Red Edge--Which lenses?

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I recall, a couple of years ago when Dr. Kauffman was defending the 1.33x crop as the "ideal" sensor size for digital M cameras in an LFI interview, he added a caveat (which I paraphrase) to the effect of "...except for those few people who want to use their 21s."

 

Gives me the feeling Leica management is not especially - what would be the words? - supportive or tuned in or "aware" of wideangle lenses and their users. (Odd, given the effort they have put into WA design recently: 21/24 'lux, WATE, 18mm, 28 Elmarit ASPH, 24 Elmar - probable new 35 f/1.4.)

 

I'd support a "sticky" thread for "things Leica still needs to fix in the M9" - with significant moderating to kill off the armchair CEOs, technical theorizing, and blue-sky wish lists not compatible with the hardware (video, live-view, focus confirmation, blah, blah, blah.)

 

Just a factual "bug report" list of what falls short in the M9 operation and performance "as is". That Leica can read ( or have emailed to them) without wading through hip-deep extraneous cra-, uhh, crud.

 

I hope Sean Reid gets back into circulation soon (for his own comfort and well-being, as well as his technical lens/digital knowledge and his insider "links" to Leica thinking). Somehow I think if he hadn't been laid up these past three months, he would have been pushing Leica hard(er) to straighten out some of this stuff. (I note his site says he is "working on" reviews of various lenses on the M9 this winter.)

Edited February 12, 2010 by adan

[charlesphoto99]

Andy. I have feeling Leica know exactly what needs to happen with the M9 and the list is actually quite short. Aside from the usual things that happen to all cameras (ie faults in manufacturing) it is:

 

wide angle correction issues - probably too much (what's wrong with a little natural vignetting?) and left edge mostly for some reason.

 

Slow Display zoom performance and card formatting/acceptance performance.

 

Better AWB parameters.

 

And that's about it. Not much more they can do except minor tweaks unless they offer hardware upgrades as well.

[Advertisement]

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

[Alnitak]

As I recall, a couple of years ago when Dr. Kauffman was defending the 1.33x crop as the "ideal" sensor size for digital M cameras in an LFI interview, he added a caveat (which I paraphrase) to the effect of "...except for those few people who want to use their 21s."

 

Gives me the feeling Leica management is not especially - what would be the words? - supportive or tuned in or "aware" of wideangle lenses and their users. (Odd, given the effort they have put into WA design recently: 21/24 'lux, WATE, 18mm, 28 Elmarit ASPH, 24 Elmar - probable new 35 f/1.4.)

 

I'd support a "sticky" thread for "things Leica still needs to fix in the M9" - with significant moderating to kill off the armchair CEOs, technical theorizing, and blue-sky wish lists not compatible with the hardware (video, live-view, focus confirmation, blah, blah, blah.)

 

Just a factual "bug report" list of what falls short in the M9 operation and performance "as is". That Leica can read ( or have emailed to them) without wading through hip-deep extraneous cra-, uhh, crud.

 

I hope Sean Reid gets back into circulation soon (for his own comfort and well-being, as well as his technical lens/digital knowledge and his insider "links" to Leica thinking). Somehow I think if he hadn't been laid up these past three months, he would have been pushing Leica hard(er) to straighten out some of this stuff. (I note his site says he is "working on" reviews of various lenses on the M9 this winter.)

 

I agree with Andy that a sticky thread with heavy moderation would be a good idea. It will help aggregate some issues that are scattered throughout this forum at the moment. I have personally experienced at least one other bug that is hitting a few people, where you get black frames after setting a custom WB.

 

As for the fact that this problem somehow slipped through, I guess I am a bit more forgiving of Leica. I have spent my career either as a scientist and technologist. Complex systems inherently are difficult to fully model and test. Software testing in particular can be a maddening process, and with a lot of variables to deal with, it only gets worse.

 

While we would expect Leica to do some "white wall" testing to see how the vignette correction is working, its quite possible they tested in some other way that made the red edge issue less noticeable. I struggle to believe that they could have seen the results on the 18/3.8 and let the camera go out the door.

 

I also think blaming the beta testers or disparaging them because they aren't professionals is a foolish tack to take. The more diverse a beta testing crowd, the more likely you are to find problems, but at the same time, the issue of isolating the problem becomes more complex.

 

Let's see what happens with a firmware fix (assuming that one is being worked on). That said, I do think that Leica needs to say something about this issue, and soon, at least to acknowledge the issue and the fact that they intend to correct it--or not.

 

Jeff

[Alnitak]

Andy. I have feeling Leica know exactly what needs to happen with the M9 and the list is actually quite short. Aside from the usual things that happen to all cameras (ie faults in manufacturing) it is:

 

wide angle correction issues - probably too much (what's wrong with a little natural vignetting?) and left edge mostly for some reason.

 

Slow Display zoom performance and card formatting/acceptance performance.

 

Better AWB parameters.

 

And that's about it. Not much more they can do except minor tweaks unless they offer hardware upgrades as well.

 

I think the point of a sticky thread is that this is not necessarily "about it." For example, I would add:

 

-- problem of getting black frames occasionally when using a custom WB setting

 

--camera locking up if you turn it off during a long exposure (such as when you accidentally leave the cap on)

 

and there might be more. The sticky thread makes sure all of these can be in one visible place, where folks can comment. The more feedback and data around each of these issues, the more likely that real fixes can be found.

 

Jeff

[adan]

Charles, I think the list is a little longer than yours. I'll save details for that sticky thread, but simply note Jeff's mention of black frames. For me personally, it is only red edges - and no way to turn off the obvious noise and detail smoothing in the top half of the ISO range.

 

I am sure Leica is NOW aware of the red-edge problem (probably since early Nov.), and maybe some of the other things. But a one-stop punch list would be nice.

 

Ideally (but the world is not ideal and I don't claim a right to dictate policy to Leica) Leica would give us a point by point response just so we know that they have paid attention - even if it is a negative response, e.g. (hypothetically): "Given the processing capabilites and file size of the M9, we chose fast low-rez review and slower zooming, over slower low-rez review and faster zooming. Feedback shows that that is preferable for the majority of users, so we don't plan to change it."

[charlesphoto99]

Oh I realize there are other things going on, and didn't mean at all to dismiss those. But overall it's a pretty short list and more obvious than the initial M8 release. I'm sure there are other things Leica are aware of and we aren't. Not all problems show up on this forum.

 

I just think they want to get it right with the next release esp as a FW update isn't a deal breaker as to whether someone is going to buy the camera or not. Quite often it's cracking that last 10% of code without compromising the other 90 that's the trickiest. I do wish they'd hurry it along a bit though!

 

so yeah start a thread but I can see the armchair CEO's already on the edge of their chairs.

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...I am sure Leica is NOW aware of the red-edge problem (probably since early Nov.), and maybe some of the other things. ..

 

I am sure Leica is aware of the red-edge problem at least since early September. It was - as far as I know - first described in Sean Reid's first test of the M9 when he showed results of the CV 15mm, and he wrote he would talk to Leica about this. He also mentioned this anywhere here in the forum in mid September. I remember this as his pictures with the red edges gave me the first idea that I had the same with the 3.8/18 on the M8. (Funny, that one "discovers" a problem only after somebody says that it exists, even if one had seen it long before).

 

The first mentioning of a possible firmware solution was made at a Leica meeting last fall. Though perhaps the issue is more complicated to cure as one hoped, and the firmware takes more time as we hoped even some weeks ago.

 

P.S. Good opportunity to send cheers to Sean Reid, hoping he will be well and active soon again!

[marknorton]

Does make me wonder whether Leica knew this was a problem before the camera was released and hoped the punters wouldn't notice or whether it has come like a bolt out of the blue. The M8 testers let us down by not pointing out the IR contamination problem and I wonder whether the M9 testers have done similarly.

 

It's too easy for Leica to dismiss any and all problems with the magic words "firmware's not final" as if this is some sort of get-out-of-jail card for all product ills.

[noah_addis]

...

 

It's too easy for Leica to dismiss any and all problems with the magic words "firmware's not final" as if this is some sort of get-out-of-jail card for all product ills.

 

I just wish they would at least do that. I would like to know if and when they plan to address this problem. If it can't be fixed, I'd like to know that too so I can dump the M9s while the prices are still high due to limited availability.

[Englander]

So Noah, you'd like to dump your M9's if there isn't a fix soon? I guess I dodged that bullet because of the other obvious defect. But Leica already has your money, so maybe that isn't as much a threat to them as the hundreds of us who aren't going to buy an M9 or anything else from Leica if Leica doesn't get these obvious problems fixed very quickly.

 

The strength of putting up a sticky post highlighting known defects is not just the request that they fix the problems, it is the threat of losing future business by showing that the problems are widely known instead of allowing Leica to continually say they have never heard of such problems. They have the opportunity to remedy the problems and eliminate the need for such a posting. Will they take it?

 

Joe

Joe Englander Photography

[ho_co]

... After having gone through the same charade with the M8's inadequate IR filtration--Leica's denying there was a problem, suggesting that the problem was infrequent, then making the problem the photographer's (you shouldn't take pictures that require more IR filtration), finally admitting there was a problem, offering a slow fix for those who owned only three lenses and an expensive fix for those who owned more--I feel it was the outcry on this forum that finally persuaded the small slow moving company to fix that problem. ...

 

Joe, that is not the way it happened. Leica was quickly aware of the problem, never said it was infrequent, never told photographers it was their fault. They had a fix within a month of the first cameras being shipped, IIRC.

 

It's inane to say the forum's response persuaded them to fix the problem, but that's a common theme on the forum--"We made Leica fix it! More power to Leica! We made Leica fix it! More power to us!"

[UliWer]

Does make me wonder whether Leica knew this was a problem before the camera was released and hoped the punters wouldn't notice or whether it has come like a bolt out of the blue. The M8 testers let us down by not pointing out the IR contamination problem and I wonder whether the M9 testers have done similarly.

 

It's too easy for Leica to dismiss any and all problems with the magic words "firmware's not final" as if this is some sort of get-out-of-jail card for all product ills.

 

Well, the M8 is out since 2006. It has the red-edge issue as well as the M9. The M8 was used with wide-angle lenses by a lot of people.

Not even marknoton noticed it.

[ho_co]

Does make me wonder whether Leica knew this was a problem before the camera was released and hoped the punters wouldn't notice or whether it has come like a bolt out of the blue. ...

Mark, I'll never be able to convince you that Leica didn't know ahead of time. But I can tell you for certain they wouldn't have released the camera knowing about the problem.

 

It is IMO absurd to suggest they weren't blindsided by the IFS.

 

You can't prove a negative, and I wasn't there when the camera was designed or tested. But I worked for Leica for a dozen years and I know they go at their business with fanatical sincerity and honesty.

 

 

Before we start blaming beta testers or conniving managers, let's find out what the problem is and the suggested cure.

[noah_addis]

So Noah, you'd like to dump your M9's if there isn't a fix soon?

Joe Englander Photography

 

Yes. But certainly not because I want to hurt Leica or make some kind of point. They wouldn't notice nor care if I switch to another camera. And the fact is that plenty of people are lining up to buy M9s, so a few vocal shooters saying they won't buy M9s isn't going to matter either.

 

For me it's not about threats or trying to speak ill of Leica, but it is about using a tool that works for me. If I can't use my M9 with lenses wider than 28mm, then it's not really useful for my work.

 

I do believe that Leica wants to produce a high-quality product that works. But they have a lot to learn about customer service, communication with customers and, apparently, product testing.

 

I do think Leica owes M9 users (and potential purchasers) an explanation and at least an estimated timeframe for fixing the problem.

 

If it can't be fixed they should offer to buy the cameras back or offer trade-ins or discounts on lenses that don't exhibit the problem.

[Englander]

Joe, that is not the way it happened. Leica was quickly aware of the problem, never said it was infrequent, never told photographers it was their fault. They had a fix within a month of the first cameras being shipped, IIRC.

 

It's inane to say the forum's response persuaded them to fix the problem, but that's a common theme on the forum--"We made Leica fix it! More power to Leica! We made Leica fix it! More power to us!"

 

@Howard,

Your account is not the way I remember it, actually. I remember a recall that did happen in the first month. I remember being told directly by Leica representatives that IR wasn't a problem, and then that it was only a problem under certain circumstances and that if I avoided taking pictures of synthetic materials under tungsten light I would be just fine. In fact, I remember Leica publishing such disclaimers. I remember pretty long delays between the acknowledgment of the inadequacies of the internal IR filter and the supply of UV-IR filters. I remember forum members trying to work out which filters would work while waiting for Leica's filters to be supplied. I remember more than one forum member trying to work out profiles and work-arounds to deal with the problem and all that could not have happen within four weeks of the camera's release. I don't have a diary timetable, but I think there are others who might. I also remember over a thirty-year association with Leica being constantly told that any problems with Leica cameras and lenses were mine individually and that no one else had the same experiences. Only when the internet and forums like this one allowed communication among people who don't know each other but share information with each other did it become clear that such experiences were widespread. If I am insane, Leica has driven me there. But I haven't made that admission nor the accusation.

 

By the way, I wasn't trying to cast aspersion on any beta-testers. Rather I was wondering aloud if the choice of beta-testers in some way indicated the market Leica was seeking as it seems like they are trying very hard to eshew photojournalists.

 

I do believe that pressure from consumer groups does have an effect. And I know that I would rather forget the past, not argue about faulty memory, and have an M9 with which I can work.

 

 

Joe

Joe Englander Photography

[charlesphoto99]

So which full frame digital rangefinder will you be switching to?

[UliWer]

...

 

I do think Leica owes M9 users (and potential purchasers) an explanation and at least an estimated timeframe for fixing the problem.

 

...

 

Yes, I support your position.

 

Though, once again, the red-edge-problem, we are talking about here is not one of the M9 alone, but as well or bad one for the M8. All M8 users, who make photos with wide angle lenses have lived with it for years without taking notice of it.

 

This does not reduce the problem, but this could show how important it is.

 

I don't know nothing about timeframes etc. for a solution. All I know is, that many different sources who are much closer to Leica than I am, have told in this forum that a solution is ahead. In the German forum it was mentioned that beta-testing of the new firmware is going on for several weeks now, and that there were several hundred of exposures which did not show the issue of red-edges at all.

 

I bought the 3.8/18-Elmar in July last year, and it is regularly showing the issue. So I am waiting for a remedy longer as any M9 user. I am still confident, that I won't have to wait long any more. (Though this is the last time that I write, that I am confident - everything else is up to Leica now).

[thrice]

I am almost certain they knew about the red edge problem before the M9 was released.

 

Long before I got my M9 I read Dave Farkas' blog posting about the camera. I noticed this shot with the 35cron asph. I e-mailed Sean Reid about it but he said he had not yet tested a 35/2 asph on the M9.

[Alnitak]

I am almost certain they knew about the red edge problem before the M9 was released.

 

Long before I got my M9 I read Dave Farkas' blog posting about the camera. I noticed this shot with the 35cron asph. I e-mailed Sean Reid about it but he said he had not yet tested a 35/2 asph on the M9.

 

Interesting. I read that article several times and never noticed that bit of red on that picture. To me that highlights exactly how this could been missed. I would bet that 95% of the people who saw that picture didn't notice that either.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

Interesting. I read that article several times and never noticed that bit of red on that picture. To me that highlights exactly how this could been missed. I would bet that 95% of the people who saw that picture didn't notice that either.

 

Jeff

 

I would think that long before the camera is handed over to beta testers, technicians would have to shoot test targets with each lens and carefully measure the results - for evenness, color, resolution, etc. How else could they calibrate the firmware for vignetting and color correction?

 

So it wouldn't be a question of noticing it. But simply a matter of measuring it.