CLA cost for MATE

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 29 Minuten schrieb andybarton:

How could it do that? It would have to change the six bit code.

Andy, no, it would not have to change the six bit code. IF (and I do not know whether that is the case or not) the camera also detects the position of the frame selector, it would know exactly which focal length is currently selected by the user. All of those 3 settings would be distinct, as none of those settings could be mistaken for any other focal length of the MATE.

[Advertisement]

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

[wizard]

vor 43 Minuten schrieb andybarton:

I suspect that if a WATE/MATE does have a code, it's for identification purposes only.

Well, and that's a part of my initial question. Will a MATE be identified as a 28, 35 or 50mm lens? And if it will, for example, be identified as a 35mm lens, what kind of internal corrections will be applied by the camera if the lens is used lens in its 28mm (or 50mm) position?

[andybarton]

17 minutes ago, wizard said:

IF (and I do not know whether that is the case or not) the camera also detects the position of the frame selector, it would know exactly which focal length is currently selected by the user.

Good point. As an M240 user, I'd forgotten about the frame selector

 

[andybarton]

6 minutes ago, wizard said:

Well, and that's a part of my initial question. Will a MATE be identified as a 28, 35 or 50mm lens? And if it will, for example, be identified as a 35mm lens, what kind of internal corrections will be applied by the camera if the lens is used lens in its 28mm (or 50mm) position?

Someone here will know. They will be a long shortly.

[Ecar]

26 minutes ago, wizard said:

Andy, no, it would not have to change the six bit code. IF (and I do not know whether that is the case or not) the camera also detects the position of the frame selector, it would know exactly which focal length is currently selected by the user. All of those 3 settings would be distinct, as none of those settings could be mistaken for any other focal length of the MATE.

This is correct. The combination of the 6-bit code and the selected framelines allow the respective F/L to be recognised by the camera and written to the EXIF. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Ecar
spelling

[wizard]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb andybarton:

As an M240 user, I'd forgotten about the frame selector

Even without a frame selector, the M240 needs to know which frames to display when a lens is mounted. So i am sure the M240, too, has some sort of slider being displaced to one or another position, depending on the lens that is mounted to the camera. And the position of that slider could be (or actually is) detected.

 

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Ecar:

The combination of the 6-bit code and the selected framelines allow the respective F/L to be recognised by the camera and written to the EXIF. 

Bingo! So your EXIFs not only indicate that a MATE was used, but also the selected focal length? If so, then that is a very good reason for having a MATE coded.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, wizard said:

Even without a frame selector, the M240 needs to know which frames to display when a lens is mounted.

This is true, of course, but the moving lever on the front of the camera is a useful reminder of what is going on inside, mechanically.

[Rick in CO]

To Clarify:

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!

[Ecar]

1 hour ago, wizard said:

Bingo! So your EXIFs not only indicate that a MATE was used, but also the selected focal length? If so, then that is a very good reason for having a MATE coded.

Yes. And it works for the M240 as well.

[Kiwimac]

7 hours ago, Jeff S said:

One either wants the MATE, considering all of its pros and cons, or not. Here’s a perspective from one past forum member…

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/11/11/the-leica-mate-lens-review-medium-angle-tri-elmar-by-ashwin-rao/?amp=1
 

Jeff

Given unlimited budget, I’d have it. 
 

Given that at this point I could buy either the 28 Lux, the 35 Lux FLEii or this, and that the Financial Controller probably won’t permit this latitude again for a wee while at least, I need to decide which option is the most useful expenditure. 

[earleygallery]

On 2/14/2023 at 2:18 AM, Kiwimac said:

Does anyone have any idea how much a CLA in Germany for a late model MATE might cost?

 

 My dealer here has one which is generally in good order but he thinks it would benefit from a CLA but says he’s never sent one before.

 

 It’s a commission sale so he suggested putting an offer in but without knowing whether a CLA is likely to be $1000, $2000 etc it’s hard to pitch the offer. 

Why exactly does the dealer think the lens needs a CLA? I would be suspicious that the lens has some major issue.....

[Kiwimac]

As I quoted above in post #8. 

[Kiwimac]

8 hours ago, wizard said:

No, to the best of my knowledge, production of that lens stopped before coding was introduced. That means that "your" lens has been coded separately, and was most likely inspected at that time. Also, when Leica codes a previously uncoded lens, they will precisely adjust it to match factory specs. All of that means that "your" lens was checked much more recently than its manufacturing date or serial number may suggest. 

Six bit coding began in July 2006 and this lens was discontinued a year later so theoretically the final 12 months or so could be factory coded. 
 

I note also by way of interest that this was a Mandler design. 

[jdlaing]

10 hours ago, wizard said:

No, to the best of my knowledge, production of that lens stopped before coding was introduced. That means that "your" lens has been coded separately, and was most likely inspected at that time. Also, when Leica codes a previously uncoded lens, they will precisely adjust it to match factory specs. All of that means that "your" lens was checked much more recently than its manufacturing date or serial number may suggest. 

Mine is six bit coded from the factory. 

[Stein K S]

Just learned that I have the v3… which I did not know existed 😉

Bought a copy in nice condition a couple of years ago. Ready 6-bit coded. Since view finder did not show the right focal lengths… and also because I had never «tested» a MATE before (especially how the change of focal length clicks should be), I sent it in for a full CLA.

Now all frames shows correctly. However, strange thing is that exif show 28 for 28 and 50 for 50… but still 50 for 35… To me this is really hard to figure out since frames are correct. Is my copy just weird or are these things so extremely marginal in adjustment that this is possible?

[Jeff S]

Might relate to functioning of the frame selection lever mechanism on the body.

Jeff

[Ecar]

35 minutes ago, Stein K S said:

are these things so extremely marginal in adjustment that this is possible?

This. Unless the frameline selector is perfectly engaged, the camera may sometimes fail to recognise the F/L being used.

[Stein K S]

5 minutes ago, Ecar said:

This. Unless the frameline selector is perfectly engaged, the camera may sometimes fail to recognise the F/L being used.

Jepp… camera/frameline selector manages (i.e. is engaged) to show the right framelines… but do not register the same info in exif. Still strange 😉

 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Stein K S

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ecar]

22 minutes ago, Stein K S said:

Jepp… camera/frameline selector manages (i.e. is engaged) to show the right framelines… but do not register the same info in exif. Still strange 😉

 

May not be pushed quite to the end? Happens to me sometimes, but not systematically on a particular F/L. It is a tricky lens...

[wizard]

Am 17.2.2023 um 23:49 schrieb Kiwimac:

Six bit coding began in July 2006 and this lens was discontinued a year later so theoretically the final 12 months or so could be factory coded. 

My fault then. You could probably figure out by way of the serial number of "your" lens whether it belongs to those last batches that were factory coded. Else what I said above would still apply.

 

Am 17.2.2023 um 23:49 schrieb Kiwimac:

I note also by way of interest that this was a Mandler design. 

I do not think that's possible. Mandler had long since left Leica when the MATE was designed (which must have been in the mid to late 90ies). The guy heading Leica's lens department at the time was Lothar Kölsch.