Definitive answer on the IR filter.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

They do what they are intended to do given the amount of variable IR contamination but the answer is no, simply because that amount of light varies from differnt light sources. Do they do the job, hell yes with a caveat we still need better color profiles. No light source is perfect and even in daylight the intensity will vary of IR light. Tungsten , Sodium Vapor and consistent lighting may not vary as much. But as a working tool they work extremely well and honestly your not going to get much better than that but your question I agree is not how you should be phrasing the question there are NO hard and fast rules period in photography. Now have i seen a magenta cast while using the IR cut filter, no I have not. it also effects the whole visable spectrum and has done a great job of retaining the true colors, is it dead perfect, no becuase there are other variables at play. Bottom line is your question cannot be answered the way you phrase it. I can't give you a absolute yes becuase it does not exist, really it is just that simple

 

Now is it the best working solution that Leica came up with , yes it is to achieve what they sought out to do and that is retain the high level of performance in there glass without CA, astigmatism and other degrading factors.

 

Fact i don't like filters but to achieve the results i want they really are the only choice at this time that will provide the best of Leica glass. We must rememeber leica is first a optical company and that is what they do best. Everything they design is around there glass and not the other way around. Frankly reason i shoot Leica

[ho_co]

I am not sure why people are so afraid of questions.

Strange comment. Three of us so far have attempted to answer your question.

 

I don't think the IR filters out there today do solve the problem.

In one sense, here you are simply repeating what I said, and what Guy has since said, which is a restatement of what many others here have said. But perhaps you need to explain what you mean by 'solving the problem' so we're on the same page.

 

In the view of those that test these things on a regular basis do the IR filters available cut the IR seen by M8 sensor completely and are the tests conclusive.

Confusion and inconsistency again: "In the view of..." means to me 'What do you think?' Then you ask whether IR is cut 'completely,' which you could judge for yourself from the transmission diagrams, or which you might prefer that an optical engineer or physcist answer. And then you ask whether the tests are 'conclusive,' just the opposite of your opening 'in the view of...'

 

Here is my view: 1) A number of consumer cameras have strong IR sensitivity; the M8's IR sensitivity is higher than that of most. 2) IR-reduction filters have long been available for scientific and photographic purposes. 3) One can choose the IR-reduction technology suited for the purpose. I don't see why you would ask Leica to work with the filter manufacturer if the product is already available off the shelf. Would you also argue that no lightbulb currently available could work in your living room because the bulb's design predates your living room?

 

Just my opinion. Jaap and I both tried to help, but we clearly aren't responding at the appropriate level. I hope that Guy's response is closer to what you want.

 

If not, perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say you don't think the current lineup of IR-cut filters is adequate to the job, and how one could prove to you 'conclusively' that, for example, the B+W 486 cuts 'completely' the IR 'as seen by the M8 sensor.'

 

Respectfully,

--HC

[pat308]

Strange comment. Three of us so far have attempted to answer your question.

 

 

In one sense, here you are simply repeating what I said, and what Guy has since said, which is a restatement of what many others here have said. But perhaps you need to explain what you mean by 'solving the problem' so we're on the same page.

 

 

Confusion and inconsistency again: "In the view of..." means to me 'What do you think?' Then you ask whether IR is cut 'completely,' which you could judge for yourself from the transmission diagrams, or which you might prefer that an optical engineer or physcist answer. And then you ask whether the tests are 'conclusive,' just the opposite of your opening 'in the view of...'

 

Here is my view: 1) A number of consumer cameras have strong IR sensitivity; the M8's IR sensitivity is higher than that of most. 2) IR-reduction filters have long been available for scientific and photographic purposes. 3) One can choose the IR-reduction technology suited for the purpose. I don't see why you would ask Leica to work with the filter manufacturer if the product is already available off the shelf. Would you also argue that no lightbulb currently available could work in your living room because the bulb's design predates your living room?

 

Just my opinion. Jaap and I both tried to help, but we clearly aren't responding at the appropriate level. I hope that Guy's response is closer to what you want.

 

If not, perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say you don't think the current lineup of IR-cut filters is adequate to the job, and how one could prove to you 'conclusively' that, for example, the B+W 486 cuts 'completely' the IR 'as seen by the M8 sensor.'

 

Respectfully,

--HC

 

I think the confusion comes from the overly long thread. A sort of chinese whisper has crept in.

 

My question was this. Will any old IR filter work? i.e. are all IR filters equal? Is the Heliopan and the B&W or whatever brand one chooses is just as good as the others.

 

My question to those that review these things was, is this true. Can you - a reviewer - conclusively say that using the Heliopan or the B&W will cut IR in just the same way, and do they cut the frequency the M8 sensor is sensitive to.

 

OR does Leica need to spell out the frequency of IR light the sensor is susceptible too.

 

My guess was the latter is true.

[blakley]

The IR cut filters are not all the same; Tiffen Hot Mirror filters have more IR transmission than B+W filters, for example, which is why people are recommending the B+Ws. The B+W filter cuts essentially all reds outside the visible range, so it works very well - the assumption is that this is the filter Leica will ship.

 

BTW, Tiffen Hot Mirror filters are very effective - but not perfect - at combating M8 IR shift. I have one on my 75/2 (because I can't yet find a B+W in 49mm), and it produces very nice colors, with just a hint of IR contamination if you look very closely and know what you're looking for.

[ho_co]

My question to those that review these things was, is this true. Can you - a reviewer - conclusively say that using the Heliopan or the B&W will cut IR in just the same way, and do they cut the frequency the M8 sensor is sensitive to.

 

OR does Leica need to spell out the frequency of IR light the sensor is susceptible too.

Thanks, Pat. Succinctly put.

 

I'm not a reviewer, but as you know from reading this thread, so far no one seems to have both the B+W and the Heliopan UV/IR-Cut filters to compare.

 

But this is exactly the answer Sean's reviews are striving for, so I think the answer you want will come from him. And it was indeed to him that you originally addressed your question in post #36 above. My attempt to help has returned to where we started.

 

You can of course get more information on the KAF-10500 sensor from Kodak's web site, but I doubt that Leica will be offering guidance on filters other than their own.

 

--HC

[ho_co]

I can't yet find a B+W in 49mm...

Bob--

Edmund has 49's, but they are expensive. I got one for my Tri-Elmar.

 

--HC

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean in your view did the any of the filters conclusively and completely solve the problem with the magenta cast on M8.

 

I am not asking which filter, people that want that information should pay and read your reviews. But I am asking if the problem was solved. Yes or No.

 

Yes, the 486 filters remove the IR color casts. But they also introduce a cyan drift (red vignetting) with 35 mm and wider lenses that should be addressed in-camera (with coded lenses) with Leica's revised firmware. We also need (and I expect to see) new C1 color profiles for pictures made with these filters.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[pat308]

Yes, the 486 filters remove the IR color casts. But they also introduce a cyan drift (red vignetting) with 35 mm and wider lenses that should be addressed in-camera (with coded lenses) with Leica's revised firmware. We also need (and I expect to see) new C1 color profiles for pictures made with these filters.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Thanks to everybody that responded.