sdai Posted September 9, 2009 Share #41 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The list doesn't include any ZM or CV lens, does that mean you can't use any of them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Hi sdai, Take a look here M9 site with FAQs up now. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
swamiji Posted September 9, 2009 Share #42 Posted September 9, 2009 Oh, yes... Thanks for this list... Extremely useful!!! Already imported it into my iPhone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted September 9, 2009 Share #43 Posted September 9, 2009 The list doesn't include any ZM or CV lens, does that mean you can't use any of them? It also does not include all Leica lenses either.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 9, 2009 Share #44 Posted September 9, 2009 The Erwin Puts article says the monitor cover is "normal glass," but dpreview says it is "Perspex" which is a type of plastic. Rocky-- I think "Perspex" is the British trade name for what in the US is "Plexiglas." I'm certain that Leica isn't using something that easily scratchable. As usual, when there's a discrepancy, I'd go with Puts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 9, 2009 Share #45 Posted September 9, 2009 More importantly, what do you do when your lens is not listed? It depends on which lens you are using... if, say, you are using a venerable Summar, you can set you're using a Summicron 50 ... in the EXIF file will be recorded you use a 50 f2, which is true indeed. Of course, there is no way to record, for instance, that you are using a 50 1,1 (CV). Very appreciable improvement, anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted September 9, 2009 Share #46 Posted September 9, 2009 It depends on which lens you are using... if, say, you are using a venerable Summar, you can set you're using a Summicron 50 ... in the EXIF file will be recorded you use a 50 f2, which is true indeed. Of course, there is no way to record, for instance, that you are using a 50 1,1 (CV). Very appreciable improvement, anyway. And then there is Visoflex and it's assorted lenses... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pklein Posted September 9, 2009 Share #47 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) We can't expect them to have codes for non-Leica lenses. But if you pick the nearest equivalent, it will probably be fine. Not sure how a 15/8 fits into the mix, but f-stop probably not relavant. You could try the Wide-Tri-Elmar at 16mm. Many of us coded CV and other lenses with black markers, using the "nearest equivalent" principle, and it worked fine. Now, if only Leica will put this same table into the M8.... PLEASE! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 9, 2009 Share #48 Posted September 9, 2009 We can't expect them to have codes for non-Leica lenses. But if you pick the nearest equivalent, it will probably be fine. Not sure how a 15/8 fits into the mix, but f-stop probably not relavant. You could try the Wide-Tri-Elmar at 16mm. Many of us coded CV and other lenses with black markers, using the "nearest equivalent" principle, and it worked fine. Now, if only Leica will put this same table into the M8.... PLEASE! Would be really fine... but mixing Software components from 2 different platforms is a task that developers HATE... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sclemmons Posted September 10, 2009 Share #49 Posted September 10, 2009 Thanks for the list of lenses. Could we use a Cosina Voigtlander 16m/4.5? I have a 24, a 36, a 50, and a 90 and see them all on the list. Are they plug and play or do we need to have them coded somehow? I have been using my M6 for 15 years and have bought all these lenses new since then. This is my first exposure to a digital Leica because I was waiting for the full frame. Now that it is here, I will have one but want to know that we can use our existing lenses hassle free. What about the framelines on the camera? Do we need to use our outboard finder for the 16 and 24? Or can we change the framelines in a menu somehow? Thanks for the help. sc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted September 10, 2009 Share #50 Posted September 10, 2009 The list of lenses includes those mostly before June 2006 from Leica. Those released since are coded, and thus won't appear in the list. I wouldn't hold your breath for third-party lenses being listed, ever. As mentioned, choosing something close would probably work well enough... Has for M8 coded lenses! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 10, 2009 Share #51 Posted September 10, 2009 Thanks for the list of lenses. Could we use a Cosina Voigtlander 16m/4.5? I have a 24, a 36, a 50, and a 90 and see them all on the list. Are they plug and play or do we need to have them coded somehow? I have been using my M6 for 15 years and have bought all these lenses new since then. This is my first exposure to a digital Leica because I was waiting for the full frame. Now that it is here, I will have one but want to know that we can use our existing lenses hassle free. What about the framelines on the camera? Do we need to use our outboard finder for the 16 and 24? Or can we change the framelines in a menu somehow? Thanks for the help. sc The M9 appeaqrs to have the M7's viewfinder, so 16, 16-18-21, 21, and 24 are not supported with frames, and the 28 lines may be hard to see with glasses on. Cosina makes inexpensive finders, which have bright lines but some barrel distortion. Zeiss makes very non-distorting but non-bright-line finders. Leica has two new finders which give very undistorted images and brightlines for both M9 and M8 usage. The old Leica 21/24/28 finder is apparently without bright lines and not optically much better than the Cosina (what I read, I haven't tried it). The prices are roughly $150/$450/$700 for the CV/Z/L solutions. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted September 10, 2009 Share #52 Posted September 10, 2009 Rocky--I think "Perspex" is the British trade name for what in the US is "Plexiglas." I'm certain that Leica isn't using something that easily scratchable. As usual, when there's a discrepancy, I'd go with Puts. Perspex (Plexiglas, acrylic) is far too easy to scratch. Maybe they've used a "non-scratch" finish on an optical plastic as in many spectacle lenses: reasonably scratch-resistant and harder to break than a sheet of glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 10, 2009 Share #53 Posted September 10, 2009 There is a (more or less) scratch-resistant coating on the plastic of the LCD cover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted September 10, 2009 Share #54 Posted September 10, 2009 Interesting exposition. So you think the Ultra II cards are indeed faster than the Extreme IIIs and not a typo? I was startled by this as well (especially since I just finished buying 8 SanDisk Extreme III 4GB's for my M8 and retired all of the older cheaper Ultra II's). Surely it must be in error? I guess that the first official comprehensive test (and with the newest firmware) will record the timings for us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted September 10, 2009 Share #55 Posted September 10, 2009 Just annoys me that it's a step backwards from the M8.2/M8u and should have been offered as least as an option. A retrofit, if it ever appears, is likely to be far more expensive than putting it in to start with. In the M8u upgrade, they replace the entire rear casting and then there's the cost of labour, replacement covering, shipping and all the rest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 10, 2009 Share #56 Posted September 10, 2009 I agree it would have been nice to get saphire as an option - however in the end I am very happy they brought and deliever the M9 at this point of time. Nobody would have believed so 6 months ago. Maestro ot not-who cares as long as the processor in the M9 does its job. The only thing I kind of dislike is that we loose the 24mm frame. I kind of had a dream to maybe get a 24lux one day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperandio Posted September 10, 2009 Share #57 Posted September 10, 2009 Firmware: 1.002 ..... Bob. Many thanks for the list Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted September 10, 2009 Share #58 Posted September 10, 2009 Rocky--I think "Perspex" is the British trade name for what in the US is "Plexiglas." I'm certain that Leica isn't using something that easily scratchable. As usual, when there's a discrepancy, I'd go with Puts. I would hope that it will be a polycarbonate type of plastic, used for high quality sports spectacle lenses and crash helmet visors. I agree with Howard, Perspex/Plexiglass is very old technology (WW2). Polycarbonate is pretty scratch resistant. I now find that the visors on my crash helmets last the recommended life of the helmet (5 years). Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted September 10, 2009 Share #59 Posted September 10, 2009 Just annoys me that it's a step backwards from the M8.2/M8u and should have been offered as least as an option. A retrofit, if it ever appears, is likely to be far more expensive than putting it in to start with. In the M8u upgrade, they replace the entire rear casting and then there's the cost of labour, replacement covering, shipping and all the rest. This is one aspect of the M9 that surprised me and a step backwards IMHO. Perhaps it's destined to be a Leica annuity for minor upgrades .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted September 10, 2009 Share #60 Posted September 10, 2009 I agree it would have been nice to get saphire as an option - however in the end I am very happy they brought and deliever the M9 at this point of time. Nobody would have believed so 6 months ago.Maestro ot not-who cares as long as the processor in the M9 does its job. The only thing I kind of dislike is that we loose the 24mm frame. I kind of had a dream to maybe get a 24lux one day. If they put in a 24 mm frame-lines, the finder would have had to be much bigger and this might have made the camera bigger. The 24 frame-lines on the M8 are actually 31.2mm frame-lines due to the crop factor. The 28 mm frame-lines are bigger than anything the M8 has and are equivalent to having 21mm frame-lines in the M8. I have to admit if I had recently bought a 24/1.4 Summilux, I would not be best pleased that I would now have to use an external finder or use guesswork. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.