Leica stubborness will hurt sales

[DaveSee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While not having stepped into hacking lens codes, this meek post with regard to another "stepped" procedure deemed universally inept: the "Well-Tempered" tuning. Please consider, and not apologetic to Leica AG, that light through a lens is not so deterministic as the byte-code which receives it. Some light(data) will, no, /must/ fall out of scope. I, for one would much rather have less in-camera "interpretation"(based on that elusive "Open Standard" tossed about) of what pours through this system to the file, er, DATA.

 

Considering posts made by the lot of you, your DNG files are /later/ pushed through PhaseOne's C1, others through LightRoom and other Adobe software, and still others(like me) who push this DATA through another computer, and another computer software!

 

You already have a computer to re-process the DATA. Leave Leica to pull as much uncorrected DATA through the optics as possible(oooh, that OLD, TIRED "8-bit" gripe again? Let's hope not!)... the pressure should be on the /post processors/ of the data.

 

Do you really believe the "Cyan/Red Drift" is effected /before/ the shot? Just press "PLAY", and wait a bit

 

Sean, you've been on the fore for this "menu option", and you've made a good case, as well others; however, as I commented to you in an email months ago, what makes a rangefinder, and best a Leica rangefinder is just how much of it stays out of my way. Yes, this sentiment is common, but is contrary to lens coding, however "open". For those of you who whined about filters, and now the lack of "open coding", shame on you

 

Lens coding is kruft, a gimmick in software that should be passed on to post-processing... now /that/ is an interesting legal meeting What? It's a camera!

 

rgds,

Dave

[Riley]

A compromise might be for someone to machine the separate lens mounts for the Zeiss lenses, there are only three possible, and sell them, or have folks send them to the machinist as is being done with the LTM adapters. The end user would then fill in the holes.

Tom

 

keeping in mind, if they are M mounts you cannot increase the length of the register

for this would mean no infinity focus

 

but user filled holes is a good way to dodge the patent, not that i can see Leica frying anyone over that. Patent issues have been a part of the business for years, mostly without concern. Under patent treaties, anyone can duplicate a patented idea for their own use, but the issue comes when selling it. That said, gaining a license is the proper way to deal with trading on some other entities patent.

 

To my mind, the fix will end up being, a system of template and self coding, with a thin wear resistant black and white.

an etching dye will be the answer

[Advertisement]

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

[marknorton]

Sorry, Tim, but when I first ordered the M8 (early November 2006) and, mostly, when I received it (early February 2007) the correction of the cyan drift via the use of coded Leica lenses and Leica filters exclusively was not documented or known. Leica have confirmed this when they released fimware 1.102, which is very recently. Until then, many people thought the B+W filters would be fine, as would be third party lenses somehow. Also, I love many aspects of the M8 and I don't want to part from it. This is not a reason why I shouldn't look for a better solution to the cyan drift and to the coding.

 

Olivier, that is simply not true. Very soon after the IR problem was identified, Leica told us the solution was Leica coded lenses, Leica filters and updated firmware, a position confirmed on 6th December. If anyone made a decision to buy filters, lenses or cameras ignoring that advice, they cannot now expect Leica to pick up the pieces.

[waterlenz]

 

Lens coding is kruft, a gimmick in software that should be passed on to post-processing... now /that/ is an interesting legal meeting What? It's a camera!

 

rgds,

Dave

 

Nevertheless, the SW or FW needs at minimum to 'know' which lens was used and also the aperture used. This is not an issue if one has just one lens! Most of us shoot with more than one thus introducing a variable that needs to be inputted into the process regardless of whether it is done in- or out- of camera; along with the aperture.

Tom

[waterlenz]

keeping in mind, if they are M mounts you cannot increase the length of the register

for this would mean no infinity focus

 

 

The register would NOT be increased, only recesses machined to provide room for the paint. I believe there are some posted pix in other threads.

Tom

[waterlenz]

The older lenses can be beautiful on digital, as we began to see with the R-D1.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Particularly those of 50mm focal length. The issue may be adapting or having made cut filters to fit.

Tom

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am in the midst of doing this sort of testing and you may find the results to be quite interesting.

 

I assume you're saying that it works, at least to an acceptable level. If that is the case, it's all the more reason for Leica not to make the manual lens selection function available. Imagine the howls of protest here if it works on one firmware release, and then, because of changes Leica make to the support for their own lenses, it doesn't work so well any more with other vendors' lenses.

 

Zeiss have new 18 and 21mm lenses coming and, for all we know, Peter Karbe and his team may be working currently on the Leica equivalents, in keeping with a line of smaller aperture, lower cost lenses started with the 28/2.8 and complemented by the existing 50/2 and 90/4. Not nice then to release a new lens or two only to find that your market has been snaffled by Zeiss with your (Leica's) implicit blessing.

 

It seems pointless to have the patent protection of the lens coding and then open the floodgates to all-comers by providing a manual bypass.

 

Instead, Zeiss and CV should be working to develop plug-ins which can remove the cyan in post processing when their lenses are used. If it can be done in camera firmware, it can certainly be done in post processing. Time for them to bring something to the party...

[jaapv]

Why can't one have a Zeiss lens coded like a Leica lens? Someone will step up to the plate and offer this service. The menu bit will then be redundant and thus not necessary. It seems to be already possible to switch out the lens mount so that the correct lines will be activated. It may be that the Z 25mm works better with a cut filter other than Leica's. The 486 appears to be is a bit stronger, the Heliopan may be a bit weaker, the Tiffen hot mirror weaker still. Lots of different combos to try for fine tuning.

Tom

 

I have a Biogon 21 coded as an Elmarit 21. The 486 is too strong, it produces cyan corners. It is perfectly reasonable for Leica to refuse to go down this road, as they can indeed not guarantee the software will perform as it should, other than for the lenses they support. I do not see how one can expect them to accomodate competitors. It is a bit like complaining that a Nikon lens will not fit on a Canon. As for Sigma, I have had my share of non-functional " EOS-mount"Sigma's on Canon. Why? because Canon does not give out the specifics of their AF software to third parties. Sigma has to reverse-engineer and sometimes fails, or gets caught out by Canon implementing a previously unsuspected bit of software. Why are some applying different standards to Leica?

[JacquesBalthazar]

Instead, Zeiss and CV should be working to develop plug-ins which can remove the cyan in post processing when their lenses are used. If it can be done in camera firmware, it can certainly be done in post processing. Time for them to bring something to the party...

 

That makes perfect sense. Leica need to maximise revenue on the whole product line, including current and future lenses, not just on M8 bodies. The M8 can be used to 90% satisfaction as is (leaving 10% out for those occasional "man made black fabric turning magenta with no time to fix on computer" shots), with almost all SM and M lenses ever produced, included those produced by competitors. If you want 99.9% satisfaction and seamless processing, you gotta pay for new Leica M lenses or get your old Leica M ones coded for a reasonable fee. Makes perfect sense. Might also make sense for Leica to sell pre-coded SM to M adapters...

 

Zeiss+CV are making nice revenue from the Leica customer base and the Leica developments (even if old developments such as M mount and rangefinder coupling designs). I really think the pressure from dissatisfied users wanting to maximise the quality of output of M8 with 3d party lenses should be on those suppliers rather than on Leica. Why not petition Zeiss+CV for easy to use anti-cyan PS or C1 plugins/profiles ?...

[egibaud]

just reading all your posts.... you mention you ordered your M8 in november and were delivered in feb 07.

 

So when you got delivered you knew exactly what the M8 was the PRO and CONS.

 

You knew the IR situation and the Coded/Filter solution.

 

SO PLEASE STOP CRYING HERE during posts and posts and endless posting that ALWAYS say the SAME THING !!!!!!!!!!!

 

You had enough time and information to decide whether you wanted an M8 or NOT.

 

You decided to have it and now you complain that you have to code your lenses and use filters !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

PLEASE SELL YOUR M8 and GIVE US A BREAK !!!!!!

 

LEICA HAS NOT STOLEN YOU A SINGLE DOLLAR !!!!! you have decided to go ahead with purshase.

 

So my question is:

 

Knowing that you knew all the M8 defects and knowing you did not agree with their solution before delivery and knowing you still bought the camera....

 

ARE YOU MASOCHIST or JUST STUPID ???????????????????

[finkaudio]

That makes perfect sense. Leica need to maximise revenue on the whole product line, including current and future lenses, not just on M8 bodies. The M8 can be used to 90% satisfaction as is (leaving 10% out for those occasional "man made black fabric turning magenta with no time to fix on computer" shots), with almost all SM and M lenses ever produced, included those produced by competitors. If you want 99.9% satisfaction and seamless processing, you gotta pay for new Leica M lenses or get your old Leica M ones coded for a reasonable fee. Makes perfect sense. Might also make sense for Leica to sell pre-coded SM to M adapters...

 

Zeiss+CV are making nice revenue from the Leica customer base and the Leica developments (even if old developments such as M mount and rangefinder coupling designs). I really think the pressure from dissatisfied users wanting to maximise the quality of output of M8 with 3d party lenses should be on those suppliers rather than on Leica. Why not petition Zeiss+CV for easy to use anti-cyan PS or C1 plugins/profiles ?...

 

 

 

I like the idea :-)

 

It would be a fair thing to do for CV or Zeiss in order to get the best out of the M8, instead of using Leica lenses corrections.

 

 

Or maybe this ewould even be a commercial project for somebody

 

 

Best regards

 

KH

[egibaud]

Well. Just thinking.

 

Zeiss and CV have a new life too thanks to the M8...

 

So instead of blaming Leica for looking after its own business why don't we ask Zeiss and CV to come up with specific profiles for Lightroom, CaptureOne etc. so pictures made with their lenses can be easily post production corrected ????

 

It would be more than fair that both companies would be involved in resolving problems when using their lenses with an M8 (although the problem comes from the M8). After all it is their best interest that people buy lenses from them instead of Leica.

 

What does Leica?, it detects the lens via 6 bit coding and apply a software correction within the camera. It could perfectly done for any lens. If it is not detected via 6 bit coding, it can be manualy indicated in post production. This way the correction would far more precise than trying to fool the M8 into thinking that a Zeiss or CV lens is a Leica one!

 

I do not charge for the business tip and would be prepared to buy a profile.

 

OUPS.... just seen others mentioned it earlier :-/ hehehe, I agree with them :-)

 

Eric

[finkaudio]

Hi Eric,

 

I understand your feelings , but I think it's not worth to be too much involved.

 

Maybe we should just ignore those comments. It stands for a Robin Hood mentality on the Internet to stand up and fight for the poor , even so there are no poor to fight for and we are not in Sherwood Forest.

 

You find this in every other forum on the net. It's just to easy to stand up and tell others how to make things better.

 

This forum is a lot of fun to work with, it tries hard to come up with good ideas, is active in creating own products (lens hood) and it managed to get an open ear at Leica.

 

Let's keep it that way

 

Best regards from a sunny, warm Germany

 

KH

[egibaud]

Hi Eric,

I understand your feelings , but I think it's not worth to be too much involved.

 

Yes you are right

 

I'll try to calm down and ignore negative posts when they are not constructive. Actually many negative post when expressed in a contructive way have helped to get the M8 a lot better. and this is to my eyes, the only way to go. I'll ignore the rest

[MP3]

If I'm Leica, I see no point to spend effort to secure other brands' lenses performance on M8.

 

If I'm Phase One, I see little incentive it bringing up a Panatool luminance Radiance function to a niche group of M8 users.

 

Though I'm an M8 owner, I think the better way to get out of hassles is to go the way Leica tell me, code your lenses.

 

This is Reality.

 

- Matthew

[Riley]

is anyone all that certain that the lens coding is patented ?

 

i say this because other manufacturers do the same thing

Olympus for one has the ability to update firmware on lenses and flashes when connected to the camera. And they use coding to manipulate the effects of individual lenses.

 

Olympus America Inc

[george_b]

I have been using my 35mm Summicron which I purchased brand new in 1975, told by Leica dealer it predates those which can have a replacement coded mount btw, with the IR filter and what can I say? I am gobsmacked by the quality I am getting from it. No colour shift issues or vignetting, etc - so it is not even my agenda to worry about such things. The only thing I would like to be able to do is edit the EXIF data on my P/C so that in the future I have a record on file which lens were used for which images. Some with my 50mm Summicron btw of a similar vintage - it is outstanding!

Does anyone know of any suitable software to do this?

[hankg]

.

 

So my question is:

 

Knowing that you knew all the M8 defects and knowing you did not agree with their solution before delivery and knowing you still bought the camera....

 

ARE YOU MASOCHIST or JUST STUPID ???????????????????

 

Opinions of users on all sides of any issue should be welcome here as this is the purpose of this forum. But these sort of rude and personal attacks should be banned. If you want to get down in the mud and trade insults online in red capital letters I suggest you visit photo.net.

 

The pros and cons of this have been restated repeatedly. So I won't restate what I have already said. If their are those who wish to continue this discussion they should do so in a civil manner and stick to making the case for their viewpoint as the usefullness of this forum is dependent on everyone behaving in a mature and professional manner.

 

One thing everyone who supports and participates in this forum should agree on is a policy of zero tolerance for infantile rude and insulting behaviour.

[hammam]

just reading all your posts.... you mention you ordered your M8 in november and were delivered in feb 07.

 

So when you got delivered you knew exactly what the M8 was the PRO and CONS.

 

You knew the IR situation and the Coded/Filter solution.

 

SO PLEASE STOP CRYING HERE during posts and posts and endless posting that ALWAYS say the SAME THING !!!!!!!!!!!

 

You had enough time and information to decide whether you wanted an M8 or NOT.

 

You decided to have it and now you complain that you have to code your lenses and use filters !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

PLEASE SELL YOUR M8 and GIVE US A BREAK !!!!!!

 

LEICA HAS NOT STOLEN YOU A SINGLE DOLLAR !!!!! you have decided to go ahead with purshase.

 

So my question is:

 

Knowing that you knew all the M8 defects and knowing you did not agree with their solution before delivery and knowing you still bought the camera....

 

ARE YOU MASOCHIST or JUST STUPID ???????????????????

 

Are you just rude or just plain stupid. You don't agree with me, fine. You don't have to read me, do you? Just skip. What is it to you anyway? And STOP YELLING!!!!!! It's not the first time you behave like that, and you have been reprimanded before for this precise reason. Even if people disagree, this forum should be polite and civilised. You are neither.

 

I knew the IR problem, and I knew the filter solution, and I had accepted it. But I didn't know the Leica filter only solution (they didn't even exist at the time) and, most importantly, I didn't know the Leica lens exclusively solution. AFAIK, the word «exclusively» has been used by Leica when they released firm. 1.102. I don't spend my days dissecting all litterature from Leica all around the place just to make sure I don't miss something. Besides, I claim the right to love the M8, while disliking some of its idiosyncrasies, and to try to convince Leica to not close their system like that. I am disappointed to have to give up my C/V lenses when I sincerely hoped they would come up with a solution to accomodate them, and I will keep on trying to find ways to solve this, wether you like it or not. And I really don't need your immature yelling lecturing..

 

As for Leica stealing my money, please quote me where I said they did.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Well said, Hank