M10 Lens Detection Menu

[JPP1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Same thing here with my Summicron 50 (1982) coded by Leica last year.

 

No problem with this lens on my T with the adapter.

[UliWer]

The reports about some lenses not being detected by the M10, while the same lenses are detected on other cameras and the M 10 itself detects other lenses would not lead me to think that individual cameras are faulty. It seems as if the M10 detection was oversensitive, so that even minor differences of the coding, which normally should not matter, lead to misreadings.

 

I hope the tolerance of lens detection can be raised by firmware in the future.

[Stein K S]

Thanks UliWer

 

Kind of comforting to hear that I am not alone on this ;-)

 

Quite natural to think that the very simple black & white bit physics behind the detection mechanism really should be ¨fool proof¨...

[Al_OOF]

The reports about some lenses not being detected by the M10, while the same lenses are detected on other cameras and the M 10 itself detects other lenses would not lead me to think that individual cameras are faulty. It seems as if the M10 detection was oversensitive, so that even minor differences of the coding, which normally should not matter, lead to misreadings.

 

I hope the tolerance of lens detection can be raised by firmware in the future.

But if the same lens is recognized by other M10 and not from my own it may not be a problem of oversensitivity in this model but related only to my camera.

[pgh]

The code of your 35mm Summicron should be 011110 if it is the asph. version.

 

Are you sure the lens is properly attached with a click and the code isn't blurred by anything?

Yes - it's as it should be. I had an M8 some time ago that worked in this regard, so I know what the working mechanism does.

 

Whatever it is, I want to find a fix for it. I don't want to pop in the menu manually and switch lenses every time. Considering I paid more to get a 6 bit lens and paid for this camera, it should work. I cant exactly afford to send it in for 3 weeks right now as I got this for a project that's gonna require weekly use for at least a year. If I sub in shooting with another camera it will be obvious. 

[Tailwagger]

I have noted that more than once the M10 fails to recognize my coded lenses. Somewhat speaks to the potential for stupidity when selecting the auto interface. I just keep mine on R-Adapter-M.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes - it's as it should be. I had an M8 some time ago that worked in this regard, so I know what the working mechanism does.

 

Whatever it is, I want to find a fix for it. I don't want to pop in the menu manually and switch lenses every time. Considering I paid more to get a 6 bit lens and paid for this camera, it should work. I cant exactly afford to send it in for 3 weeks right now as I got this for a project that's gonna require weekly use for at least a year. If I sub in shooting with another camera it will be obvious. 

 So contact Leica and ask for a loaner.

[UliWer]

I fear if the "loaner" was an M10, he would have the same issues as long as it was not corrected by firmware. If it was an M (Typ 240) or M9 he would have to manually switch the code of the uncoded 50mm Summicron code he set manually before  - which he doesn't like. The M8 had no manual options.

 

Even when I brought up the topic here and asked Leica to cope for the issues of lens detection already in March this year, I think the whole 6-bit-coding/lens-detection worries of many users are not justified.

 

The main function of lens detection is to show the lens data in the EXIF (yes I know, there are some other functions for Auto-ISO or flash). Corrections of vignetting or colour shifts ("Italian flag") are not really important when you use the M10 - much less than with the M (Typ 240) or the M9. It may be a nice thing to have - but not really important for the results. Customers of a paid project will not recognize if lens detection for a 35mm Summicron works or not.

[pgh]

I fear if the "loaner" was an M10, he would have the same issues as long as it was not corrected by firmware. If it was an M (Typ 240) or M9 he would have to manually switch the code of the uncoded 50mm Summicron code he set manually before  - which he doesn't like. The M8 had no manual options.

 

Even when I brought up the topic here and asked Leica to cope for the issues of lens detection already in March this year, I think the whole 6-bit-coding/lens-detection worries of many users are not justified.

 

The main function of lens detection is to show the lens data in the EXIF (yes I know, there are some other functions for Auto-ISO or flash). Corrections of vignetting or colour shifts ("Italian flag") are not really important when you use the M10 - much less than with the M (Typ 240) or the M9. It may be a nice thing to have - but not really important for the results. Customers of a paid project will not recognize if lens detection for a 35mm Summicron works or not.

This is true, and I can manually switch the lens profiles in LR if I forget to do that in the field. But when I'm ponying up this much money for a system (and I make my living as a photographer - this camera is worth more than my car) - especially when it is a system I choose to use because it is the best at 'getting out of the way' so to speak - well, when it does something like this it is getting the way. Say what you will about the Sonys, but in the 2 years I've used them everything about my A7RII and Rx1rII everything about them has worked as it should. The way I render files also very much embraces the qualities of digital photography and post work - in that I actually am often embracing traits like clinical rendering and sharpness - vignetting and 'character' - while they have their place - don't so much in my work. So in that sense, if it slipped by me in post, a client might be able to tell. They may not be able to tell why a file looks off, but they could probably tell that it doesn't seem consistent with my other work. 

[adan]

The reports about some lenses not being detected by the M10, while the same lenses are detected on other cameras and the M 10 itself detects other lenses would not lead me to think that individual cameras are faulty. It seems as if the M10 detection was oversensitive....

 

While I have not had any problems with "officially" Leica-coded lenses, I do think my M10 is pickier about recognizing 6-bit codes.

 

Certainly I have had lenses that I coded myself (black Sharpie™ pen) that are recognized correctly by my M9, that the M10 will not recognize, or "recognized" mistakenly in very weird ways (e.g. a hand-coded 90mm Summicron that was correctly read by the M9, but which the M10 decided was a 35 f/1.4 ASPH (!)).

 

There is a very useful "feature" in the M10 (and a long-standing "bug" in earlier cameras, that was also occasionally useful) that - taken together - may be a reason why Leica intentionally made the M10 less tolerant of less-than-perfect coding.

 

The "useful bug" is that, if the screw head that - in uncoded post-1980 lenses, sits in the position of the 6-bit coding (and is removed when a coded mount is added, or in factory-original coded lenses) - gets dirty, it can be read as a "black" six-bit dot. It happens to exactly match the single coding dot of the thin Tele-Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8 - which makes that particular lens occasionally "self-coding." I used a couple of those 90s on the M8/M9, and it was a nice surprise to find that the camera would recognize such lenses even with no other coding at all - although not every instance.

 

There was a problem however, in that a 28mm uncoded lens with dirt on the same screw would sometimes ALSO be recognized as a "90mm" (90 and 28mm share the same frameline set) - which is not good, since a 28 wide-angle really needs to be correctly identified to avoid red- or cyan-edge color shifts.

 

Now, along comes the new feature in the M10: If an uncoded lens is mounted, and the camera is set to manual menu ID - then IF a coded lens is mounted, the camera automatically switches out of manual menu lens selection when it senses the 6-bit marks. And back into manual if it sees no marks.

 

Wonderful! - I can leave my menu set to manual-M-menu-ID for my sole uncoded lens - 135 f/4. And if I mount my coded lenses (21/35/50/75), I do not have to switch to auto lens detection - the camera seamlessly switches to AUTO for me, when it detects 6-bit coding. It is like having coding on my 135 Tele-Elmar (which has no 6-bit code, nor a mount that can be converted). Swap lenses freely, without messing with the menus, and all my lenses get recognized.

 

In effect, you get a "free" lens coding, for whichever ONE of your lenses you want to ID manually.

 

But you can see how that feature would be spoiled by the legacy occasional 28/90 confusion due to dirty screws, if the M10 was as tolerant of poor coding as the M9. Not only might uncoded 28s be recorded in EXIF as 90s - but we'd lose the necessary 28mm color corrections! So, the M10 has to be much pickier about what it detects as "real" lens coding, to avoid mistakenly seeing a dirty screw or other random mark as a code.

 

You win one, you lose one.

 

The cynical might think this is just Leica telling us "Pay the darn $300 - and get those lenses officially coded." I think it was just necessary to get the auto-switching from manual to auto lens detection to work "safely".

[adan]

The main function of lens detection is to show the lens data in the EXIF (yes I know, there are some other functions for Auto-ISO or flash). Corrections of vignetting or colour shifts ("Italian flag") are not really important when you use the M10...It may be a nice thing to have - but not really important for the results. Customers of a paid project will not recognize if lens detection for a 35mm Summicron works or not.

 

I disagree - On the M10 my 35mm Summicron v.4 clearly shows cyan edges unless correctly ID'd via either menu or coding. Conversely, my 135 clearly shows "yellow-orange stains" at the short end of the picture if mistakenly ID'd as the 35mm (and having 35mm color corrections mistakenly applied). The corrections make a significant change.

 

The M10 sensor/microlenses may or may not be "better" than the M9 or M240 - but they are not even close to being good enough to remove the need for good in-camera color corrections with short-focus wide angles (and avoiding false corrections with longer lenses mistakenly ID'd as wide-angles.)

 

To borrow from the tagline of a former Forum member, "What counts is not what the customer will accept. What counts is what I will accept."

[UliWer]

...

Now, along comes the new feature in the M10: If an uncoded lens is mounted, and the camera is set to manual menu ID - then IF a coded lens is mounted, the camera automatically switches out of manual menu lens selection when it senses the 6-bit marks. And back into manual if it sees no marks.

 

Wonderful! - I can leave my menu set to manual-M-menu-ID for my sole uncoded lens - 135 f/4. And if I mount my coded lenses (21/35/50/75), I do not have to switch to auto lens detection - the camera seamlessly switches to AUTO for me, when it detects 6-bit coding. It is like having coding on my 135 Tele-Elmar (which has no 6-bit code, nor a mount that can be converted). Swap lenses freely, without messing with the menus, and all my lenses get recognized.

 

In effect, you get a "free" lens coding, for whichever ONE of your lenses you want to ID manually.

 

But you can see how that feature would be spoiled by the legacy occasional 28/90 confusion due to dirty screws, if the M10 was as tolerant of poor coding as the M9. Not only might uncoded 28s be recorded in EXIF as 90s - but we'd lose the necessary 28mm color corrections! So, the M10 has to be much pickier about what it detects as "real" lens coding, to avoid mistakenly seeing a dirty screw or other random mark as a code.

 

You win one, you lose one.

 

The cynical might think this is just Leica telling us "Pay the darn $300 - and get those lenses officially coded." I think it was just necessary to get the auto-switching from manual to auto lens detection to work "safely".

 

I agree with you, that the M10's automatic override of a manual detection selected from the menu is a good thing - exactly for the reasons you mention.

 

Though there are some glitches in the override function. A perfact override funtion would go: If lens detection reads a certain code dedicated for a specific lens, then override any manual settings other than the coded lens attached; else: leave the manual setting alone! There are several  situations where this simple logic doesn't work:

 

1. Sensor for lens detection is not covered but gets light. (Typical situation when you use an LTM-to-M-adapter, which has a spareout exactly at the place of the sensor for 6-bit-code)

Then the override function goes: Lens detection reads "light", than go to "no lens", or "automatic" without applying another code. You cannot apply any detection for a lens from the menu; for any manual setting is overriden. 

The "no lens" reaction prevents to use EVF without a lens - therefore the function itself makes sense. But the "no lens" reaction is wrong if there is a lens - attached with an adapter. So you should be able to override this automatic function by choosing an appropriate manual setting from the menu. The M (Typ 240) had the same problem in the beginning; it was cured by firmware.

 

2. Sensor for lens detection reads a certain code which it does not know. Then the override function leads to the response: "uncoded lens". Any manual setting is overriden. I have this when I attach the Macro-Adapter-M, which is coded, but does not seem to have a dedicated lens correction. The override function prevents me from choosing a manual setting - the obvious choice being the setting for the "Macro-Adapter M + 90/1.4 14409" i.e the setting for the old Macro-Elmar with goggles adapter. This should be cured by firmware also, even if it is not really important, as correction for longer focal lengthes does not do much. Perhaps I am wrong, and any manual setting will lead to bad results when you use the new Macro-Adapter. It would be interesting to know how lens detection works with the Macro-Adapter for the M (Typ 240)

 

3. Sensor for lens detection does not recognize a certain code which is applied on the lens. Then it seems that the override function for coded lenses does not react. You are still able to manually choose your correct setting from the menu. Same as for the former digital M models since the M9. This might be corrected by leaving more tolerance for the code readings - but this would cause conflicts wth No. 4

 

4. Sensor for lens detection misreads the lenses coding and applies a wrong code. In these cases the override function would prevent correcting the wrong code manually - since it has read something and obligingly reacts. This may happen with "bad" codings or the odd screw at the place of the code. It is right to assume that if they would try to solve problem 3 by leaving more tolerance of code readings they would increase the risks of problem 4 - which would be worse, since you could not correct the wrong code. 

 

 

Problems 1,2 and 4 might be solved by a new function, which would enable you to deactivate the automatic override function, while problem 3 still could be solved be leaving more tolerance. Though this would cause a new issue - user's error: you think you have activated the function for automatic override, but really it is deactivated, or the other way round. If you would need to deactivate it to apply a lens with adapter, you probably would forget to activate it again, when you switched to a coded lens, so the wrong code would stay.  Same as with other digital M models since the M9.  

Edited August 23, 2017 by UliWer

[Al_OOF]

 3. Sensor for lens detection does not recognize a certain code which is applied on the lens. Then it seems that the override function for coded lenses does not react. You are still able to manually choose your correct setting from the menu....

 

I would like it to be so for all the lenses but recent ones are not in the list so I can not even manually set my Elmar 24

[jdlaing]

I would like it to be so for all the lenses but recent ones are not in the list so I can not even manually set my Elmar 24

Is it 6 bit coded?

[Al_OOF]

Yes, new coded from the factory

[jdlaing]

Yes, new coded from the factory

If your camera won't read it it need an adjustment. I heartily recommend it.

[Al_OOF]

Unfortunately I think that is so, but I'm sorry to stay without it for a month (more or less) and I am not happy that a new camera has this defect (plus the - 3 mentioned in other discussions) and should be put back in the factory after a short time.

[Tailwagger]

For those that largely have a single favored pre-6 bit, I'm sure its great. But for those of use whose glass is half and half, not so much.  Some how, not sure how, I wound up in auto... I normally have things set to R-Adapter-M... and all my lenses were seen as 21mm (the default as its the first option) including my brand new 1/2 hour old 50mm Summilux BC, which it failed to recognize.  On at least one other occasion my 21 SEM has failed to be recognized.

 

My suspicion is that the reader is less robust, conservation of power?  It seems as though a little bit of oil or metal on metal residue on the mount gunks it up more easily than previous generations. While there was nothing overt, once I wiped the mount down, it read the lens fine.  

[jdlaing]

Unfortunately I think that is so, but I'm sorry to stay without it for a month (more or less) and I am not happy that a new camera has this defect (plus the - 3 mentioned in other discussions) and should be put back in the factory after a short time.

May I suggest something?

 

Take an alcohol wipe and clean the six bit code on the lens.

Then do the same with the window on the lens mount that reads the code. Be very careful on that window on the mount.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest]

I too can confirm that the M10's 6 bit detection is more finicky than say the M240.

Lenses that I've coded myself, and work just fine on the M240, are hit or miss on the M10.

Even my factory coded 24mm only registers true 50% of the time on the M10 but has no problems at all on the 240.