Will IR cut filters AND coding be necessary on longer lenses?

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Coding would likely be less of an issue if it could be done closer to home, instead of having to send the lens away. Igoring the real benefits of having someone cast an experienced eye over the lens, if you have the correct screwdriver, changing the lens mount is a couple of minutes work. The only tricky lens mount is the Tri-Elmar which needs a spring attaching to it.

 

Leica told me at Photokina that the lens coding charge barely covers their costs and is there "for political reasons", meaning to help ensure compatability. Even so, the cost could be smaller still if they just supplied the lens mount for you to change at home. No shipping, no delay, job done.

 

As regards the current situation, Leica may well provide the option to swap the camera for people who cannot afford the time to return it for update, but they would obviously prefer not to have hundreds of factory refurbished cameras floating around, hence the inducement of the lens discount.

 

It will be interesting to see what the return logistics are. Here in Europe, it's easy to get it to Solms next business day but I accept it's more difficult for North America and other countries further afield, not least because of customs issues. Leica are not going to write "Gift - No commercial value" on the box.

 

Leica NJ might batch them up and send them weekly which adds to the delay. I certainly would hope to bypass Leica UK, who have yet to find the words "Now, Today, Urgent" in their dictionary.

[Advertisement]

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

[caloso]

I just purchased an rd-1. I have 22 leica m lenses and have been patiently waiting to see how that 1936 uncoated summaron looks on an M8. The problem is I do not want to spend another 1500.00 on filters (e39 e48 e49 series v vi vii whatever....) I bought and sold the dmr Franken camera and I am currently enjoying the old visoflex technique with r lenses on a canon 5d. I can wait for leica to get it right. For now I look forward to the M9 and the arrival of my rd-1.

[waterlenz]

Coding would likely be less of an issue if it could be done closer to home, instead of having to send the lens away. Igoring the real benefits of having someone cast an experienced eye over the lens, if you have the correct screwdriver, changing the lens mount is a couple of minutes work. The only tricky lens mount is the Tri-Elmar which needs a spring attaching to it.

 

Leica told me at Photokina that the lens coding charge barely covers their costs and is there "for political reasons", meaning to help ensure compatability. Even so, the cost could be smaller still if they just supplied the lens mount for you to change at home. No shipping, no delay, job done.

 

As regards the current situation, Leica may well provide the option to swap the camera for people who cannot afford the time to return it for update, but they would obviously prefer not to have hundreds of factory refurbished cameras floating around, hence the inducement of the lens discount.

 

It will be interesting to see what the return logistics are. Here in Europe, it's easy to get it to Solms next business day but I accept it's more difficult for North America and other countries further afield, not least because of customs issues. Leica are not going to write "Gift - No commercial value" on the box.

 

Leica NJ might batch them up and send them weekly which adds to the delay. I certainly would hope to bypass Leica UK, who have yet to find the words "Now, Today, Urgent" in their dictionary.

 

Happy Thanksgiving all!

Some very good points here. Shipping logistics are not the same world over. They can be particularly problematic, e.g., here in bush Alaska. It took four days for an Express Mail package containing an a.c. power adapter (after one literally smoked) for my computer to reach me just from Anchorage. NJ is ~ 4000 miles away! It would be far more efficient to send me the rings I need. Round trip postage with insurance (significant for Leica gla$$) would be about $100/lens from here to NJ.

Tom

[scott kirkpatrick]

Sean -

 

I don't know who to send the message to, but is it expecting too much to expect that someone in Solms reads this, their own Leica Users' Forum?

.

 

Yes, given the repetition and polemics, even in this relatively polite forum, I can't imagine that they can read all we write. It is helpful if you send a short statement of your support for open access to the vignetting corrections for non-coded or even non-Leica lenses in the M8 to Leica directly, at info@leicacamera.com .

 

Keep it short, hope they will simply note that you are a new customer not previously heard from, and count them.

 

As an example of how redundant these forum articles are, I noticed that it took over a dozen posts before you got a simple answer to your first simple question:

 

>28 mm, no need to use firmware for vignetting correction

28 mm maybe

<28 mm definite need

 

OK?

 

scott

[mike prevette]

I'm 100% behind the idea of manual lens selection. in fact I was shocked when the manual was first posted and i didn't see any provision for it. i believe it was one of my first posts here actually. It seems so illogical, but it reveals the coding for what it really is, a marketing scheme.

 

Not only do I want a list of focal lengths to choose from, but i want manual vignetting correction sliders for each focal length. Both correction amount and centering, just like photoshop has. If anyone of you thinks Leica's calibration system was any more complected than finding values for those two things i think you are sorely mistaken. There is no magic, or in depth calibration algorithm going on here. it's simple vignetting correction in it's most basic form.

 

The same way i feel that every 'automatic' setting should have a manual overide. especially if its correcting your raw data. there is no excuse not to have it in the modern day when hardware is run by software.

 

_mike

[ronaldh]

Yes, given the repetition and polemics, even in this relatively polite forum, I can't imagine that they can read all we write. It is helpful if you send a short statement of your support for open access to the vignetting corrections for non-coded or even non-Leica lenses in the M8 to Leica directly, at info@leicacamera.com .

 

Keep it short, hope they will simply note that you are a new customer not previously heard from, and count them.

 

As an example of how redundant these forum articles are, I noticed that it took over a dozen posts before you got a simple answer to your first simple question:

 

 

 

scott

 

I tried to do this, quoting Ed Laurpic's post yesterday with which I wholeheartedly agree, but the message bounced back from the email address given. The correct address is info@leica-camera.com. I copied to sales@leica-camera.co.uk

[Tim B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mark,

 

 

Leica NJ might batch them up and send them weekly which adds to the delay. I certainly would hope to bypass Leica UK, who have yet to find the words "Now, Today, Urgent" in their dictionary.

 

I'm given to understand by a London dealer that, in a recent change in policy, lens coding will be something that Leica UK (Milton Keynes) will undertake in future to speed up the process (!) Whether that is progress or not will depend on Leica UK's workshop.

 

I just had to send my D2 in after catastrophic sensor failure (fortunately just before the three year warranty expired) and Leica UK said that it will have to go to Germany since they "don't do much repair work in the UK any more." The delay is expected to be 6 - 8 weeks, although I expect much longer given all the extra work going on in Solms to get the modified M8 out.

 

Leica UK's attitude is not, as you imply, very encouraging.

 

Tim

[scott kirkpatrick]

I tried to do this, quoting Ed Laurpic's post yesterday with which I wholeheartedly agree, but the message bounced back from the email address given. The correct address is info@leica-camera.com. I copied to sales@leica-camera.co.uk

 

My apologies. I've sent them a note successfully, but wrote the address down from memory.

 

scott

[sean_reid]

In regards to lens coding, has anybody asked Cosina or Zeiss if they would provide a coding conversion on their exisiting lenses?

 

A good percentage of the Cosina lenses are screw mounts. All Cosina would need to do for these lenses is to provide coded L39 to M mount adapters.

 

I think the coding is patented but that's off the top of my head so I'd need to research that.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[robsteve]

I think the coding is patented but that's off the top of my head so I'd need to research that.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I am just thinking back to the time when a few of the third party lenses would not work on the newer EOS cameras. The Sigma lens owners complained to Canon, Canon said, all our old lenses still work on the new camera, talk to Sigma. Leica has offered to upgrade the majority of their old lenses to the coding to keep them compatible with the M8. Perhaps it is time Zeiss and Cosina did the same.

[sean_reid]

I am not suggesting that Leica license their coding to other lens makers, although they of course could do so if they wanted. I was simply endorsing Sean Reid's idea of making it possible for an M8 owner to dial in his or her lens in the camera's menu rather than only being able to tell the camera what lens is attached by means of the coding on the lens mount.

 

And, again, for those who are new to the discussion of this system, I'm not asking Leica to provide specific support for other makers' lenses. That would be unreasonable. Rather, I'm asking that they allow the photographer to manually select the same corrections that are being triggered automatically by the lens codes - nothing more. Leica, naturally, cannot and should not be able to vouch for how well their corrections for, say, the 21/2.8 Elmarit will work for the Zeiss 21/2.8, etc. But manual selection would allow Leica lens owners to forego coding if they wish and other lens owners to experiment with how these corrections might work for alternate lenses. In other words, I'm arguing against a closed system.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

A thought on the coding of lenses vs. Sean's idea of the manual selection: With the crop factor of 1.33 my CV 21mm/F4 becomes a much more important lens for me now. It's now a 28mm - a lens I use much more than the 21. If I can't select the 21mm manually then I really can't use it as far as I'm concerned. I need to be able to rely on accurate color across the lens and do not want to make fixes in photoshop to the corners.

Jonathan Elderfield Photography

 

Exactly. Now it may be that the corrections designed for the 21 Elmarit do not work perfectly for the CV 21, but I suspect they will be close and the photographer should be free to experiment with that if he or she chooses to. I'm working on tests today to look at this further but the cyan drift is a property of the filter and angle of view, not of the lens pers se. That's my hypothesis for now and will be until and unless my testing shows otherwise.

 

Again, Leica can and should state clearly that the manually selected lens corrections are *only* designed to work properly with their own lenses. We can then experiment ourselves to see if that is true.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

. It is helpful if you send a short statement of your support for open access to the vignetting corrections for non-coded or even non-Leica lenses in the M8 to Leica directly, at info@leicacamera.com .

 

Just to clarify, what I'm asking for is the ability to manually specify the lens mounted which would then trigger not only the vignetting correction but also, I believe, the cyan cast correction.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I am just thinking back to the time when a few of the third party lenses would not work on the newer EOS cameras. The Sigma lens owners complained to Canon, Canon said, all our old lenses still work on the new camera, talk to Sigma. Leica has offered to upgrade the majority of their old lenses to the coding to keep them compatible with the M8. Perhaps it is time Zeiss and Cosina did the same.

 

If the coding system is patented, they can't do that. The EOS mount is not a closed system. The M mount on the M8 shouldn't be either. Restricting cyan drift correction to only coded lenses is a way of creating a closed system. BTW, for those who haven't yet discovered this, the quality of the Zeiss and CV lenses tends to be very high. These are not "off brand" lenses as some have disparagingly suggested. Some people are just beginning to discover that with the CV 15 but that lens is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

I also believe that an open system will sell more M8s, so it actually benefits Leica.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[robsteve]

If the coding system is patented, they can't do that. The EOS mount is not a closed system. The M mount on the M8 shouldn't be either. Restricting cyan drift correction to only coded lenses is a way of creating a closed system. BTW, for those who haven't yet discovered this, the quality of the Zeiss and CV lenses tends to be very high. These are not "off brand" lenses as some have disparagingly suggested. Some people are just beginning to discover that with the CV 15 but that lens is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

I also believe that an open system will sell more M8s, so it actually benefits Leica.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean:

 

Whether the 6-bit coding is patented would be a good question to ask your sources at Leica. If it isn't patented, the ball is now in Zeiss and Cosina's court to suggest a solution.

 

I wouldn't consider the Zeiss lenses off brand. Have you seen the price of their 15mm and 85mm lenses? Their performance is also very Leica like and Zeiss has supplied lenses to Leica in the past to be part of the Leica lens line up in both the M and the R.

 

In regards to the Cosina lenses, they could probably be considered an off brand as they typically perform just behind the equivalent Leica lens. Similar to how the Sigma or Tamron lenses do not typically perform as well as Canon L or Nikon ED lenses. There are some exceptions, such as some of the Nikon branded ED zooms made by third parties.

 

The Cosina/Voitlander lenses offer incredible value and I even own one.

 

Robert

[johnastovall]

But Leica would have to put the correction data into their firmware to fix the Cyan cast for Zeiss and CV lenses. I don't see any reason they would do that, at least any economic reason.

[Joseph S. Wisniewski]

I sort of thought the coding thing was proprietary to Leica in some way? Was I mistaken about that?

The coding identifies a lens as "Leica lens 17 out of 63".

 

A database in the camera then translates "17 of 63" into "focal length 28mm, aperture f2.8, exit pupil 32mm".

 

The aperture is necessary only for EXIF information. The focal length is necessary for correcting cyan corners caused by an IR blocking filter in front of the lens. The exit pupil is necessary for correction of vignetting. The exit pupil is also necessary for cyan corner correction on lenses that take a rear filter (12mm and 15mm lenses don't typically have front filter threads) or if Leica adopts an interference filter in front of the sensor (the way Nikon and Canon do now on their DSLRs). Based on today's announcement, I don't see Leica doing a sensor mounted filter for M8, but I bet they do one on M9, so it is something that needs to be protected for.

 

So, Zeiss or Voigtlander can certainly code lenses, but the best that they can do is pick a Leica lens ID number for something close to a Leica lens. Leica doesn't have a code for a lens very close to a 12mm f5.6 Voigtlander or even a 40mm f1.4 CV. And nothing that resembles a Distagon, a mildly retrofocus design.

 

The big question is, how close can they get. Even if CV or Zeiss decide not to do coding themselves for legal reasons, it's a fairly simple matter to "leak" a table of equivalent Leica numbers for CV or Z lenses somewhere where independent shops will be able to "find" it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Samir Jahjah]

The coding identifies a lens as "Leica lens 17 out of 63".

 

A database in the camera then translates "17 of 63" into "focal length 28mm, aperture f2.8, exit pupil 32mm".

 

The aperture is necessary only for EXIF information. The focal length is necessary for correcting cyan corners caused by an IR blocking filter in front of the lens. The exit pupil is necessary for correction of vignetting. The exit pupil is also necessary for cyan corner correction on lenses that take a rear filter (12mm and 15mm lenses don't typically have front filter threads) or if Leica adopts an interference filter in front of the sensor (the way Nikon and Canon do now on their DSLRs). Based on today's announcement, I don't see Leica doing a sensor mounted filter for M8, but I bet they do one on M9, so it is something that needs to be protected for.

 

So, Zeiss or Voigtlander can certainly code lenses, but the best that they can do is pick a Leica lens ID number for something close to a Leica lens. Leica doesn't have a code for a lens very close to a 12mm f5.6 Voigtlander or even a 40mm f1.4 CV. And nothing that resembles a Distagon, a mildly retrofocus design.

 

The big question is, how close can they get. Even if CV or Zeiss decide not to do coding themselves for legal reasons, it's a fairly simple matter to "leak" a table of equivalent Leica numbers for CV or Z lenses somewhere where independent shops will be able to "find" it.

 

 

This is why it is so important for Leica to come up with another solution so that no IR filters are needed: they are fixing one problem, and it creates other ones:

 

- IR induced cyan cast on 28mm and wider (so affecting many users as a 28mm is a 38mm, a 24 becomes a 33mm);

 

- then new profiles are needed, one when using a IR filter, another one when not using IR filters;

 

- what happens now if you do not use a IR filter, but you have a coded lense? It will get the CYAN corrected ... while it needs not

 

- what to do with non-Leica lenses? And a closed system.

 

- when do you get profiles for those using Adobe, Aperture, or the excellent Lightzone software?

 

Bottom line : fix the sensor!!!!

[Joseph S. Wisniewski]

There are other examples of this kind of company-centric thinking that ends up shooting the company in the foot, the most noteworthy probably being Apples refusal to license the Mac system to other computer companies, thereby creating the opening for Microsoft to copy the look of the Mac with Windows, a much inferior product (let's not have an ideological struggle about this now...everyone knows Mac is better).

I'm sorry, but a discussion about what "everyone knows" actually has to involve something that, well, everyone knows.

 

So, for those brimming with ideology buy lacking a sense of history: Apple copied their look from Xerox. Xerox sued Apple, and won. Microsoft then licensed that look from Xerox.

 

Some more history, not colored by ideology, is that Apple actually did license the Mac operating system, largely as a move to placate several critical Apple suppliers such as Motorola and Radius. And, just like in the PC world, it was the Mac cloners who pushed the envelop and were responsible for the first Mac multiprocessor machines, the fastest Macs, the lowest cost Macs, and the first Mac laptop. Some licensed Mac clones included:

 

Motorola "StarMax" (get it? Macs and Max?)

 

Power Computing, with cute names like "PowerTower" and "PowerCurve". Power Computing was started by some Dell renegades, and Apple actually bought them out to acquire their designs (significantly faster than Apple's own Macs) and a Dell style direct marketing machine.

 

Radius (who never gave them names, just numbers)

 

DayStar Digital, whose Genesis and Millennium was the first multiprocessor Mac

 

UMAX in Germany was the only European Mac cloner, with their "SuperMac" line.

 

APS Technologies with MiPOWER, the lowest cost Mac clone.

 

IBM had a MacOS option on their PowerPC workstations.

 

Akia had the first licensed Mac laptops.

 

Pioneer had a line of "Multimedia" Mac clones using Motorola supplied boards and Pioneer amplifiers and speakers.

 

In 1988, Microsoft and IBM collaborated on an operating system that offered UNIX style preemptive multitasking, memory protection, and interprocess communications, along with a GUI "presentation manager". IBM called it "OS/2", Microsoft called their version "Windows NT". Apple claimed, back in 1989, that they would have a new operating system next year that incorporated such features next year (look up the history of "Taligent" and "Pink"). They failed to deliver on this promise. By 1992, Microsoft's NT 3.0 had proved its stability and capability, and people were porting major applications developed on SGI and Sun workstations to NT, giving Microsoft a tremendous boost in image processing, CAD, 3D graphics, and scientific applications.

 

Meanwhile, the "better" Mac languished, and serious applications such as PhotoShop actually had to incorporate much of a "real" operating system inside themselves (memory manager, multitasker that actually hooked the time slice system Apple incorporated in System 6 for use by the print spooler and tried to use it for other purposes). The part of Mac that actually was, in a way "better" was carried on by Steve Jobs at a new company called "NeXT", and by 1993 they had a system that could effectively compete against an NT box. The Apple computer that Jobs left behind fell into financial disrepair, actually accepting handouts from companies such as Microsoft, while failing, year after year after year to deliver Taligent, Pink, Copland, Rhapsody, Plan A, Talos, or any other announced system.

 

Adobe reconsidered their standard procedure of developing software on the Mac and porting it to Windows, and began actually developing under Windows and porting back to Mac. PhotoShop 6 was the first major release under this paradigm.

 

The Apple board booted the current management and brought Jobs back, along with purchasing all his NeXT developments. Jobs immediately shut down the Mac clone licensing program. They shipped the first desktop version of the Mach micro-kernel powered OS/X in 2001, twelve years after the target date of 1989. The first version that reached NT 3 (a year 1992 system) levels of stability and usefulness was 10.3 "Panther" in 2003. (The less said about 10.2 "Jaguar", 10.1 "Puma", 10.0 "Cheetah", and 10.0 beta "Sex Kitten:, the better).

 

And that, my friends, is the difference between ideology and history.

[Joseph S. Wisniewski]

- what to do with non-Leica lenses? And a closed system.

 

- when do you get profiles for those using Adobe, Aperture, or the excellent Lightzone software?

 

Bottom line : fix the sensor!!!!

Yeah, I pointed out the "closed system" issue back when Leica first announced the lens coding for vignetting correction. Whether by accident or design, it was the first step to locking out CV and Zeiss (as well as people using old Canon, Konica, etc. lenses).

 

I expect other software companies to bring out both filter and no-filter profiles fairly quickly. In fact, I expect the filter profiles first, they're considerably easier than the no filters. With a filter, you can generate a pretty good profile with a simple target. Without the filter, you then have to tweak it for correct hues across the board (not just Leica's mythical "synthetic blacks").