Unlike vignetting it can be difficult to impossible to correct in post. As an unanticapted defect the onus is on Leica to minimize the impact the fault has on users of the camera.

[Woody Campbell]

I think that we're saying the same thing.

[hankg]

I think that we're saying the same thing.

 

Yes, but we seem to disagree on Leica's responsibility to do everything it can to fix something that is essentially broken. The cyan drift changes the role profiles play and should impact Leica's decisions about how they are implemented in the camera.

 

I personally like the 6-bit scheme and will pay to have the plug and play convenience and I don't own a pile of non-supported glass, many users are in a different position.

[marknorton]

True, but it did nothing to close the camera. It merely provided the convenience of in camera processing and exif info to those who thought it was worth the price. The cyan drift issue with IR filters is entirely different. It is a defect that makes a lot of lenses unusable that whould have been usable if not for the IR problem. Unlike vignetting it can be difficult to impossible to correct in post. As an unanticapted defect the onus is on Leica to minimize the impact the fault has on users of the camera.

 

It could only ever be regarded as a defect if you bought the camera before the magenta problem/solution was disclosed. Once Leica had disclosed the solution - Leica filters, coded lenses, firmware, anyone buying the camera should have shown due diligence in understanding what they were buying and Leica is not culpable. It's a functional characteristic, not a defect.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[FMB]

I DO NOT FEEL SO ALON......

 

I suggest all of you to read the whole content of the threat Leica stubborness will hurt sales.

 

There are commercial, technical and all kinds arguments in the same sens I've stated before. Of course with much more solvency than mine and obviously with less mistakes.

 

I think, for instance, that the technical reasons that Marknorton exposes, there and here, are definitive.

 

But I also know many will go on pressing Leica.

 

Bye all,

 

Francisco.