M9 and CV15 at the Getty Center (Images)

[sandymc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If that's the case, there could be another, albeit more complicated solution. You could use a software like your CornerFix package that could profile you lens-camera combination and then load that custom correction algorithm into the camera to replace the "stock" profile.

 

Indeed. I don't think there would be much enthusiasm for that solution at Leica however. Not only is it technically complex, but it would also be somewhat of an "admission of defeat" on the optical front.

 

Sandy

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[odyocu]

Alnitak, beautiful photos.

 

As long as the color shift can be corrected easily, "with Leica", I don't consider it to be a problem. I had the same problem with CV15mm on my M8 too. But I was not so succesfull with the corrections (I had to make reverse color mask and had to correct in PS layers etc, which took so much time) and I had to sell the CV15mm.

 

Anyway, for me the important thing is the beauty of your photos that counts.

[Alnitak]

Indeed. I don't think there would be much enthusiasm for that solution at Leica however. Not only is it technically complex, but it would also be somewhat of an "admission of defeat" on the optical front.

 

Sandy

 

True. However, I think this might be a tricky situation for them. It seems to me that this is clearly a problem with optical decentering. There are a lot of variables in play with that problem. It can be a decentering of the sensor or the lens. Both can be in play at the same time.

 

I suspect that there is a very slight decentering of the sensor as part of the system design. If you recall Mark Norton's teardown of an M8, you can see how the body design puts some constraints on the sensor location. Given that the bodies are hand-assembled, any slight variation from the ideal location of the sensor relative to the optical path would result in a problem. Given that most people have seen this problem on the left edge, towards the side with the battery, where space is tight, my suspicion is that there is a slight decentering on that side that can easily be exacerbated in manufacture (thus some bodies that are perfectly lined up can be free of the problem).

 

Now you throw in optical decentering of lenses, which I think is more common than most people realize. That can vary from lens to lens, and therefore is not something that Leica could easily deal with. In the case of the Leica lenses, I think that decentering issues will be less common, given the high tolerances to which they are manufactured. However, the Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses are apparently more susceptible to this issue. In my experience with the Voigtlander lenses, optical decentering is a common problem. I have over a dozen Voigtlander lenses, and while they are all optically excellent, I had to return three of them for replacements when the first copies I received suffered from pretty significant decentering issues. The Zeiss lenses are manufactured by Cosina, who also make the Voigtlander lenses, so it wouldn't surprise me if they suffer to some extent from the same issue.

 

So, this creates a tough situation for Leica. How can they correct for an unknown number and type of lenses that could be used on their bodies? If its just a sensor decentering issue, they could have cameras returned and fixed. The same applies if its just decentering on a Leica-manufactured lens. Both of these would be very expensive to deal with, however. I suspect that lenses that would have been just fine on film or on the cropped M8 will show problems with the M9. However, they would have no way to dealing with non-Leica lenses. While perhaps they wouldn't care, people will blame the M9 and not the lenses, and this will be a problem for them at some level.

 

All of that said, I presonally don't find this to be a big issue. Some people may, and that's their prerogative. However, I do the bulk of my shooting from 28-90mm, where the problem has never shown up. It showed up pretty significantly on my Voigtlander 21mm lens, but that lens also suffered from some pretty strong decentering, so much so that it has been returned for a replacement. I will check the new one when it arrives. On my Voigtlander 15mm, I have a red left edge and bottom, but it's pretty minor. In most cases it could easily be cropped off without much loss in the image, or I can correct it with CornerFix. It's not a huge workflow issue as I don't use that lens all the time.

 

I suspect that a large percentage of Leica M shooters also don't stray below 28mm too often, and consequently will never see the issue even if their system might display it in the right combination (lens + body). All in all, this will be an interesting conundrum for Leica to deal with.

[SJP]

If the sensor is decentered (by design) then somone needs to be burned at the stake. It should be possible to deal with in firmware.

 

If some lenses are decentred then the L/R asymmetry would also show up on film - which I can't recall hearing anything about before.

[sandymc]

If some lenses are decentred then the L/R asymmetry would also show up on film - which I can't recall hearing anything about before.

 

It would show, but not nearly as much as a digital - no IR filter, so no color shift. Also, even luma vignetting is less because you don't have the pixel wells and microlenses.

 

Sandy

[adan]

Technically - the "left" edge of the image is the "right" edge of the sensor, as seen from the sensor's point of view. The side towards the shutter button and away from the battery. Lenses project the image upside-down-and-backwards.

 

But that still makes the tightness to the battery a possible factor - it MAY push the sensor a bit to the right, off-center and with the right sensor side getting closer to the edge of the lens' image circle.

 

A microlens or sensor installation flaw will basically require a trip to Solms for a new sensor or an adjustment to the positioning of the existing sensor.

 

A decentered lens is basically not Leica's problem - unless it is a Leica lens under warranty. I don't expect Leica to reassemble my 25-year-old Leitz 21mm for free (if it is the source).

 

A firmware bug is a firmware bug - Stepphn Daniels specifically commented on the balance Leica needed to strike in writing the lens corrections, to avoid under-or-overcorrecting, and while I'm sure Leica had hundreds of lenses to test on the M9, I'm also sure they are interested to see the results from thousands of others in the hands of Leica users, from which they can base revisions and tweaks.

 

It would be nice if the M9 could create individual corrections for each lens from a white-wall exposure, and save them. Not unlike the user-adjustable focus calibrations available in more recent Canon/Nikon DSLRs. Licensed from Sandy or DoX or whoever. But the M9 has a fixed amount of processor power and ROM space (somewhat stressed already, as we see from write and review times). So while possible, I'm not sure it is realistic.

 

Way back when, when I did a survey of what tradeoffs Forum users would accept in a full-frame M - one of the questions dealt with legacy lenses. Would people want a FFM if it only performed at its best with digitally-friendly new superwides and had some issues with wide lenses designed for film (and film's tolerances)?

 

In part, that may be what we are seeing - since apparently the WATE (designed and built in the digital era) is less prone to red/left, just going from the lack of complaints I've seen.

 

I also will be interested to see how this all pans out.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Aln--See Puts re optical decentering. It happens but it's extremely minor. I think it can be ruled out here, as Sandy and Andy both imply.

 

 

Andy--

Frankly, I think your diagram and analysis points the direction of the problem. IIRC, Mark's analysis of a postulated full-frame M8 said that the battery would be in the way.

 

You're right that the WATE falls into the category of 'new, digital-period.' But so does the 18/3.8, whose behavior was one of the problem's bellwethers.

 

You say not all cameras show red-left, and point to your trial of an M9 demo as an example. I don't argue with your experience, but is it possible that more extensive testing of that body would detect the problem?

 

If some bodies show the problem to a greater degree than others, then it seems to me the only possible explanation is tolerances in mounting the sensor. That's mechanical, and as you said, Leica would have to tighten production tolerances and adjust outstanding cameras that show the problem. That expense would likely put them out of business.

 

Erwin, Andy, Michael, Sandy, straighten me out. I realize I may be chasing a red herring, and I hope I am.

 

 

Suggestion: Wouldn't a simple questionnaire like the following gain useful information? (Or ask the moderators set up a poll along these lines, if the forum software would handle the interrelations.)

 

Response requested from any and all M9 users:

 

1) Are you experiencing red-left with an M9?

 

2a) If answer to #1 is “no,” please skip question #3 and go to question #4.

2b) If answer to #1 is “yes,” please answer both parts of question #3.

 

3a) With what lenses are you experiencing red-left on your M9?

3b) With what wideangles (if any) are you not experiencing red-left on your M9?

 

4) To be answered in all cases, no matter whether your response to #1 is "yes" or "no":

What is the widest lens you have used?