M-D Typ-262 EXIF Data. How did THIS happen?...

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As we all know the M-D variant has no screen therfore no way of manually selecting a lens profile if the lens is not 6-bit coded. This has never been even remotely of interest to me. Where lenses are coded their data is recorded. When lenses are pre-coding I normally know which lens has been used so not an issue.

Today I discovered I needed to make a small adjustment to my focussing cam as the body was typically front-focussing. No worries; I know what to do. On verifying various things later on, however, I experienced the strange phenomenon (AFAIK!) where the body incorrectly 'identified' the lens as a 50mm f2.4 Summarit. The weird thing about the situation was that the lens used WAS a 50mm Summarit but was a 1953 f1.5 lens and definitely not coded!

Here's the data as recorded;

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!

Does anyone have any idea how this might have happened?

Philip.

[dpitt]

My guess is that your Summarit has a screw or any dirt spots in the area of the 6-bit code that triggered the identification. I could not find the code for the Summarit M 50 F 2.4 to see how this can be possible.

[Advertisement]

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

[pippy]

2 hours ago, dpitt said:

My guess is that your Summarit has a screw or any dirt spots in the area of the 6-bit code that triggered the identification. I could not find the code for the Summarit M 50 F 2.4 to see how this can be possible.

Thanks very much for the suggestion.

The code for the 50 2.4 is 010010. I tend to keep my kit clean so, although very possible, I sort-of doubt the mount of the lens is dirty and if the culprit was the 'reader' on the body then other lenses used would also be so recorded.  Having checked other images taken during the test-session I find that this is not the case.

Athough the camera & lens are a mere 4 metres away I currently have a cat asleep on my lap (😸) so will double-check various things when she eventually gets a wiggle-on...

Philip.

Edit : How odd! Having had another look at the attatched screenshot I notice that it was 'grabbed' at 19:53 hours. The serial number of the 50 f1.5 Summarit used to take the pic dates to 1953............

Edited November 15, 2023 by pippy

[JohnW.]

Edit : How odd! Having had another look at the attatched screenshot I notice that it was 'grabbed' at 19:53 hours. The serial number of the 50 f1.5 Summarit used to take the pic dates to 1953............

I think an exorcism may be required 👻😈

[pippy]

55 minutes ago, JohnW. said:

...I think an exorcism may be required 👻😈

Well, John, that comment scared the cat away even if any poltergeists weren't terribly alarmed!......😸......

I've just checked out a further test where four lenses were used one after the other. Lenses used were 28mm Elmarit ASPH (coded); 35mm Summilux v2 (un-coded); 7Artisan 50mm f1.1 (coded); 50mm f1.5 Summarit (un-coded). Prior to the test I ensured the code-reader on the body was spotless as well as the mounts on the lenses. The snaps were taken with the lenses selected in that order such that the body had Coded; Non-coded; Coded; Non-coded just in case there were any 'hangovers' from the previously used lens.

I won't bore you with posting all the snaps of the resulting screenshots but suffice to say that the EXIF data did recognise the 28; didn't recognise the 35; did recognise the 7A 50 (which is 7A-factory coded as an f1.0 Noctilux) and did 'recognise' the 50 f1.5 Summarit - again - as being a 50mm f2.4 Summarit.

Most peculiar.

I have to pop into town(*) but when I return I will endeavour to dig out some older snaps which I know to have been taken using the same lens. I will also grab a few new pics today using the 50 f1.5 on the Monochrom - with Lens Selection set to both Auto and Manual options - just to see what transpires...

Philip.

* There's an Elliott Erwitt Exhibition on for just four days so 'work' can take a back seat for today!

Edited November 15, 2023 by pippy

[pippy]

Further to points raised above...

On the MM when Lens Detection is set to 'Auto' the body doesn't recognise the Summarit - 'Uncoded' appears in the Info box - which was to be expected.

With the lens on the MD it transpires that the Summarit has been recorded as one of the 50mm f2.4 lenses on such earlier files as I have to hand on the laptop's hard drive.

Just out of curiosity I will dig out frames from the earliest shooting-sessions I undertook when the lens first arrived. I believe that in those days it was mainly used with the Monochrom but I know that there were most assuredly exceptions.

Philip.

Edited November 15, 2023 by pippy

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A code of 010010 is easier to misread than one with more 1 digits. If the camera thinks it sees a 1 on 2 locations because the reflection from the lens mounts is dark (low) enough then it will think that it sees a code.

Because the MM does not seem to be confused by your Summarit, my theory is that somehow the reader of the MD is not as sensitive as it should be on at least 2 of its digits. It sees black where it is probably only a bit darker grey.
This is easy to check with a small piece of white tape or label. Stick it to the 6-bit zone on the mount of your Summarit and it both MM and MD should report 'Unknown'. After this test you better remove it because its thickness will affect focus. In case the test succeeded you will have to decide if you want to use a white permanent marker or similar on your Summarit to make it 'unknown' for the MD.

The fact that your Lens is also called Summarit is a pure coincidence IMO. Just call yourself lucky. Others, would pay good money to get the lens 6-bit coded 😀

Edited November 15, 2023 by dpitt

[pippy]

2 hours ago, dpitt said:

...my theory is that somehow the reader of the MD is not as sensitive as it should be on at least 2 of its digits. It sees black where it is probably only a bit darker grey......This is easy to check with a small piece of white tape or label. Stick it to the 6-bit zone on the mount of your Summarit and it both MM and MD should report 'Unknown'...

The fact that your Lens is also called Summarit is a pure coincidence IMO. Just call yourself lucky. Others, would pay good money to get the lens 6-bit coded 😀

Thanks once again for the thoughts, Dirk, and I will carry out a few more tests. I'm not yet wholly convinced about the 'darker grey' aspect as the mount of the Summarit and the mount of the 35 Summilux - which didn't throw up any surprises - both appeared to be equally clean but I agree that it's very much worthwhile double-checking this as a possibility.

In the meantime I have - were I to be so masochistic - some fourteen other non-coded M-mount lenses in the box to check for similar anomalies.....

As things stand I'm quite happy to have the lens identified as a '50mm Summarit' despite the 60-year difference between my own f1.5 and the f2.4 editions!

Philip.

Edited November 15, 2023 by pippy

[jaapv]

Sometimes the camera reads a screw in the mount

[pippy]

17 hours ago, jaapv said:

Sometimes the camera reads a screw in the mount

There must be (?) something on the reverse of the Summarit mount which is causing the error.

I've a full-on day ahead but hopefully by end-of-play I'll have a little bit of time to investigate any differences between this lens and others.

I did check out the very first snaps taken with the Summarit on the M-D and those frames were not registered / recognised so, evidently, the issue has not always been present. My current thinking is that this 'new' info would appear to confirm some change has occurred at the rear of the mount.

Philip.