Question to Sean Reid re his M8 Update Postit-Review

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean

 

But only Leica and Kodak know percisely what the IR cut profile is. They can supply it to Schneider but with the time frame I think they are just going to supply the IR cut filter they have been making all along. Which I suppose is OK since imperically people report it is working. But I seriously doubt Schneider is going to come up with a custom taylored coating that optimizes the IR supression required by the Kodak 10500 profile.

 

But if it works, I don't care.

 

Rex

 

Hi Rex,

 

Please read the article. It may save you some of this internal debate.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[grober]

I am not sure that Schneider has the IR cut coating "expertise" and Leica lacks it.

 

Check the range of products offered by Leica and its subsidiaries (not only lenses and cameras). This IR cut stuff is totally within their expertise and the means are available to them as well.

 

Surveying equipment, riflescopes, etc made by Leica do have IR cut coatings applied on the glass.

 

No question Leica has the smarts to make the necessary filters. The issue in this case is getting the filters made and into the hands of those who need 'em in a timely fashion without breaking the bank.

 

Leica is outsourcing to Schneider because they alledgedly can make them faster and at a lower cost.

 

I have already purchased two B+W 486 filters and am waiting for Leica to supply me with the other two sizes I'll need. (All I lack now is my M8 which may appear at my door here on the Left Coast from Germany some day next week according to Leica USA.)

 

-g

[Vivek Iyer]

Reid Reviews is an annual subscription site, not a pay-per-view site. The site has subscribers, like a magazine. Beyond that, I'm not interested in debating an article with you that you haven't even read.

 

 

Exactly! It can be read by folks who pay for it (once or everytime). Discussing that in an open forum creates problem. If I read anything bizzare (here), I will comment on it. I have nothing against you.

 

Cheers!

[sean_reid]

Exactly! It can be read by folks who pay for it (once or everytime). Discussing that in an open forum creates problem. If I read anything bizzare (here), I will comment on it. I have nothing against you.

 

Cheers!

 

Vivek,

 

This had been covered innumerable times on the forum. We discuss lots of things that 1) cost money (sometimes lots of money) and 2) not everyone has access to. That includes not only numerous magazine articles but also these cameras and lenses themselves. For starters, many people read discussions of the M8 even though they don't own one. Not having the actual camera in front of them doesn't mean that the discussion can't be useful. No one needs to buy every camera and lens discussed here to participate in discussions, nor do they need to buy every print or web magazine discussed. If you applied your rule completely, there would be very little on this forum that many of us could discuss. If you want to debate this further, please e-mail me.

[Vivek Iyer]

Hi Sean,

 

Please understand that my motivation is not to initiate/prolong a "debate". My posts above regarding the original questions are clear (may/may not contradict what you might have/might not have written).

 

Also, I am all for empowering professional photogs!

 

Regards,

 

Vivek.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Vivek, may I give you my take on the issue of discussing Sean's reviews on this site. You might think of such discussions as analogous to several persons talking about a movie they have all seen. They all would have had to pay to see that movie, of course.

 

I am a subscriber to ReidReviews and have stated several times on the Forum how useful it is to me.

 

To address your point about a so-called restricted source of information -- it is exactly by way of discussion of Sean's work on this Forum that others benefit from his work.

 

If you look at some of the threads about cyan drift and other problems from the extra IR sensitivity of the M8, you will see that all the Forum members actually benefit from information that is discussed regarding the ReidReviews material. Sean was and continues to be instrumental in the beta testing of the M8.

 

I, for one, am careful not to take advantage of Sean when discussing something from his site. I try to give Forum members the idea of what has been discussed but I refrain from handing out Sean's material.

 

As a Forum member, professional photographer, long-time Leica user, and subscriber to ReidReviews, I assure you that his work is very helpful (and I have made several purchases over the past year as a result of my readings of his reviews) and benefits this Forum.

 

Regards,

[bnelson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I too am a Sean's subscriber and it is some of the best money I have spent plus he spends tons of his time on this forum to help Leica users.

 

Bill

[jrc]

I'd like to know if the Heliopan filters really cut the IR less than the 486. That's an important piece of information, since Schneider can't seem to meet demand, at least, not at the moment. And it would seem odd that the Heliopans wouldn't work just as well, because as I understand it, we don't really need a strong IR filter -- we already have some IR filtration, just not enough. So even a slightly weak filter should do the job, shouldn't it?

 

JC

[wparsonsgisnet]

I'd like to know if the Heliopan filters really cut the IR less than the 486. That's an important piece of information, since Schneider can't seem to meet demand, at least, not at the moment. And it would seem odd that the Heliopans wouldn't work just as well, because as I understand it, we don't really need a strong IR filter -- we already have some IR filtration, just not enough. So even a slightly weak filter should do the job, shouldn't it?

 

JC

 

John, there's another thread here that addressed this. The Heliopan has a different spectral function, one that lets more IR thru than does the B+W.

 

You can search to find it.

[DaveSee]

Vivek, may I give you my take on the issue of discussing Sean's reviews on this site. You might think of such discussions as analogous to several persons talking about a movie they have all seen. They all would have had to pay to see that movie, of course.

 

Hi... I'm a subscriber to both this, and ReidReviews...

 

I must say that yes, one must pay to see "the movie" to better discuss it; however, very often--and in fact again in this thread--people who have expressed an opinion divergent from, or critical of the conclusions presented in "ReidReviews, the movie" are told, "go see the/my movie" as "proof" or rebutt of an argument. Sometimes, it's not even in debate, but an offered opinion... as this link demonstrates... Why are we reminded that details left out are "in my article"?

 

[snipped]

As a Forum member, professional photographer, long-time Leica user, and subscriber to ReidReviews, I assure you that his work is very helpful (and I have made several purchases over the past year as a result of my readings of his reviews) and benefits this Forum.

I too appreciate Sean's work. As with other writers, I appreciate the consistency of his perspective, even while not always agreeing with his opinions or "findings".

 

I appreciate his contributions to this forum.

 

I do not appreciate posts that include phrases like "it's in the/my article" or "I won't restate what's in the/my article" as argument or mere contribution to a discussion, unless, as here, the thread topic is one of his writings one must pay him to read.

 

If we discuss the movie, great, it's best to go see it for perspective. If the movie becomes the premise for opinion expressed about a subject, OK too: again, sounds like that's a fairly important movie. When the author of that movie makes a premise of his movie, we've no choice but read this as "if you want my opinion/premise, pay me".

 

rgds,

Dave

[DaveSee]

I'd like to know if the Heliopan filters really cut the IR less than the 486. That's an important piece of information, since Schneider can't seem to meet demand, at least, not at the moment. And it would seem odd that the Heliopans wouldn't work just as well, because as I understand it, we don't really need a strong IR filter -- we already have some IR filtration, just not enough. So even a slightly weak filter should do the job, shouldn't it?

 

JC

I have both the Heliopan and B+W cut filters, and have used both on the same lens. I did not conduct a formal test. I do not see the Heliopan cutting less IR, but blacks are black with it.

 

rgds,

Dave

[sean_reid]

Hi... I'm a subscriber to both this, and ReidReviews...

 

I must say that yes, one must pay to see "the movie" to better discuss it; however, very often--and in fact again in this thread--people who have expressed an opinion divergent from, or critical of the conclusions presented in "ReidReviews, the movie" are told, "go see the/my movie" as "proof" or rebutt of an argument. Sometimes, it's not even in debate, but an offered opinion... as this link demonstrates... Why are we reminded that details left out are "in my article"?

 

 

I too appreciate Sean's work. As with other writers, I appreciate the consistency of his perspective, even while not always agreeing with his opinions or "findings".

 

I appreciate his contributions to this forum.

 

I do not appreciate posts that include phrases like "it's in the/my article" or "I won't restate what's in the/my article" as argument or mere contribution to a discussion, unless, as here, the thread topic is one of his writings one must pay him to read.

 

If we discuss the movie, great, it's best to go see it for perspective. If the movie becomes the premise for opinion expressed about a subject, OK too: again, sounds like that's a fairly important movie. When the author of that movie makes a premise of his movie, we've no choice but read this as "if you want my opinion/premise, pay me".

 

rgds,

Dave

 

Please e-mail me and perhaps we can clear some things up.

 

Sean

[DaveSee]

Please e-mail me and perhaps we can clear some things up.

 

Sean

Sure thing, but why the public request to go off-line?

 

While here, I might also add that as I replied to the query about Heliopan filters, images of small white rectangles some with more, some less cyan around the edges came to mind, images I'd viewed on your site. It was with these images in mind that I wrote, "I did not conduct a formal test."

 

rgds,

Dave

[gesper]

I'm a Sean subscriber as well, and consider it a huge bargain for the value I get from his reviews (whether I agree with them or not) and the value we all get from his ability to communicate with the right people at Leica. I appreciate the fact that he has to invest a considerable amount of time in his website, and I don't begrudge him not wanting to give away for free oprionions that are in fact we we are subscribing for. I also don't blame him for wanting to take offline pointless arguments which add zero value to the Leica experience. I have consistently been impressed by the class and patience he continues to demonstrate.

[Guest stnami]

Yea but Dave and Vivek do have a valid point in terms of argument

 

I also don't blame him for wanting to take offline pointless arguments which add zero value to the Leica experience.

as a personal opinion it is fair enough but not always shared by all.

 

 

 

No one has begrudged his contributions

[pklein]

There is a (relatively) old tradition on the Internet that all information should be free. Unfortunately, that tradition began dying the minute the Web was created, and you didn't have to be a computer geek with knowledge of UNIX to use the 'Net anymore. A lot of information is still free, but some is not. This is not evil incarnate, it's just life. Some people have evidently not realized this yet.

 

Sean Reid is a busy professional photographer. He also is an enthusiastic user of rangefinder cameras for his professional work. His extensive testing and reviewing of cameras and lenses has contributed immensely to the RF community. He also has to make a living. His subscription fees free him from having to shoot a few more weddings per year, giving him time to do the painstaking work that goes into his reviews.

 

Sure, I'd love it if all Sean's reviews were free. I also understand why they aren't. I think his subscription site is a reasonable way to deal with his finite time and need to make a living. I've put my money where my mouth is; I'm a happy subscriber to Reid Reviews.

 

Since Sean also shares a good deal of his knowledge with this forum and others, it is unfair and a bit ugly to constantly harp about the fact that he has a subscription site. I've seen him share the gist of many of his articles here, leaving out only some details and example photos that are on his site. He's been very generous with the RF community. Would you prefer that he close his site, not share any of his knowledge? Would that "purity" benefit the RF community?

 

As I've told him privately before, Sean is one of the good guys. Stop throwing (virtual) rocks at him.

 

--Peter

[rvaubel]

I have both the Heliopan and B+W cut filters, and have used both on the same lens. I did not conduct a formal test. I do not see the Heliopan cutting less IR, but blacks are black with it.

 

rgds,

Dave

 

Although I don't have the M8 yet, I do have the Heliopan IR cut filter that I use with both my RD1 and my specially modified Canon 20Da that has the IR filter replaced with a filter that is much weaker in IR removal. I have no idea just how it compares to the M8 but I assume it lets thru at least as much IR as the M8. I find the Heliopan to be very effective on both cameras. Jorge @ rangefinderforum finds the same thing. But this is all antecdotal evidence. Luckily Sean is going to be doing a full comparison test of both filters in a more rigorous manner. I do believe the Heliopans deserve a thourough test as it is possible that their IR removal properties may more closely match the requirments of the Kodak IR profile. But maybe not. Perhaps the 486 is better. But th only way to find out is thru independent testing

 

Rex

[sean_reid]

There is a (relatively) old tradition on the Internet that all information should be free. Unfortunately, that tradition began dying the minute the Web was created, and you didn't have to be a computer geek with knowledge of UNIX to use the 'Net anymore. A lot of information is still free, but some is not. This is not evil incarnate, it's just life. Some people have evidently not realized this yet.

 

Sean Reid is a busy professional photographer. He also is an enthusiastic user of rangefinder cameras for his professional work. His extensive testing and reviewing of cameras and lenses has contributed immensely to the RF community. He also has to make a living. His subscription fees free him from having to shoot a few more weddings per year, giving him time to do the painstaking work that goes into his reviews.

 

Sure, I'd love it if all Sean's reviews were free. I also understand why they aren't. I think his subscription site is a reasonable way to deal with his finite time and need to make a living. I've put my money where my mouth is; I'm a happy subscriber to Reid Reviews.

 

Since Sean also shares a good deal of his knowledge with this forum and others, it is unfair and a bit ugly to constantly harp about the fact that he has a subscription site. I've seen him share the gist of many of his articles here, leaving out only some details and example photos that are on his site. He's been very generous with the RF community. Would you prefer that he close his site, not share any of his knowledge? Would that "purity" benefit the RF community?

 

As I've told him privately before, Sean is one of the good guys. Stop throwing (virtual) rocks at him.

 

--Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

Thank you. You summed things up very well. Since I earn some money from Reid Reviews, I'm able to some take time away from professional assignments (weddings, architecture, whatever) and put it into testing, writing, etc. If I didn't earn money for what I do with RR, I simply would not have the time to do it. Like a lot of people, I have two young children and am supporting a family, etc. I'll be glad when a thread can discuss something from work I've done and not degenerate into the usual RR debate. It gets old and its all been hashed out here many times.

 

Very often, I see questions posted on this forum that have been addressed (sometimes thoroughly) in RR articles. But most of the time I bite my tongue and say nothing about the fact that I've looked at topic X, Y or Z on RR. I contribute a lot of information here but I'm not going to reproduce all of my work in forum posts and I think it would be unreasonable for anyone to expect that. I think a lot of people here understand that. I used to write for free and was finding that I could afford less and less time for doing that. Now I write professionally and that allows me to give that work regular attention. The end result has been a fairly high volume of work, much of it relevant to people on this forum.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[DaveSee]

Although I don't have the M8 yet, I do have the Heliopan IR cut filter that I use with both my RD1 and my specially modified Canon 20Da that has the IR filter replaced with a filter that is much weaker in IR removal. I have no idea just how it compares to the M8 but I assume it lets thru at least as much IR as the M8. I find the Heliopan to be very effective on both cameras. Jorge @ rangefinderforum finds the same thing. But this is all antecdotal evidence. Luckily Sean is going to be doing a full comparison test of both filters in a more rigorous manner. I do believe the Heliopans deserve a thourough test as it is possible that their IR removal properties may more closely match the requirments of the Kodak IR profile. But maybe not. Perhaps the 486 is better. But th only way to find out is thru independent testing

 

Rex

I agree completely, the antecdotal evidence(aka subjective and poorly compared) on whether the Heliopan filter cuts IR as the B+W 486 is not adequate for those seeking a more thorough examination.

 

Among the few folk who could perform this examination throroughly, and communicate these findings clearly and very objectively, Sean is a very skilled and helpful person. I will gladly pay to read his work, while others--like me, who post to boards, blogs and wikis--also offer their opinion "for free".

 

My previous post was meant to describe the subtle barrier to certain points made here, as this one. True, the context concerns Sean's writings available only through subscription to his site; thus, these sorts of "please refer to material requiring a fee" are taken, respectfully, just as "please make use of the M8 to better understand..." references are made... or ought to be made I also understand that by re-stating opinion expressed in his writing available at ReidReviews, he diminishes the value, somewhat. He needn't re-state all of it in a more public forum. Nor need anyone say "go buy this opinion to better understand the one I express"(poorly, without it).

 

rgds,

Dave

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sean_reid]

My previous post was meant to describe the subtle barrier to certain points made here, as this one.

 

rgds,

Dave

 

Dave,

 

I wrote that to Rex because I know he reads the site already. It wasn't meant as an inducement for him to subscribe, he was already an early adopter. A quick read of that article might answer some of questions he had. Next time, I'll just PM him.

 

I hope we move on from this kind of debate eventually.

 

Sean