Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I can't help feeling that these dots and in-camera s/w adjustments smack more than a little of a job not done properly. An attempt to be "better" than the RD-1/1s that hasn't come off? Does the need for adjustment hint at some basic incompatibility between Leica's design and the M lenses? If Epson can build the RD-1 without this "dotting" why do Leica need it and a new mount. Sorry to say that I have this feeling that the "M-8" may only be a half-way house to something else. Peter Dzwig Didier Ludwig wrote: > Clive > > The code is not physically required and you will be able to use the most > M/LTM mount lenses without code. > > The identification is only needed to apply different in-camera software > settings (vignetting control, contrast, and so on), and will additionally > be added to the EXIF data. But you are right it is not really required as > these software-driven corrections can be done afterwards in the computer > too. > > Another reason, probably the more important, for the code, is to keep the > other M lens producers (ZI, CV) back. And I agree 95 euros for coding an > old lens might be considered as another Solms rip-off attempt to their > most loyal customers. > > Didier > > > > > >>It is not clear to me why the code on the lens is a requirement. It is >>trivial to provide menu based entry to identify the lens on the >>camera - unless they intend to test every lens and characterise its >>performance. I doubt they will do that - 8 bits would not be enough. >> >>I can use any old Nikon F-mount lens on the D200 by entering its >>maximum aperture and focal length. >> >>95 euros for six dots is Leica type pricing - preposterous (unless >>they throw in a CLA) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >