Fred Miranda wrote:
I'll definitely test this once I get the Visoflex. Honestly, I've been hesitant to buy one, since I already have the 020 for the M10 and basically never use it.
My hunch is the FL-based theory won't hold up, though. I suspect stabilization isn't tied to focal length at all, but works by capturing a wider sensor area, then cropping into a narrower window (it only kicks in when magnifying) and shifting that crop frame-by-frame to counteract motion, similar to how video apps stabilize footage. If so, it should work the same regardless of whether the lens is coded, since it wouldn't need focal length data at all.
This morning I gave the other 'vignetting' idea a proper test:
I previously wrote: My "off" for uncoded lenses is the "135/4 11851/11861" option. It's the correction profile for the 135mm f/4 Tele-Elmar, a lens famous for having pretty much no vignetting, so it does almost nothing to the image, very similar to actual "Off."
This profile applies non-detectable vignetting correction, I don't see any at all, and I'm honestly not sure why Leica even added it to the list, maybe purely for EXIF purposes. So I can confirm: the "135/4 11851/11861" option functions as Off for vignetting concerns, and it's now my default setting on the M11-D, since I never have to touch it again. When I see "135 Elmar" in my EXIF, I know either to correct that name in post using Lenstagger, or leave it knowning I was actually shooting an uncoded lens....Show more →
Excellent. I’d say don’t bother with the Visoflex 2 then, especially since you have other options if you need live view. And the Visoflex 2 will wear off the black paint from the back edges of the hotshoe rails, not that that’s a big deal, though. And it’s insanely overpriced at the moment, what between tariffs and Leica’s usual price hikes. Maybe you could get a good deal on a used one.
