Leica SL with Noctilux 0.95 and Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is the one thing that I don't like about the SL thus far; such a pain in the @ss.   You'd think this would be something easily solved, not sure why the camera can't just read the actual aperture used.

Because the lens does not provide the data. There is no coupling between any lens not built for the SL and the camera. There seems to be no easy solution.

[Advertisement]

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

[MT0227]

I guess if the camera can read the 6-bit encoding, you'd think Leica would have a way for the adapter to acknowledge and pass along the actual aperture setting as well.  

 

Because the lens does not provide the data. There is no coupling between any lens not built for the SL and the camera. There seems to be no easy solution.

[Jeff S]

When using manual aperture lenses with no electronic coupling, like the M and R lenses, the camera utilizes a secondary, externally mounted light meter to approximate aperture information, similar to the M240.

 

Jeff

[MT0227]

What about the M-P 240?  I never noticed any significant variance with that body; certainly not several stops off like the SL. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I guess if the camera can read the 6-bit encoding, you'd think Leica would have a way for the adapter to acknowledge and pass along the actual aperture setting as well.  

 

The 6 bit coding is just a group of painted dots. Not exactly cutting edge tech for lens identification.

 

Without a proper electronic interface between lens and body getting accurate exif is hard.

 

I use exif tool and add the proper apertures later if the shot is a keeper. Maybe the idea would be to have something like that available as a function of the camera where the user could set the aperture in exif via the menus. Kinda like we set the lens profile manually. Still a cludge but better than nothing.

 

Gordon

[Jeff S]

What about the M-P 240?  I never noticed any significant variance with that body; certainly not several stops off like the SL. 

 

As I described, same approach.  Similar issue with any digital M.  Samples could vary, but best test approach is to shoot both in same lighting conditions with same lens and keep good notes.  Anything else is just assumptions.

 

Jeff

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is the one thing that I don't like about the SL thus far; such a pain in the @ss. You'd think this would be something easily solved, not sure why the camera can't just read the actual aperture used.

The camera cannot read the actual aperture used because there is no electronic transmission of data from M lenses. This is one of the reasons they are so adaptable and future-proof.

 

The existing system is a decent enough workaround for me. The accuracy of Exif data is typically not very important unless I'm shooting something that requires repetition or for a test. In these cases I would just jot down the aperture used.

[wlaidlaw]

The aperture interpolation for M lenses on the SL, seems far less well implemented than it is on digital M cameras, where it is pretty accurate on the EXIF. 

 

Wilson

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

I think at the end of the day it really doesn't matter as when you are taking a picture you should be under control of what AppStore you want to be set at

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Aperture

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pop]

I guess if the camera can read the 6-bit encoding, you'd think Leica would have a way for the adapter to acknowledge and pass along the actual aperture setting as well.  

The 6 bits on the mount of the lens encode the lens type. You can infer the maximum aperture the lens is capable of, but not the aperture actually set. As others have pointed out, the digital M body has a small light meter built in. Using this light meter, the camera can reckon how much light is lost in the lens and, from there, what aperture might be set. I don't think the SL body has that light meter built in, it being a relic from the sixty year old product family.

[Jeff S]

 I don't think the SL body has that light meter built in, it being a relic from the sixty year old product family.

 

It does...my post #23 above was excerpted from a David Farkas SL review. I think he would know.

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

I think at the end of the day it really doesn't matter as when you are taking a picture you should be under control of what [aperture] you want to be set at

 

 

 

Of course, but it matters for people who use EXIF to sort information for their own purposes and/or to answer questions regarding aperture used, such the one you couldn't answer in this very thread.

 

Jeff

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

But mate most people that look at my pictures whether on an iPad or printed never ask what were the camera settings were when I took it. They either say nice or sh!te.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeff S]

But mate most people that look at my pictures whether on an iPad or printed never ask what were the camera settings were when I took it. They either say nice or sh!te.

 

 

 

 

That was only an example....most people who care about EXIF use it for their own purposes, for instance to gather information about their shooting history, perhaps to determine if they really need to spend more money on a fast lens if 99% of their prior shots weren't wide open. Only one such example.

 

I don't tell folks what camera I used, let alone what aperture.  Only other photographers ask anyway....like on the forums.

 

Jeff

[LD_50]

The 6 bits on the mount of the lens encode the lens type. You can infer the maximum aperture the lens is capable of, but not the aperture actually set. As others have pointed out, the digital M body has a small light meter built in. Using this light meter, the camera can reckon how much light is lost in the lens and, from there, what aperture might be set. I don't think the SL body has that light meter built in, it being a relic from the sixty year old product family.

The SL has the same meter for the same purpose.

[Jeff S]

The SL has the same meter for the same purpose.

 

Posts #23, #32.

 

Jeff

[LD_50]

Posts #23, #32.

 

Jeff

Yes I read those posts. I'm confirming through my actual use of the camera and M lenses. No reference required to a review.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

I've used them, too. The review is a bonus for you.

 

Jeff

[LD_50]

I've used them, too. The review is a bonus for you.

 

Jeff

I don't follow the point of this statement. You referenced a review (without citation) and then stated the author is likely to know what he's writing about. You didn't reference any firsthand knowledge.

 

I'm simply confirming through first hand knowledge for the OP and pop that the meter exists with the SL. This is in addition to what you offered.

 

You then refer me to your posts for unknown reason. Now it's a bonus for me? I'm answering the questions of the OP and clarifying a false assumption from pop. I'm not the OP and wasn't at all confused about the aperture reading capability of the SL with non-native lenses.