Scott Root Posted October 19, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 19, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I wonder how the six-bit lens coding will work for the tri-elmars as it seems the vignetting compensation would be a compromise between the three differing focal lengths. Too bad they don't get the coding to rotate in the lens in some recessed manner as a person moves between the three different focal lengths so compensation can be specific to the three different focal lengths of the tri-elmar. Any thoughts or insight on this out there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Hi Scott Root, Take a look here effectiveness of the six-bit coding on tri-elmars?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted October 19, 2006 Share #2 Posted October 19, 2006 But the camera knows which focal length has been selected because it brings up the correct fame lines. Perhaps for the Tri-Elmar the camera uses this information. Time will tell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Arias Posted October 19, 2006 Share #3 Posted October 19, 2006 I wonder how the six-bit lens coding will work for the tri-elmars as it seems the vignetting compensation would be a compromise between the three differing focal lengths. Too bad they don't get the coding to rotate in the lens in some recessed manner as a person moves between the three different focal lengths so compensation can be specific to the three different focal lengths of the tri-elmar. Any thoughts or insight on this out there? Hi Scott, in my opinion there is no need to worry about vignetting of the tri-elmar, at least the 28-35-50. This lense shows little vignetting only wide open in the 28mm-position. Since those "critical" edges will be cut off by the M8's 1,33-crop-factor you won't see any vignetting in the images. (There are not only disadvantages of the crop-factor .) Greetings Herbert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 19, 2006 Share #4 Posted October 19, 2006 As Steve says, there's a gizmo on the Tri-Elmar bayonet ring which adjusts the frame selection lever as you change focal length and I was told by someone on the Leica stand at Photokina that they sense the position of the lever to resolve the focal length since each of the focal lengths brings up a different frame set. Not so the new Tri-Elmar which is wider than any of the frames in the viewfinder. There is no corresponding gizmo on its bayonet ring at I proved when I whipped off the lens to a slightly alarmed look from the Leica guy. The camera cannot tell therefore which focal length is selected but with such a modest "zoom" ratio (1.31:1), perhaps it doesn't need to. So where I expect the EXIF data to contain the selected focal length of the existing lens, I do not know what will be in it for the new lens - I assume 16-21mm or something. That's all against a background of us wondering how useful the coding is going to be. Being an impetuous sort of person, I had 9 lenses coded with 3 more waiting to see what, if any, benefits it brings. We've made the comment that the lens coding might just have been a precautionary step in case the micro-lenses didn't deliver and it could turn out to be a white elephant, or a black & white zebra at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 19, 2006 Share #5 Posted October 19, 2006 I had 9 lenses coded with 3 more waiting to see what, if any, benefits it brings. Good grief. I've bought and sold a number of Leica lenses in my time but have never thought I needed more than three or four at any one time. At the moment I have four and wonder whether that is too many for comfort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 19, 2006 Share #6 Posted October 19, 2006 We've made the comment that the lens coding might just have been a precautionary step in case the micro-lenses didn't deliver and it could turn out to be a white elephant, or a black & white zebra at least. You might be right but I'd be surprised if Leica decided to go with the coding scheme prior to having established whether there would be some image quality benefit from doing so. I guess that, at the very least, the introduction of the lens coding scheme provides the possibility of more substantial future benefits (dare I suggest a fuller frame M9 in a few years time requiring greater vignetting correction?). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 19, 2006 Share #7 Posted October 19, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Good grief. I've bought and sold a number of Leica lenses in my time but have never thought I needed more than three or four at any one time. At the moment I have four and wonder whether that is too many for comfort. I said exactly the same thing to SWMBO last evening about the number of pairs of shoes she has... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 19, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 19, 2006 I said exactly the same thing to SWMBO last evening about the number of pairs of shoes she has... Good point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Root Posted October 19, 2006 Author Share #9 Posted October 19, 2006 It'll be interesting to find out if the folks at Photokina are correct in what they told Mark, which will be easy to verify once someone puts a coded tri-elmar on an M8 and sees whether or not it knows what focal length was used. Is there anyone out there with a coded tri-elmar who can check this out for me once they get their M8? I'd appreciate it. Cheers, Scott As Steve says, there's a gizmo on the Tri-Elmar bayonet ring which adjusts the frame selection lever as you change focal length and I was told by someone on the Leica stand at Photokina that they sense the position of the lever to resolve the focal length since each of the focal lengths brings up a different frame set. Not so the new Tri-Elmar which is wider than any of the frames in the viewfinder. There is no corresponding gizmo on its bayonet ring at I proved when I whipped off the lens to a slightly alarmed look from the Leica guy. The camera cannot tell therefore which focal length is selected but with such a modest "zoom" ratio (1.31:1), perhaps it doesn't need to. So where I expect the EXIF data to contain the selected focal length of the existing lens, I do not know what will be in it for the new lens - I assume 16-21mm or something. That's all against a background of us wondering how useful the coding is going to be. Being an impetuous sort of person, I had 9 lenses coded with 3 more waiting to see what, if any, benefits it brings. We've made the comment that the lens coding might just have been a precautionary step in case the micro-lenses didn't deliver and it could turn out to be a white elephant, or a black & white zebra at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 19, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 19, 2006 I do... I aggree that it's important not to take everything the people on the Leica stand said as Gospel Truth. They were pretty fluent in English (my German not extending to the fine art of lens coding) and they had a multi-page "crib-sheet" to answer questions from visiting nerds. So it may be the camera does not sense the frame selector - it's more expense to go to just to support one (as it turns out) lens and in the same way, there's confusion over the blue dot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.