M11 is missing 21 + 28mm Lux Lens Profiles

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

The lens list in camera for manual selection are for lenses prior to 6 bit coded lenses. All lenses manufactured with 6 bit codes are not on the list.

33 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Digital Leica M modus operandi: Only lenses that were not 6-bit coded at their launch (some got the code later during lifetime) are included in the menu.

38 minutes ago, RexGig0 said:

It has been my understanding, for quite some time, that Leica does not offer the ability to select a profile for every Leica lens, in the menus. Some lens profiles simply do not exist, in the menus. I think that I first learned this, when using an authentic coded R adapter, to use authentic Leica R lenses on my original M10, saw the available R profiles pop up in the menu, and learned that not all R lenses had profiles in the menu. (A local camera store had a sizable selection of R lenses.)

Some time later, I learned that not all Leica M lenses have lens profiles. 

 

Yes, thank you all. I was under the incorrect assumption that all 6-bit coded lenses were in the list. I also incorrectly assumed that Leica was drawing from that list when any 6-bit coded lens was attached. But instead those codes are stored in the firmware separately from the list.

Edited February 15, 2024 by hdmesa

[Advertisement]

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

[hdmesa]

36 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

you could apply profiles in LR when converting the raw files. If any of the Leica lens correction profiles in LR work well with the CV lenses. Otherwise you could do manual correction in LR.

That's not the main reason I was wanting to select a profile. A profile is required in order for the M11 to know what focal length is attached. That is necessary for the functioning of the digital stabilization feature when in magnified live view. It's also necessary for the automatic minimum shutter speed feature to work when using Auto ISO.

I can get around the above issue by selecting any manual profile of the same focal length as the lens I have attached, but that comes with unnecessary baggage such as incorrect EXIF lens name, vignetting correction applied to JPEGs and visible in live view that may not match the lens being used, etc. It also is not a viable workaround if the there is not an available profile of matching focal length (40mm, etc.).

Edited February 15, 2024 by hdmesa

[tom0511]

I see - I assume that's the way Leica wants to make us use Leica lenses and not CV lenses ;(

Eventhough for 21 and 28mm digital stability should not  be too important, and in my case I use the minimum shutter speed independent of focal length.

 

[hdmesa]

5 hours ago, tom0511 said:

I see - I assume that's the way Leica wants to make us use Leica lenses and not CV lenses ;(

Eventhough for 21 and 28mm digital stability should not  be too important, and in my case I use the minimum shutter speed independent of focal length.

 

I do the same with the minimum shutter speed and have to set it manually.

Regarding magnifying to focus – even with a 28mm lens, it's noticeably more difficult to focus without the digital stabilization. I use maximum zoom when magnifying, so perhaps that exaggerates the motion.

[lct]

Something must be escaping me in this thread. Why not hand-coding those lenses? There is a groove for this purpose on the flange of VM and ZM lenses. Late copies of them at least.

[Tailwagger]

On 4/18/2024 at 9:26 PM, lct said:

Something must be escaping me in this thread. Why not hand-coding those lenses? There is a groove for this purpose on the flange of VM and ZM lenses. Late copies of them at least.

I think there are several reasons, but most of all because it really is about time that Leica finally grew up a little when it comes to this subject. 

Few folks are cross shopping Summiluxes and CVs. It's long past the moment when Leica should open things up on this front, if not adding the possibility to upload actual profiles for some of these lenses then at least to the point where the firmware accounts for the possibility that the optic being mounted is not one of theirs.  Create a half a dozen programmable slots (no corrections applied, just EXIF) and allow the user to input a lens name with its focal length. With that info in the EXIF,  LR could auto apply profiles in the way in instead of having to remember to apply them manually to each shot taken.  Shouldn't take much to implement and would eliminate a pain point experienced by nearly everyone who owns an M. 

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We had yet complaints because some people wanted to use uncoded lenses in auto lens detection mode, so now Leica should help its competitors really? Yes decidedly something is escaping me in this good old forum... I  feel like i live on another planet sometimes... VM & ZM user here so nothing personal 😎

[Knorp]

4 hours ago, lct said:

We had yet complaints because some people wanted to use uncoded lenses in auto lens detection mode, so now Leica should help its competitors really? Yes decidedly something is escaping me in this good old forum... I  feel like i live on another planet sometimes... VM & ZM user here so nothing personal 😎

Only helping competitors, really ? What about mounting f.i. a Summaron 2.8/35mm or a Summarex 1.5/85mm ?

I'd welcome the possibility to have 6 programmable slots.

🫡

 

[Strmbrg]

To what degree is the coding actually important? It does two things - as far as i know:
Information of what lens is used in the EXIF; Camera-corrected, non-wanted behaviour of the lens.

For me, the first thing is of no real importance. I am mostly interested in the image, not in the information.
The last thing is maybe important - if it does something obvious and necessary, and not just "something".
Third party lenses (second party may be more correct...) can of course not be corrected unless the camera-producer is very kind and helpful to those who aren't "loyal" to the brands own lenses.

Edited April 30, 2024 by Strmbrg

[Smudgerer]

Yes another stupid minor Leica irritation and in most part I do agree, but if CV and other lens manufacturers actually cut better slots into their lens mounts so black / white paint can be more easily applied therefore enabling better six bit marking than is possible right now with most nearly flush lens mounts that invariably mean that the markings wear off quickly.

[01af]

Am 15.2.2024 um 01:42 schrieb Photoworks:

Leica cameras don't offer any correction unless the camera is able to read the 6-bit coding.

This is not true.

There are correction profiles stored in the camera's firmware for every Leica M lens that has a 6-bit code assigned—that is, all modern and many older M lenses. The respective profile will be applied as soon as the camera knows the lens. It does absolutely not matter how the camera comes to know which lens is attached, be it manually via menu selection or automatically via 6-bit code recognition.

[Strmbrg]

Okay! I didn't think of those aspects of automatic limitation of shutter speeds related to the used focal length. 😵 There is so many things and functions to bear in mind nowadays...

Maybe it is possible to avoid relying everything of automation and technical help. I know what lens I use and i therefore know what is the longest suitable shutter speed to use with it. It is of course convenient and I think I have this feature at "on" in my camera. But all these automatic helping features make at least me somewhat distracted, and even frustrated sometimes, besides that I feel the need to check if the automatic things really work as intended...

[Photoworks]

2 hours ago, 01af said:

This is not true.

There are correction profiles stored in the camera's firmware for every Leica M lens that has a 6-bit code assigned—that is, all modern and many older M lenses. The respective profile will be applied as soon as the camera knows the lens. It does absolutely not matter how the camera comes to know which lens is attached, be it manually via menu selection or automatically via 6-bit code recognition.

That is not true.

There is a difference between camera correction to correction in metadata in post-production.

Just pick up a 21mm, and do the test yourself.

 

 

[Strmbrg]

Are these corrections of any significance or are they minimal? Of course a question involving personal values.
For example: Say a particular lens vignettes significantly. At which aperture-related vignetting-amount shall the camera make its correction? It doesn't know the aperture more than as a guess. If the lens behavoiur varies with both aperture and distance set, it becomes even more complex.

Some of you may have examined all this - and to what extent is all this meaningful? Meaningful applied to the impression of the image i.e. Not applied to the comparisons and analysis of degrees of differences. 🙂

For me? Everything that distracts me and leads my attention FROM the image TO the distractions (whatever the consist of) is important to get rid of. Faults that doesn't distract me is of no importance. A "gear-performance-top-notch-picture, in which the photographer completely missed to correct a sloping horizon is very distracting, for example. But that's me. 🙂

Edited April 30, 2024 by Strmbrg

[01af]

vor 31 Minuten schrieb Photoworks:

That is not true.

Except that it is.

.

vor 31 Minuten schrieb Photoworks:

There is a difference between camera correction to correction in metadata in post-production.

Did you actually read what I said before going contradictory? Obviously not.

I was talking about in-camera correction triggered manually via menu selection versus in-camera correction triggered automatically via 6-bit code recognition. And there is no difference between these two (except the convenience of manual vs automatic operation).

[01af]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Strmbrg:

For example: Say a particular lens vignettes significantly [...]

The in-camera vignetting correction in digital Leica M cameras won't eliminate vignetting. Instead, it is supposed to reduce vignetting to (approximately) the same level the lens would vignette on film. So it will address only the vignetting added by the sensor. This part, however, also depends on the lens, so it's different for every lens type.

[Photoworks]

46 minutes ago, 01af said:

Except that it is.

.

Did you actually read what I said before going contradictory? Obviously not.

I was talking about in-camera correction triggered manually via menu selection versus in-camera correction triggered automatically via 6-bit code recognition. And there is no difference between these two (except the convenience of manual vs automatic operation).

 

3 hours ago, 01af said:

It does absolutely not matter how the camera comes to know which lens is attached, be it manually via menu selection or automatically via 6-bit code recognition.

this is the part I don't agree with and it has been demonstrated before. Vignetting is not the only correction.

[lct]

6 hours ago, Knorp said:

[...] What about mounting f.i. a Summaron 2.8/35mm or a Summarex 1.5/85mm ? I'd welcome the possibility to have 6 programmable slots [...]

I have no idea how one can program such lenses but i use uncoded Leica lenses as well: Summilux 35/1.4 v2, Summilux 75/1.4 and Tele-Elmar 135/4 that are listed in the M11 firmware currently. I own also LTM lenses that are not listed for lack of room i guess but it is no rocket science to use close lens profiles through manual lens detection if needed. It is also easy to hand-code LTM lenses and use them in auto detection mode through LTM to M adapters with coding pits like Metabones or  Kipon. My Elmar 35/3.5 from 1948 is hand-coded as Summarit 35/2.4 this way for archiving purpose for instance. An idea for your Summaron perhaps, ditto for your Summarex possibly but i have no experience with it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[01af]

vor 55 Minuten schrieb Photoworks:

... and it has been demonstrated before.

It has!? Where?

.

vor 55 Minuten schrieb Photoworks:

Vignetting is not the only correction.

Sigh. Nobody said vignetting was the only correction.

[colint544]

I have a 35mm Summaron 2.8 lens, made in 1960. It's a superb lens - tiny, well built, and relatively fast. It compliments any Leica M camera. If I try to manually select it on either my M9 Monochrom, or M11, there's no option available.

I just code it as a vintage 35mm Summicron, there is no problem. The lens works great. I just wonder - especially on such a sophisticated camera as the M11 - why didn't they add it onto the list?