dritz Posted October 3, 2015 Share #1 Posted October 3, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have the 28-35-50 3E without coding. It appears I have to set the lens correction separately for each focal length? Why not one setting and then let the cams do the rest... after all, the frame lines change so why doesn't it utilize that information? Am I missing something? Thanks. Dean, Seattle USA Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 Hi dritz, Take a look here M246 Tri-elmar lens detection. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted October 3, 2015 Share #2 Posted October 3, 2015 The 28 focal length is the only one that actually corrects slightly. The other two, in my opinion, do not. Exif information is the only gain for setting in the menu. Shooting raw the corrections are moot anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 4, 2015 Share #3 Posted October 4, 2015 Also, on my M-240 the tri Elmar changed the focal lengths automatically in the Exif when I changed them on the lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted October 7, 2015 Share #4 Posted October 7, 2015 I have the 28-35-50 3E without coding. It appears I have to set the lens correction separately for each focal length? Why not one setting and then let the cams do the rest... after all, the frame lines change so why doesn't it utilize that information? Am I missing something? Thanks. Dean, Seattle USA You need to have the lens coded and the correct fremline, for the camera to know what lens is mounted. It is not enough that the frame lines are correct... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dritz Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share #5 Posted October 15, 2015 You need to have the lens coded and the correct fremline, for the camera to know what lens is mounted. It is not enough that the frame lines are correct... I do manual setting, and perhaps that's my problem. The list of lenses breaks the 3E into three different lenses. I would have thought it would provide a single combined one, and then used the cam settings to apply the correct focal length to the EXIF. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffWright Posted November 22, 2015 Share #6 Posted November 22, 2015 I do manual setting, and perhaps that's my problem. The list of lenses breaks the 3E into three different lenses. I would have thought it would provide a single combined one, and then used the cam settings to apply the correct focal length to the EXIF. Well back to Erik's point. The lens has to be coded, otherwise the camera doesn't know you have the Tri-Elmar on it. A manual setting is just that, it ignores any coding (if present) no matter what's lens is mounted, and no matter what focal length the RF linkage identifies. The way the algorithm works for the Tri-Elmar is the code is read if present, and the RF linkage identifies which focal length is set. Although it's plausible that Leica could have made lens identification the way you would like it to, it would be inconsistent with the behavior used otherwise, which is to manually override whatever code is present, irregardless of the rangefinder linkage. For example, I could (if I had some reason to), mount my 6-bit coded 75 mm Summilux and manually override it to a 21mm Asph. People with older non-6-bit support Leica lenses and 3rd party lenses will sometimes experiment with different lens profiles to maximize their own experience. Although perhaps counterintuitive, it's also consistent with keeping things simple. Manual setting means manual setting, not semi-automatic. My recommendation, send the Tri-Elmar to someone to 6-bit code it. DAG Camera in the US does it for less than half of what US Leica charges, and in about 1/6 the amount of time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted December 1, 2015 Share #7 Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) hello, Even if they do the slight lens adjustment with the coding the results may not be as pleasing as they are on film. I have a friend who is not happy with the results and his lens was calibrated and coded at Solms. Tri-elmar is a very complicated design, one coding for three lenses , almost impossible to pull that one off I think. I saw the results myself, both sharpness and tonality were bad compared to the summicrons and a few elmarits. 50mm gave the worst results. Come to think of it I don't know why the tones weren't as rich, sharpness suffering is easy to understand. Little overall flare maybe? Edited December 1, 2015 by patrick parker Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dritz Posted December 4, 2015 Author Share #8 Posted December 4, 2015 Well back to Erik's point. The lens has to be coded, otherwise the camera doesn't know you have the Tri-Elmar on it. A manual setting is just that, it ignores any coding (if present) no matter what's lens is mounted, and no matter what focal length the RF linkage identifies. The way the algorithm works for the Tri-Elmar is the code is read if present, and the RF linkage identifies which focal length is set. Although it's plausible that Leica could have made lens identification the way you would like it to, it would be inconsistent with the behavior used otherwise, which is to manually override whatever code is present, irregardless of the rangefinder linkage. For example, I could (if I had some reason to), mount my 6-bit coded 75 mm Summilux and manually override it to a 21mm Asph. People with older non-6-bit support Leica lenses and 3rd party lenses will sometimes experiment with different lens profiles to maximize their own experience. Although perhaps counterintuitive, it's also consistent with keeping things simple. Manual setting means manual setting, not semi-automatic. My recommendation, send the Tri-Elmar to someone to 6-bit code it. DAG Camera in the US does it for less than half of what US Leica charges, and in about 1/6 the amount of time. Thanks. It's off to DAG. Got too frustrated with leaving "lens detection" on manual and having the wrong lenses associated with my images. Alas! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 5, 2015 Share #9 Posted December 5, 2015 hello, Even if they do the slight lens adjustment with the coding the results may not be as pleasing as they are on film. I have a friend who is not happy with the results and his lens was calibrated and coded at Solms. Tri-elmar is a very complicated design, one coding for three lenses , almost impossible to pull that one off I think. I saw the results myself, both sharpness and tonality were bad compared to the summicrons and a few elmarits. 50mm gave the worst results. Come to think of it I don't know why the tones weren't as rich, sharpness suffering is easy to understand. Little overall flare maybe? It shouldn't be that way. Results from the lens are similar to the primes of the period. The coding is not more difficult than a single focal length; the coding selects the lens, the frameline selection the focal length. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted December 7, 2015 Share #10 Posted December 7, 2015 I saw the results myself, both sharpness and tonality were bad compared to the summicrons and a few elmarits. 50mm gave the worst results. Come to think of it I don't know why the tones weren't as rich, sharpness suffering is easy to understand. Little overall flare maybe? not so for all copies. some earlier tri-elmars were very prone to flare & loss of contrast especially at 50mm & this was rectified in a later model which replaced the front lens element with a different type of glass, or something like that. if you have the older, affected model i think Leica may still fix this issue for you. otherwise, try adding the metal petal hood for greatly improved contrast. the tri-elmar should & (mine) does give stunning results at all three focals which easily equals or surpass the summicrons/summarits. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 7, 2015 Share #11 Posted December 7, 2015 AFAIK there are no new front elements any more. Lack of supply because the glass was discontinued was the main reason for discontinuing this lens. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted December 8, 2015 Share #12 Posted December 8, 2015 not so for all copies. some earlier tri-elmars were very prone to flare & loss of contrast especially at 50mm & this was rectified in a later model which replaced the front lens element with a different type of glass, or something like that. if you have the older, affected model i think Leica may still fix this issue for you. otherwise, try adding the metal petal hood for greatly improved contrast. the tri-elmar should & (mine) does give stunning results at all three focals which easily equals or surpass the summicrons/summarits. Thank you brill, I was not aware of this . This lens is the older version like you have guessed. Nikos The owner of the lens uses an A58 hood on this lens, If that is the major reason for the low image quality he will be a very happy to hear this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick parker Posted December 8, 2015 Share #13 Posted December 8, 2015 It shouldn't be that way. Results from the lens are similar to the primes of the period. The coding is not more difficult than a single focal length; the coding selects the lens, the frameline selection the focal length. I'm confused. If the firmware in MM is advanced enough to recognize the chosen lens setting on the tri-elmar, why would we need coding at all? As far as I know the camera is not aware of the type of lens used ,unless it reads the coding or we introduce it to the firmware manually. I'm guessing the most can be done by the coding is either to target one setting on the lens ,let's say the 35mm and calibrate the firmware to this particular lens and sacrifice the image quality of 50 and 28 or sacrifice all three in order to get an even but not so wonderful results. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 8, 2015 Share #14 Posted December 8, 2015 The coding identifies the lens, as with any coded lens, and the position of the internal frameline detector determines the focal length, no extra complications added over the existing system. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.