Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Digital Leica M
From: leicaluvr at comcast.net (Tom Schofield)
Date: Tue Jun 6 20:12:27 2006
References: <060620062013.19183.4485E1D10002C35700004AEF216046664809020790019D0D030E04@att.net> <C0AB659E.11966%bdcolen@comcast.net> <9b678e0606061932i189074b9t5c19965a3112622e@mail.gmail.com> <20060607030634.GF29219@panix.com>

If the main issue is data for light fall-off, then maybe its more of  
patterns of fall-off, and lenses with similar patterns get the same  
markings.  Or, if all 90mm Elmarits are pretty close on degree of  
fall-off, then there is no need to distinguish them.  21-50mm's maybe  
more of an issue on the version.  Maybe that's why only certain older  
lenses are  supported, if their  fall-of is unique, they do not get  
the specification.

Tom Schofield

On Jun 6, 2006, at 8:06 PM, Rei Shinozuka wrote:

> it seems to me that this system can't be all that ambitious; the
> leica document and "6-bit" name imply only 64 codes can be uniquely
> identified.  i'd guess this would mean the 7 focal lengths plus
> tri-elmar plus macro adapter, times the number of maximum apertures.
> this leaves not much address space to identify such subtleties as
> 1st generation 90 summicron, 2nd generation, 3rd gen, etc.   i'd guess
> we could expect focal length and max aperture.  maybe "asph"  
> designation.
> it would not be able to record aperture used to make the photo for
> tagging in EXIF.
>
> -rei
>
>
>
> On Jun06 22:32, Don Dory wrote:
>> I suspect that Leica doesn't have the lenses mapped nor wants to  
>> spend the
>> money to do the work.  The lenses will mount and work just like  
>> they always
>> did, but you might have to do a little PS work on the edges.  No  
>> big deal.
>> Really no worse than using your old Pen F lenses on your 330.  :)
>>
>> Don
>> don.dory@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On 6/6/06, B. D. Colen <bdcolen@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fascinating to note that lenses manufactured prior to 1994, and  
>>> only a few
>>> of those, can be "upgraded." Gee, I didn't know that Leica has  
>>> made any
>>> changes to its mount since 1954, and if it hasn't why can't every  
>>> M lens
>>> be
>>> upgraded? Could it be creeping Lobselescence? Not from the Leiks  
>>> of Leica!
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/6/06 4:13 PM, "lambroving@att.net" <lambroving@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> F.Y.I.
>>>>
>>>> Was just forwarded this detail from a friend in CS at Solms.  
>>>> Additional
>>> detail
>>>> possibly available after the Forum meeting next weekend.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/objektive/18.pdf
>>>>
>>>> William
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more  
>>>> information
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> -- 
> Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com
> Ridgewood, New Jersey
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from lambroving at att.net (lambroving@att.net) ([Leica] Digital Leica M)
Message from bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Digital Leica M)
Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] Digital Leica M)
Message from shino at panix.com (Rei Shinozuka) ([Leica] Digital Leica M)