Don't you think we could stop yelling at Leica?

[langmjl1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Oh, and BTW, Eric, not only are Nikon DSLRs perfectly backward compatible with every past and future F mount lens, but the «coding» is included in the menu system of both the D2X and D200, so that you can mount older manual AI/AI-S lenses, program them in software and keep all metering options.

 

 

Hammam, could I trouble you to write to me off-forum to describe your experience with the software "coding" of AIS lenses with the D200? I am considering making the jump from FA and FM2 with primes to a D200......

 

If I may respectfully add my two cents to this discussion, as a non-leica-lurker on this forum, I bring everyones collective memory back to the months and weeks before Photokina.....the 'M8 watch' was a perfect example of irrational exuberance. The resultant let down was bound to happen no matter the problems enountered with the expectations set so high. Indeed the bar IS set high with anything to do with Leica....but expecting perfection from a production first run, in particular something so aggrsssive as the M8, is unrealistic. Each of us has a right to be dismayed, perplexed, feel betrayed, whatever. But we also have a choice NOT to buy, or to return the product. Make your choice and move on to the tool that does the job for you.........then if you still are driven by angst over the situation, may I suggest a visit to the local museum archives, review the work of groundbreaking photographers/photo-journalists who did not have the best, fastest, coolest bokeh, auto everything camera .......and enjoy their work....

 

Happy Holidays to all...and my appreciation to all who constructively contribute to this forum.

[AlanG]

AlanG, no problem.

 

As I understand it, a specular highlight is a reflected light not a light source. It's a highlight, so that makes sense no? Google it, and you'll see what I mean.

.

 

Well we usually think of specular highlights as reflections. But in that case, they are reflections of a specular light source. When the light source is emitting directly to the lens, it can be specular (nearly point source) or diffuse (broad source.) I think any distinction is irrelevant in photography where a specular reflection will overwhelm the sensor in exactly the same way a point light source included in the scene will.

 

You probably already know this - If the camera has enough dynamic range, one can often make two raw conversions - one for the overall scene, and another with the exposure slider at maximum underexposure to recover as much recorded highlight detail as is possible, When combined, they can often represent the camera's maximum dynamic range with much better overall contrast than you can usually get by trying to adjust the RAW conversion tone curve to accomplish a conversion in one step. (I usually combine them by laying the light image over the dark one and manually retouching the detail back into the highlights.) Some photographers underexpose a little for this technique as underexposure will record more highlight detail, yet one can often open up the dark shadows with little loss in quality - if you have the right software. C-1 is ok, DxO is much better at this.

[chrism]

When the light source is emitting directly to the lens, it can be specular (nearly point source) or diffuse (broad source.)

 

Specular implies reflection, from the latin speculum, a mirror. I could almost think it meant speck-like from the 'nearly point source' interpretation.

 

Chris

[mwilliamsphotography]

Yeah, I know that one Alan. This shot isn't worth the effort of multiple layers, but would make an interesting experiment. There just may not be enough data in the lights as shot. If I shot it with that in mind there could have been. But I was smashed on the Dutch brand beer at the time : -)

 

I just dual processed one to increase the dynamic range, but it was a key wedding image and worth the effort.

 

When I really can foresee the issue, I just shoot lower contrast film.

[egibaud]

There are also people who have made a big deposit on the M8 (I did, in the form of gear I traded in for it), who are still awaiting the arrival of their much anticipated digital Leica rangefinder.

I know this, I have made a 1000 Euros deposit so I surely know what you speak about.

 

The point is that there are 2 kinds of negatives here, the constructive ones and the destructive ones. I think yelling at Leica as soon as a flaw appears when they almost immediatly said they were working on it was a bit rushy and unfair. Many companies just say our new DXXXX 3.0 will have this fixed, unfortunatly you have version 2.0 and unless you buy a new body the fix will not be for you.

Leica has come up with a fix. The best possible fix? surely not! but does this fix makes the camera meet what we could have expected image quality wise? almost 100% yes.

 

So far I can only say I am a spare M8 battery owner as it is the only part of my order that arrived but hopefuly I'll soon get the rest :-)

 

Merry Xmas to all

[wattsy]

Why don't we all of us hold our hands together and send them more support? Why don't we show them our solidarity and thank them for the wonderful work they make?

 

Let us tell them we do trust them and need them to carry on in the difficult path they take. Don't forget that they work very hard, only for our pleasure.

 

LOL. Great piece of satire.

[innerimager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Beautifully put Ge'rard I fully agree. If anything, the only behavior that Leica has exhibited that separates them from any other high-tech company I've ever been a customer of, and thus "beta tester" for, is their willingness to immediately acknowledge the problems and set about trying to fix them as fast as can be imagined.

 

We'll see when the dust settles, but I predict that the sensor's great sensitivity to IR will have borrowed from qualities it has that also make it render such fine images. Just my hunch that it's ability to capture color and tonal gradients so well hurts it in IR contamination. And even if it turns out to be nothing but a bad feature, we already can work with it using both filters and processing.

p.s.- that 75 lux was an appealing shot! best....Peter

[rpierce]

Ge'rard has my vote too. The problems will be sorted out.

 

I plan to make use of the IR sensitivity in the future; I have ordered 092 and 093 filters, as well as a RRS L-bracket, so I'll be ready when my M8 returns from recall sometime in January. I hope we will see some threads in the next couple of months to expand on near-IR application of the M8.

 

Merry Christmas,

 

Bob Pierce

[pookilicious]

Eventhough some error is noticed when you shoot with poor light, I still have a wonderful experience using M8. Since I got it 3 weeks ago, it is with me ever since. I think we have to "Work the camera!" not the other way around. I just went to the northern part of Thailand and visit the tribe village; Mong. Had M8 with me and I could produce some lovely shots. Feel Free to look and appreciate some comments.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/95253667@N00/332495078.jpg

 

Wish you all the very best wishes for Christmas and coming New Year!

 

If you would like to see the whole set of this collection, please visit my album which I did the test using M8 in these few weeks.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/95253667@N00/sets/72157594437138950/

[pookilicious]

I guess my link was posted incorrectly previously. Here are the atachment of the sample pictures from my New year collection.

All were taken by M8; Elmarit-M 1:2 8/24 ASPH

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/95253667@N00/sets/72157594437138950/

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!

[AlanG]

Specular implies reflection, from the latin speculum, a mirror. I could almost think it meant speck-like from the 'nearly point source' interpretation.

 

Chris

 

It might seem that way to you but specular illumination clearly exists in the field of photographic science although most specular highlights are caused by reflections. I don't see why a point light source in a scene wouldn't produce a specular highlight whether that highlight was a result of reflection or transmission. Specular and diffuse illumination are not how photographers commonly refer to illumination but these terms are often used to describe illumination in scientific applications.

 

I hate to get so wonky, but maybe someone out there will appreciate clarfication. After quesions were raised, I had to look it up myself to be sure I wasn't incorrect. It's been a long time since I studied any photo science and I can't recall that much of it.

 

I refer you to page 192 of Photographic Sensitometry, by Todd and Zakia.(1969)

They are explaining how to design a densitometric system to measure specular density. (By the way, a densitometer can be designed to measure diffuse density, doubly diffuse density, and diffuse density.)

 

Just to give one example...

 

"In practice, specular illumination is approximated by focusing a narrow beam of light on the sample. Specular collection involves the use of a small aperture to receive the transmited light..."

 

So I guess it is handy that I kept that old textbook around for all those years.

 

By the way, I am not expert on the origin of the term "specular highlights" but we might not want to confuse specular with speculum. (A device commonly used in gynecological exams although it can be used to explore other body cavities.)

[MarcRochkind]

A couple of people in this thread mentioned that the problems "will be fixed."

 

On what information is that based?

 

Is there a fix that I don't know about for the following problems:

 

1. Necessity of using an external filter for color work, and

2. Necessity of using coded lenses (especially wide angle ones) to allow firmware to correct for problems caused by external filter?

 

I have an M8 on order, and I'm eager to get it, but where's the virtue in analyzing the camera in other than an entirely objective way? I need to know exactly what's been fixed and what I have to deal with, and surely Leica needs to know that as well.

 

--Marc

[j. borger]

Is there a fix that I don't know about for the following problems:

 

1. Necessity of using an external filter for color work, and

2. Necessity of using coded lenses (especially wide angle ones) to allow firmware to correct for problems caused by external filter?

 

I have an M8 on order, and I'm eager to get it, but where's the virtue in analyzing the camera in other than an entirely objective way? I need to know exactly what's been fixed and what I have to deal with, and surely Leica needs to know that as well.

 

--Marc

These are not problems but features .... no fix for that:)

[scott kirkpatrick]

 

Is there a fix that I don't know about for the following problems:

 

1. Necessity of using an external filter for color work, and

2. Necessity of using coded lenses (especially wide angle ones) to allow firmware to correct for problems caused by external filter?

 

 

Workarounds for both issues have been extensively discussed on this site.

 

If you work in color and don't want to use an IR-cut filter there have been profiles proposed which will improve over C1's first pass, and will minimize the most common false colors. Look for "Jamie's profiles." They are not a perfect solution, but a workaround.

 

Coding a non-Leica or non-coded Leica lens to look like ("impersonate") a coded Leica is a simple matter of making black marks with a permanent ink marker where they are needed, a technique that several of the site's posters have mastered. It's a temporary expedient, and will not be necessary in the long run if Leica provides a menu page in which to select the lens for which firmware support is requested.

 

scott

[tom0511]

A couple of people in this thread mentioned that the problems "will be fixed."

 

On what information is that based?

 

Is there a fix that I don't know about for the following problems:

 

1. Necessity of using an external filter for color work, and

2. Necessity of using coded lenses (especially wide angle ones) to allow firmware to correct for problems caused by external filter?

 

I have an M8 on order, and I'm eager to get it, but where's the virtue in analyzing the camera in other than an entirely objective way? I need to know exactly what's been fixed and what I have to deal with, and surely Leica needs to know that as well.

 

--Marc

 

1) The ghost and banding seems to be fixed.

2) You have to deal with filters.

3) There is good hope that the color can be optimized for filter use by proper profiles. Jamies profiles allready do a pretty good job.

You probably will have to use coded lenses for 24mm and wider (others say 35 and wider but my 28 works pretty ok with filter and without coding) if you want to use filters and not get cyan corners.

 

If you wait for more solutions you will probably have to wait very long, maybe years or even the rest of your life.

If you accept the offered solutions you can get an M8 and take great images.

[johnastovall]

1) The ghost and banding seems to be fixed.

2) You have to deal with filters.

3) There is good hope that the color can be optimized for filter use by proper profiles. Jamies profiles allready do a pretty good job.

You probably will have to use coded lenses for 24mm and wider (others say 35 and wider but my 28 works pretty ok with filter and without coding) if you want to use filters and not get cyan corners.

 

If you wait for more solutions you will probably have to wait very long, maybe years or even the rest of your life.

If you accept the offered solutions you can get an M8 and take great images.

 

Why would you think there will not be improved digitial M models in Leica's future plans and rather quickly? If they don't, the M8 could well be the last Leica M. Without better solutions than they have offered, they will not grow their base of customers and just might as well plan on a future of designing lenses for other companies and rebadging Pansonics.

[tom0511]

Why would you think there will not be improved digitial M models in Leica's future plans and rather quickly? If they don't, the M8 could well be the last Leica M. Without better solutions than they have offered, they will not grow their base of customers and just might as well plan on a future of designing lenses for other companies and rebadging Pansonics.

 

I think the life cycle of a Leica digital camera is at least three years or longer, so I believe there will be further digital Ms, but I would not expect it in the next 2 years.

 

I disagree on the level of the offered solution.

For my taste the DMR delievers better IQ than my 5d and my d2x (except high ISO).

I do not yet have enough experience with the M8 to give a final statement but in the few days I own it I allready got some images I really like.

I use filters - so far no problem with flare or any other negative influence of the filters.

So while I agree that the DMR and the M8 are not perfect, I think they can very well compete image quality wise, if not surpass.

So why are you all so negative? If you get yourself a 486 filter (or take the 2 you get for free), install the Jamies profiles (which you get for free), use c1LE (which you also get for free) shoot and see what you get.

I admit that I am kind of a collector, I have a Nikond2x for sports,action tele, I use the DMR when I want maximum IQ, and for the last days I have used the M8 with much fun.

The images are good enough that I dont even feel I want/need to shoot boring comparison images with the M8 and my other cameras.

 

My take:

-the R-System offers excellent lenses, which can be used digital in combination with a great sensor (DMR). Of course the body is still limited compared to modern AF-cameras

 

-the M-system now can be used digital. There is some limitations regarding speed of lenses (because of the crop) but than again 640 ISO (equivalent 800 ISO film) can be used without hesistation.

[chrism]

By the way, I am not expert on the origin of the term "specular highlights" but we might not want to confuse specular with speculum. (A device commonly used in gynecological exams although it can be used to explore other body cavities.)

 

No confusion at all; they both derive from the same latin origin. Specular, as a word, exists outside optical science, and means 'having the properties of a mirror'. The other kind of speculum (I use them every day) does not involve mirrors, but permits examination, as does a mirror. In fact the optical use of specular that you, er, um, specify, sounds more related to the second sense, especially with respect to the small aperture. I shall have to take back my suggestion that the word implied reflection!

 

Chris

[lct]

...I think the life cycle of a Leica digital camera is at least three years or longer, so I believe there will be further digital Ms, but I would not expect it in the next 2 years...

Not anybody want a further camera, Thomas, just a fixed M8 i guess.

...So why are you all so negative?...

Difficult to smile when you don't like red-nosed cameras or your dear old Leica lenses can't be used without magenta or cyan cast for lack of coding availability.

Leica has no choice but to find in-camera solutions as soon as possible IMHO.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wparsonsgisnet]

I shoot professionally and have been using Leica M cameras -- exclusively -- since 1970.

 

I find this camera astonishing.

 

I am exercising patience, however: I have put my 75 'Lux to sleep while waiting for an IR-cut filter for it. I have 486's for the 24, 35-lux, and 50-lux asph's and am using them happily. Actually, I wll do some b/w with the 75 shortly (as soon as the JFI b/w software arrives -- thank you Sean, this is the 3rd purchase I have now made based on your review site -- ReidReviews is far-and-away the most cost effective photog purchase I have ever made!).

 

I wish: (1) the ISO appeared in some visible spot on the exterior of the camera, (2) the shutter were quieter (or a 2-step process as recommended by a several posters in which the cocking step would wait while the release is depressed), (3) these things took longer lenses (I can dream, can't I)

 

However, I am really enjoying: (1) the 10-shot buffer that has freed up my dance shooting and made a significant difference in my ability to keep dancers in the air, (2) using my *wonderful* M-lenses again, (3) the M-like feel of the M8 (it really IS an M!), (4) the Capture One software that I am learning to use: why didn't I think to do a white balance as the first step of all my raw processing?

 

What amazes me the most is the luminance I see in the low-light portions of my images. I have *never* seen this much light in the lower zones, with these same lenses but using film.

 

I have now done 4 shoots with it, 2 of dance, and I have wonderful shots of dancers suspended in the air and displaying intense energy.

 

And, as with the D2, I can handhold at ridiculous speeds like 1/10. About the best I could ever do with my M4 was 1/15 and not dependably.

 

All in all, it is everything I have been looking forward to for the past couple of years. In fact, it has made shooting so much more natureal that I just ordered 2 more Ridata 2gb 150x cards from mwave.

 

Finally, the bride keeps saying, "I'm so glad you got this new camera." Non c'e male! (not so bad)

 

Regards and Happy New Year to a-l-l