lars_bergquist Posted March 17, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 17, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Considering the emotionalist responses poured out in a thread close to you, I thought I should make the following remarks: (a) There are two questions that should be kept distinct from each other: One, how much rededge is there? And two, how important is this in practice, given natural subjects under natural lighting? I will address the first question first. ( Any attempt to ascertain rededge per se will have to be done under controlled conditions. The target should be even and neutral white, lighted evenly (a large piece of matte white board lighted by bounce flash will do), manually white balanced and exposed to give a slightly 'overcast' light grey. Compensation of 1 1/3 to 2 f-stops is indicated. The test should be done at a realistic working aperture, say, stopped down two stops. This is to cut out a bit of plain brightness fall-off ('vignetting') that might otherwise confound the issue. If you are testing several lenses, test them all at the same aperture. © If you see some rededge, don't get hysterical. The test above is a 'breaking test'. Rededge is like some other defects like linear distortion and vignetting, that we learn to live with. Some people are less, some are more sensitive to them. Overreaction, like nut allergy, is not good; and while allergies are physiological, photographic reactions are psychological, and partly controllable. (There are people who are uncontrollably fearful of bacteria too, and are forever washing themselves.) Under shifting and locally variable lighting (including cast reflexes from coloured objects) not even a snowscape is completely neutrally lighted. Also, a natural subject with both self-colour and detail is much MUCH more robust than the test setup above, which was deliberately engineered to show the phenomenon strongly. Only practical, realistic photography -- preferably not done expressly for test purposes -- can show you what you get and what you can live with. Evaluation should also be done in a relaxed state of mind. Beware of neurotic 'washing obsessions' as mentioned above. Note that I have not issued one single fatwa, either against any single lens or against Leica Camera. This is because every man Jack or woman Jane of you will have to do these tests, and draw your own conclusions. I am doing them myself. And remember, it is the practical tests that are decisive. Also, I have a pretty violent allergy against fatwas. The unwashed old man from the Age of the Quick And Dirty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 17, 2010 Posted March 17, 2010 Hi lars_bergquist, Take a look here A Sane Attitude to Rededge. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Maximus Posted March 17, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 17, 2010 Only a Leica owner could be so philosophical regarding a fundamental flaw with such an expensive camera. It never ceases to amaze me. Leica are very lucky to have such tolerant customers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted March 17, 2010 Share #3 Posted March 17, 2010 Not tolerant - realistic. There are ALWAYS compromises with these sorts of optics. I'm with Lars here. If I compare the distortions that I get on my Canon 16-35 compared with the results from the Zeiss 18 / Leica 21 / Leica 28, I'll accept the need to post-process the red-edge anyday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 17, 2010 Share #4 Posted March 17, 2010 Only a Leica owner could be so philosophical regarding a fundamental flaw with such an expensive camera. It never ceases to amaze me. Leica are very lucky to have such tolerant customers. I could so easily draw up a list of the problems I have which are with equipment from other manufacturers. BUT we don't live in a perfect world and life is full of compromises. Lars sets out a pragmatic approach which many of us have to take in order to take any photographs at all (with any sort of equipment). I would suggest that all manufacturers are currently suffering from over exacting customers who expect absolute perfection when it is not (and probably never will be) available. As for red edges being a 'fundamental flaw', well if it really is to you, then the solution is to use another manufacturer's camera equipment, but be warned there will be many other 'fundamental flaws' just waiting to be found there too;). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 17, 2010 Share #5 Posted March 17, 2010 Only a Leica owner could be so philosophical regarding a fundamental flaw with such an expensive camera. It never ceases to amaze me. Leica are very lucky to have such tolerant customers. I think there are some Leica customers who see it as a fundamental flaw considering the price they paid. But I don't see it as a fundamental flaw because a) the camera wasn't bought because it was expensive, it was bought because of what it can do, and if you have ever owned any other camera system the blunders that affect lens and body quality are as nothing compared to 'red edge'. I would rather use a sharp fast lens that requires a software tweak to remove red edge than a soft slow lens that doesn't. Steve P.S. Paul, you beat me to it, I think I just echoed everything you said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted March 17, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 17, 2010 Not tolerant - realistic. There are ALWAYS compromises with these sorts of optics. I'm with Lars here. If I compare the distortions that I get on my Canon 16-35 compared with the results from the Zeiss 18 / Leica 21 / Leica 28, I'll accept the need to post-process the red-edge anyday. The Canon 16-35 is a mass produced lens with autofocus at a fraction of Leica cost. I'd be amazed if it didn't have flaws. In fact I know it does because I've owned the Mk I version and still own the Mark II. That's not the same thing as a £6,000 camera displaying clearly visible colour shift with a number of Leica's own lenses that force people to undertake various corrective procedures, none of which totally remove the problem. It's just not good enough. As an M9 user with just 3 lenses - 28mm, 35mm and 50mm all 'Crons - I'd love to venture into a wider angle world. But I will not do so until this problem is fixed properly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_thomsen Posted March 17, 2010 Share #7 Posted March 17, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) i don't care about the red prob at all - iam shooting B/W hihihihi cheers andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_torben Posted March 17, 2010 Share #8 Posted March 17, 2010 only a leica owner could be so philosophical regarding a fundamental flaw with such an expensive camera. It never ceases to amaze me. Leica are very lucky to have such tolerant customers. +1111111111 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 17, 2010 Share #9 Posted March 17, 2010 Not up to your usual standard of rationality, Lars. Architects don't take kindly to the edges of their buildings (or the skies behind them) changing color. They also aren't especially interested in paying me extra for the time it takes me to correct those color shifts, so I can't bill for it. I have to eat the expense (as counted in extra work hours). ("Sorry, I shoot with a Leica - so you have to pay for an extra hour's work to use my shots.") As I demonstrated in one of those threads that may or may not be "emotionalist" - the red edge is far too easy to see in a great many shots that are not simple white-wall tests - and they are an embarassment (repeat, an embarassment) to show to clients or potential clients. I've spent the past 9 years pushing Leica Ms to their limits to show they are competent professional tools and not just toys for rich ama-choors. My images have helped sell the darn things on more than one Leica Day. So being embarrassed professionally by Leica image quality is a new experience - and not a pleasant one. If someone pays for the roof over their head and the food in the larder with their Leicas, I'm interested in hearing their defence of the red edges. Otherwise, "use another manufacturer's camera equipment" sounds an awful lot like "Well, then let them eat cake." 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/115618-a-sane-attitude-to-rededge/?do=findComment&comment=1262684'>More sharing options...
Guest imported_torben Posted March 17, 2010 Share #10 Posted March 17, 2010 Not tolerant - realistic. There are ALWAYS compromises with these sorts of optics. I'm with Lars here. If I compare the distortions that I get on my Canon 16-35 compared with the results from the Zeiss 18 / Leica 21 / Leica 28, I'll accept the need to post-process the red-edge anyday. Fruit salad!! (apples and oranges): Zoom vs. fixed, price vs. exorbitant prices!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted March 17, 2010 Share #11 Posted March 17, 2010 Maximus, you have apparently plunked down your big dollars for an M9. Congratulations! May I now suggest you go forth and use it to blazes with any of the lenses you have. They will all "eat the canon whatever" that you mentioned, for breakfast. Enjoy and exploit what you have. It's graet (not perfect) gear. I know, because I have an M9 + (I think) 7 lenses. Red edges? Well I have just returned from shooting 6000 images in Antarctyica and environs and I must confess I have not been troubled by red edges, across all lenses. I will now go and look more closely. Maybe they are there! The point is, they aren't spoiling anything. Expecting perfection because of the price is not realistic. Work that one out. It's not too difficult. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_torben Posted March 17, 2010 Share #12 Posted March 17, 2010 Re :"it was bought because of what it can do" Yeah, and we all expercted that a 7 kUSD camera (body only) of 2009 vintage could produce colour pictures! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted March 17, 2010 Share #13 Posted March 17, 2010 Maximus, you have apparently plunked down your big dollars for an M9. Congratulations! May I now suggest you go forth and use it to blazes with any of the lenses you have. They will all "eat the canon whatever" that you mentioned, for breakfast. Enjoy and exploit what you have. It's graet (not perfect) gear. I know, because I have an M9 + (I think) 7 lenses. Red edges? Well I have just returned from shooting 6000 images in Antarctyica and environs and I must confess I have not been troubled by red edges, across all lenses. I will now go and look more closely. Maybe they are there! The point is, they aren't spoiling anything. Expecting perfection because of the price is not realistic. Work that one out. It's not too difficult. Eri, I do use and love my M9. I have no problems with it at all. Everything works exactly as it should and I am delighted with its performance. I have a 1Ds MkIII and a ton of Canon L lenses that prove just how good the M9 is. You seem to be confusing me for someone who is dissatisfied with his M9. I am not. However, I would like to go wider, but the level of performance I currently enjoy is not available to me should I do so. Now, I can live with that. It's not the end of the world. But not only is it not perfect, it's really quite unacceptable, especially for people like adan above. I stand by my original post "Only a Leica owner could be so philosophical regarding a fundamental flaw with such an expensive camera. It never ceases to amaze me. Leica are very lucky to have such tolerant customers". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_torben Posted March 17, 2010 Share #14 Posted March 17, 2010 But not only is it not perfect, it's really quite unacceptable, especially for people like adan above. I stand by my original post "Only a Leica owner could be so philosophical regarding a fundamental flaw with such an expensive camera. It never ceases to amaze me. Leica are very lucky to have such tolerant customers". Am behind you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 17, 2010 Share #15 Posted March 17, 2010 Well, nobody believed Leica that there were indeed great challenges involved in producing a digital rangefinder and two years ago it was still deemed impossible to go full-frame. I can understand annoyance on Andy's part, but if this is the best a dedicated sensor can do it is the best technology allows at this point of time. As it is basically a minor inconvenienence, the images are of superior quality apart from this and as it can be corrected in post in the cases that it appears -ask yourself: would you rather have Leica not bring out the M9 for this reason? I think Lars is quite right to explore the limitations and possibilities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted March 17, 2010 Share #16 Posted March 17, 2010 How is the rangefinder relevant to this issue? Surely this is a sensor/lens issue and would therefore exist if the M9 was an SLR? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 17, 2010 Share #17 Posted March 17, 2010 How is the rangefinder relevant to this issue? Surely this is a sensor/lens issue and would therefore exist if the M9 was an SLR? Because of the much longer flange distance of SLRs there would not be any issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 17, 2010 Share #18 Posted March 17, 2010 There will always be some users (like Adan) who hit genuine problems with particular photographic requirements. I could detail some problems that I have had with various cameras and lenses. The point that I was trying to make (based upon what Lars was saying) is that there is a substantial difference between a real life problem (ie one which has to be corrected because it has a final NOTICEABLE effect on the resulting image, and one which may well be irrelevant in many, many cases. And one problem might well fit into both categories. It is though, difficult to sift through the outraged complaints and apparent indifferent acceptance to determine just how significant this problem of red edge actually is. Adan's post clearly indicates that for architectural and similar work there are drawbacks which whilst they may be correctable, are time consuming and will slow up workflow - a very useful and objective post. However, I don't really find the complaints that the problem shouldn't even exist to be either constructive or relevant (as jaapv points out Leica have always said the FF RF is problematic). They do not 'quantify' the problem in any objective way, nor do they offer any evidence as to whether red edge is a visible problem in many images. Thanks for you post Adan, I'd like to see more in that vein. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viooh Posted March 17, 2010 Share #19 Posted March 17, 2010 Using Cornerfix adds only a small step to the RAW workflow. I don't give a ... whether this is considered acceptable by users who have spent lots of money on a M9, as long as there is a sensible way for me to exploit the full capacity of my M equipment in the digital world. Even considering the additional Cornerfix step in the workflow, I still have less need for post processing, compared with whatever other digital gear I've ever been using. However, the fact that the sensor seems to attract dust more than other camera's sensors (and the absence of some ultrasonic self cleanig device) is much more of a problem for me than the red corner issue - spotting takes much more time than applying Cornerfix! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 17, 2010 Share #20 Posted March 17, 2010 How is the rangefinder relevant to this issue? Surely this is a sensor/lens issue and would therefore exist if the M9 was an SLR? No- it is a problem of lenses having an acute exit angle in a rangefinder camera which SLR lenses do not have, because the distance to the sensor is far larger as Michael points out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.