Leica news: LFI #1/2007

[Riley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Indeed, when you think about it, it is possible to re-connect the recent problems with Leica cameras to first/second/or third string component suppliers.

 

So now we have a fairly lucid explanation of the process by which the M8 sensor issue got by, and then there is also the D2 sensor problem.

 

Above all else though, Leica continue to support their products be they in warranty or not. That is a very honourable position to take, and by no means follows the status quo.

[carstenw]

Although I agree with Leica regarding the M8's IR sensitivity and their filter solution, I must mention that although the R-D1 has its own problems, unacceptable internal reflections is not one of them. Please enlighten me if I'm mistaken.

 

-Carlos

 

Internal reflection in the infrared and AA sensor filters cause the little ghost triplets you sometimes see in the corners of wide-angle images made with this camera. The M8 doesn't have that, although it has a smaller crop factor, thanks to the missing AA filter, and the very thin IR filter. There were some images demonstrating this problem on this forum recently.

[carstenw]

Thanks Marcel for the link. And thanks to Carsten for giving a preview of the M8 article. I just bought my first LFI a couple of days ago, and it seems to me that the magazine is a very interesting read. I'll subscribe by old fashioned paper mail..

 

Carsten, do you think that when you get your camera back, you will ever find the time to read all the old issues?

 

Cheers, Peter

 

I am reading ahead already The last few years of issues are excellent, and well worth digging up. Before about 2003 they change both format and content, and I don't read all the articles, although there are still many excellent articles, especially surrounding the cameras and lenses as they are introduced. Before 1997 I haven't gotten to yet, but they are still more esoteric, and I am more or less only interested in them for the lens and camera articles, and a few photographer profiles. I read the German issues, btw, as practice.

 

To answer some other questions: my mother is Danish and my father English, but although I was born in Scotland and have a British passport, I grew up in Denmark speaking Danish. I learned English very easily later, and when I was 16, moved to Canada, where I stayed the next 19 years, and gained a dual citizenship. 5 years ago I moved to Berlin, where I have learned German and live now. My German reading comprehension is streets ahead of my spoken German, but even that is getting good enough that if I don't have to say much, people don't realise I am not German. I am pretty decent at translating from German to English, but not perfect. I read German at about half the speed I read English. Danish at this point is somewhere in between the two. I have been gone for too long. I also speak a decent amount of French, having lived and worked in Québec, but am very rusty at the moment. I like learning languages, although I am a graphics programmer by trade. One of my life ambitions is to learn five languages fluently before I die.

[marknorton]

Language is certainly a case of use it or lose it, but growing up with two languages must be fantastic. I wish I spoke better Italian, Italy is my favourite place to visit.

[Guest malland]

From what people have written earlier in this thread there is some fairly strong praise for LFI. My experience with this magazine is from when I was a subscriber for a few years around 1989-1992: at that time the articles were extremely shallow and not very interesting. I remember Carl Weese stating "LFI speaks babytalk", which was right on target. You mean that they've now grown up?

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[ho_co]

The next point: 8-bit vs. 16-bit. When they heard of this, they managed to get ahold of an early test M8 without this encoding (with resultant slow write-out and 20MB files), and compared image quality of the two M8s. They did a series of photographs of high-key subjects, since the bright areas "suffer" most from this encoding. They were unable to see any difference with the eye, by analysis, or in prints.

Carsten--

My LFI arrives usually 4 wks after it reaches the market in Germany, so I would like a little more info if possible:

 

As you said, the IR issues are behind us in the sense that we were already aware of the thinking behind both causes and solution.

 

So that leaves the 8- vs 16-bit issue. Does the magazine say anything about the thinking on this? You say LFI compared the 8- and the 16-bit images and found both equal, and the 8-bit file-writing faster. So the 8-bit software was already in the camera when they went back to compare the 16-bit software.

 

Certainly that doesn't mean someone had decided to go to an 8-bit DNG without telling anyone?

 

In other words, for LFI to confirm that the M8 writes luscious files is nice, but am I the only one who would like more info on how the decision came to be made in the first place? No other company has 8-bit DNG's, so someone must have had to sell the idea to Leica. Any word on how that came about? Seems to me like a major case of 'thinking outside the box,' and both whoever did it and whoever accepted the idea should be named and congratulated.

 

(I don't understand the math and electronics as explained in that delightfully contested and detested 8- vs 16-bit DNG forum thread, so maybe for those who do, the issue is already as clear and passe as the IR discussions?)

 

Just curious if there's more detail in the article. Thanks!

 

--HC

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HC, I expect it was one of those decisions made by weighing up the pros and cons of each approach - a trade off between ultimate data accuracy and the volume of data you have to store and move around. The excellent BJP review shows the dynamic range for the camera and suggests to me any errors will likely be masked by the noise.

 

That said, I would still like an option to write 16 bit data to the card, all depends on how successful the in-camera processing is at correcting the red vignetting.

 

BTW, it is annoying that LFI is so slow in making it out of country. It takes longer than I would like to the UK, too.

[ho_co]

I remember Carl Weese stating "LFI speaks babytalk", which was right on target. You mean that they've no grown up?

As Carsten said, the magazine is carefully written. When there are flaws with a Leica product, LFI acknowledges the fact but finds a way to put it into context. The magazine is honest and open, but definitely pro-Leica.You won't find ads for a 1DsMkII in LFI!

 

LFI 3/2006 carried what I think was a breakthrough article derived from a Leica-internal presentation on depth of field by Peter Karbe, Director of Lens Development, approaching the topic from a totally different direction from usual. The point was that since there are so many different size sensors, we need to recognize that lens comparisons should be made not only in terms of focal length equivalence, but also in terms of depth of field equivalence. For example, the D-Lux 2's 6.3-25.2 mm, f/2.8-4.9 lens becomes the 35mm equivalent of a 35-135 mm, f/16-26 lens. Really a very interesting rethinking of a common topic.

 

I especially enjoyed the summary, apparently added by the LFI author, Olaf Stefanus, saying that if one is using 35mm Leica equipment and not using depth of field as a creative tool, one is not using the lenses to their full potential.

 

Yes, I would say they've now grown up!

 

--HC

[ho_co]

The excellent BJP review shows the dynamic range for the camera and suggests to me any errors will likely be masked by the noise.

I don't think I've ever seen a copy of BJP on sale in the US, and hesitate to subscribe though I realize it's an excellent magazine. Sometimes I really would like to get hold of a single issue, though--such as the one containing the M8 review.

 

I expect it was one of those decisions made by weighing up the pros and cons of each approach - a trade off between ultimate data accuracy and the volume of data you have to store and move around.

I understand that, but my question goes back to the recognition needed in order to get that far: Who said, "Hey, guys, do you suppose we could condense the data to 8 bits to get a faster write, but still keep the quality?" Did someone wake up in the middle of the night with the idea? Or did it come out of a committee of consenting adults?

 

--HC

[marknorton]

Who can tell, but I doubt there was a Eureka moment because, other things being equal, you wouldn't do it. It's a necessary evil, especially from a marketing standpoint.

 

The fact that LFI had access to a camera without it suggests it was not in there from the outset but was added later for whatever reasons but all to do with cost, storage capacity, write speed, power consumption. We know, for example, that there was a late push to improve battery life which presumably included things like the display and camera sleep options which might not have been in there at the beginning.

 

This supports the idea that the camera originally was 16 bit as we would understand it to be and marketing got it into their brains that it was 16 bit. When the engineers made their change to 8 bit, marketing either didn't get told or couldn't stomach calling it 8 bit and thought that they could get away with calling it 16 bit.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I understand that, but my question goes back to the recognition needed in order to get that far: Who said, "Hey, guys, do you suppose we could condense the data to 8 bits to get a faster write, but still keep the quality?" Did someone wake up in the middle of the night with the idea? Or did it come out of a committee of consenting adults?

 

It's not a brand-new idea, but has been practiced in speed-challenged image transmission before. And it roughly matches gamma correction. So I'd bet a committee could remember it and put it on the list of options to be evaluated.

 

Who can tell, but I doubt there was a Eureka moment because, other things being equal, you wouldn't do it. It's a necessary evil, especially from a marketing standpoint.

 

The fact that LFI had access to a camera without it suggests it was not in there from the outset but was added later for whatever reasons but all to do with cost, storage capacity, write speed, power consumption.

 

This supports the idea that the camera originally was 16 bit as we would understand it to be and marketing got it into their brains that it was 16 bit. When the engineers made their change to 8 bit, marketing either didn't get told or couldn't stomach calling it 8 bit and thought that they could get away with calling it 16 bit.

 

Kinda sad. All it would have taken is the word change from "16bit resolution" to "16bit depth" or '16bit dynamic range" and the M8 would be back within normal bounds of marketing enthusiasm. But in its overall impact, it's an excellent compromise, I think. Now to get the switch so that in rare cases, you can make the old style files. Since the critical Bayer image interpolation and radial image corrections occur before this transformation, I believe it will be possible.

 

scott

[scott kirkpatrick]

In the history which they give of the evolution of the IR filter design, what was the reason not to explore combining an IR-cut layer with a thinned photometric absorbtive filter? This has been done by other manufacturers. Was it simply never on the table or considered and discarded for Leica-specific reasons?

 

scott

[Riley]

In the history which they give of the evolution of the IR filter design, what was the reason not to explore combining an IR-cut layer with a thinned photometric absorbtive filter? This has been done by other manufacturers. Was it simply never on the table or considered and discarded for Leica-specific reasons?

 

scott

 

thats the fly on the wall moment of truth i would like to hear too

[lct]

...the IR issues are behind us in the sense that we were already aware of the thinking behind both causes and solution...

Perhaps i missed something but i'm still wondering why Leica did not choose an IR-cut coating over a thin absorptive filter as Scott Kirpatrick suggested. Any idea folks?

[lct]

Oops i did not see your post above, Scott, sorry.

BTW you referred to possible internal reflections caused by the IR-cut coating if i remember well. Could you please elaborate on this point or show me a link where you explained this if you don't mind?

[Riley]

Perhaps i missed something but i'm still wondering why Leica did not choose an IR-cut coating over a thin absorptive filter as Scott Kirpatrick suggested. Any idea folks?

 

i think we have been through this many times now

because of the short register of M lenses

and the fact that because we are not talking about an SLR ( a dSLR having a longer register is less troubled)

the light path has a tendency to be less than straight

 

any anti IR glass layer above the sensor will therefore reflect, and because the path is variously less than straight this will cause aberations of light, and a softness of the image

 

you must have anti IR

you must keep the short register for M lenses,

you need to keep images sharp for Leica quality

so you need to provide anti IR somewhere,

the only place left is before the glass

[lct]

Thank you Riley.

You have certainly discussed this many times but i have not followed all those discussions sorry and i don't see why the fact that IRs may be reflected by a coating in any angle would pose problem. Again sorry if this has been solved previously.

Do you agree with Riley, Scott?

[mwilliamsphotography]

Thank you Riley. That needs to be repeated from time to time here.

 

This isn't the only camera facing these types of challenges. Some of the MF digital backs are using micro-lens sensors and there are image issues with them also.

 

I just completed processing a job where I shot 250 M8 images in the worst case scenario for this camera ... a wedding party consisting of Groomsmen wearing black synthetic blend tuxedos and deep maroon vests, and all the Bridesmaids wearing black satin dresses. I used IR cut filters, and experienced no color issues at all.

 

In fact, I also shot with a 5D and a 1DsMKII in the same conditions, same light and in some cases my second shooter using the same Canon DSLRs did so at the same time of the same subject. In processing, the Leica shots took no longer to correct, and often resulted in much more natural looking prints.

 

I think there have been to many examples of poor processing and/or just showing problems ... and not enough sucessful images. That's why I posted the thread of Irakly's work done recently while teaching a seminar in Russia.

[carstenw]

From what people have written earlier in this thread there is some fairly strong praise for LFI. My experience with this magazine is from when I was a subscriber for a few years around 1989-1992: at that time the articles were extremely shallow and not very interesting. I remember Carl Weese stating "LFI speaks babytalk", which was right on target. You mean that they've now grown up?

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

 

I reall enjoy the magazine in recent years. Very technical but well-written, and they don't only cover technical aspects, but usually include articles on various photographers. One thing I really like about LFI is the lack of this cover-everything attitude which is so prevalent with photo magazines. They just cover Leica, and really focus on M and R, and they do it well. There is a series of articles in 2006, for example, on all the current M lenses, which I presume they did knowing that the M8 was coming. I would highly recommend that you buy an issue and re-evaluate it. As I said, from about 1997 it is very good, and from 2003 it is excellent, IMO. Note that I cannot speak for the English edition, since I read the German one. I presume that if it isn't done by an English translator, that the translation is competent, but a little funny from time to time. German translates reasonably well to English, meaning-wise.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[carstenw]

Language is certainly a case of use it or lose it, but growing up with two languages must be fantastic. I wish I spoke better Italian, Italy is my favourite place to visit.

 

Italian will probably be my next language. There are several Italians at work, and I love the language and the country.