Lens coding - the high tech solution

Much hot air has been expended here on how outrageous it is that Leica force users to have their lenses

coded for the M8 - particularly on wide angles, where the firmware will reduce the cyan cast imparted by

IR filters

at the edge of WA shots. <p>

It turns out that if you do have, for instance, a Zeiss lens, you can probably persuade your M8 that it's a

(reasonably) equivalent Leica. This will involve some inconvenience. You will have to walk down to your

local stationery store and <a href="http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/10494-proof-

concept-regarding-self-coding-

lenses.html">buy a Sharpie</a>.

Better buy a grinder too so you can recess the markings to keep them from rubbing off.

Then not handling yer expensive camera with greasy mitts might be an

elegant solution...

Is provide manual selction of lenses as a menu option in firmware. I'm sure with time that may be possible.

Funny, as I was reading all the threads about codings, and heard it was "visual" rather than electronic, I thought why not do something homegrown. No Leica to experiment with made it just a thought for me.

 

Just another thought, perhaps the codings could be translated to a computer file, and printed on "Dymo" film labels. That way, the files can be shared, and everyone will have the codes.

Using IR filters and marking our lenses with Sharpies to get optimal image quality on the M8? Have this what we've come to?

Are the dots engraved (relieved below the surface)?

 

Really, to a machinist the job is trivial.

"Using IR filters and marking our lenses with Sharpies to get optimal image quality on the M8? Have this what we've come to?"

 

Some of us are using one of the many other excellent digitals on the market, expecting Leica is already working on an M8.2 whose sensor will not require IR filters and hence the lenses will not require coding.

Vinay, I'm still on the fence but with every passing day, it looks like I might be waiting for the next version of the M8...

"Really, to a machinist the job is trivial."

 

You could even do it yourself while you are sitting in the dentist's chair waiting for the dentist. It is a well known fact that 52.3% of all Leicas are owned by dentists so they wont mind, they might even help.

"All Leica has to do is provide manual selection of lenses as a menu option in firmware."

 

That's not going to happen. Leica is trying to differentiate itself from the Zeiss (and other) M-mount competition. Since the digital concept is the Leica M of the future, Leica felt the need to "alter" the M mount in some way to woo potential M-mount buyers into Leica lenses.

 

When Zeiss (or some other competitor) releases its own M-mount digital camera, the menu approach will be the likely choice for them. At that point the advantage Leica will have (ironically) is comparative speed.

I haven't been shy about castigating Leica for what they've done and are doing with regard to the M8, especially the IR/magenta issue and the filter requirement and the way it was duplicitously sprung on the buyers. But I would not expect them to aid and abett their competition by spending money to research and profile 3rd-party lenses! The Nikon D200 AFAIK does not contain menu listings for Vivitar and Tamron.

 

However I do think they should make the code-activated profiles available in a manual menu (after all, it will still be less convenient than a coded lens, so it does not obviate the coding). Furthermore I think they should provide menu items for the 28mm and 21mm lenses that are not on the codable list.

 

That said, I have had it demonstrated for me how to cure the cyan corners using the Radial Luminance in Panotools and even a digital dummy like me found it a snap.

<i>Furthermore I think they should provide menu items for the 28mm and 21mm lenses that are not on the codable list.</i><p>

:) Sure, and also have the finder flash an annoying "Warning - Metering has been disabled!"<p>

Let's be specific. <br>

From the manual (quote)<p>

* Exposure metering is not possible with:<br>

Super-Angulon-M 21mm f/4 <br>

Super-Angulon-M 21mm f/3.4 <br>

Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 with serial nos. earlier than<br>

2 314 921.<p>

(end quote)<p>

The only retractible lens that can be retracted is the current Macro-Elmar-M 90mm f/4. <p>

 

The Elmar F4 ('54-68) cannot be used at all, nor can the Dual Range Summicron F2 with close focusing.

Lenses that block the meter can still be used to take pictures, just as they have on the M6-M7-MP. Many of the 21 f/3.4 in particular are in regular use. Maybe you didn't understand that from just reading Leica's manual, you would need to know more about Leicas and/or use them to know that. In fact the M8 would be even more convenient with those lenses because the histogram could be used as a TTL exposure meter. In addition the 2nd version 28/2.8 Elmarit, a lens that commands a substantial price premium, does not block the meter cell path.

<b>Helen Bach</b><i>" You could even do it yourself while you are sitting in the dentist's chair waiting for the dentist. [...]</i><p>

That's funny. Should you be in the chair again, you could start a regular cottage industry and maybe pay your way through a crown or two.<p>

I am lucky that I rarely need dental work, but the time I did need a crown (due to an accident), I was given the up-front payment schedule and I blurted, "Those look like car payments!". Dentist answered, "Yes. Mine."

<b>Vinay Patel</b> [...]

<i> In fact the M8 would be even more convenient with those lenses because the histogram could be used as a TTL exposure meter. </i><p>

Okay, so you are saying that even though the camera cannot meter the light, it can still somehow create a histogram in the display? If it can create a histogram, then it is metering, no?

<If it can create a histogram, then it is metering, no?>

 

Query: Is the histogram created before or after the image is recorded by the sensor?

 

Either way, I suppose it could be called "metering," but I think the word is usually reserved for measuring light values before or during exposure, rather than values that are computed after the fact.

<i>Either way, I suppose it could be called "metering," but I think the word is usually reserved for measuring light values before or during exposure, rather than values that are computed after the fact.</i><p>

The question remains - if the camera cannot meter with a certain lens, then how can it create a histogram that a person can be used to determine exposure - other than after the fact, when it's likely a bit late or at least inconvenient.

Sorry. I did not read the response above mine.

 

Wish I could delete it. :)

The histogram is created after the shot. It would not replace metering and a handheld meter would still be best for those lenses that block the camera's meter path. But the after-the-fact histogram does offer a convenience that is absent with shooting film, which is why my statement stands that the non-metering lenses are even more conveniently used on an M8.