DYMO: Ultimate 6-bit coding solution!

[Stan Yoder]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Searching "Dymo" on the web, I believe the "labelPOINT 150" is now the "Execulabel lp150," at least in the US. It appears to be packaged with a short roll of 45013 tape for somewhere around $30. Six AAA batteries not incl.

[Advertisement]

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

[giordano]

on a Dymo Letra-Tag with size 3 on that machine (compared with an officially coded lens) and I used the thinest white paper tape.

 

What I measured yesterday was the pearl white plastic tape ("PL"). I've just I found a roll of Letra-Tag white paper tape ("PA"), and it seems to be a fraction thicker, say 0.095mm against 0.09mm for the plastic. I wouldn't have thought that would make much of a difference, so I guess it is a matter of the Leica mount being machined to a closer tolerance than the CV one. I think there's a LabelPoint at the office; if I remember to take the caliper to work I can measure its tape too.

 

(FWIW I measured the thicknesses by sticking 5 layers of tape together, using a 0.01mm electronic caliper and dividing by 5.)

[ArtZ]

Searching "Dymo" on the web, I believe the "labelPOINT 150" is now the "Execulabel lp150," at least in the US. It appears to be packaged with a short roll of 45013 tape for somewhere around $30. Six AAA batteries not incl.

 

Stan, LabelPOINT 150 is available in the US

 

Here's the US link DYMO | LabelPoint 150

 

I've seen there're another D1 tape models: part # 45013 (1/2" Standard D1 tape, 1/2" x 23'); part # 16953 (1/2" Flexible High Performance D1 tape, 1/2" x 11.5') and part # 16955 (1/2" Permanent High Performance D1 tape, 1/2" x 18').

 

I have only used the standard model (part # 45013). When you see the lenght of the tape in the cartridge, I assume parts # 16953 and # 16955 are thicker. I believe that 16953 is the thickest.

.

[wlaidlaw]

John,

 

I measured the paper and plastic both at .09 but I reasoned the paper would have a bit more "squish". It certainly made my T-E 135 tighter than I would want to mount. Positioning is difficult too as I over-rotate it to get the 90mm frame lines. As all my other lenses other than the 16mm Fish-Eye, are coded or hand coded, I will know when I see no lens length on the EXIF, that it was taken with the 135. That is the only reason I would want it coded.

 

Wilson

[photoarne]

Just coded my 25 mm ZM Biogon and 28 mm Hexanon, first took a couple of tries, second worked on first try. Using a Dymo LetraTag. Again, thanks for the tip!

[cliffordjim]

Has anyone tried using this tape coding system on the cameraquest LTM adapters for the CV15? May be the tape format here would allow for coding as it would extend over the sensor.

[doubice]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Manuel,

 

Just tried it to code the only lens I have failed to hand code - my T-E 135. I wanted to code it 001001 (an Elmarit 135). Coding looked about the right spacing on a Dymo Letra-Tag with size 3 on that machine (compared with an officially coded lens) and I used the thinest white paper tape. This made the lens a very tight fit and also did not code, so I think it is back to playing with the sharpie for that one. Interestingly although this is a 21 year old lens, it was actually brand new, unused and has only been on and off my M8 about 6 times, so no wear.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson,

 

Slightly off the original subject - the Tele Elmar is a little tricky when you want it to display the EXIF data. I had the mount milled by John Milich and coded it as 135 Elmarit. I don't over rotate the lens to bring in the 90mm frame rather, push in the preview lever.

 

Interestingly, when the preview lever is left alone (in the 24-35mm position, which would be 35-135mm on previous M's), the focal length info does not display. However, when the preview lever is pushed to the 90mm position when I take the shot, the EXIF data shows up as 135mm.

 

I have a problem with the Elmarit 2.8/135mm - coded exactly the same, it does activate the 90mm frame automatically, but focal length is not displayed. Mount was also milled by John Milich, but there is a screw in the 001001 (both white) position; maybe that is the problem?

 

Best,

 

Jan

[doubice]

Has anyone tried using this tape coding system on the cameraquest LTM adapters for the CV15? May be the tape format here would allow for coding as it would extend over the sensor.

 

Theoretically it should work but, there would probably be light leakage around the tape, which would influence the sensors.

 

Best,

 

Jan

[giordano]

I measured the paper and plastic both at .09 but I reasoned the paper would have a bit more "squish". It certainly made my T-E 135 tighter than I would want to mount.

 

Wilson,

 

I've just tried the plastic tape on a couple of lenses just to see what effect it had on the mounting/unmounting (35mm pre-ASPH Summicron and 21mm Color Skopar with an uncoded CV LTM adapter: so far I don't have an M-mount CV lens). I mounted them both on the M8 and my old M6.

 

In each case the lens was noticeably tighter in the mount. Probably not enough to do any damage, but as you say, tighter than I'd like to mount regularly (especially on the M8 whose mount is tighter with all lenses I own). Also, the surface of the tape was marked after a single mount/unmount on each body.

 

Maybe the CV M-mount is machined a bit looser, or maybe Manuel is lucky with his tolerances.

[ArtZ]

Wilson,

 

I've just tried the plastic tape on a couple of lenses just to see what effect it had on the mounting/unmounting (35mm pre-ASPH Summicron and 21mm Color Skopar with an uncoded CV LTM adapter: so far I don't have an M-mount CV lens). I mounted them both on the M8 and my old M6.

 

In each case the lens was noticeably tighter in the mount. Probably not enough to do any damage, but as you say, tighter than I'd like to mount regularly (especially on the M8 whose mount is tighter with all lenses I own). Also, the surface of the tape was marked after a single mount/unmount on each body.

 

Maybe the CV M-mount is machined a bit looser, or maybe Manuel is lucky with his tolerances.

 

John,

 

I've just come back home after taking some snaps with friends this afternoon. Here're my observations:

 

1.- Two of my friends have used the Nokton. In one camera (M8) was a bit tighter than with the other two (M7 and my M8).

 

2.- After a few lens and camera swap, we nociced some leakage on the three cameras. We cleaned the cameras and the bayonet ring (just with a cloth). At the end of the day, they were still clean.

 

3.- At the end of the day, we tried again with the M8 which was tighter than the others two. It was still a bit tight but less than when we tried the first time (probably excess of glue).

 

All of us reached the conclusion that after using it for a while, the extra glue will ooze. When that happens, the label won"t leak anymore and may solve the problem of being tight on some bodies.

 

That's all for the moment.

 

 

PS: Wilson, I didn't know that the T-E 135mm has a screw at the same place than the Nokton. I agree with Jan's opinion for the detection problem: the screw.

.

[doubice]

Wilson, I didn't know that the T-E 135mm has a screw at the same place than the Nokton. I agree with Jan's opinion for the detection problem: the screw.

.

 

Actually, the 4/135mm Tele Elmar does not have any screws on the face of the mount rather, the screws holding the mount are on the side of the lens barrel. It is the 2.8/135mm Elmarit which has a screw where the coding notches are. Strangely, the screw is in the area which requires white paint or any reflective surface and should not affect the coding. Maybe I'll have to play a little more....

 

As to the DYMO coding - excellent idea and I don't think the thickness of the tape would influence focusing accuracy. I would however, rather spend the $25.00 and send the mounts to John Milich for milling - that is what I have done with all my lenses and 90mm LTM to M adapters.

 

Best,

 

Jan

[ArtZ]

As to the DYMO coding - excellent idea and I don't think the thickness of the tape would influence focusing accuracy. I would however, rather spend the $25.00 and send the mounts to John Milich for milling - that is what I have done with all my lenses and 90mm LTM to M adapters.

 

Jan, I agree.

 

Two weeks ago I sent an email to John Milich for coding this lens. There's only one thing which upsets me with the Nokton: a screw on position 5 (0) which slightly touches positions 4 and 6 (1).

 

I do trust John Milich work but my worries are concerning the position of the screw for a sucessful coding.

.

[photoarne]

Ater having tested the lenses after coding, they don't quite reach infinity when focusing, so I think one should regard this method as a template and make proper depressions in the mount and paint them black. Which is what I'm gonna do Still, it's very useful for pinpointing the exact locations of the black spots.

[doubice]

I do trust John Milich work but my worries are concerning the position of the screw for a sucessful coding.

 

Manuel,

 

All my lenses were milled by John. The 2.8/21mm ASPH, 2/35mm (pre-ASPH), 2/50mm and 2/90mm (pre-ASPH) all have a screw were the coding is and I had no problems - the EXIF info is correct. The only lens which I can't get to be recognised is the 2.8/135mm Elmarit but, I think the problem lies with not just the coding but also with the frame selection. As mentioned before, I will have to experiment more with this one.

 

Best,

 

Jan

[doubice]

Ater having tested the lenses after coding, they don't quite reach infinity when focusing......

 

Arne,

 

Unless you disturbed the helicoids or lost some washers, this is not quite possible. All the lenses I had milled were pretty straightforward, with the mounts simply being attached to the lens via screws, without any washers. Also the focusing helicoids were not disturbed, as they were not a part of the lens mounts.

 

Make sure that you tighten the screws properly - that is the only explanation I would have for a discrepancy in infinity focus before and after the milling procedure.

 

Best,

 

Jan

[wlaidlaw]

A couple of my hand coded lenses have mounting screws for the bayonet just where I would not want them. I have found that if you fill the screw recess with Tippex, this solves the problem and is less permanent than paint would be - i.e. it is very easy to remove with Tippex solvent, which is tri-chlor-ethylene/dry cleaning fluid I think.

 

Wilson

[photoarne]

Arne,

 

Unless you disturbed the helicoids or lost some washers, this is not quite possible. All the lenses I had milled were pretty straightforward, with the mounts simply being attached to the lens via screws, without any washers. Also the focusing helicoids were not disturbed, as they were not a part of the lens mounts.

 

Make sure that you tighten the screws properly - that is the only explanation I would have for a discrepancy in infinity focus before and after the milling procedure.

 

Best,

 

Jan

 

Jan, it's after the Dymo coding (which pushes the lens outward) I see a slight misfocusing.

[doubice]

Jan, it's after the Dymo coding (which pushes the lens outward) I see a slight misfocusing.

 

Sorry, Arne. I read your post a little too quickly; after having read it again it is of course clear.

 

Best,

 

Jan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[cme4brain]

Looks like a great solution... bravo.

 

Which model of Dymo did you use? Can I use the cheapest I can find?

 

I went out and bought a DYMO label maker to test this out. My CV lenses, both M-mount and screw mount with an adapter, cannot use a DYMO label as the tolerance is too tight- I cannot fully rotate the lens on my M8 to lock the lens in. Too bad, it would be a great solution for me.

[sean_reid]

Hi guys,

 

Home coding can be really easy. No more sharpies, no more templates, no more hard coding!

 

In les than 5 minutes (chrono) you can write a 6-bit code to your uncoded lens: Use your DYMO!

 

Cheers!

.

 

Manuel,

 

I congratulate you on your ingenuity and am glad that this method is working well for some people. Thanks for sharing it.

 

My own preference, however, having done a lot of experimenting with ways to code lenses, is to have nothing (not even ink marks) added to the space between the lens bayonet and the mount. Even using the pen ink directly on the bayonet will tend to smudge ink on the M8's code sensor window over time.

 

Now that we have ways of milling depressions for coding (in adapters and bayonets), that's definitely the way I choose to go. I prefer to leave the bayonet-to-mount contact undisturbed and to keep the ink away from direct contact with the coding sensor glass cover.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean