M8 & M9

[PeterP]

Has anyone considered this scenario:
A new M9 or other DR w/ a m-mount , would (hopefully) not have the UV/IR issue that the current M8 has. Hence no need for that filter. The consequence, you can guess is , if you had both (M8 & M9) you would have to unscrew the filter if you were changing bodies. So either sensor upgrade would have to be offered (at what astronomical cost) , or the M8 would be obsolete. Obsolete in terms of un-manageable or irrelevant . Current DSLRs even if they are super-ceded by newer technology can still use the same lenses and filters. They are forward and backward compatible .
Perhaps some my not have an issue with this , but this would certainly render the camera only useful in the realm of the hobbyist or occasional photographer . For the working pro this would seem an incredible nuisance .
This is not an attempt to insult or denigrate any M8 users , but rather an attempt to express real concern about the future of DR photography. As well as protecting my investment in Leica equipment .

[sdai]

You should not worry about this, Peter ... Leica can not afford to screw the M series, if they do so, their business is over.

[PeterP]

Originally Posted by sdai

You should not worry about this, Peter ... Leica can not afford to screw the M series, if they do so, their business is over.

you have to admit - a legitimate concern none the less

PeterP

[sdai]

Originally Posted by PeterP

you have to admit - a legitimate concern none the less

There has been a lot of discussions about the IR filtration here, the issue was mostly due to technological and engineering constraints Leica wasn't able to overcome within the project's timeframe and/or perhaps budget.

Worst case scenario IMO, the M9 will still require a IR cut filter in front of your lens but after the M8, I believe the limitation has been well accepted by most of the die hard M fans. I can't imagine how Leica would risk sacrificing the M system's integrity just because of this.

[the warrior]

I do not think anyone after knowing the topic of IR filter buy the M8 without knowledge and without accepting it. I buy accepting and seeking more sharpness and that system that gives me more detail in shadows than any other digital camera. I love Leica M8 as it stands.

[richam]

Originally Posted by PeterP

...if you had both (M8 & M9) you would have to unscrew the filter if you were changing bodies.

Why? The screw on and in-camera IR cut filters would do the same filtering job. The screw on would be superfluous, but not do any harm. You could just leave it attached to the lens.

[vieri]

Originally Posted by richam

Why? The screw on and in-camera IR cut filters would do the same filtering job. The screw on would be superfluous, but not do any harm. You could just leave it attached to the lens.

That would be my guess also. The IR filter does just that, filtering IR; if you leave a filter on-lens when attaching the lens on your (hypothetical) M9, once the on-lens filter filtered IR the on-sensor filter will just be there doing nothing, being that there is no IR to filter, but wouldn't do any harm. Plus, IR filters have a 0 stop factor, so your exposure wouldn't be affected.

I don't see what the problem would be, actually - and pretty please, Leica, DO get rid of the on-lens IR filtering problem with the M9, thank you very much!

[marknorton]

Originally Posted by vieri

That would be my guess also. The IR filter does just that, filtering IR; if you leave a filter on-lens when attaching the lens on your (hypothetical) M9, once the on-lens filter filtered IR the on-sensor filter will just be there doing nothing, being that there is no IR to filter, but wouldn't do any harm. Plus, IR filters have a 0 stop factor, so your exposure wouldn't be affected.

Not true. Leave the IR filter on a lens and it will still cause red vignetting leading to cyan in the image. If this hypothetical M9 with no IR sensitivity was to support lenses with IR filters, it would need to correct for the cyan in much the same way as the M8 does today.

[vieri]

Originally Posted by marknorton

Not true. Leave the IR filter on a lens and it will still cause red vignetting leading to cyan in the image. If this hypothetical M9 with no IR sensitivity was to support lenses with IR filters, it would need to correct for the cyan in much the same way as the M8 does today.

Hmm - I am not convinced Mark. Assuming that the on-sensor IR filter would filter 100% of the IR, if you add further filtration on lens it shouldn't make any difference. Logic 101 IMHO, but maybe I am missing something here maybe I can try a little experiment with my D3 adding an IR filter on one of my Nikkors.

[richam]

Originally Posted by marknorton

Not true. Leave the IR filter on a lens and it will still cause red vignetting leading to cyan in the image. If this hypothetical M9 with no IR sensitivity was to support lenses with IR filters, it would need to correct for the cyan in much the same way as the M8 does today.

Mark, do you have any references on this? Do you get cyan or magenta vignetting by using an IR cut filter on an M camera loaded with color film?

[Fotomiguel]

I hope Leica will concentrate their efforts in the R10. I think that the M9 should appear when technology really changes. For that moment, my dear M8 will be squeezed by the use, resting and waiting just for a emergency.
Anyway. I can imagine how nice will be the M9.
-20 megapixel sensor
-a bit small camera
-perfect sensor cleaning system
-nice files at iso 6400
-iso and compensating exposure dial manual control.
Until that moment, I will be happy with my M8.
Cheers.

[vanhulsenbeek]

Originally Posted by willemvelthoven

testtekst

Willem, volgende keer heb je ongeveer 10 minuten de tijd om via de "Edit"-knop de mogelijkheid zo'n mailtje weer te verwijderen!

[hx911]

I too would like to see the ISO setting and the ev on the top of the camera - I use my M8 with a case that covers the back, and I 'have no control or way of checking images' that way. Sometimes I realise that I have the wrong iso when the aperture / exposure is not what I want ...
I hope you understand what I mean .. (for me: film experience, without having to carry 3 bodies with different film, and no developing by 3rd parties!)

[biglouis]

Originally Posted by PeterP

Has anyone considered this scenario:
A new M9 or other DR w/ a m-mount , would (hopefully) not have the UV/IR issue that the current M8 has. Hence no need for that filter. The consequence, you can guess is , if you had both (M8 & M9) you would have to unscrew the filter if you were changing bodies. So either sensor upgrade would have to be offered (at what astronomical cost) , or the M8 would be obsolete. Obsolete in terms of un-manageable or irrelevant . Current DSLRs even if they are super-ceded by newer technology can still use the same lenses and filters. They are forward and backward compatible .
Perhaps some my not have an issue with this , but this would certainly render the camera only useful in the realm of the hobbyist or occasional photographer . For the working pro this would seem an incredible nuisance .
This is not an attempt to insult or denigrate any M8 users , but rather an attempt to express real concern about the future of DR photography. As well as protecting my investment in Leica equipment .

Oh lord, another unecessary menu option "Coded + UV/IR ignore"

LouisB

[stunsworth]

Strange, when I was shooting colour and b&w at the same time with my film Ms I often had to remove a filter from a lens if I moved it from the b&w camera to the colour one. I never thought that made one of the bodies obsolete. How times change.

[rob_x2004]

Yea well ... try using a filter in the monsoons.

[marknorton]

Originally Posted by richam

Mark, do you have any references on this? Do you get cyan or magenta vignetting by using an IR cut filter on an M camera loaded with color film?

We're not talking about cyan or magenta vignetting, it's red light which is subject to vignetting. Red is right next to Infra-Red in the light spectrum and the filtering characteristics change according to angle of incidence of the light on the filter. The greater the light deviates from the normal axis, the more the filtering characteristic extends into the visible red area and the more red light will get removed. If you remove red from white light, you get cyan, which is why you see the cyan drift (as Sean Reid called it). The cyan gets progressively more intense the further away from the centre of the image you go.

Do a test. In a darkened room, use a wide-angle lens with a filter on it to project an image of a window onto a piece of white paper. Then, tilt the lens to increase the angle of incidence. What do you see?

Red Vignetting is therefore a characteristic of the lens and filter and would occur on a sensor which is blind to IR. Therefore, any M9 with such a sensor would need to correct for the filter being present or else the user would have to remove the filter to use the lens on the camera.

[ndjambrose]

Originally Posted by PeterP

... the consequence, you can guess is , if you had both (M8 & M9) you would have to unscrew the filter if you were changing bodies. ... for the working pro this would seem an incredible nuisance .

You must live a different world to me. :-) Of all the things I'd consider an incredible nuisance, changing filters is right at the bottom of the list.

In the course of assignments a photographer might be working with polarisers, graduates, CT filters, a raft of strobes or continuous lights, remote triggers, laptop, tethered shooting, models, clients, art directors, location crew ....

Who cares about changing a filter?

[SJP]

Originally Posted by richam

Mark, do you have any references on this? Do you get cyan or magenta vignetting by using an IR cut filter on an M camera loaded with color film?

If you look at the UV/IR filters it is obvious where the cyan vignetting is coming from. At normal incidence the filter has no obvious 'color' and at glancing angles it shows a red/pink reflection so what remains on transmission is cyan. This is visible in the image corners below 35mm focal length. Film or sensor makes no difference except that on film the vignetting will be more severe as you are using the full angle of acceptance of the lens.