Candles reflection (M8)

[LJL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First off, it IS the filter. With intense light sources it happens 100% of the time. I can even predict exactly where the reflection artifact will appear. So, if you don't want it, you have to take the filter off OR fix it in PP.

BUT NOTE

 

* Color balance rarely is much of an issue when taking pictures by candlelight. In the few causes that this reflection issue comes up does exact color balance matter all that much. In fact, in most of these cases blacks come out black even without the filter because the atmosphere is so moody and dark. That is my main point i.e. in theory it is horrible but in practice, just take off the filter.

 

* AR coating the back side of the filter doesn't help that much. Although I hope that Leica does coat the back side like Heliopan, it would be a decisive reason to pick one filter over another. You would think it would really help and it does but a lot less than theory would indicate.

 

* a curved rear filter surface would eliminate the problem. But in order for the filter to have zero optical power the front surface would have to have exactly the same curve. This would be very expensive. Only Canon with their high end long telephotos can afford to do this. In this cause the filter is a permanent part of the lens.

However, if this approach was taken, a radial cyan correction coating could also be applied. Of course such a lens would be very $$$ and only usable on the M8. If your going to go that far, you mays as well make it specific for the 1.33X crop factor sensor. Perhaps an M8 specific, 21mm F2.0 would generate enough interest to sell but this is another thread.

 

Rex,

I also think it is the backside of the UV/IR cut filter that is causing this problem. I have seen it on some of my shots when using the filter. That being said, it is NOT only prevalent in darker settings where you suggest color balance or magenta cast may not matter or be prevalent. It can show up in almost any kind of shot if the reflections happen to bounce back in the lens axis line.

 

The comment that I made about coatings was not with respect to the front filter element, but to having non-reflective coatings applied to the rear of the lens elements. This is what Sigma and others appear to be doing to combat some of the sensor reflection. Obviously, that is not going to happen on existing lenses, and it remains to be seen if it is practical to do on future lenses in the M line. That was my point about marketing hype versus actual proof of concept.

 

So, the best seems to be to avoid it completely, but removing the filter and then dealing with IR issues. Still not a real "best" solution, and it takes us right back to the issue of just not using filters. Unfortunately, we have to use them, so folks need to get handy with Photoshop or other clone/patch tools and hope the offending reflections do not appear on subjects that are harder to retouch.

 

LJ

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jamie Roberts]

@ Sean & Guy--

 

Heh heh--you shoot enough events, you see this happen a lot, with all kinds of cameras, hence the auto-thought--"gee that's a great shot, and easy to fix"... heck--I had to spot stuff with film too!

 

BTW--I used a multi-coated, expensive BW UV filter on that Canon 85 1.2L I never used it again though for these kinds of shots, and Rex is completely right--IR contamination isn't going to be a problem here at all.

 

BTW2--stopping down will decrease the effect a lot.

 

I posted this before, but this is old, brand-new M8 unfixed on v1.06 with no filter:

 

This was the 35 lux @ 3.2(?), IIRC...(that's my 84 year-old mom, BTW)... and yeah, it's balanced warm on purpose

 

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!

[arthury]

Wow, Jamie, your Mom needs to give me her recipe for life. If it's not the post-processing or the lens, tell your Mom that she looks more like a person in the 60's than 84 year old! Amazing!

[nryn]

Please accompany that recipe for life with a recipe for that cake. Looks delicious!

[Jamie Roberts]

@ Arthur--there's actually no post on that one, it's a TIFF right out of C1 and into PS to resize through "save for web, " IIRC. We all tell her she looks much younger, and she always says "that's too bad, because I usually feel much older"--and laughs! But she's kidding, and it's a gift to have her around!

 

@ NMN--heh--the cake was great! Bought though, so no recipe! Sorry!

[scjohn]

Sean:

 

I enjoy your site. I assume your comments are made only after you experiment yourself. I must admit, however, that I now disagree with your original rd-1 M8 comparison. The rd-1 does exhibit "lesser forms" of some of the color issues the M8 has but never as dramatically. Filters, with their own prblems, were not essential on the rd-1 but from my perspective (in color photos) they are essential to the M8.

 

These artifacts are a disaster. The rd-1 had some bad pixels. Easy to fix. The streaks and blobs on the M8 are not easy to fix because they can't be mapped and are big. I hope the upgrade I sent the camera to Solms for works because the m8 out of the box is simply awful for what I use an m8 for: natural light shots.

 

This thread began with a nice shot of a boy illuminated by candles that was ruined. If the filters ruined it so what? Can't seem to use the M8 without filters. Points of light are key to natural light shots and they literally blow the M8 up. I may be mad that all of my natural light holiday shots were ruined by the M8 after the rd-1 performed brilliantly last year but for me the rd-1 always had a more appealing design and I went Leica only because of a hope that the quality would be better. Sadly, the quality has been worse.

 

The M8 is like the race horse Barbero: great when it works but structually flawed to the point that it needs to be healed or put down.

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean:

 

I enjoy your site. I assume your comments are made only after you experiment yourself. I must admit, however, that I now disagree with your original rd-1 M8 comparison.

 

Thanks for the comments. Which parts of the comparison do you disagree with? Feel free to e-mail me directly if you prefer. And, yes, the reviews are always based on direct experience.

 

Every camera involves a set of compromise and there's no one answer as to which set is best. The approach I take in my reviews of cameras and lenses is to try to show pros and cons for each. I never declare "winners" or "losers" and I never assume that all photographers will have the same priorities. So, with DRFs, I can see why some would prefer the Epson and some the M8. I have both.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} The streaks and blobs on the M8 are not easy to fix because they can't be mapped and are big. I hope the upgrade I sent the camera to Solms for works because the m8 out of the box is simply awful for what I use an m8 for: natural light shots.

 

This thread began with a nice shot of a boy illuminated by candles that was ruined. If the filters ruined it so what? Can't seem to use the M8 without filters. Points of light are key to natural light shots and they literally blow the M8 up. I may be mad that all of my natural light holiday shots were ruined by the M8 after the rd-1 performed brilliantly last year but for me the rd-1 always had a more appealing design and I went Leica only because of a hope that the quality would be better. Sadly, the quality has been worse.

 

{Snipped}

 

John--

 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but my shot in this thread is an M8 without filters. In fact, all the shots I've ever posted here have been filterless--I've never been able to get any!

 

So saying "you can't use the M8 without a filter" seems a little extreme to me.

 

As for the "green blobs" that can't be mapped away, they're fixed in the hardware fix. Plenty of people have said so.

 

Who knows what else Leica has fixed in hardware!?

 

If I were you I'd wait till the next firmware comes out to judge whether or not the camera will be better or not than the Epson.

 

My own shots have convinced me it's much better, even unfiltered, but it's also early days in terms of color managing the M8, which is why I'm not releasing any more profiles till the next firmware is complete.

[frc]

When the M8 came out there was a lot of talk about the filter-issue, I couldn't get across to others what problems they were encountering.

These internal reflections with a filter on, mainly the lux 35 asph though the tri-e as well, were known to me. Both are my main lenses, available light with lightsources in the frame is a typical daily reoccurring situation for me.

I tested this long before there was even a hint of a possible digi M. Although I prefer to protect the frontelements of such expensive lenses like the Leica M's I dicided to leave them of after intensive testing the phenomenon.

No question, reflections due to the filter.

I'm not often this firm in my thesis but on this one I'm darn certain. Film after film I've been testing it up to a point where I had to disappointedly recognise that no matter how much I wanted to use my M lenses on a digi body, this at this point of development was not the cam for me.

I swapped to N for digital, M is still film only.:-(

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}I'm not often this firm in my thesis but on this one I'm darn certain. Film after film I've been testing it up to a point where I had to disappointedly recognise that no matter how much I wanted to use my M lenses on a digi body, this at this point of development was not the cam for me.

I swapped to N for digital, M is still film only.:-(

 

I don't understand--sorry! Are you saying you'll do this with Nikon because their lenses are cheaper and so you don't care if you mess one up, or do you think this doesn't happen with very fast Nikon glass?

 

Or do you think this won't happen on film with an M?

 

Sorry--your post makes no sense, and I'm just trying to understand your firm thesis.

 

FWIW, IMO it *will* happen on Nikon digital if you have fast glass and a filter and the right kind of light source. It *will* happen on film, and it *will* happen on the M8. It's a matter of the light-gathering characteristics of glass and the filter.

 

So if you use M glass for film, there's no reason on earth why you couldn't for digital!

[frc]

Hi Sean,

 

 

Lets clear things up.

The Leica glass is used without filters on film resulting in ghostimagefree pics.

No more do I use the filters, flaws showed to often in the past. ( my experience with the two lenses mentioned )

Whenever I want to be shure of my results this is what I do, the joy of using a rangefinder ads up to the fun.

Where the quality is less important or where speed of deliverance is the main issue digital is required, here my choice will be the DSLR.

No, I did not mean, if this is what you thought I ment, that Nikon glass would not have the same problems.

Besides, D 200 and a secondhand 20 35 f2.8 zoom €2100.00.

M8 plus grip plus 6 leses to be coded and 4 filters, over €5000,00.

Sold the old D 70 s for €500,00, total spent €1600,00, here I'll accept flows a lot easier.

Imagewise there is no comparison, if so Leica outperforms the Nikon.

Whenever the sensortechnology is of such level that a rangefindercam can be used with unfiltered lenses I'll be the first one to get one.

My hope is that this has taken away wat in my eyes was a miscomprehension, bad reading, bad writing don't know.

Still disagree, let me know.

 

 

Regards.

 

 

Ah, perhaps you thought I'd leave the lenses off,

I mean, I leave the filters off:-)

[Lode]

Although everything is said above (Sean, Rex, Jamie) nevertheless still a response. In each lens diffused light arrise due to reflections on surfaces and diffusion in the glass.

 

This diffused light reduce the exposure range. In high qualitative lenses (i.e. Leica) diffusion in the glass is minor. Moreover light is reflected against the sensor and the protective glass (film reflects less light, diffuses more). Point-source lamps cause comperatively more reflection.

 

A part of that unwanted light can be reflected at the filter and once again reach the sensor. This is not a problem of Leica at all, but optical laws applying for all brands.

 

Lode

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

Ah, perhaps you thought I'd leave the lenses off,

I mean, I leave the filters off:-)

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I understand the value proposition of having cheaper faster digital.

 

The key is, though, that I still don't think you have to use filters for all situations, especially not these candlelit ones, where I usually see the effect.

 

But you're right, of course; you should use filters on the M8 if there's a chance of heavy IR.

[sean_reid]

Hi Sean,

 

 

Lets clear things up.

The Leica glass is used without filters on film resulting in ghostimagefree pics.

No more do I use the filters, flaws showed to often in the past. ( my experience with the two lenses mentioned )

Whenever I want to be shure of my results this is what I do, the joy of using a rangefinder ads up to the fun.

Where the quality is less important or where speed of deliverance is the main issue digital is required, here my choice will be the DSLR.

No, I did not mean, if this is what you thought I ment, that Nikon glass would not have the same problems.

Besides, D 200 and a secondhand 20 35 f2.8 zoom €2100.00.

M8 plus grip plus 6 leses to be coded and 4 filters, over €5000,00.

Sold the old D 70 s for €500,00, total spent €1600,00, here I'll accept flows a lot easier.

Imagewise there is no comparison, if so Leica outperforms the Nikon.

Whenever the sensortechnology is of such level that a rangefindercam can be used with unfiltered lenses I'll be the first one to get one.

My hope is that this has taken away wat in my eyes was a miscomprehension, bad reading, bad writing don't know.

Still disagree, let me know.

 

 

Regards.

 

 

Ah, perhaps you thought I'd leave the lenses off,

I mean, I leave the filters off:-)

 

Are you responding to me or Jamie? I think you typed Sean when you perhaps meant Jamie?

 

Sean

[Jamie Roberts]

Are you responding to me or Jamie? I think you typed Sean when you perhaps meant Jamie?

 

Sean

 

I think to me Sean

[rvaubel]

 

The key is, though, that I still don't think you have to use filters for all situations, especially not these candlelit ones, where I usually see the effect.

 

But you're right, of course; you should use filters on the M8 if there's a chance of heavy IR.

 

I think you should use filters all the time, as a default, unless you are going into a birthday candle situation where color issues are pretty subjective anway. My point has always been that when you have a lot of intense light sources in the field of view, usually the color balance issue is an artistic judgement and not subject to Gretag color charts or Wibal cards. Trying to use a Whibal card in a bar scene is sort of like trying to color balance a sunset picture so it looks like broad daylight.

 

In the birthday candle scenerio just take off the filter and balance the color to taste. Not exactly rocket science

 

Rex

[frc]

Meant Jamie, sorry mistake.

[arthury]

Birthday parties for kids sometimes consists of various cloth materials that may be black and synthethic. It's unpredictable until you're there and so not using the IR filter seems like a moot point to me.

 

I still cannot accept the fact you guys are seeing this phenomenon in other DSLRs produced by other vendors.

 

I just performed a test. For the M8, the issue is consistently reproducible *only* in lenses that are 50mm or wider. I cannot reproduce it on the 90mm APO.

 

I simply cannot create the issue on my Nikon D2X, whether it was on the Nikkor 50mm/1.4 or the Sigma 30mm/1.4. Impossible to do it with the same candles and same scene ... I am sorry.

 

Here's what I got from the D2X + Sigma 30mm/1.4 ---- the blue light on the top right hand corner is my stereo system.

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!

[Lode]

I still cannot accept the fact you guys are seeing this phenomenon in other DSLRs produced by other vendors.

 

I just performed a test. For the M8, the issue is consistently reproducible *only* in lenses that are 50mm or wider. I cannot reproduce it on the 90mm APO.

 

I simply cannot create the issue on my Nikon D2X, whether it was on the Nikkor 50mm/1.4 or the Sigma 30mm/1.4. Impossible to do it with the same candles and same scene ... I am sorry.

 

.

 

Arthur

 

That depends on the demensions of the lens, how the lens is build, distance to the light source.... , IOW how the light travels through the whole system. In an other configuration you may see the phenomenon on your D2X and NOT on your M8!

 

(Edit: of course when using a filter on your D2X)

 

Regards,

Lode

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rvaubel]

Birthday parties for kids sometimes consists of various cloth materials that may be black and synthethic. It's unpredictable until you're there and so not using the IR filter seems like a moot point to me.

 

I still cannot accept the fact you guys are seeing this phenomenon in other DSLRs produced by other vendors.

 

.

 

Look at the candle pictures posted in this thread. An IR filter wouldn't make much difference. Color balance by candlight is pretty subjective and dark shirts pretty much show up black.

 

As for not seeing the filter reflection problem in other digital cameras, I have seen it on the three I have. I must admit I can't explain the picture you posted. Are you SURE you had a filter on?

 

If I wasn't too tired I'd redo my test. Maybe tommorow

 

Rex