Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear JAAP
If you do not use uncoded lenses then obviously for you it is not a problem.
The issue is if one already has Leica glass, the hassle of sending it all off for coding and the additional expense could be avoided admitedly with some inconveneince in operation.
The other issue for coding was as a deterrent for Leica users against using either Zeiss or Voigtlander glass. Obviously if you have the funds Leica glass is generally better, but in some ways Leica missed an opportunity. The 6 bit coding issue still generates endless posts for new M8 users.
For what it is worth I think leica should at least provide this and users then have the choice if they feel it is unpractical. My guess is it would be a popular move for M8 owners (and no I do not want another poll either!!). My D700 recognises recent lenses nbut I have the option to do things manually for older glass. I dont think that is impractical. Sorry I am still cross with Leica and sitting on my wallet regarding an M9.
Regards
Richard
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Dear Richard - First off - I have a lot of understanding for your post. However, there are a few arguments that need to be countered.
The cost of coding older lenses (new ones are obviously coded) needs not to be high - There are plenty of technicians ( CRR, Will van Manen, etc)that will mill the mount, and two tins of Humbrol will not break the bank. I have two non-Leica lenses, a Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon and a CV Heliar 15, and both are milled and coded. The bulk of my lenses was done by Leica - when it was still quite affordable-in the summer of 2006.
I think that the assumption that the 6-bit coding is some kind of dastardly trick by Leica to sell lenses is unfounded. It is about the most cost-effective way I can think of to make nearly all Leica lenses of the last 80 years usable. Other camera makers have a far worse track record by relegating older lenses to the dustbin as soon as they thought up some new mount. You may not be aware that the closely guarded secrets of the Canon EOS mount have forced lens makers like Sigma and Tamron into reverse engineering, with all the problems that lenses would stop working as soon as Canon changed some software without telling.
As for not buying an M9 because you are cross at Leica, I seem to recal an English saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face
It is truly an amazing camera.
The reason I find manual lens selection completely impractical:
1. Change lens
2. Write down type number of the lens
3. Switch on camera
4. Press <menu>
5. See <Lens Detection> and press <set>
6 Scroll to <manual>
7. Press <set>
8. Scroll to your lens by type number(5 pages!)
9. Press <set>
10. Delete all images you inadvertently took with the wrong lens setting
And I don't need to be a pro to miss a shot this way, Jarsky.
The cost of coding older lenses (new ones are obviously coded) needs not to be high - There are plenty of technicians ( CRR, Will van Manen, etc)that will mill the mount, and two tins of Humbrol will not break the bank. I have two non-Leica lenses, a Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon and a CV Heliar 15, and both are milled and coded. The bulk of my lenses was done by Leica - when it was still quite affordable-in the summer of 2006.
I think that the assumption that the 6-bit coding is some kind of dastardly trick by Leica to sell lenses is unfounded. It is about the most cost-effective way I can think of to make nearly all Leica lenses of the last 80 years usable. Other camera makers have a far worse track record by relegating older lenses to the dustbin as soon as they thought up some new mount. You may not be aware that the closely guarded secrets of the Canon EOS mount have forced lens makers like Sigma and Tamron into reverse engineering, with all the problems that lenses would stop working as soon as Canon changed some software without telling.
As for not buying an M9 because you are cross at Leica, I seem to recal an English saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face
It is truly an amazing camera.The reason I find manual lens selection completely impractical:
1. Change lens
2. Write down type number of the lens
3. Switch on camera
4. Press <menu>
5. See <Lens Detection> and press <set>
6 Scroll to <manual>
7. Press <set>
8. Scroll to your lens by type number(5 pages!)
9. Press <set>
10. Delete all images you inadvertently took with the wrong lens setting
And I don't need to be a pro to miss a shot this way, Jarsky.
Last edited:
DerekF
Established
Dear jaapv,
If you only have to select your lens once (in a while?) from a long dropdown list like I do/would, that makes it worthwhile to me. As it stands now with my M8, since I don't have the benefit of manual lens selection, I'm SOL with my uncoded lenses, which is all of them except for the 28 Elmarit I bought specifically for my M8. Basically, they mount as uncoded lenses with no way for me to identify them to my M8. YOU may think it's a pain in the arse, but why not give us the option? It sounds elitist and overly dismissive to be saying—because you may have no problem with it—that we should bow to the Mighty Leica God and go weeks without our favourite lenses AND fork out around $200 per lens for encoding. Even with the alternatives you suggested, there are inconveniences involved that we should not have to contend with.
The most cost-effective way to have done this would have been to have included manual lens selection from the start, with 6-bit coding as an option. Give the users the option and let them go from there.
If you only have to select your lens once (in a while?) from a long dropdown list like I do/would, that makes it worthwhile to me. As it stands now with my M8, since I don't have the benefit of manual lens selection, I'm SOL with my uncoded lenses, which is all of them except for the 28 Elmarit I bought specifically for my M8. Basically, they mount as uncoded lenses with no way for me to identify them to my M8. YOU may think it's a pain in the arse, but why not give us the option? It sounds elitist and overly dismissive to be saying—because you may have no problem with it—that we should bow to the Mighty Leica God and go weeks without our favourite lenses AND fork out around $200 per lens for encoding. Even with the alternatives you suggested, there are inconveniences involved that we should not have to contend with.
The most cost-effective way to have done this would have been to have included manual lens selection from the start, with 6-bit coding as an option. Give the users the option and let them go from there.
You think they would just let us enter the 6-bit code in HEX? Nothing could be easier for both the user and for the person writing the firmware.
That would make it very user friendly in my book. I just never got along with Octal.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear Richard - First off - I have a lot of understanding for your post. However, there are a few arguments that need to be countered.
The cost of coding older lenses (new ones are obviously coded) needs not to be high - There are plenty of technicians ( CRR, Will van Manen, etc)that will mill the mount, and two tins of Humbrol will not break the bank. I have two non-Leica lenses, a Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon and a CV Heliar 15, and both are milled and coded. The bulk of my lenses was done by Leica - when it was still quite affordable-in the summer of 2006.
I think that the assumption that the 6-bit coding is some kind of dastardly trick by Leica to sell lenses is unfounded. It is about the most cost-effective way I can think of to make nearly all Leica lenses of the last 80 years usable. Other camera makers have a far worse track record by relegating older lenses to the dustbin as soon as they thought up some new mount. You may not be aware that the closely guarded secrets of the Canon EOS mount have forced lens makers like Sigma and Tamron into reverse engineering, with all the problems that lenses would stop working as soon as Canon changed some software without telling.
As for not buying an M9 because you are cross at Leica, I seem to recal an English saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face
The reason I find manual lens selection completely impractical:
1. Change lens
2. Write down type number of the lens
3. Switch on camera
4. Press <menu>
5. See <Lens Detection> and press <set>
6 Scroll to <manual>
7. Press <set>
8. Scroll to your lens by type number(5 pages!)
9. Press <set>
10. Delete all images you inadvertently took with the wrong lens setting
And I don't need to be a pro to miss a shot this way, Jarsky.
Dear JAAP
I realise other 3rd parties have developed short cuts to coding. It still does make life a bit difficult for Zeiss useres although I appreciate the voigtlander mounting ring can be modified.
The orogonal reason Leica gave for not providing manual focal length setting was that the user might inadvertently set the wrong focal length combination. This did sound verry weak at the time. However clearly they changed tack with this and now have it on the M9! How come?
Secondly I refute your suggestion about 6 bit coding being the most cost effective method. Surely the manual menu idea is the cheapest way of doing this. In terms of conveneince I realise that you have probably a vast arsenal of lenses. For your average user I am guessing 2 or 3 lenses, this manual system is really very straightforward. Not many numbers to remember. Actually on my D700 there is a drop down menu where you can store 9 lens focal length and apperture combinations. All you do is select by name that is all. No silly numbers! How can 6 bit coding be more cost effective than this? Please explain. Your list of ten steps over complicates a simple task purely to try and defend a weak argument.
Regarding the track record of other manufacturers it is hardly relevent here. The discussion is not about them. However as you mention it Nikon do have surpising backwards compatability.
The saying about the English which i prefer is burning one's bed to catch a flee. Maybe there is an element of this but I have lost a lot of faith in the leica ethos.
Richard
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Richard,
It is not over-complicating the task - it is a description of the way it works.
And the reason I dislike it in practice.Other mounts use electronic chips to get the same connection between lens and camera- including the late R system. I still would suggest that the six-bit coding is an elegant solution. Btw, there is no technical need to code any lens of 35 mm and longer, so the problem is very limited in any case.
We will see if the M8 has the power to handle this additional firmware when the next update comes. I'm sure Leica will implement it if possible.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I don't quite see why I should not be giving you the option
- the M9 has it, the M8 may have in the future, and I am not the one who designs M cameras in the first place... And if you don't like it, do like Richard- don't buy it. In that context I find your sneer about bowing to Leica slightly misplaced.
Last edited:
Richard Marks
Rexel
Richard,
It is not over-complicating the task - it is a description of the way it works.
Other mounts use electronic chips to get the same connection between lens and camera- including the late R system. I still would suggest that the six-bit coding is an elegant solution. Btw, there is no technical need to code any lens of 35 mm and longer, so the problem is very limited in any case.
We will see if the M8 has the power to handle this additional firmware when the next update comes. I'm sure Leica will implement it if possible.
Dearest JAAP you may not be over complicating the M9 way however if you are not then it is badly written. It really can be a lot simpler. Switch on a D700 (its already in 'my menu' which has all the preferred frequently used settings, scroll down to non- CPU lens (I have this 3rd on my list but you can choose!), click on correct lens, DONE. Its that simple. No electronic chip required (non CPU lens implies no chip!!). Surely Leica could do this very easilly and I can not imagine it would tax the "timeless classic's" hardware too much. I notice you are no longer claiming 6 bit is cost effective and now it is just "elegant". I am aware that there is no technical need to code lenses longer than 35mm, but it would be nice to have all the data stored and a menu system would do this nicely for no cost comared to a 6 bit conversion of lenses over 35mm which is not worth the money.
Incidentally I think Stephan Daniel did anounce that there would be no further M8 software upgrades so i am not sure why you are now suggesting that there will be. Maybe itl come out along with the solution for R system users.
Best wishes
Richard
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Actually, on a D700, you can set it to the Function button and simply press that, turn the control dial, and see the list of your lenses scroll by on the top LCD display. You don't have to look at any menus except at the point you do the initial setup.
Dante
Dante
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Rihard, I'm perfectly prepared to stand by the word cost-effective, so there is no contradiction there. An electronic system with a chip might well have involved a new mount, making all older lenses obsolete, or at the very least it would have meant incorporating chips in lenses that have no space for such things, quite expensive I would think. Yes, the current manual selection is as I said before, utterly impractical and undoubtedly could be solved differently, but at the expense of complicating the menu system or adding an extra button I guess.
Could you please direct me to the quote of Mr. Daniel? It is completely new to me and contradicts other trustworthy information that reached me.
It does not seem very logical either. Each new lens introduced will neccessitate an update of the M8, after all.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear Friend
What I am suggesting does not need any electronic lens tagging. The menu simply tells the camera which lens is attached. This is a zero cost option for the camera user. How can 6 bit coding possibly be cost effective by comparison. Please explain.
Regarding my quote of Mr Daniel, I am probably miss remebering the post by Ken Shipman 18.10.09 which stated from a Leica source that no more money was being spent on M8 software upgrades. Hopefully you have news to the contrary. I think i might have been mixing this up the post about the solution for Leica R system users. Perhaps you have news on this too!
Best wishes
Richard
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear JAAPWell, let's agree on " cost-effective automatic lens recognition system " then
My point remains I have never made mention of an automatic system. All my posts refer to the manual menu. This is something very straightforward and would only enhance the 'timeless classic'. I can not see why it needs to be so complicated.
Regarding the pithy subject of further upgrades are you now saying that there will be further ones? If so perhaps I might now ask you to name your source.
I have to say it has been heavy going to make this simple point. I have run seven Marathons but extracting any concession from you is appreciably harder. Like extracting teeth?
Richard
Richard Marks
Rexel
GrahamWelland
Well-known
I do think that Leica have made the whole manual lens selection process overly complicated. As Richard mentioned, there is a better and simpler way that leica could have provided manual selection and that would be to have a user collection of manual settings so that you could gather a short list of the lenses you actually own/use, i.e. a user selectable list of say 5 or 10 common lenses that you select from the full list. Make this one of the user settings behind the set button, just like white balance etc and it would be much easier to use. I would wager that most people have only a few lenses for their M's so it wouldn't need to be a big list and could be much simpler and easier to use.
The manual selection scheme in the M9 seems overly burdensome to me, plus I can't fathom why Leica didn't consider the fact that when you put a coded lens on the camera it should override the manual selection. (or be an option to work this way). This almost seems like a feature that they've begrudgingly added to the camera but have spitefully left it unnecessarily hard and cumbersome to use. From a marketing point of view it definitely works (with me at least) because I finally bit the bullet and sent off my last two uncoded lenses to Leica for an extended holiday to get coded - just to avoid the self coding/manual selection hassle. I'm as much of a Leica fan-boy as the next fan-boy but I do find it hard not to suggest that the coding issue is anything beyond vendor lock-in or to encourage coding upgrades.
The manual selection scheme in the M9 seems overly burdensome to me, plus I can't fathom why Leica didn't consider the fact that when you put a coded lens on the camera it should override the manual selection. (or be an option to work this way). This almost seems like a feature that they've begrudgingly added to the camera but have spitefully left it unnecessarily hard and cumbersome to use. From a marketing point of view it definitely works (with me at least) because I finally bit the bullet and sent off my last two uncoded lenses to Leica for an extended holiday to get coded - just to avoid the self coding/manual selection hassle. I'm as much of a Leica fan-boy as the next fan-boy but I do find it hard not to suggest that the coding issue is anything beyond vendor lock-in or to encourage coding upgrades.
Last edited:
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear Graham
I think if one were to justify changing the lens mount, then why not do it properly and put some ROM style contacts on new lenses so the body can have proper up to date metering? TTL flash would be infinitely better if f stops could be communicated to the flashgun and we could have kissed goodbye to the silly pre flash. That is something which would have been worth paying for. As it stands 6 bit was a missed opportunity to make some progress and I can not see it as anything other than a marketing ploy with very marginal benefits to the user.
best wishes
Richard
Last edited:
GrahamWelland
Well-known
I don't necessarily see the coding per se as being a pure marketing issue. Technically I suppose it's an elegant way of addressing lens identification without having to reengineer anything. However, the way that they've made it difficult or inconvenient to use un-coded (or non-Leica) glass is something I believe they've consciously done. There is no technical rationale behind not making it easier to use non-Leica, or uncoded lenses.
As regards the lens mount change & ROM style contacts etc, well that's not going to ever happen is it? (nor should it IMHO - these are mechanical lenses remember) If that stuff is important to you then Leica will happily invite you to buy their S2 system.
As regards the lens mount change & ROM style contacts etc, well that's not going to ever happen is it? (nor should it IMHO - these are mechanical lenses remember) If that stuff is important to you then Leica will happily invite you to buy their S2 system.
Richard Marks
Rexel
As regards the lens mount change & ROM style contacts etc, well that's not going to ever happen is it? (nor should it IMHO - these are mechanical lenses remember) If that stuff is important to you then Leica will happily invite you to buy their S2 system.
Dear Graham
It is not important to me on an M camera. My point is change has to be justified and if one goes to the effort of adding information to the lens mount then it is an opportunity to do some thing useful to boot. Theoretically there is nothing to stop apperture information being communicated from a mechanical lens. It does not have to be auto focus or auto apperture. HCB would not turn in his grave.
regarding M developments, I would never say "never"! I know the M7 was givin a frosty reception for bristling with technology but actually it is a joy to use and does not detract. Equally the digital cameras have auto exposure and an electronic shutter. Seems to me we either embrace technology and make the best camera possible with all available resources or stick with some thing half digital 1/2 1950's.
Regarding the S2 some one will have to buy one but it is not going to be me. I really do lament the passing of the r system.
Best wishes
Richard