Get some lenses coded and keep M8.2, or just buy an M9?

[rodinal]

The list in the M9 does not contain all the lenses that have a 6-bit code. For example: if you have the Zeiss 18mm, there is no chance to select the Leica 18mm. Luckily I have the Leica 18mm with the 6-bit code. I bet there are more examples for Leica lenses that are not in the list.

Interesting.
The Leica 18mm is not on the Leica list of lenses able to be coded.
This may suggest there is no dedicated code for that lens (although at least one web page (cannot insert link to it) actually lists a code for the 18mm).

Or, as this lens is a relatively new (2008) addition to the Leica stable, may be all 18mm specimens are born already coded. But, if this was the case, the lens should appear in the camera list. Is the firmware of your M9 up to date ?

Just out of curiosity, When you mount the Leica 18mm on your M9, does she report the mounted lens correctly?

 

[Rob-F]

The list in the M9 does not contain all the lenses that have a 6-bit code. For example: if you have the Zeiss 18mm, there is no chance to select the Leica 18mm. Luckily I have the Leica 18mm with the 6-bit code. I bet there are more examples for Leica lenses that are not in the list.

Why can't you select the Wide-Angle Tri-Elmar (WATE)? When I code my 15mm CV with the WATE code (using the M-coder kit), my M8.2 will show 18mm on the LED panel. Can you not bring that same choice up by selecting the WATE in the M('s menu?

 

[Rob-F]

The last mount I bought I put a micrometer on it it couldn't see any real difference in thickness, all I can say is it works for me.

I must of been lucky four times in a row 😀😀😀

Looks like the thing to do is to order a couple and take a chance. I have a micrometer, so I could check the thickness against the original.

Fraser, which brand and seller did you buy from?

And what difference might there be between the eleven dollar, fifteen dollar, and forty dollar ones? Anybody know?

 

[user237428934]

Interesting.
The Leica 18mm is not on the Leica list of lenses able to be coded.
This may suggest there is no dedicated code for that lens (although at least one web page (cannot insert link to it) actually lists a code for the 18mm).

Or, as this lens is a relatively new (2008) addition to the Leica stable, may be all 18mm specimens are born already coded. But, if this was the case, the lens should appear in the camera list. Is the firmware of your M9 up to date ?

Just out of curiosity, When you mount the Leica 18mm on your M9, does she report the mounted lens correctly?

It seems that the list in that link only contains the version of lenses that don't have a code . All the new summarits and new wideangle lenses that only exist with 6-bit code are not on the list.

I have the 1.196 firmware, that should be the latest version.

My Summarit 75/2.5 is also not in the M9 list of lenses, but the M9 writes the correct focal length for both newer lenses (18 or 75) in the EXIF information.

I assume the camera knows the codes of these lenses but you can not chose them manually because it makes no sense to chose a 6-bit lens manually?

 

[user237428934]

Why can't you select the Wide-Angle Tri-Elmar (WATE)? When I code my 15mm CV with the WATE code (using the M-coder kit), my M8.2 will show 18mm on the LED panel. Can you not bring that same choice up by selecting the WATE in the M('s menu?

Maybe that's the only choice for a user of a 18mm Zeiss. I never tried it since my Leica 18mm has a code.

 

[rodinal]

I assume the camera knows the codes of these lenses but you can not chose them manually because it makes no sense to chose a 6-bit lens manually?

Makes sense, I think you are right.
In that case, the published list of codeable lenses should be the same list of lenses offered by the camera menu (manual lens selection). Perhaps on a rainy weekend you can compare both and tell us the result.

 

[Fraser]

Looks like the thing to do is to order a couple and take a chance. I have a micrometer, so I could check the thickness against the original.

Fraser, which brand and seller did you buy from?

And what difference might there be between the eleven dollar, fifteen dollar, and forty dollar ones? Anybody know?

The last one was bought on big auction site from roxsen and cost £8.40.quite cheap!

 

[Rob-F]

Looking closer, I see that some of the coding flanges on eBay are just that: codable flanges to replace the uncoded ones on the lens. The more expensive ones are not merely flanges, but codable LTM threaded adapters for use with LTM lenses. So that explains the price difference. Somehow the more expensive ones look like they might be higher in quality, too. No surprise there, I guess, though the extra machining probably is the main reason for the higher price.

 

[maggieo]

The extra pixels make the M9 worth the money, more than anything else.

 

[JPSuisse]

I've had both, I would go with the M9. I think it's at least twice the camera that the M8 is.

Of the cameras that I own or have used in the last 5 - 8 years, admittedly not so many, to define any one of those cameras as "twice the camera" of the other would be difficult.

 

[jsrockit]

I'd skip the M9 and start thinking towards a M240. Use the M8 until you can make the switch (especially since you have the more refined M8.2). The M8 and M9 are pretty close in "image quality" ... even if the M9 is the better camera in almost every way.

 

[Rob-F]

even if the M9 is the better camera in almost every way.

That's what I'd like to hear more about: The ways in which you feel the M9 is better.

 

[Doug]

That's what I'd like to hear more about: The ways in which you feel the M9 is better.

Well, there are the obvious physical differences... larger sensor ("full-frame" is very important to some, not to others), sensor corrosion, more megapixels though the pixel density is the same, slightly better high ISO performance likely as a result of the more pixels, thicker cover glass filtering more IR but not all, loss of the little round LCD on the top deck, plus there is that lens menu ... There are surely others I'm neglecting.

But the handling is the same, rear screen is the same size, takes the same lenses though the selection might be a bit different. I like the 1.33x crop for using 18mm, 21mm, 24mm lenses, as they work very well on the M8 and I don't often go that wide on full-frame, and when I do there are usually edge color-shift issues to deal with in post with the M9. On the longer end, the lenses are more compact for the same angle of view. They say that the optimum resolution for printing is around 15-16 Mpx, as more than that usually has no visible benefit on print. So the M8 might be a tad short there, but a lot of folks seem to find it adequate.

 

[jsrockit]

That's what I'd like to hear more about: The ways in which you feel the M9 is better.

Less clunky, faster, better high ISO, more MP, full frame for full frame lenses, no IR filters...it's just more mature.

 

[Fraser]

Less clunky, faster, better high ISO, more MP, full frame for full frame lenses, no IR filters...it's just more mature.

As much as I think the m8 is still a great camera I agree with you 100%, if I was buying it all again I think I would stick with the m9 and the money I saved I would put into a dslr.

 

[Nick R.]

Why can't you select the Wide-Angle Tri-Elmar (WATE)? When I code my 15mm CV with the WATE code (using the M-coder kit), my M8.2 will show 18mm on the LED panel. Can you not bring that same choice up by selecting the WATE in the M('s menu?

Leica uses both the 6-bit code and the frame lines selected to identify the lens. The WATE brings up the 28/90 lines, as does the CV 15mm, and both can be coded and identified correctly. I believe that some Zeiss 18mm's bring up the 50/75 lines. As such, even if coded for the WATE, the camera won't recognize a lens with that code and those frame lines.

 

[Rob-F]

The cheap flanges from China require work with a grind and micrometer to match the flange thickness of original flange which are nominally .039". The Chinese ones are
.040 to .039. Originals are .039 or .040. They must match or focus goes off. .001" will throw it off.

I want to understand this. The LTM to M adapters Leitz supplied were 1mm thick, because the M3 and subsequent were made with a lens flange to film plane distance 1mm less than the LTM bodies. So the 1mm thickness of the adapter keeps the lens to film distance the same as on an LTM. One mm equals 0.03937 inch. When I mike my Leitz 35/135 adapter or my CV ones I get a reading in between .039 and .040, since my mike only read to three significant digits and .03937 falls in between.

Now: (From the quote): "Originals are are .039 or .040." Meaning some from Leica or CV are .040 rather than .039?

And: "The Chinese ones are .040 to .039." Does this mean that the manufacturing tolerance varies by .0001? Or that it varies from brand to brand? Or is it possible that the .0001 difference being noticed could be because some of us are reading .03937, which falls between .039 and .040, as the nearest lower value of .039, and some see it as .040.

I hope my question is clear . . .

 

[Rob-F]

I started by ordering codable LTM to M adapters I plan to use with my CV 28/3.5 and 35/2.5 lenses. I wasn't feeling ready to put a cheap mounting flange on my 28mm or 35mm Summicrons, but it might be nice to use these compact little CVs on the M8.2 when the light is good.

 

[edftwin]

I'm a M8.2 user, downgraded from M9 few years back, and used the money for a lux 35 asph.

Very happy with the combination. The fun that I'd had is so much more than the regret that I had from selling the M9. I felt that my M8.2 is more reliable than the M9 that I previously had, and M9 is in no way significantly faster or better than M8.2.

Anyway, if I were to upgrade, it would definitely be a M240 or M262 in which the improvement is by leaps and bounds especially in write speed.

 

[Rob-F]

While I wait for my LTM to M coded adapters to arrive, I'm getting bolder about ordering a coded flange for one of my M lenses. I'm feeling cautious about whether the screw-hole pattern on these things will actually match the lens I had in mind for it. So I lined up a few lenses for a look-see.

The hole patterns on these lenses appear to be the same as one another: 21mm elmarit ASPH; 24mm Elmarit ASPH: 28mm Summicron ASPH; 35mm Summicron ASPH; 75mm Summicron ASPH.

The hole patterns on these two look might they might be the same, although the diameters might be different. And one has cross-tip screws, the other flat blade slots. These two lenses are different in pattern from the first group. One is the 50mm Summicron, version 3, 11817, the one made from 1969 to 1979; the other is the 40mm Minolta Rokkor.

The third group has no holes at all, thus the Chinese flanges can't be used: 35mm V I Summicron; 35mm V II Pre-ASPH Summilux; 35mm f/2.8 Summaron; 90mm Chrome Elmarit.

And the 90mm thin Tele-Elmarit has holes that don't match the pattern of any other group.

It looks like they just make these for relatively current lenses. I couldn't code my oldie-goldies this way.

So in addition to the question of whether these Chinese flanges are accurate and of good quality, I wonder if their mounting holes are in the right place for my lenses. I could risk $13.98 for one of the several focal length options, to find out. But something is holding me back. . .