M11 freeze issues [Merged]

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

37 minutes ago, lct said:

i've never got such a freeze under FW 1.6.1 but why would i set the camera to auto if there is no reason to do so? This debate is becoming too complicated for my old brain so i suggest we agree to differ on this otherwise interesting subject

The complication is how Leica designed the logic of Lens Detection. It's not us!! 😂

I agree with you actually. You're saying the users should not set an uncoded lens to Auto, but I'm saying it's not possible to set an uncoded lens to Auto. Why? Try it. It literally bounces back to the previously-selected M lens profile and is no longer in Auto. You can't set an uncoded lens to Auto.

But when you attach a 6-bit coded lens, it sets Auto for you. Auto is automatic  So why/when do we use Auto in the Lens Detection menu? We can use Auto when we previously had Lens Detection turned Off and want it back on Auto. That's it.

So what I was trying to get across was Auto has no detrimental effect on a non-coded lens because Auto can never be active with an uncoded lens attached. Example: if the Lens Detection menu is on Auto with a 6-bit coded lens, then without changing any setting, you remove this lens and mount a uncoded lens, the M11 turns off Auto and selects the last used M profile.

The reason I called out what you said was not because I disagree that Auto has no function for uncoded lenses – we agree on that. You said it was a "user error" to set Auto for an uncoded lens. It can't be a user error if it's not physically possible to set Auto while an uncoded lens is attached. If Auto was left on with a previously-used 6-bit coded lens, the camera automatically turns Auto off for you when you mount an uncoded lens, so that can't be a user error, either.

Edited April 5, 2023 by hdmesa

[hdmesa]

The only "user error" one can make with the Lens Detection settings (with regard to freezing) is to get a new camera or a camera that has been reset and never once set an M lens profile manually. In such a case, the menu will show "Uncoded" with uncoded lenses, and freezes are possible. That's what I did. I committed the only "user error" that really matters here, but I've learned now how to never do that again. All good at this point. No freezes.

[lct]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

[...] You can't set an uncoded lens to Auto [...]

May happen when there is no lens profile in memory, eg after a camera reset. Lens detection auto is not disabled or greyed when selected this way. In such a case, the camera shows "Uncoded" given that a user error has been made. Suffice it to select lens detection off or to enter a lens profile to correct the error.

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, lct said:

May happen when there is no lens profile in memory, eg after a camera reset. Lens detection auto is not disabled or greyed when selected this way. In such a case, the camera shows "Uncoded" given that a user error has been made. Suffice it to select lens detection off or to enter a lens profile to correct the error.

Yes, agreed. Camera reset or new camera will show "Uncoded" if you choose Auto with an uncoded lens since no M lens profile was ever set as an alternative. "Uncoded" is essentially an error state of Lens Detection that is applied when there is no other alternative (as there should be if following the manual as you pointed out earlier). But once you've applied a manual M lens profile for the first time, you no longer have to worry about Auto being an issue.

I have suggested to Leica they could fix this issue by removing "Uncoded" and by default applying the 50 Cron v5 profile when no existing profile is in memory from having previously applied one. 

Edited April 5, 2023 by hdmesa

[lct]

13 hours ago, hdmesa said:

I have suggested to Leica they could fix this issue by removing "Uncoded" and by default applying the 50 Cron v5 profile when no existing profile is in memory from having previously applied one

I would have preferred a warning, like "Uncoded" or any other one, in order to notify the user that an error has been made and must be corrected. I would not like to have in memory the profile of a lens i don't own or i don't want to use personally. After all, the current firmware works fine for me so i'm not sure why it should be modified. But perhaps something is escaping me here, like the reality of freezes i have never seen under firmware 1.6.1 so far. 

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, lct said:

I would have preferred a warning, like "Uncoded" or any other one, in order to notify the user that an error has been made and must be corrected. I would not like to have in memory the profile of a lens i don't own or i don't want to use personally. After all, the current firmware works fine for me so i'm not sure why it should be modified. But perhaps something is escaping me here, like the reality of freezes i have never seen under firmware 1.6.1 so far. 

Yes, what you’re saying makes sense. Showing it as a warning vs bypassing with a default profile is better. But that circles back to my earlier point about using uncoded lenses with profiles — I’m always forgetting to change the profile when switching uncoded lenses, so I always end up with wrongly-recorded EXIF. Only way around that is to manually code them I guess — or get better at remembering, which seems unlikely 🙃

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Yes, what you’re saying makes sense. Showing it as a warning vs bypassing with a default profile is better. But that circles back to my earlier point about using uncoded lenses with profiles — I’m always forgetting to change the profile when switching uncoded lenses, so I always end up with wrongly-recorded EXIF. Only way around that is to manually code them I guess [...]

That's what i do for my dozen CV and ZM lenses. Easy DIY job thanks to their recessed area for hand-coding. But i also have lenses with no such area, especially legacy Leica and non-Leica lenses i don't want to drill or otherwise butcher the flange for that. I have set up a user profile for them with a list of lens profiles limited to the lenses in question. Otherwise, i use a little software called File Multi Tool to edit exif data but there must be several ones on the US market i guess. FWIW.

[marchyman]

1 hour ago, lct said:

That's what i do for my dozen CV and ZM lenses.

I don't like incorrect metadata.   Because of my workflow and the fact I almost never change lenses while shooting it is easier for me to apply proper metadata upon import then pick a code that is close but not accurate.   If I changed lenses often it would be a pain.  Anyway, metadata for my ZM lens looks like this:

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!

The "uncoded lens" was the test image I used to verify my metadata changes were correct.

[lct]

41 minutes ago, marchyman said:

I don't like incorrect metadata.   Because of my workflow and the fact I almost never change lenses while shooting it is easier for me to apply proper metadata upon import then pick a code that is close but not accurate.   If I changed lenses often it would be a pain.  Anyway, metadata for my ZM lens looks like this:

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!

The "uncoded lens" was the test image I used to verify my metadata changes were correct.

So you have one uncoded lens (ZM 35/2.8). Great lens, i have the same as yours. Mine is hand-coded as Summarit 35/2.4. This way the lens can be used on the M11 under lens detection auto. Yours is not hand-coded i suspect. You may wish to enter a lens profile (35/2.4 or other) under lens detection manual. Failing which the lens will not be recognized by the camera which cannot read the metadata you refer to. May i ask where those metadata come from?

[Kwesi]

@hdmesa @lct

It feels to me that we are all struggling with dealing with a problem that was never ours to begin with.

The lens manufacturers need to work this out with Leica. perhaps Leica gets a small cut of each lens sold and in return that lens makes its way into Leica's database with or without corrections - they can wok that little detail amongst themselves - but at least the correct exif information is applied without the user having to twist themself into a pretzel. Just my five cents.

[jimmielx]

15 minutes ago, Kwesi said:

@hdmesa @lct

It feels to me that we are all struggling with dealing with a problem that was never ours to begin with.

The lens manufacturers need to work this out with Leica. perhaps Leica gets a small cut of each lens sold and in return that lens makes its way into Leica's database with or without corrections - they can wok that little detail amongst themselves - but at least the correct exif information is applied without the user having to twist themself into a pretzel. Just my five cents.

A practical problem with this is that the six bit code allows for only 63 different codes. If other manufacturers lenses were given codes they would run out pretty quickly.

That said making available a generic code for each common focal length that made no adjustments, but recorded the focal length of the lens would be helpful.

All of this would be hypothetical only, I would say that it would be incredibly unlikely.

The requirement to select a lens code doesn’t sound ideal to me - on my M9 my Distagon works best uncoded - I found some colour shifts towards the edges with the recommended Zeiss codes - perhaps this situation is improved with the M11 sensor.

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, Kwesi said:

@hdmesa @lct

It feels to me that we are all struggling with dealing with a problem that was never ours to begin with.

The lens manufacturers need to work this out with Leica. perhaps Leica gets a small cut of each lens sold and in return that lens makes its way into Leica's database with or without corrections - they can wok that little detail amongst themselves - but at least the correct exif information is applied without the user having to twist themself into a pretzel. Just my five cents.

6-bit coding is not a setup that allows for a lot of flexibility, but its simplicity does feel true to the analog M roots.

 

1 hour ago, jimmielx said:

A practical problem with this is that the six bit code allows for only 63 different codes. If other manufacturers lenses were given codes they would run out pretty quickly.

That said making available a generic code for each common focal length that made no adjustments, but recorded the focal length of the lens would be helpful.

All of this would be hypothetical only, I would say that it would be incredibly unlikely.

The requirement to select a lens code doesn’t sound ideal to me - on my M9 my Distagon works best uncoded - I found some colour shifts towards the edges with the recommended Zeiss codes - perhaps this situation is improved with the M11 sensor.

A generic 6-bit code for non-Leica lenses would be a great idea. Leica should at least license the ability for third party M lens makers to put the 6-bit engravings filled with white paint on the mount as a blank canvas for manual coding. And the code for non-Leica lenses could be the generic all white template. That code could be assigned multiple things, including "Always off" for profiles.

[Kwesi]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

6-bit coding is not a setup that allows for a lot of flexibility, but its simplicity does feel true to the analog M roots.

 

A generic 6-bit code for non-Leica lenses would be a great idea. Leica should at least license the ability for third party M lens makers to put the 6-bit engravings filled with white paint on the mount as a blank canvas for manual coding. And the code for non-Leica lenses could be the generic all white template. That code could be assigned multiple things, including "Always off" for profiles.

Thanks to,you both for explaining the limitations of 6 bit coding. I am horrible at math but perhaps an extra bit or 2 or even a barcode could solve the problem. I imagine it would be beneficial to all parties. 

[jaapv]

Why should Leica make their patented 6-bit system available to competitors?  They want to sell their own lenses. 

Before you ask - the L alliance is a complicated technological cooperation contract for mutual benefit, not restricted to lenses and certainly includes financial compensation clauses.

[lct]

13 hours ago, jimmielx said:

The requirement to select a lens code doesn’t sound ideal to me - on my M9 my Distagon works best uncoded - I found some colour shifts towards the edges with the recommended Zeiss codes - perhaps this situation is improved with the M11 sensor.

I have no experience with the Distagon 35/1.4 but none of my own ZM lenses (21/4.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.5, 50/2, 85/4) have color shift issues on the M11. As far as such issues are concerned the M11 can work well with many (most?) uncoded lenses thanks to its BSI sensor. Problem is focal lengths the camera needs to know to calculate shutter speeds based on such lengths. It's mainly a problem for auto iso users though. Aside from exif data considerations, other users can live well with uncoded lenses as long as they don't produce freezes per se. My feeling FWIW is those freezes are a thing of the past under FW 1.6.1, or the result of user errors trying to select lens detection auto for uncoded lenses the camera has no means to ID.

[lct]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Why should Leica make their patented 6-bit system available to competitors?  They want to sell their own lenses. 

Indeed. What Leica could do easily is perhaps greying or otherwise disabling lens detection auto when an uncoded lens is mounted. This way, uncoded lens users would have to choose either lens detection off or lens detection manual and enter a lens profile accordingly. User errors could be avoided for good then. Just an idea.

Edit: This would not prevent uncoded lens users from hand-coding their lens, in which case the lens would be treated as coded and lens detection auto could be normally selected. 

Edited April 7, 2023 by lct

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Why should Leica make their patented 6-bit system available to competitors?  They want to sell their own lenses. 

Before you ask - the L alliance is a complicated technological cooperation contract for mutual benefit, not restricted to lenses and certainly includes financial compensation clauses.

I'm not advocating for giving them access to actually code their lenses, just to put the template on the mount so users can hand code them. That's a win-win. Not doing it isn't currently deterring purchases on non-Leica M lenses, and by the same token, allowing such a template would not impact Leica's M lens sales, either.

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, lct said:

Indeed. What Leica could do easily is perhaps greying or otherwise disabling lens detection auto when an uncoded lens is mounted. This way, uncoded lens users would have to choose either lens detection off or lens detection manual and enter a lens profile accordingly. User errors could be avoided for good then. Just an idea.

Edit: This would not prevent uncoded lens users from hand-coding their lens, in which case the lens would be treated as coded and lens detection auto could be normally selected. 

I think the solution would be to add an option in the Lens Detection menu for how to handle uncoded lenses:

• Always Off
• Always use the last selected manual M lens profile
• Open Lens Detection menu at every power-on to confirm or change manual M lens profile

[lct]

5 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I think the solution would be to add an option in the Lens Detection menu for how to handle uncoded lenses:

• Always Off

Not my opinion i must say. Priority should always be given to Leica lenses i.e. to coded ones IMHO. The M11 is a Leica after all, not a Cosina.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Qlan]

1 minute ago, lct said:

Not my opinion i must say. Priority should always be given to Leica lenses i.e. to coded ones IMHO. The M11 is a Leica after all, not a Cosina.

That’s not what hdmesa is saying. This setting he’s proposing is only for uncoded lenses, not all lenses.