A Sane Attitude to Rededge

[jaques]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

why can't leica build cornerfix into the firmware of the camera itself? or at least into Light Room as a plug in or whatever. They could pay the cornerfix folks obviously for their great work.

[jaapv]

The thought had occurred to me as well, but more like Adobe.

[mjh]

why can't leica build cornerfix into the firmware of the camera itself?

One could say that CornerFix replicates what the cameras does internally, only in a stand-alone application. Now this is a simplification and doesn’t do justice to Sandy’s work, but the point is that CornerFix isn’t doing anything magical that the camera couldn’t do – only CornerFix doesn’t rely on lens codes which was its raison d'être. CornerFix relies on data supplied by the user instead. To get the quality of the correction that CornerFix provides, but in-camera, you would need to create a lot of lens profiles at different settings, load the profiles into the firmware in some way (and hopefully there will be flash memory available to store these profiles), and let the camera decide which profile to use. But choosing the right profile automatically might not be easy and it might actually be the crux of the matter.

[mhoersch]

As a frequent reader and occasional contributor to this forum I find that many discussions about more or less serious flaws of Leica products seem to run along the same lines. Which is not surprising, in my opinion, because of what Leica stood for in the analogue days: quality without compromise, high prices, and practically indefinite life time.

 

Now, when an M8 for 4.200 Euros needs IR Cut filters, or an M9 for 5.500 Euros needs Cornerfix to produce images that a professional like Adan is not embarrassed to show his clients, what can buyers of these cameras do?

 

If it was a 300 Euro P&S they'd probably return it to the dealer immediately, no tears shed, no regrets, and buy something else. With a camera of t h a t price and a nice collection of hideously expensive lenses at home this is not really an option, is it?

 

So, what do we read in the forum?

 

Some people share their frustration and their concern for Leica's future - and usually get the advice to stop whining and go out and shoot some pictures.

 

Other people invariably claim there is no problem at all, or if there is, that it's hardly noticeable in real life, and cameras from other brands do have problems, too - so stop whining and go out and shoot some pictures.

 

None of this, however, can conceal the fact, that Leica repeatedly started selling digital cameras with built-in flaws for premium prices that - to my knowledge - no other brand has dared to throw on the market,yet. In this respect, Leica seems to be unique. Whether Leica will succeed in the long run with this kind of marketing strategy remains to be seen. I, for one, bought my two M8s and learned my lessons, and I will never buy a new Leica product again, unless I can be pretty sure not to run into this kind of problems.

 

In the meanwhile, well, I go out and shoot some pictures. What else can we do?

[Maximus]

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.

Thank you both. I hadn't realised that this was a factor.

[jaapv]

As a frequent reader and occasional contributor to this forum I find that many discussions about more or less serious flaws of Leica products seem to run along the same lines. Which is not surprising, in my opinion, because of what Leica stood for in the analogue days: quality without compromise, high prices, and practically indefinite life time.

 

Now, when an M8 for 4.200 Euros needs IR Cut filters, or an M9 for 5.500 Euros needs Cornerfix to produce images that a professional like Adan is not embarrassed to show his clients, what can buyers of these cameras do?

 

If it was a 300 Euro P&S they'd probably return it to the dealer immediately, no tears shed, no regrets, and buy something else. With a camera of t h a t price and a nice collection of hideously expensive lenses at home this is not really an option, is it?

 

So, what do we read in the forum?

 

Some people share their frustration and their concern for Leica's future - and usually get the advice to stop whining and go out and shoot some pictures.

 

Other people invariably claim there is no problem at all, or if there is, that it's hardly noticeable in real life, and cameras from other brands do have problems, too - so stop whining and go out and shoot some pictures.

 

None of this, however, can conceal the fact, that Leica repeatedly started selling digital cameras with built-in flaws for premium prices that - to my knowledge - no other brand has dared to throw on the market,yet. In this respect, Leica seems to be unique. Whether Leica will succeed in the long run with this kind of marketing strategy remains to be seen. I, for one, bought my two M8s and learned my lessons, and I will never buy a new Leica product again, unless I can be pretty sure not to run into this kind of problems.

 

In the meanwhile, well, I go out and shoot some pictures. What else can we do?

With what camera?

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can remember when Olympus, at the time of introducing the E-1, produced white papers explaining carefully that retrofocus lenses and reduced imager sizes were required to make high quality digital cameras possible without excessive size and weight. As photographers who want it all, we have tended to forget the laws of physics sometimes.

 

Note that the excellent, red-edge-free 21 and 24 Summiluxes are extreme retrofocus designs, their rather excessive size and weight allowing an unprecedented degree of correction as well as light-gathering capacity. More conventional designs, like the CV15, the Biogons, and my ancient Canon 19/3.5, when stretched to cover the full frame and a digital imager, give results that support the old warnings, and are not pretty. Leica's approach in this firmware, to first try to make the lovliest of the classics (21's and 28's) maximally usable, makes sense to me.

 

It's not a perfect world, but the light is nice today, and I have the Summilux 21 with me...

 

scott

[AlanJW]

This is an individual decision. Does the M9 suit your needs or not? If not, you should not be using a hammer to try to cut wood. For me, the red edge is barely noticeable if at all (I am using a WATE for wide) and I am more worried about the limitations of my f/4 aperture than about red edges.

 

Why is the red edge so different than using a camera with an AA filter and having to sharpen in post? Is the inclusion of an AA filter a fundamental flaw? No, it is a considered decision by the manufacturer to compromise sharpness to eliminate moire. It is quite easy for a manufacturer to "fix" this "problem" by eliminating the AA filter. Leica did this after all, and we are mostly happy with Leica's trade off choice.

 

So, while I would hesitate to call anyone seriously worried about red edge because of particular demands of their work a whiner, for me it is an issue I can live with (and I assume Leica will continue to work on it). I for one would not have wanted them to delay introduction of the M9 until it was perfect for everyone, because we would be waiting a very long time for such perfection, which in the real world does not exist.

[Nitnaros]

Are the 21-lux and the 24-lux red-edge free?

I believe I have seen that documented differently on this forum, at least for the 21.

 

The point was made already earlier "what represents a real flaw" - something that impacts significantly IP, something you can see without pixel peeping.

 

Red-edge clearly falls into this category, in my humble opinion, particularly if every wide angle lens is "infected".

 

My current disappointment is that this was not fixed with the latest firmware.

 

It would be great for Leica to come forward and tell us "can it be fixed via firmware? will it be fixed by firmware and when?".

 

I own a fair amount of Leica gear (M7, M8, M9, R9/DMR, lenses), and/but I expect my M9 to work correctly for color photography *without* red-edges.

 

I am in disagreement with Lars' opening assessment here.

 

Peter

[chris_tribble]

So, while I would hesitate to call anyone seriously worried about red edge because of particular demands of their work a whiner, for me it is an issue I can live with (and I assume Leica will continue to work on it). I for one would not have wanted them to delay introduction of the M9 until it was perfect for everyone, because we would be waiting a very long time for such perfection, which in the real world does not exist.

 

Tend to agree - selfishly, the vast majority of the images I take with the M9 are 28/35/50/90 - with 28 and 50 covering over 80% of images. I'm glad I have the Emarit 21 and Zeiss 18 as they very occassionally prove to be useful (as does the 135 Apo Telyt) - however, for the number of times I use them red-edge is a non-issue.

 

I can also appreciate that those whose work strongly favours ultra wide will be very miffed - and here we need some honesty from Leica. If they've hit the technical limit with this instance of the firmware people need to know so that they can make decisions about the system. For me it's a non-issue. For others, it could be a deal breaker - and this I can understand.

[Maximus]

I can also appreciate that those whose work strongly favours ultra wide will be very miffed - and here we need some honesty from Leica. If they've hit the technical limit with this instance of the firmware people need to know so that they can make decisions about the system. For me it's a non-issue. For others, it could be a deal breaker - and this I can understand.

Exactly. Come on Leica at least repay the tolerant attitude of your customers with a bit more honesty.

[mjh]

I can remember when Olympus, at the time of introducing the E-1, produced white papers explaining carefully that retrofocus lenses and reduced imager sizes were required to make high quality digital cameras possible without excessive size and weight.

Nearly telecentric, not retrofocus lenses. Retrofocus is about the location of the nodal point whereas telecentricity concerns the location of the exit pupil. You want the exit pupil to be as far away from the sensor as possible.

[jaapv]

Tend to agree - selfishly, the vast majority of the images I take with the M9 are 28/35/50/90 - with 28 and 50 covering over 80% of images. I'm glad I have the Emarit 21 and Zeiss 18 as they very occassionally prove to be useful (as does the 135 Apo Telyt) - however, for the number of times I use them red-edge is a non-issue.

 

I can also appreciate that those whose work strongly favours ultra wide will be very miffed - and here we need some honesty from Leica. If they've hit the technical limit with this instance of the firmware people need to know so that they can make decisions about the system. For me it's a non-issue. For others, it could be a deal breaker - and this I can understand.

Well, yes, Chris, but should Canon then not attach a label to their wideangles: these lenses have unavoidable optical vignetting, lower resolutin and CA towards the corners and considerable distortion, to some extent linear and considerable geometric..? All of which is understandable and acceptable for most users, given the concept.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Nearly telecentric, not retrofocus lenses. Retrofocus is about the location of the nodal point whereas telecentricity concerns the location of the exit pupil. You want the exit pupil to be as far away from the sensor as possible.

 

right. I misremembered the technical term, but exit pupil and angle at which the light strikes each sensor is the key issue.

 

scott

[Maximus]

Well, yes, Chris, but should Canon then not attach a label to their wideangles: these lenses have unavoidable optical vignetting, lower resolutin and CA towards the corners and considerable distortion, to some extent linear and considerable geometric..? All of which is understandable and acceptable for most users, given the concept.

I think the point is that most Canon users are OK with these defects, whereas many Leica users, having shelled out a lot more cash for superior image quality, are not OK with defects of this nature.

[jaapv]

That is not the point, the point is that many of these defects, as you call them are unavoidable compromises and tradeoffs, both for Canon and Leica.

[pgk]

I think the point is that most Canon users are OK with these defects, whereas many Leica users, having shelled out a lot more cash for superior image quality, are not OK with defects of this nature.

Well, I'm not! I use the Canon 24/1.4 because when I needed it, it was the only 24/1.4 out there. It distorts, vignettes, and suffer corner problems, but only in the last year has any competition become available (from Leica, Nikon and a replacement version from Canon). £1k is not an inconsiderable price for any lens - the replacement version is more. What competition is there to the M9 (FF,RF)?

 

I'd like to hear some more, objective commentary on the red edge, not just the grumbling that dominates these posts. Adan did supply both an image and details of a specific area of photography where red edge is causing him a problem - this was useful and fair comment. I have images shot on my M8 with uncoded lenses where colour shifts are evident across the frame. I CAN see them, but generally they are a none issue to many image viewers (even photographically aware viewers) who are more interested in the image itself, but this relates to the sort of images that I take and my viewing/buying audience. I would like to hear/see more objective views with real world examples of the problems people have actually encountered.

[Maximus]

Yes, I'd like to see more examples too, and on the subject of objectivity less people making excuses for Leica.

 

The red fringe issue exists. I am a Leica customer who loves his M9. The red fringe issue is preventing me buying certain Leica lenses. That makes my opinion as valid as anyone's.

[jlancasterd]

See the two images below, both taken yesterday with my 21mm f2.8 Asph, 6-bit coded.

 

I'm actually perfectly satisfied with both images as any residual red edge will get trimmed off both of them when they are straightened and cropped - if/when they are used in the Magazine for which they have been taken.

 

Both were taken at around f4-f5.6, the first at ISO 160 in hazy late morning sun, the second at ISO 320 in very mixed lighting (mercury arc, daylight and fluorescent)

 

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!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[UliWer]

I'd like to recall lars_bergquist's appeal for a sane attitude.

 

Ferdinand showed a photo made with the 3,8/18 Super-Elmar and the new firmware yesterday: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/forum-zur-leica-m9/119258-fehler-bzw-ungereimtheiten-fw-1-116-a-3.html#post1266792

 

It shows the well known red shift to the left.

 

Then he made a reset of the camera's functions and showed the result of the lens today:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/forum-zur-leica-m9/119258-fehler-bzw-ungereimtheiten-fw-1-116-a-5.html#post1268187

 

The left edge seems o.k for me, vignetting as to exspected for a 18mm lens on full format, there is only a little red shift left - on the upper right edge corner.

 

Both photos were deliberately underexposed to show the effect at it's worse.

 

PLEASE MAKE THE RESET FIRST, DISCUSS AFTERWARDS!