Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/21

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

Subject: [Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in firmware
From: hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson)
Date: Wed Jan 21 19:44:58 2009
References: <E2C3B2FE-3B3E-4FEF-B466-E0DF0A87832F@mac.com> <36172e5a0901201415r11fd39c0k14ca8efb9f33c169@mail.gmail.com> <6af76ca00901201531j70e140bcpf7037b6c9e2f8bb1@mail.gmail.com> <012120092316.27480.4977ACB50001318900006B58223045151403010CD2079C080C03BF970A9D9F9A0B9D09@mchsi.com> <98B896D1BE224F39BC0703463BB67F89@precisionm50> <63602BD2-4E12-4D7C-83EB-99D2BE4C5453@ameritech.net>

Dante the link is an interesting read. I think fair to say that Leica would
prefer to sell some new lenses as well as M8s. The excellence of design and
quality in those lenses is the area where they distinguish themselves from
the multitude. Dr Kaufmann too has stated a preference for optical
performance over image processing. This in reference to sensor design and
firmware.
I can follow what you are suggesting. My personal preference is for the
menus to remain as simple as possible, rather than move towards the
complexity of dSLRs. That opinion is likely coloured by my camera history
but I think that Leica has attempted to keep the M8 as close as feasible to
the film M experience.  Actually I'd even rather some analog controls for
some functions, but that seems unlikely.

Regarding 'rocket science' during my career with defence, I spent 10 years
within a science and technology and R&D environment. We had a standing joke
regarding incorporating modifications into existing technical systems. "Oh
it's only a simple software change" Of course it never was. I recall reading
a number of reports by users who 'hacked' their firmware in their M8s to
produce elegant paperweights. With at least one of those, Leica actually
corrected this vandalism by the owner at no charge! I'm not aware of any
other camera manufacturer providing a system where anyone can write software
to alter its functions. Can you imagine the consequences for their service
structure?
I think that the optical system was an ingenious way to add functionality to
entirely mechanical lenses. I don't understand the mechanics of the frame
selection integration into the system but it is there as we know. Some
speculate that it is to prevent third party products from having the same
functionality. In fact the lens mount of course is copied by other
manufacturers and Zeiss for example now include the necessary change in
their bayonet. I can't fault Leica for holding a patent (presumably) on the
optical reading system nor hoping that you will purchase some new lenses
from them.
Leica have excluded almost no lenses from 50 odd years of production from
working fine with the M8. I think that is pretty solid support for the
existing Leica lenses out there. At the same time I definitely don't want
any electrical complexities added to M lenses. Better maybe to look at what
is possible with the R10 and new technology to be debuted in the S system?

2009/1/22 Dante Stella <dstella1@ameritech.net>

> There is no technical problem except approaching potential menus from the
> wrong direction.
> Most users do not have, and will never own, 64 lenses.  In fact, I would
> bet that five lenses is probably the median collection.  Put a feature in
> the host software where you can define which lenses appear on the camera' s
> optimization menu (i.e., the ones you own).  Set up the camera so that if 
> it
> can't read a bar code, it pops up the menu when the lens is mounted.  If 
> the
> user fails to pick one of the options and starts shooting pictures instead,
> tough luck - no optimization.  This is amazingly easy.  The popup menu
> already exists for the Tri-Elmar.
> Calculating the appropriate vignetting and color correction strength for
> any lens out there - and maintaining menus of presets - is not rocket
> science, even for end users.  It is something Kodak did with the SLR/n and
> SLR/c cameras - and it did not even require host software to do.  See it
> here:
>
> http://download.kodak.com/professional/software/dcsproSLRn/Pro_SLRn_Lens_Optimization_Overview.pdf
> Leica might do well to open-source the M8 like Google has with Android -
> rather than try to push purely proprietary solutions.  You can still make
> money off of that.  Leica does make money on M8s even if they are never 
> used
> with Leica lenses.
> How about a simple RFID chip that is adhered to some accessible noncritical
> part of the back or inside of the lens?  Leica could sell them for a 
> massive
> profit at $50; it would obviate shipping, insurance and delays; and Leica
> could actually make money off people's using the chips for third-party
> lenses.  And any competent camera repair shop could install them.  It would
> be even easier than AI coding in the old days.
> I have always been puzzled by the 6-bit coding's use of optical detection
> and frameline lever position.  Why not just make it 8 bits and call it a
> day?
>
> Dante
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Geoff
> Life's too short for slow zooms
>

In reply to: Message from mitcha at mac.com (Mitch Alland) ([Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in firmware)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in firmware)
Message from crbirchenhall at googlemail.com (Christopher Birchenhall) ([Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in firmware)
Message from grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey@mchsi.com) ([Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in firmware)
Message from leica at web-options.com (Bob W) ([Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in firmware)
Message from dstella1 at ameritech.net (Dante Stella) ([Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in firmware)