Scott Root Posted November 18, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 18, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The company LDP Net (LDP NET) has confirmed with me that they believe they are able, but have not yet tried, to remove the IR filter on the sensor of the M9. I thought this would be a good way to increase definition and go back to using IR filters on my lenses. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 Hi Scott Root, Take a look here is removal of IR filter on M9 a good idea?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted November 18, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 18, 2009 The idea is definitely NOT good, even if it can be done. (One wonders about the price -- and the risks.) First, it is very unlikely that definition would increase. We are speaking of an IR filter here, not an AA filter, which does indeed soften the image. Second, present firmware is for a camera with an internal IR filter. A camera with external IR filters, which work on a different principle, would be an entirely new beast. Are they offering to write, and develop, new firmware for you too? Also, what makes you think that the present over-sensor IR filter degrades the image more than add-on filters would? Finally, we are now at the point where the sensor is no longer the limiting factor in 'digital 35mm photography', as film once was. It is the lenses. It is clearly senseless to try to increase the resolution of a sensor which has already a performance better than that of most all high-grade optics. This, by the way, is one of the benefits of going Leica: You get the best lenses, not lenses calculated to just about perform on the level of film. The M9 as is, is already far superior to anything I could do with 6x9cm roll film behind good optics. Go out and take some pictures instead. The old man from the Age of the Super Ikonta Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted November 18, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 18, 2009 Well, it would certainly be an interesting experiment - so long as you have a M9 to toss away you might as well go for it. Please report back with pictures, preferably raw files shot outdoors by multiple professionals so we can avoid the usual blather about web jpegs and studio lighting. I suspect it might be like putting an after-market turbo on a ferrari though... if it was likely to make a significant improvement then it would already have been done that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Root Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted November 18, 2009 It seemed reasonable to me in view of Leica's statement that they struck a balance for the thickness of the IR filter on the sensor that would not derogate the sharpness of images, which leads one to think that perhaps sharpness would be further enhanced without the filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 18, 2009 Share #5 Posted November 18, 2009 leads one to think that perhaps sharpness would be further enhanced without the filter. I suspect that is the case (I get the distinct impression when pixel peeping that the M9 is a hair less sharp than the M8) but you could always ask how much sharpness do we actually need? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ario Arioldi Posted November 18, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 18, 2009 The sensor package is a complex system composed by various elements which have been designed to work together (photosites, microlens, IR filter, etc..). I don't thik it is that esay to predict what will happen by removing or modifying any of the component. I woul'nt take the chanche to try. Cheers, Ario Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mby Posted November 18, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 18, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'd suggest trying an M8 and live with the crop factor... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted November 18, 2009 Share #8 Posted November 18, 2009 Sounds like one of the worst ideas I've heard in a very long time. I suppose if you have money to throw away, then go for it. But the M9 files are very, very sharp as-is. If you really need something sharper, I'd suggest a larger format--either any of the available MF digital backs, possibly an S2 or better yet, an 8x10 view camera. Granted some of these (especially the view camera) aren't as portable or usable handheld as the M9, but really for the tiny amount of sharpness increase you're talking about you'll probably need to use a tripod anyway to see any real difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted November 18, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 18, 2009 It seemed reasonable to me in view of Leica's statement that they struck a balance for the thickness of the IR filter on the sensor that would not derogate the sharpness of images, which leads one to think that perhaps sharpness would be further enhanced without the filter. No dice, I’m afraid. What LDP Net offers is to replace the IR-blocking cover glass by another cover glass with similar optical qualities (so the camera will still focus correctly and so on). This implies that whatever loss of sharpness Leicas filter might cause won’t be reduced as the replacement cover glass will behave just the same. If you are lucky, that is; it could get worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Root Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted November 19, 2009 Ok, I'm convinced it's a bad idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammam Posted November 19, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 19, 2009 Are we getting insane or what? When it was announced that you had to use mandatory IR-cut filters with the M8 to remove the purple aberration created by the absence of a low-pass IR filter (or whatever it's called) on the sensor, there was a huge cry of indignation and utter frustration. Now, somebody asks if they can remove the filter on the M9 sensor, and go back to good old lens IR-cut filters? Tell me this was a joke. A troll. Something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted November 19, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 19, 2009 The M9 as is, is already far superior to anything I could do with 6x9cm roll film behind good optics. Nice try. Maybe if you are using a cheap Epson flatbed to scan the film. Drum scanned 6x7 film from my Mamiya 7II/43/65 lens combination is superior to the M9 in terms of resolution, bit-depth (true 16-bit), and tonal range. In fact it is superior to any 35mm full frame DRF/DSLR. As someone who has their feet planted in 35mm film, 35mm digital, 6x7 and 4x5 film, I've tested it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted November 19, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 19, 2009 Are we getting insane or what?...Now, somebody asks if they can remove the filter on the M9 sensor, and go back to good old lens IR-cut filters? Tell me this was a joke. A troll. Something. There was some discussion when the M8 came out, here or elsewhere, of removing the glass cover slip! I'm sure there are some who would prefer a removable internal filter like some other cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted November 19, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 19, 2009 There was some discussion when the M8 came out, here or elsewhere, of removing the glass cover slip! I'm sure there are some who would prefer a removable internal filter like some other cameras. The only camera that comes to mind would be the Mamiya ZD, but even with the ZD you need some filter in front of the sensor; it is just that you can decide which one. You wouldn’t want to use a sensor without any kind of cover glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted November 19, 2009 Share #15 Posted November 19, 2009 The only camera that comes to mind would be the Mamiya ZD, but even with the ZD you need some filter in front of the sensor; it is just that you can decide which one. You wouldn’t want to use a sensor without any kind of cover glass. yes of course. And that is the camera I was thinking of, and also my SD14 has a removable IR filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 21, 2009 Share #16 Posted November 21, 2009 Leica definitely has a hit on their hands when we start talking about hot-rodding it! We assume the M9 sensor uses IR-absorbing glass, but it might be an extinction filter. Maybe Scott should get together with Mark to research the matter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 21, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 21, 2009 Jeff, I was not talking of flatbed scanning (which I have never done). I was talking of honest-to-god film and a honest-to-god El-Nikkor. Very inferior gear, admittedly. But that was the crap we all used, and I used it for half a century. In the camera monitor, M9 images do in fact look less sharp than the M8 did. The actual image is a different matter; the M9 is NOT inferior, and the larger absolute resolution of the FF sensor makes for pictures that are bursting with sharp detail. Some people will soon start complaining ... I cannot account for the difference in the monitor. It just means that we cannot reliably check maximum focus there, and will have to put our trust more in the rangefinder, and in ourselves. Less inducement to chimping of course, which is good. The monitor is for settings and histograms, in my immodest opinion. The old man from the Age Before TV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 21, 2009 Share #18 Posted November 21, 2009 Leica definitely has a hit on their hands when we start talking about hot-rodding it! We assume the M9 sensor uses IR-absorbing glass, but it might be an extinction filter. Maybe Scott should get together with Mark to research the matter? Howard, Leica say it IS an absorption filter. They stated that they can use a .8mm filter glass because a new type of glass absorbs IR better. I understand that with the old glass, they would have needed an unacceptably thick filter, which was the reason behind all the M8 IR furore. I do believe them. The old man from the Age of Filters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 22, 2009 Share #19 Posted November 22, 2009 That's my understanding as well, Lars; I just haven't seen a technical description of the sensor. (And don't expect to before the appearance of the M10. ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry joeng Posted November 22, 2009 Share #20 Posted November 22, 2009 Well, I won't do it on my M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.