Steve Spencer Posted December 16, 2015 Share #61 Posted December 16, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yup that is pretty strong coma that clears up nicely as you stop down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 Hi Steve Spencer, Take a look here R-M-L Adapters stacked. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Likaleica Posted December 18, 2015 Share #62 Posted December 18, 2015 That's the same phenomenon I observed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 18, 2015 Share #63 Posted December 18, 2015 Sean Reid, treating the vignetting and edge color corrections in the R 50 Summicron and Summilux on his site, shows that even when the corrections are reasonable they can be improved to remove errors which a careful treatment exposes. Also, if the correction is varied with estimated aperture, an estimated aperture which is too low could call down a stronger than needed correction. There are ways to check whether this is an important factor... scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted February 21, 2016 Share #64 Posted February 21, 2016 Just tried the Apo 280 on my SL (R and M adapters stacked, using R lens profile from within SL). Results are disappointing to say the least. This shot is just an example with no artistic value. One can not fix the degree of vignetting in LR with the available tools. - Leica, please fix with next firmware update Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/254259-r-m-l-adapters-stacked/?do=findComment&comment=2993999'>More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share #65 Posted February 22, 2016 As I recall, there are problems with the profile for the 280/4 on the SL (I think). Have you tried other lens codes? If you look at my original opening post, that issue (which looks similar) arose because I used the code for version 2 of the APO-180/2.8 rather than the version 1 code. One other thing you could try is no code at all (I had no problems with the Novoflex "dumb" adapter R-T). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted February 22, 2016 Share #66 Posted February 22, 2016 I noticed the most egregious profile errors just about the same time as firmware 1.2 was released, and reported them to Steffen Skopp, the SL product manager. I think that is his title -- anyway he is a public face for the product. Just so this doesn't get forgotten, the really obvious errors, like what is shown above are for the most "special" lenses, and I will list them again here. Perhaps there was a misguided, interrupted effort to update those profiles very shortly before the SL was shipped. What is needed is a careful measurement of vignetting corrections and any color shifts, at maximum aperture and typical working aperture, cast into firmware as an average correction for each lens and an increase to be applied when the lens is used wide open. The correction for wide open use can't be full, since the aperture estimation is only approximate in the SL with M or R lenses (as it was in the M). R lens profiles provided in the SL's firmware today are usable but not optimized, with the exception of the following, which are unusable: APO 280/4 11360 or 11261 APO Summicron 180 11354 APO Elmarit 180 11357 (really horrid; use 11273) APO Macro Elmarit 100 11210/11352 (use non-APO 90/2.8) and the APO Summicron 90 11350 (use non-APO 90/2.0) The reason to use a profile at all is that there may be color corrections provided, and there definitely are small corrections for barrel (in wide angles) or pincushion (in telephotos) distortion. These are added in the dng files in a standard way that any raw file developer can incorporate. The only lens that I have found for which the corrections are not provided is, unfortunately, my Super-Elmarit R 15, which could use them. I haven't checked exhaustively on this issue. The firmware in development must be about 1.2.6 by now. I hope when a new, released version appears that these issues will have been taken care of. (And it will be great if the startup time doesn't depend so strongly on the size and type of cards in the camera...) scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 22, 2016 Share #67 Posted February 22, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just tried the Apo 280 on my SL (R and M adapters stacked, using R lens profile from within SL). Results are disappointing to say the least. This shot is just an example with no artistic value. One can not fix the degree of vignetting in LR with the available tools. - Leica, please fix with next firmware update Which adapters did you use? Some of them cause vignetting on their own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted February 22, 2016 Share #68 Posted February 22, 2016 Which adapters did you use? Some of them cause vignetting on their own. Jaap, we overlapped. The lightening that he sees is from the bad profile. Then in the very dark corners you may see the effect of the M throat then SL adapter stack. It has been reported to vignette at 280 and beyond. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 22, 2016 Share #69 Posted February 22, 2016 It my be worth it to try a Novoflex LEM/LER. I found on the M240 that it does not vignette. The SL should be the same, geometrically speaking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted February 22, 2016 Share #70 Posted February 22, 2016 This thread has been sleeping since December. Does that mean the situation is now completely clear ? There is a complete list for R and M lenses with problem profiles ? Leica is aware of the problem and of this list ? Leica plans to correct the profiles until ... ? Has anybody been in contact with L and has receiced a confirmation ? Can somebody give us some feedback ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted February 22, 2016 Share #71 Posted February 22, 2016 This thread has been sleeping since December. Does that mean the situation is now completely clear ? this set of problems has been described accurately There is a complete list for R and M lenses with problem profiles ? R yes, M no, but there have been no complaints about M lenses Leica is aware of the problem and of this list ? Yes Leica plans to correct the profiles until ... ? Has anybody been in contact with L and has receiced a confirmation ? Can somebody give us some feedback ? I have contacted Leica but have received no response. We'll have to wait for the next firmware release to see. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erudolph Posted February 22, 2016 Share #72 Posted February 22, 2016 I sent an example from the APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 100 to Leica USA. The answer back from them was that they'd pass it on to the development team. When I sent another example from another lens, the answer was that new profiles would be coming soon. This was about three weeks ago. In the meantime, with the problem lenses, I keep profiles turned off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted February 22, 2016 Share #73 Posted February 22, 2016 Which adapters did you use? Some of them cause vignetting on their own. Leica adapters. - Apart from the profile issue (which, once corrected, will hopefully mitigate this) I hope that Leica will release a direct R adapter for the SL (with no need to stack it onto the M adapter). I will not invest into a Novoflex R to M adapter which should do the same thing as the Leica R to M adapter. Leica has to get their act together and fix that for their own line of products (perhaps by focusing some of their workforce away from collector editions and other distractions but on important stuff). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted February 22, 2016 Share #74 Posted February 22, 2016 (And it will be great if the startup time doesn't depend so strongly on the size and type of cards in the camera...) scott This is another big disappointment of the SL. I would add that it also badly affects wake from sleep. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 22, 2016 Share #75 Posted February 22, 2016 Leica adapters. - Apart from the profile issue (which, once corrected, will hopefully mitigate this) I hope that Leica will release a direct R adapter for the SL (with no need to stack it onto the M adapter). I will not invest into a Novoflex R to M adapter which should do the same thing as the Leica R to M adapter. Leica has to get their act together and fix that for their own line of products (perhaps by focusing some of their workforce away from collector editions and other distractions but on important stuff). The "R Adapter SL" was announced at the SL launch, but won't be available until later this year. I strongly doubt that the software and firmware engineers working on the SL firmware have anything to do, either in assignments or skill set, with the designers working on special edition cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted February 22, 2016 Share #76 Posted February 22, 2016 As I recall, there are problems with the profile for the 280/4 on the SL (I think). Have you tried other lens codes? If you look at my original opening post, that issue (which looks similar) arose because I used the code for version 2 of the APO-180/2.8 rather than the version 1 code. One other thing you could try is no code at all (I had no problems with the Novoflex "dumb" adapter R-T). Thanks, I only tried "no code" with no better result. - Interestingly, the sandwich of 2 adapters with that particular lens performs just fine on my M240 with only minimal vignetting. So the physics of the sandwich don't seem to be the issue. Perhaps it is the SL sensor? - Of course the SL is much nicer to focus with such a long lens than the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted February 22, 2016 Share #77 Posted February 22, 2016 I strongly doubt that the software and firmware engineers working on the SL firmware have anything to do, either in assignments or skill set, with the designers working on special edition cameras. Not the very same engineers, I agree (or assume). But the resource allocation (FTE) to a problem has something to do with this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 22, 2016 Share #78 Posted February 22, 2016 What I want to know: At this point in time with all the information about the SL available for anyone to read before buying it, if you consider all these things to be "another big disappointment", why on earth did you buy the camera? I ordered the SL when it was announced and have had it since November 16. Even as delivered, I find it a fine camera to make photographs with. No, it isn't perfect ... and I don't believe it ever will be. No camera has ever been perfect, after all. But the SL does a good job over all, with some issues that can be addressed. If I felt the way I read expressed on this thread, or on several others, I'd sell the darn thing and move on. I don't; I find it the best digital camera I've owned for most of what I want to do, and a fine complement to my Leica M-P and X—each of which have their minor warts as well, but again "Nothing is ever perfect." It would be best if you simply listed the items that you think a firmware update might help fix without all the disparagement and emotional content. I know that if I'm on a team evaluating feedback and we run across a half dozen overly emotionally charged responses, it becomes a joke after a while and the team has to work hard to ignore the histrionics and not to just find it funny and ignorable. If you want to impress people who have serious intent in mind, and money at stake, be objective and articulate carefully what you want to be known. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted February 22, 2016 Share #79 Posted February 22, 2016 What I want to know: At this point in time with all the information about the SL available for anyone to read before buying it, if you consider all these things to be "another big disappointment", why on earth did you buy the camera? I ordered the SL when it was announced and have had it since November 16. Even as delivered, I find it a fine camera to make photographs with. No, it isn't perfect ... and I don't believe it ever will be. No camera has ever been perfect, after all. But the SL does a good job over all, with some issues that can be addressed. If I felt the way I read expressed on this thread, or on several others, I'd sell the darn thing and move on. I don't; I find it the best digital camera I've owned for most of what I want to do, and a fine complement to my Leica M-P and X—each of which have their minor warts as well, but again "Nothing is ever perfect." It would be best if you simply listed the items that you think a firmware update might help fix without all the disparagement and emotional content. I know that if I'm on a team evaluating feedback and we run across a half dozen overly emotionally charged responses, it becomes a joke after a while and the team has to work hard to ignore the histrionics and not to just find it funny and ignorable. If you want to impress people who have serious intent in mind, and money at stake, be objective and articulate carefully what you want to be known. Not related to threat topic: Consider the marketing speak of Leica for the SL (raising expectations): something along the lines of "fast camera" or "solution for R lenses". Did they deliver? Partially. And apart from firmware issues or missing/desirable software features per se there is also the issue of how fast a solution is delivered once it is known (they did not raise expectations on this one, but I have them anyway). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted February 22, 2016 Share #80 Posted February 22, 2016 I strongly doubt that the software and firmware engineers working on the SL firmware have anything to do, either in assignments or skill set, with the designers working on special edition cameras. +1 ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.