rvaubel Posted December 17, 2006 Share #21 Posted December 17, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Rex, Here is a photo of the filters that I have. These were the only part numbers from B+W that I found in the 486 filters, except for the difference of slim with no front filter, or the silver mount variation. I did not find any specification for MRC or no MRC. Do you know for sure if these are or are not MRC and on which side? Ray Ray I searched for B+W and MRC and it looks like their online literature indicates it is not available with a MRC coating. But I could have sworn that it was. At least some people on the net think that they have filters coated on at least one side. But I don't know about that All I know is the Heliopan filters can be purchased coated. And it is an incrediable tough coating to boot. As the the IR properties, they look very similar to the 486. The sensitivity graphs look about the same. Jorge has been using them on his M8 and he says that it solves the magenta problem completely. I'll shoot some test tommorrow showing direct comparisons between coated and uncoated filters. When you see the results, you will wonder you anyone would ever use anything but a coated filter. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 17, 2006 Posted December 17, 2006 Hi rvaubel, Take a look here New M8 Not good news... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
atufte Posted December 17, 2006 Share #22 Posted December 17, 2006 As far as I know from the B+W handbook the 486 is not an MRC filter. Here is the link: Schneider Optics My B+W 486 is MRC, its engraved on the filter "B+W 52 486 UV IR CUT MRC" so maybe there are two versions...? Best Regards Alexander Tufte http://www.alexandertufte.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 17, 2006 Share #23 Posted December 17, 2006 Mine were with any of my lenses. 28 Cron (coded), 35 Lux (coded), 50 Lux (coded), 75 Cron (black pen coded), 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar (black pen coded) - Lens detection enabled B+W 486 UV/IR cut filters I always use a lens hood. If the light source is bright and within the frame, these filters flared. Ray-- You've obviously done it right, but somebody had to ask. Thanks for taking the trouble to answer. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted December 17, 2006 Share #24 Posted December 17, 2006 My B+W 486 is MRC, its engraved on the filter "B+W 52 486 UV IR CUT MRC" somaybe there are two versions...? Best Regards Alexander Tufte www.alexandertufte.com Alexander Well its reasurring that B+W has 486's that are AR coated. Now the next question is, are they coated on the side facing the lens? I know this sounds like a stupid question but some people on the net think that 1/2 or coated on one side and the other half on the other side. They should be coated on both sides but.... Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted December 17, 2006 Share #25 Posted December 17, 2006 Do I recall correctly that there was someone on the forum who tried the Heliopan IR-Cut alongside the B+W IR-Cut and found that the B+W did a better job of removing the magenta cast? Looks as if this issue grows more and more complicated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted December 17, 2006 Share #26 Posted December 17, 2006 Do I recall correctly that there was someone on the forum who tried the Heliopan IR-Cut alongside the B+W IR-Cut and found that the B+W did a better job of removing the magenta cast? Looks as if this issue grows more and more complicated. I suggested that a comparison be made as I have a coated Heliopan but No M8. Jorge (rangefinder forum) was getting good results so I never pushed the issue. The sensitivity graphs looked about the same so I figured it not identical at least a little profiling would be all that was required. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted December 17, 2006 Share #27 Posted December 17, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) The 486 filters Leica sent me to test are all marked MRC. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khun_k Posted December 17, 2006 Share #28 Posted December 17, 2006 Just back from a mamoth day of shooting.. My new M8 (1.09) has green blobs at high iso, will upload images later. Also had two lockups, one of which happened after 25 shots the other after another 50. Mine is still firmware 1.06 and ran thru over 1,100 pictures so far with no sign of the problems mentioned here. However, the extremely highlight will produce strips of line over shadow area and the highlight burnt out easier than my P45 which supposed to be quite similar. Otherwise, the camera is just performing beautifully. See the pictures in the gallery. K Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted December 17, 2006 Share #29 Posted December 17, 2006 Mine is still firmware 1.06 and ran thru over 1,100 pictures so far with no sign of the problems mentioned here. However, the extremely highlight will produce strips of line over shadow area and the highlight burnt out easier than my P45 which supposed to be quite similar. Otherwise, the camera is just performing beautifully. See the pictures in the gallery. M8 Test Run - a photoset on Flickr K I think that every once and a while, we need to calm down about M8 faults and look at Mr K's portfolio. In the real world, the M8 performs admirally. Most of the complaints envolve shock testing situations, which Leica should pass, but for the vast majority of situations the camera as is today works fine. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted December 17, 2006 Share #30 Posted December 17, 2006 Rex, Take a look at the photos which I just posted in my Summary thread. I do NOT think that these are unrealistic situations to expect that it performs in. It is showing bad flare with the filters and obvious vertical banding in the same spot, which seems to be occurring in the same spot on the other 1.09 cameras. Best, Ray P.S.: My filters are shown in the photo that I posted in this thread, but are not marked MRC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted December 17, 2006 Share #31 Posted December 17, 2006 they look like reflections and flare to me maybe these things need hoods Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted December 17, 2006 Share #32 Posted December 17, 2006 Riley, I always use the hood, however that only helps for light coming in at an angle which a hood could block. Light sources in front of these filters are causing flare, which is not present when the filter is removed. This is a "catch 22". You need the filter to avoid the IR issue, but it now generates flare. Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted December 17, 2006 Share #33 Posted December 17, 2006 Ray i see that now that i have completely read the post i wish i could think of a fix for this but you know, i get instances of flare in available light shots with my LC1 its not uncommon either... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted December 17, 2006 Share #34 Posted December 17, 2006 We need to wait to see if the Leica branded filters flare but the real issue to my mind is that vertical band... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevenrk Posted December 17, 2006 Share #35 Posted December 17, 2006 Do I recall correctly that there was someone on the forum who tried the Heliopan IR-Cut alongside the B+W IR-Cut and found that the B+W did a better job of removing the magenta cast? Looks as if this issue grows more and more complicated. Yes, you recall correctly. There was discussion of how the filters cut slightly different parts of the IR band, with the Heliopan designed to only cut a part of IR. I also posted some test shots taken with/without the Heliopan digital that confirmed that the filter reduces but does not eliminate the issue (and was not designed to as the BW is). It's also for this reason that the Heliopan's reflection from an angle is quite a bit less pronounced (much less bright red as it is cutting less of the IR spectrum) than the BW's. Here is one of those shots I had posted showing the M8 with the Leica 28 and the H digital filter shot with a stobe. The strap is black. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/11480-new-m8-not-good-news/?do=findComment&comment=119982'>More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted December 17, 2006 Share #36 Posted December 17, 2006 Yes, you recall correctly. There was discussion of how the filters cut slightly different parts of the IR band, with the Heliopan designed to only cut a part of IR. I also posted some test shots taken with/without the Heliopan digital that confirmed that the filter reduces but does not eliminate the issue (and was not designed to as the BW is). It's also for this reason that the Heliopan's reflection from an angle is quite a bit less pronounced (much less bright red as it is cutting less of the IR spectrum) than the BW's. Here is one of those shots I had posted showing the M8 with the Leica 28 and the H digital filter shot with a stobe. The strap is black. So it appears that the Heliopan is less effective at removing the IR contamination. Well Jorge's experience has been satisfactory. But really, a comprehensive review of possible filters should be conducted. I have some hope for an absorbtive solution like the B+W 496. But that may not come coated. My take on the filter thing is the solution is out there, but has not been found. The multicoating issue needs to be addressed and everything will be all right on that front. These are not huge problems. The sensor thing has to be solved and will be. I must say that it would be nice if Leica would solve these problems before releasing the camera. I figure that if the would even READ this forum they could find out a lot more about the products shortcomings than they are finding out from their engineers. I really want this product to succeed for the sake of digital rangefinders in general. With Epson's non-support of the RD1, there isn't any other game in town for M lens users. hope springith eternal Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted December 17, 2006 Share #37 Posted December 17, 2006 Hey can we see the full frame to see where these things are happening? Bit meaningless otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted December 17, 2006 Share #38 Posted December 17, 2006 My 1.09 is also flaring with ghost images with the filters. Now this is going to be a problem if we have to use filters to avoid IR issues. Lower light shooting with light sources in the photo still don't work. This used to be the strong point of the M. I am using B+W 486 filters. In a phone conversation with Jorge Torralba today, he is not seeing the flaring from the filters. However, is using the Heliopan IR cut filter. This concerns me as Leica is supposedly using the B+W filter, so I would assume that Phase One is working on a camera profile with the B+W filter. I am waiting on the Heliopan filter to try myself, but the files which Jorge had did not flare where mine with the B+W 486 filters did under the same conditions. Ray Ray I am also using the Heliopan filter and have not seen any of the ghosting issues described here. Woody Spedden Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted December 17, 2006 Share #39 Posted December 17, 2006 My Canon 85/1.2 does the same thing. Chandeliers play havoic with it and inverted hot points appear at the bottom of the image just like your example. I'm pretty sure it is caused by using a filter in certain conditions. Marc--my 85 1.2L did as well, but only when I had a BW UV filter on it. When it's filter-less, I don't see those issues with the 85 (though I do see a lot of birefringeance--purple and green edging in high-contrast light). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchell Posted December 17, 2006 Share #40 Posted December 17, 2006 I don't feel quite right if I don't ask a dumb question everyday: What's MRC mean? Thanks, Mitchell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.