UliWer Posted October 17, 2018 Share #41 Posted October 17, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) vor 5 Stunden schrieb ianman: No. What would be the point? For example, the 28mm Summaron-M is not in the list of my M9... because all 28mm Summaron-M lenses are coded. I guess only older lenses of which uncoded examples exist are manually selectable. This makes sense. Usually you are right that new lenses which come only coded are not in the list - though not with the Summaron. It is in the list for manual lens selection of the M10. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 Hi UliWer, Take a look here Anybody interested in a 90mm: Summilux M 1:1,5/90 ASPH. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Paulus Posted October 17, 2018 Author Share #42 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) vor 11 Stunden schrieb luigi bertolotti: Good idea… indeed a Summilux 1,5/90 ("twin" of the 1,25/75) is rumored by some time : see Leicarumors and also the Forum.. it's even in the official "Leica Poster" , but without a declared 6 bit code, contrary to the available lenses : probably a code has been issued… Adobe took notice and listed it in new version of LR as a recognizable lens… which lens was mounted in your picture, Paulus ? Supposing that 1 bit only was misread… we could speculate by "reverse reasoning" what's the code of the 1,5/90... The lens in the picture was an Elmarit-M 1:2.8 /24 ASPH an "oldie" . There were some issues with earlier photo's. First you see on photo 423 that the Elmarit-M 1:2.8 /24 ASPH is still written in Lightroom. With photo 424 without changing the lens, it has been altered in " not selected " 425 is again Elmarit-M 1:2.8 /24 ASPH, 426 is " not selected " 427 " not selected" 428" not selected" 429 " not selected " this stays until 432 in this capture , the picture is black ) no record ? ( see photo ) . It stays " not selected " until 447. In this picture the Summilux -M 1:1,5/90 ASPH is written until 458, which was the last capture of the day and I noticed it in Lightroom. 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! Edited October 17, 2018 by Paulus forgot photo Quote 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/290588-anybody-interested-in-a-90mm-summilux-m-11590-asph/?do=findComment&comment=3614026'>More sharing options...
Paulus Posted October 17, 2018 Author Share #43 Posted October 17, 2018 vor 9 Stunden schrieb luigi bertolotti: True… which makes to repeat our question to Paulus… which lens had you on ? Which frame did you see in the VF ? If it was the35/ 90mm frame. Not uncommon for the Elmarit -M 24 1:2.8 /24 ASPH.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted October 17, 2018 Author Share #44 Posted October 17, 2018 vor 7 Stunden schrieb ianman: Looking again at the exif data, something is bothering me. It indicates "Summilux-M 1:1.5/90 ASPH." and yet, when I look at all the other coded lenses, the nomenclature is different. In the list provided on this page, the nomenclature is familyName-M + focalLength + maxAperture + info. With this "new" lens, it is quite different with the maxAperture preceding the focal length and being written 1:1.5 instead of the f/1.5 format. Taking the standard notation format, the exif should read: "Summilux-M 90mm f/1.5 ASPH." This may be nothing, or it could be that someone (not mentioning any names here Paul 😉) is playing an elaborate joke. After all, it's very easy to modify a files exif data. Haha! Sadly I never joke..:-) No what you see is what you get. I have a reputation for being honest in the forum I think. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M11 for me Posted October 17, 2018 Share #45 Posted October 17, 2018 vor 7 Stunden schrieb ianman: Why do you keep repeating what has already been posted? What is the point? Do you think that the exif data magically changes because you open it on your computer? No need to read them. We talked about Exifs and here they were. So simple. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted October 17, 2018 Share #46 Posted October 17, 2018 vor einer Stunde schrieb Paulus: The lens in the picture was an Elmarit-M 1:2.8 /24 ASPH an "oldie" . Is your lens coded, or did you select it manually from the list? I think a 24mm should trigger the frames for 35/135mm - but I may be wrong about this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 17, 2018 Share #47 Posted October 17, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) 8 hours ago, ianman said: No. What would be the point? For example, the 28mm Summaron-M is not in the list of my M9... because all 28mm Summaron-M lenses are coded. I guess only older lenses of which uncoded examples exist are manually selectable. This makes sense. Same for my M240 but it's just a firmware issue i suspect as the 28/5.6 is listed in my digital CL as well as several if not all current coded lenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted October 17, 2018 Author Share #48 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) vor 26 Minuten schrieb UliWer: Is your lens coded, or did you select it manually from the list? I think a 24mm should trigger the frames for 35/135mm - but I may be wrong about this. Yes. my 24mm is coded. With my 24mm lens and 35 mm lens the frames are the same both on MP and 240 so I think it's 35/135. My mistake. Edited October 17, 2018 by Paulus Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 17, 2018 Share #49 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) So, Paulus, you mounted an Elmarit 24 asph, with lens recognition ON : let's look at the code : Elmarit 24 is 011001 … and supposed that the misread was on a single bit… we can conclude that the Summilux 90 1,5 has code 111001 … if I'm not wrong, this is the only unused code of the six that you can obtain altering ONE bit to 011001 : 111001 : unused - summilux 90 ? (btw seems to me that currently Noctlilux 75 is the only 111xxx code) 001001 : Elmarit 135 2,8 010001 : Summarit 35 2,4 011101 : Summilux 35 1,4 FLE 011011 : Elmarit 28 IV 011000 : Elmarit 21 2,8 asph Edited October 17, 2018 by luigi bertolotti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted October 17, 2018 Author Share #50 Posted October 17, 2018 vor 41 Minuten schrieb luigi bertolotti: So, Paulus, you mounted an Elmarit 24 asph, with lens recognition ON : let's look at the code : Elmarit 24 is 011001 … and supposed that the misread was on a single bit… we can conclude that the Summilux 90 1,5 has code 111001 … if I'm not wrong, this is the only unused code of the six that you can obtain altering ONE bit to 011001 : 111001 : unused - summilux 90 ? (btw seems to me that currently Noctlilux 75 is the only 111xxx code) 001001 : Elmarit 135 2,8 010001 : Summarit 35 2,4 011101 : Summilux 35 1,4 FLE 011011 : Elmarit 28 IV 011000 : Elmarit 21 2,8 asph I'm not clear, that the " misread" was on a single bit. I cleaned the code. I happend to find one black piece of tiny plastic ( lenscapplastic I suppose ) on the first bit and something unclean on the last bit. The black piece was on the white/first bit so......But nice to read, that this would make the puzzle somewhat more plausible. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 17, 2018 Share #51 Posted October 17, 2018 3 hours ago, Paulus said: ... I happend to find one black piece of tiny plastic ( lenscapplastic I suppose ) on the first bit …. Aha… 011001 to 111001... has a sense... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted October 17, 2018 Share #52 Posted October 17, 2018 The black tiny piece on the first place changing the Elmarit's "0" to a "1" absolutely makes sense. Though the 24mm-lens does not trigger the frames for 90mm. And they are needed for lens detection. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted October 18, 2018 Share #53 Posted October 18, 2018 16 hours ago, Paulus said: Haha! Sadly I never joke..:-) No what you see is what you get. I have a reputation for being honest in the forum I think. I wasn't questioning your honesty, please accept my sincere apologies if my comment came across that way. A practical joke is always a good thing, particularly in the crazy GAS world of digital cameras and lenses 🙂 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberti Posted October 19, 2018 Share #54 Posted October 19, 2018 On 10/17/2018 at 2:04 AM, ianman said: Looking again at the exif data, something is bothering me. It indicates "Summilux-M 1:1.5/90 ASPH." and yet, when I look at all the other coded lenses, the nomenclature is different. In the list provided on this page, the nomenclature is familyName-M + focalLength + maxAperture + info. With this "new" lens, it is quite different with the maxAperture preceding the focal length and being written 1:1.5 instead of the f/1.5 format. Taking the standard notation format, the exif should read: "Summilux-M 90mm f/1.5 ASPH." In Lightroom, I see that different real Leica camera's give different results having the same lens (which bothers me). The firmware is not consistent. Here is a list where you see various entries of the same lens, in different formats. And sometimes the same name but 'seen' in Lightroom as a different lens. 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! And we have German (mit) and two formats for the aparture (1:2/50 Leitz and 1:1.4) and on the Monochrome and M8 the rendering differs so lenses apear twice. They call that a legacy. It makes it hard to select a single lens from the metadata. I once had a habit of correcting things, but made the mess even worse. If Paulus were Banksky, he would have sold the virtual lens to a collectioneur. albert 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! And we have German (mit) and two formats for the aparture (1:2/50 Leitz and 1:1.4) and on the Monochrome and M8 the rendering differs so lenses apear twice. They call that a legacy. It makes it hard to select a single lens from the metadata. I once had a habit of correcting things, but made the mess even worse. If Paulus were Banksky, he would have sold the virtual lens to a collectioneur. albert ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/290588-anybody-interested-in-a-90mm-summilux-m-11590-asph/?do=findComment&comment=3615446'>More sharing options...
UliWer Posted October 19, 2018 Share #55 Posted October 19, 2018 vor 2 Minuten schrieb Alberti: In Lightroom, I see that different real Leica camera's give different results having the same lens (which bothers me). The firmware is not consistent. Well, if the lens detection makes any sense at all, it should should cope for correction of certain "qualities" inherent in the camera. Different sensor layouts of the M8 M9, M (Typ 240) and M 10 should have different corrections - in theory. Though in practice the corrections are not really specific, if you do not use the M8 with wideangle lenses and UV/IR-Cut-Filters which may be very different. In some cases one may achieve "better" results choosing a correction for another lens - or just switching off all correction. "Lens profiles" in Lightroom are completely unimportant. They may change some slight distortion - so muddling up the very character of a certain lens. I never use them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted October 19, 2018 Share #56 Posted October 19, 2018 Different corrections on different cameras with the same lens makes sense of course, but you would have hoped that the naming nomenclature would be consistent on all firmware versions of all Leica cameras. Which is what Albert is showing if I understand correctly. Bad marks for Leica there! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberti Posted October 19, 2018 Share #57 Posted October 19, 2018 Indeed, my remark pertained to Leica, Lightroom is just the tool to see it (C1 would be another way; just like using Info in the iMac in Preview). Different teams . . and probably a completeltly different software stack Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertknappmd Posted October 19, 2018 Share #58 Posted October 19, 2018 I have had the 90mm f/2 since 2005 and would be really hard pressed to change... However, lets see the data.... Albert 😁😁 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 19, 2018 Share #59 Posted October 19, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, ianman said: Different corrections on different cameras with the same lens makes sense of course, but you would have hoped that the naming nomenclature would be consistent on all firmware versions of all Leica cameras. Which is what Albert is showing if I understand correctly. Bad marks for Leica there! I'm too much inside the Software Ecosystem to not guess what has happened : versions versions versions … spanned within several years ... each one to be compiled in different languages…. fast turnaround of people at the final stage of "key in"... lack of well detailed and lifecycle- managed documentation… and the result , in this case, is "vagueness" of terminology…. it could be much worse… Edited October 19, 2018 by luigi bertolotti 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
schattenundlicht Posted October 19, 2018 Share #60 Posted October 19, 2018 If these were the only „problems“ in their firm- and software, I would be happy to live with them 1 1 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.