LJL
Just a clarification from your last post.
Filters were required to get accurate colors on "ALL" lenses, not just wide angles. The issue with the wide angles was that the filter caused cyan vignetting due to the wide angles of incidence. So the 6 bit coding was required for Leica correction algorithms to properly get rid of this cyan vignetting to a larger degree.
Woody
Woody,
that is correct....filters are needed on ALL lenses. What many folks had discovered was that they could use the stronger B+W filters on the longer focal length lenses, since there was no vignetting correction needed. The color balances were still a bit off compared to the Leica filters, but did not seem as objectionable or noticeable as on the wider angle lenses (generally around 35mm and wider), where there was both vignetting and color shift that was made worse because of the vignetting. So when one used a filter, as needed, that showed vignetting, there as a color shift in the vignetted area (green to pink) also. Hence, the vignetting correction, which was built into the in-camera processor and accessed through a table of correction values in the firmware, did require coding of the lenses to accomplish this. Folks could apply their own coding to non-coded lenses, which many did (and Carsten even posts a link to the various code patterns to be applied). Those codes are for Leica lenses with Leica filters only, though they seem to work for other lenses as well. There are cases where mounting screws or other features do not permit the application of the code correctly, and that became a problem. (For example, I use the coding for the Leica 24/2.8 on my Zeiss 25/2.8 and get very good, but not perfect results. I must use a Leica UV/IR filter however, as the B+W version still imparts a color shift in the vignetted area that is objectionable. That was why folks were asking Leica to enlarge the code table a bit to accommodate some of these other lenses and filter options, as well as to cover non-coded lenses with a software correction override of sorts. At least that is how I recall the many, long discussions.)
As Guy said, that is a chapter from the past, and involves the M8. Some of us may just find it hard to shake off all of those issues when looking at the coming S2, which may have no issues, or new ones of its own. That is not trashing the S2, as I have welcomed the concept and design from the start. My issues are with cost and promises that remain to be executed. Lots we do not know beyond marketing releases at this point, yet the cost is quite steep, and there is no getting around that. Will the S2 live up to claims? We just to not yet know. I am sure it will be very good, but that much better than the other MF stuff with which it is now competing will be a tougher call for folks to make somehow.
LJ
P.S. The issue with the M8 was only asking Leica to make available a firmware adjustment that would permit the use of other options from those that were scarce at the time. The further issue that was raised with regard to the S2 and making adapters for using other lenses is far more involved than that. This entire discussion was to put that request/concept into perspective. With the S2, one has only Leica lenses as the option, and hoping that will change is an even steeper uphill battle for folks to consider in light of what went down with the M8. That is all I was trying to say from the start.