The official Leica Press release on new lens info for M8

trittium said:
Looks like Leica is also looking to boost profits through charging an arm and a leg for black and white dots.
Click to expand...

Compared to what they currently charge for a lonely red dot....
100/150-ish dollars for black AND white dots (six of them!) looks like a real bargain.... :p
 
Six bits isn't really all that much, I wonder. Especially with lenses such as the Tri-Elmar I don't see how they can serve for image correction in any sensible way, since this is very much lens specific and Leitz have produced more than 64 different lens models. It's probably just for EXIF.

It would have been no problem to include a little bit of electronics in the lens mount. Out of six contacts you can get a lot more than 64 combinations, even if you just use diodes. I wonder why they went this awkward route with optical coding. Probably because of longevity and because of electronics aversion in the Leica user base.

Philipp
 
I would say that it is probably because adding rom contacts would have cost a lot more than adding the dots.
 
rvaubel said:
J. Borger
Good point about the average user wanting good quality right out of the camera. I stand corrected as being a little bit to elitist in my distain for the "auto everything" processing of the in camera image. I am not asking that a popular and necessary feature like this not be included in the camera design, I only ask that it can be turned OFF.
I guess a little tape over the dots could go a long way.

Rex
Click to expand...

A little WHITE tape, that is...

As regards the contacts, the dots are effectively a 6 bit static ROM and using electrical connections would not have worked reliably because they are outside the lens mount and susceptible to damp - there is no room inside the lens mount, it's full of glass in many lenses.

When a Tri-Elmar is mounted, the camera can use the position of the viewfinder frame lever to determine which of the 3 focal lengths is being used so it will be possible for Leica to optimise each of the focal lengths separately.

If you look at the list of supported lenses, it's about 30 going back to the early 60's and ignoring black/chrome differences so there is room for future growth. Seems to me each new lens introduced will now come with a CD ROM to allow you to "teach" the camera about the new lens.
 
Last edited:
I think the paint spots are an elegant solution to a compicated problem. If they made a mistake in this, I think it might be that they didn't go for an eight-bit code right off the top. I think they may eventually find that they have more infromation to transmit than they originally thought.
 
Apparently they feel that 64 cases are sufficient to cover the lenses they wish to support, and my bet is that they are right. Breaking the 64-case barrier will indicate an entirely new generation of camera/lens combination, and they have time to do that gracefully.

The infinity ramp/cam and frame position gives information without the code. Taking-aperture can be read using led lasers in the camera, turned on for a microsecond; glass won't significantly defract it. Perhaps they can use the same laser idea to further detect what lens is mounted by reading other internal lens information such as lens mounting steps.

So, even an uncoded lens could still have the frame lever and infinity cam, and possibly the laser data to indicate what lens is mounted.

Personally, I look forward to what they do. I want to believe that Leica will pursue a conservative course of compromise that will leave us manual-mavens with the control we wish to have.
 
Pico said:
Taking-aperture can be read using led lasers in the camera, turned on for a microsecond.
Click to expand...

They can skip all the James Bond/Star Trek stuff as far as I'm concerned. All I want is a digital version of the M6, and it sounds like that's what's in store. These coded blobs sound like they're as useful as ROM on an R8 and that's just fine with me.
 
Mr. Camp mentioned paint spots. We don't know what kind of spots they will use, do we?

By reading dots they can exploit the analog quality of a physical dot.

For example, one could use engraving or lasered printed dots with different orientations of lines in each spot (like half the dot vertical, half horizontal, or even thirds or quarter orientations) thereby adding new dimensions to the word. That's something we can't do with straight binary representations where a bit is just a bit.

Spacing can be changed to shift the dots into alternate readings - say shift them all one dot right to indicate a different class of data.

So, it's possibly not one 6 bit word, and depending on the technique, it could yield far more bits of information than can possibly be used.
 
I would really like to know if the framelines will be affected by the dots
 
Jorge Torralba said:
I would really like to know if the framelines will be affected by the dots
Click to expand...

Jorge, can you point me to the list of lenses that can be converted? I don't seem to find it on the Leica website.

thanks, Ed
 
egpj said:
Leica is such utter BS IMO. They could have just made it a menu selection without you having to ship your glass off and get it milled. But the release implies that you will not get the software tweaking if you do not get your lenses milled. Maybe I am not reading it correctly. I f I am ....

You know what Leica, you can keep that M8.
Click to expand...


Go into a menu and change the settings each time you change lenses?? Or each time you switch between focal lenghts on the Tri-Elmar?? Now there is a brilliant idea......
 
Lens optimization is a valid concept, which is/was used by Kodak on their Full Frame digital cameras, the SLR/n, and 14n. These Nikon mount cameras use the "chip" that is in the lens to tell the camera what it was.

The Leica solution is just as valid as the Kodak solution was.

However, I am sure, just as the Kodak cameras had, the Leica will have a way to manually set the optimization for the lens in use. Probably thru a menu selection on the back, and from a database built into the firmware on the camera. While this will work just fine, it doesn't address the issues from using non-Leica brand lenses. Kodak had a database that included all popular brands of lenses available in Nikon mount, as well as "generic" optimization settings for lenses not listed in the database. The big question will be: Will Leica include lens optimization settings for non-Leica lenses, such as the new Zeiss lenses and the Voigtlander lenses? Perhaps there will be a way to input parameters for lenses not in the database?
 
phototone said:
Lens optimization is a valid concept, which is/was used by Kodak on their Full Frame digital cameras, the SLR/n, and 14n. These Nikon mount cameras use the "chip" that is in the lens to tell the camera what it was.

The Leica solution is just as valid as the Kodak solution was.

However, I am sure, just as the Kodak cameras had, the Leica will have a way to manually set the optimization for the lens in use. Probably thru a menu selection on the back, and from a database built into the firmware on the camera. While this will work just fine, it doesn't address the issues from using non-Leica brand lenses. Kodak had a database that included all popular brands of lenses available in Nikon mount, as well as "generic" optimization settings for lenses not listed in the database. The big question will be: Will Leica include lens optimization settings for non-Leica lenses, such as the new Zeiss lenses and the Voigtlander lenses? Perhaps there will be a way to input parameters for lenses not in the database?
Click to expand...
If not in-camera, I'm sure the post-processing software will have options. That is probably the more practical way.
 
jaapv said:
Go into a menu and change the settings each time you change lenses?? Or each time you switch between focal lenghts on the Tri-Elmar?? Now there is a brilliant idea......
Click to expand...

If there is a menu option to select the lens you are using, the whole point of the dots is to fast track that selection so that you don't have to. And with the Tri_Elmar, you won't have to do it either because the computer program which is handling all this can say, "lens coding is Tri-Elmar, I need to look at the finder lug to determine the focal length".

The question in my mind is whether they've figured out a way of sensing the working aperture...
 
Mark Norton said:
If there is a menu option to select the lens you are using, the whole point of the dots is to fast track that selection so that you don't have to. And with the Tri_Elmar, you won't have to do it either because the computer program which is handling all this can say, "lens coding is Tri-Elmar, I need to look at the finder lug to determine the focal length".

The question in my mind is whether they've figured out a way of sensing the working aperture...
Click to expand...
Sorry -I forgot to hit the light-touch-non-malicious-sarcasm-smiley;) I just meant to say that it seemed a good idea to me to make that automatic instead of saddling the user with menu options, and I took issue at calling common sense BS... Additional in-camera and post-processing corrections are fine with me.
 
Last edited:
phototone said:
Lens optimization is a valid concept, which is/was used by Kodak on their Full Frame digital cameras, the SLR/n, and 14n. These Nikon mount cameras use the "chip" that is in the lens to tell the camera what it was.

The Leica solution is just as valid as the Kodak solution was.
Click to expand...


For the record, Hasselblad is also using lens optimization. The H2D-39 uses "digital APO correction" to enhance the lenses. Personally, I would rather have optical APO correction, but as long as it works....
 
1. Even though the aperture is not 'transmitted', it can easily be calculated (to a very close approximation) by the light meter and shutter speed. Thus it could correct for vignetting at various f stops.

2. It seems likely that Leica would replace the bayonet mount for the $125. Re milling is cost prohibitive and applying a 'sticker' is ridiculous.
 
John: I see how number one could be true for an SLR that uses open aperture metering, but what about for a rangefinder? The camera has no way of knowing at what f/stop the camera is at, so even if it knows that the lens's maximum aperture is f/2, how does it know that the lens is at f/22, versus it just being dark out? I think you would either need a separate ambient exposure meter that was not TTL, or some way to read the actual aperture of the lens...
 
Stuart, when you're shooting at a metered EV9 with 1/25th you probably have f2, only unknown variable is the use of filters.
 
I am not sure what you are trying to say Volker. Perhaps I am dense on this matter, but doesn't the meter "see" only the amount of light coming through the lens and the shutter speed? Since the amount of light coming through the lens is dependent on the aperture, I don't see how the meter or camera can tell the difference between dim light and low shutter speed because the lens is at f/16 or f/22 and dim light and low shutter speed when the lens is at f/2 and the building is dark. Probability doesn't really enter into the question -- there are many times when you would be using f/2 if you were handheld, but f/11 on a tripod...
If someone can explain how the camera can differentiate between the two without some auxiliary meter or aperture reading device, I would be interested to hear it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top