Does 6bit coding matter on the 28-35-50 MATE?

[Keith_W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all, a secondhand Tri-Elmar 28-35-50 was offered to me. The proviso is, it does not have 6 bit coding for use with my M10. 

 

I was wondering whether this really matters. After all, the camera has no idea which focal length you have chosen. Is it something worth fretting about? Should I go through the trouble of sending it on a holiday to Germany? 

Incidentally, I will be in Berlin in November for a holiday myself. Are they able to code the lens for you on the spot? 

[wda]

I had mine coded in Germany with advantages. Focal lengths are read and recorded in Metadata making later analysis easier and better informed.. It is also possible for the processor to make any adjustments relating to the lens. Cannot recall the details, I'm afraid.

 

The lens now has a rarity value and works very well with later generation digital cameras. At times it lives on my MP240 and is perfect for local touring.

[Advertisement]

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

[Keith_W]

The point I was making is that the 6 bit code doesn't tell the camera that you've chosen the 28, or the 35, or the 50mm focal length. All the camera knows is that it's the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50. If so, is there any point in getting it coded? 

[jdlaing]

The point I was making is that the 6 bit code doesn't tell the camera that you've chosen the 28, or the 35, or the 50mm focal length. All the camera knows is that it's the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50. If so, is there any point in getting it coded?

If it is six bit coded the camera will know which focal length is chosen based on the basic code and the activation of the frame lines. The six bit code is worth it for the corrections made to 28 and 35mm. Not so much for 50.

[Guest]

The point I was making is that the 6 bit code doesn't tell the camera that you've chosen the 28, or the 35, or the 50mm focal length. All the camera knows is that it's the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50. If so, is there any point in getting it coded? 

 

If it is six bit coded the camera will know which focal length is chosen based on the basic code and the activation of the frame lines. The six bit code is worth it for the corrections made to 28 and 35mm. Not so much for 50.

 

Correctly, the 6-bit code does not tell the camera which focal range was set on the MATE.

But the position of the field-of-view selector, which fades the right frame, informs the camera about this.

According to Leica there must be a transfer of this information from the mechanics to the electronics.

Therefore, it needs both:

1. The coding to inform the digital camera about a MATE has been connected and 

2. the correct position of the field-of-view selector of a well adjusted MATE to document the selected focal length.

Works great on my M8.2 and also on an M10, which I could test.

Unfortunately, this technique does not work on the WATE, because there the field-of-view selector will not be moved at all when the focal range is changed.

[Ecar]

Exactly.

The WATE is effectively a zoom lens in this respect, whereas the MATE can be considered a 3-in-1 lens.

I normally don't bother too much about having lens coded, as I'm happy to set the code manually when swapping lenses.

The MATE is an exception, as it's  obviously impractical to do that every time you turn the FL selector, so I had it coded a few years ago.

[wda]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The point I was making is that the 6 bit code doesn't tell the camera that you've chosen the 28, or the 35, or the 50mm focal length. All the camera knows is that it's the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50. If so, is there any point in getting it coded?

 

But it does know the selected focal length, as confirmed by others.

[pop]

 

....

Unfortunately, this technique does not work on the WATE, because there the field-of-view selector will not be moved at all when the focal range is changed.

 

Which frame lines would an M type camera show for the focal lengths of a WATE?

[01af]

Which frame lines would an M-type camera show for the focal lengths of a WATE?

28/90 at 16 mm, 35/135 at 18 mm, and 50/75 at 21 mm.

 

Of course, it would be prohibitively expensive to implement the mechanics, yet it would be totally useless to the photographer. It would just enable the camera to record the focal length in the EXIF data automatically, is all.

 

So it's omitted, and you have to pick the selected focal length from the camera's lens menu manually which will electronically simulate the beforementioned frameline selection via the 6-bit lens code in conjunction with the 2-bit frameline code.

[pop]

28/90 at 16 mm, 35/135 at 18 mm, and 50/75 at 21 mm.

 

Of course, it would be prohibitively expensive to implement the mechanics, yet it would be totally useless to the photographer. It would just enable the camera to record the focal length in the EXIF data automatically, is all.

 

So it's omitted, and you have to pick the selected focal length from the camera's lens menu manually which will electronically simulate the beforementioned frameline selection via the 6-bit lens code in conjunction with the 2-bit frameline code.

You're so right, especially about it being useless.

 

They could built a small mechanism into the socket which turns some of the coding dots from black to white and vice versa.

[Guest]

Which frame lines would an M type camera show for the focal lengths of a WATE?

 

Here the topic of the WATE is only about the missed possibility to document the selected focal range directly to the Exif files.

 

At another thread we have already discussed about the fact that - as with the MATE -  it would have been possible also for the WATE to combine the information from coding and one of the three positions of the field-of-view selector for an exact documentation of the focal length in the Exif files.

 

The fact that the range finder would show wrong frames for the WATE could be neglected, since the WATE anyway needs external finders like the Frankenfinder or electronic viewfinder.

 

When Leica technicians were asked about this, they suspected that a correct recording of the focal length for the Exif files had not been in their mind.

 

If you repeatedly photograph the same motif by WATE with two or all three different focusses, in order to be able to select the best picture effect later, often there is no time to enter the selected focal length manually.

[Keith_W]

But it does know the selected focal length, as confirmed by others.

 

Thanks. I did not know that the MATE activates the frame selector lines when different focal lengths are selected. That makes sense. 

[jdlaing]

Thanks. I did not know that the MATE activates the frame selector lines when different focal lengths are selected. That makes sense.

If,you look at the mount on the lens you'll see a little spring loaded tab that moves to set one of the three sets of frame lines when you rotate the focal length collar. Single focal lengths have a fixed tab..

[Soden]

Hmmm, 16/18/21 frame lines in 24mm rangefinder, amusing. With the MATE it makes sense as you just need to trigger the correct frame lines. The rumored 28/35/50/75 would be odd as 50 and 75 share the same frame lines. The WATE must have the frankenfinder or EVF... it is coded as the only 16mm lens.

[a.noctilux]

For years, I use mine of MATE not coded with all my Ms.

Finder blocking at 28mm of the lens is annoying but usable with practice: just move a little bit to see hiden part then recompose.

[nilca]

On 8/23/2017 at 5:56 AM, Keith_W said:

The point I was making is that the 6 bit code doesn't tell the camera that you've chosen the 28, or the 35, or the 50mm focal length. All the camera knows is that it's the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50. If so, is there any point in getting it coded? 

If the Tri-Elmar works correctly, the frame-selector tab or cam tells the camera which focal-length (35-50-28) is chosen.

[jdlaing]

9 minutes ago, nilca said:

If the Tri-Elmar works correctly, the frame-selector tab or cam tells the camera which focal-length (35-50-28) is chosen.

You’re answering someone that hasn’t been here in 5 years. 😃