Heliopan vs B+W IR cut filters

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yo, Sean: wondered if you (or anyone) had tried Tiffen "hot mirror" IR filters to see how they compare to the 486s or Heliopans as regards cyan drift or overall color rendition. I got a B&H catalog that lists them in several Leica sizes (46/49/55 at least) and Tiffens are often easier to come by than the more exotic German brands.

 

Yeah I know they look like a red traffic light on the front of the lens (world's biggest red dot) - but as to performance....?

[Advertisement]

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

[DaveSee]

Can somebody tell me the difference, if any, between the Heliopan and B+W 486 IR cut filters. Are the results the same with the M8? Thanks for your help.

I have both the Heliopan and B+W 486. They are both effective cuts of IR, yet are distinct: using the Heliopan yields a slightly cooler, less "yellow" image. I set WB manually, or by Kelvin... thus my observations are just that, perceived. I'd not choose one over the other, except that there are rumors PhaseOne and whomever hacks on the firmware will pick a "version" of IR cut for their profiles and in-camera corrections. Further rumor suggests that the IR cut filters Leica ship are not Schott(Heliopan), not Schneider(B+W) glass but someother(Hoya?) fabrik... so that leaves us all just where we are: a choice of filter, a choice of software, and the same old work we've always done... a choice of getting the image right.

 

I just looked over a few images... and it's the "yellow", less so with Heliopan... ~200K less and you'd hardly notice the difference.

 

hth+rgds,

Dave

[sean_reid]

Yo, Sean: wondered if you (or anyone) had tried Tiffen "hot mirror" IR filters to see how they compare to the 486s or Heliopans as regards cyan drift or overall color rendition. I got a B&H catalog that lists them in several Leica sizes (46/49/55 at least) and Tiffens are often easier to come by than the more exotic German brands.

 

Yeah I know they look like a red traffic light on the front of the lens (world's biggest red dot) - but as to performance....?

 

Yo, Adrian <G> We're both old enough to get the reference.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I haven't tested the Tiffens. If you try them, let us know how they do.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I have both the Heliopan and B+W 486. They are both effective cuts of IR, yet are distinct: using the Heliopan yields a slightly cooler, less "yellow" image. I set WB manually, or by Kelvin... thus my observations are just that, perceived. I'd not choose one over the other, except that there are rumors PhaseOne and whomever hacks on the firmware will pick a "version" of IR cut for their profiles and in-camera corrections. Further rumor suggests that the IR cut filters Leica ship are not Schott(Heliopan), not Schneider(B+W) glass but someother(Hoya?) fabrik... so that leaves us all just where we are: a choice of filter, a choice of software, and the same old work we've always done... a choice of getting the image right.

 

I just looked over a few images... and it's the "yellow", less so with Heliopan... ~200K less and you'd hardly notice the difference.

 

hth+rgds,

Dave

 

According to Leica (recent conversation with them) some or many of the Leica filters are being made in Japan but they're being made using the same design, specs, etc. as the Schneider 486 and so, I'm told, should perform identically (a rose by any other name). The test filters Leica sent me (their chosen IR-cut) are marked Schneider 486 MRC. So...different manufacture location but, I'm told, same filter in the end. So the in-camera M8 calibrations, likely the C1 profiles, etc. are all being tuned to the 486.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[DaveSee]

Just a nod to the work Sean does, and posts here and to his site. While I've objected to certain posts, in other threads, which merely point to a closed source of opinion, I have fallen back on methods learned in FIDO, BBS and USENET to screen that less helpful.

 

Importantly, it's my choice to listen/read such dead-end comment. But to have had the opportunity to know that other less open discourse--if any at all--exists, is the benefit of /this/ forum.

 

For some, a list of "ignored" participants is available. I would advise against this method as just as much is said without saying as said openly.

 

The Heliopan and B+W filters both do well for me... as do no filters and Jamie's ICC, for starters I find the B+W result a tad antiseptic, having learned from the M8 sensitivity that what I see--or "spy with my little eye"--is just another version of what I can see, in my images.

 

rgds,

Dave

[sean_reid]

Just a nod to the work Sean does, and posts here and to his site. While I've objected to certain posts, in other threads, which merely point to a closed source of opinion, I have fallen back on methods learned in FIDO, BBS and USENET to screen that less helpful.

 

Importantly, it's my choice to listen/read such dead-end comment. But to have had the opportunity to know that other less open discourse--if any at all--exists, is the benefit of /this/ forum.

 

For some, a list of "ignored" participants is available. I would advise against this method as just as much is said without saying as said openly.

 

The Heliopan and B+W filters both do well for me... as do no filters and Jamie's ICC, for starters I find the B+W result a tad antiseptic, having learned from the M8 sensitivity that what I see--or "spy with my little eye"--is just another version of what I can see, in my images.

 

rgds,

Dave

 

Hi Dave,

 

I must be really tired. Would you mind clarifying what you're saying?

 

Thanks,

 

Sean

[DaveSee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

According to Leica (recent conversation with them) some or many of the Leica filters are being made in Japan but they're being made using the same design, specs, etc. as the Schneider 486 and so, I'm told, should perform identically (a rose by any other name). The test filters Leica sent me (their chosen IR-cut) are marked Schneider 486 MRC. So...different manufacture location but, I'm told, same filter in the end. So the in-camera M8 calibrations, likely the C1 profiles, etc. are all being tuned to the 486.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Oh, hey... and just after I post that I like the Heliopan, er, rendition.

 

Given what Jamie and Edmund have already vanquished--who says chivalry is dead!--it may be a year out, but ICC profiles may exist for Heliopan and Tiffen...

 

Thanks for the detail Sean+rgds,

Dave

[DaveSee]

Hi Dave,

 

I must be really tired. Would you mind clarifying what you're saying?

 

Thanks,

 

Sean

You must be, as it's late over there!

 

I'm saying thanks for your posts here, and your work one must subscribe to read; and if one objects to "dead-end posts" to merely pay and read your site's postings for info and assistance, that the silver lining is knowing your site exists... and all of this due to /this/ open forum.

 

Also, that I like the Heliopan's result... even on my ZM 25.

 

rgds,

Dave

[sean_reid]

Oh, hey... and just after I post that I like the Heliopan, er, rendition.

 

Given what Jamie and Edmund have already vanquished--who says chivalry is dead!--it may be a year out, but ICC profiles may exist for Heliopan and Tiffen...

 

Thanks for the detail Sean+rgds,

Dave

 

Profiling the Heliopan (for RAW conversion) should be easy enough. I'll be interested to see how the difference in cyan drift plays out with the Heliopan and 1.10.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

You must be, as it's late over there!

 

I'm saying thanks for your posts here, and your work one must subscribe to read; and if one objects to "dead-end posts" to merely pay and read your site's postings for info and assistance, that the silver lining is knowing your site exists... and all of this due to /this/ open forum.

 

Also, that I like the Heliopan's result... even on my ZM 25.

 

rgds,

Dave

 

I have a tendency to often work until about 2:00 AM in order to keep up with everything. RAW files processing right now. Thanks for the comments.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[pascal_meheut]

Now, as much as I appreciate your wanting to help Sean, I'm a bit taken aback by your replies.There are so many threads started here and questions asked that could be answered by subscribing to Sean's site that I wonder why you singled out MY question about the filters to basically tell me to go and spend $32 US to find the answer. It kind of almost defeats the purpose of this forum, or any photo forum, don't you think? Do you suggest I check Sean's site every time I might have a question before asking here?

 

I guess everything has been said in the previous post but I just woke up and do not have the courage to read them thoroughly.

Should I have some first hand knowledge of the topic or something of my own to say, I would not send you to Sean's site.

 

But all I know about Heliopan v. B+W IR filters, I read it there. So it would not be fair with Sean to repeat it here.

[lct]

...People will contribute opinions from their own experience, etc. but many are trying to respect my IP and not reproducing my results here. You and I have known each other since the Digilux 1 days and you've explained that you don't want to subscribe to the site because you don't have enough time to read it. That's fine and I respect that...

It is not the matter of my personal reasons.

I happen to like you my friend, despite you or others could think, but i could hate you as well and my reasons could be bad as well, who cares?

I mean, respecting your IP consists in abstaining from reproducing your job here or elsewhere without your consent, i can understand that as a lawyer can't i.

But, again, i don't know why i might say here what's the opinion of Chasseur d'Images or any other mag about Heliopan filters, for instance, and why others might not say what's your opinion on the same subject.

I happen to write books and articles as well.

I quite understand, and i do hope, that readers may discuss about my works which has nothing to do with respecting my IP or not.

[carstenw]

In the early days of playing with IR filters and the infrared contamination, Greg Seitz (not *that* Seitz, I presume!) posted tests of the Tiffen filters, and found that they were not as effective.

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/8950-m8-pics-ir-cutoff-filter.html

[nrj]

LCT,

 

You know very well that it isn't necessary to read Reid Reviews to discuss a topic here. People will contribute opinions from their own experience, etc. but many are trying to respect my IP and not reproducing my results here. You and I have known each other since the Digilux 1 days and you've explained that you don't want to subscribe to the site because you don't have enough time to read it. That's fine and I respect that.

 

There are many sources people can draw upon for discussions here. RR is just one of them. What people who don't read the site may not realize is that a lot of responses on this forum (not only from me) are based in part on information that people have learned about from reading RR. I see it all the time. A lot of what I write about on RR eventually becomes common knowledge and its as if we've always known it. So, information from RR ends up coming into the forum in one way or another and I hope that people who prefer not to read the site can appreciate that. Whether you realize it or not, you've gained a lot of (hopefully useful) information from RR even though you choose not to read the site.

 

So RR isn't stunting discussion on the forum at all and it feeds a general level of knowledge that works its way into the forum regularly. Otherwise, people are just trying to respect my IP and I appreciate that.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Hi Sean,

 

I'm seeking some clarification here because I'm not sure where this thread is headed. Many times you've posted a quick summary or precis of a test or an opinion you hold based on your experience of cameras or lenses, and indicated that a full article is on your pay site if readers want more information. I've been glad of the summary even if I don't go and read whats on your site - so thanks for that. If someone else were to do what you do and give a quick summary of your findings (or any other paid information source like a book or magazine) here but recommend going to the original source for more information that would be OK by me - would it be OK by you?

 

Nik

[hankg]

"if someone else were to do what you do and give a quick summary of your findings (or any other paid information source like a book or magazine) here but recommend going to the original source for more information that would be OK by me - would it be OK by you?"

 

I don't think that is a fair expectation.

 

If I choose to publish my photo's on this forum, that's my decision. It would not be OK for someone else to decide to publish them because they thought they would be of interest to forum members. What Sean chooses to share for free should be left up to him. Just as it should be the choice of creators of any work to decide how thier work is published and distributed.

 

A photographers forum should have a higher respect for authors rights then your average internet site.

[hammam]

"if someone else were to do what you do and give a quick summary of your findings (or any other paid information source like a book or magazine) here but recommend going to the original source for more information that would be OK by me - would it be OK by you?"

 

I don't think that is a fair expectation.

 

If I choose to publish my photo's on this forum, that's my decision. It would not be OK for someone else to decide to publish them because they thought they would be of interest to forum members. What Sean chooses to share for free should be left up to him. Just as it should be the choice of creators of any work to decide how thier work is published and distributed.

 

A photographers forum should have a higher respect for authors rights then your average internet site.

 

Let's not mix things up here. Particularly things that are morally unacceptable and things that are legally unacceptable. Publishing a photo on the Internet without the author's consent is a clear violation of his "copyright», ie litterally "right to copy". Definitely a legal slip. Plus a moral one, as well, it goes without saying.

 

Reproducing an entire text or paragraph, exactly as is, even with quotation marks and even citing the author's name, is also an infringement of copyright. Doing it without either quotation marks or the author's name makes the infringement on copyright compounded by sheer dishonesty, because you appropriate the paternity of the words.

 

Now, citing the spirit, not the letter, of an article is an entirely different matter. Sharing what I learned from some source is perfectly honourable. If I have high moral standards (and I do) I will cite the source's name. If not, then it's too bad, but I'm not doing anything legally wrong.

 

Now, the issue with Sean is that he is a "friend" of us all, thanks to his works and findings and postings here. Tremendous help. We all have a moral duty towards him. Anybody giving a thorough answer which he found on RR without citing Sean's name is being dishonest, and not nice. That is, if he keeps it in his own words. If he qotes the article, again he's infringing on Sean's copyright.

 

But anybody giving a general answer from what he read in RR, citing Sean's name as a source, is being absolutely straightforward, in my opinion. There is a slight ambiguity in the fact that Sean publishes technical facts and findings both here and on his pay site.

 

Maybe Albert and Pascal just didn't have the answer to my original question, and they pointed me to RR to get it. That is a good thing to do, and I thank them for that. The only thing is that they didn't SAY they didn't know, which is why I was taken aback.

[albertknappmd]

I certainly meant no disrespect but there is a fine line between serious amateurs who attend and input into this forum and professionals who really spend their personal time and money researching the questions... It is only fair that the latter can charge for they research. Think of that group as a value added asset...

[Guest guy_mancuso]

LOL i do take donations . LOL

 

Besides the letter of the law ,it is a moral question and i think many folks here do understand that part of it and it also makes this forum what it is and more important the respect that we show each other every day in almost every post. Believe me when I say this and i know I can speak for Sean on this point too we are here because we are shown that respect , we both have been places were that is in the bottom of the barrell and honestly we both left said places. From me i would much rather devote the time I have to this site where folks are just flat out pleasant to talk too, we have our moments and such but overall this is a great site with many great forum members from all walks of life and that makes it even better.

 

Just look at dpreview that Sigma section and it will make you sick the discontent that is going on. Who needs that sh....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hammam]

I certainly meant no disrespect but there is a fine line between serious amateurs who attend and input into this forum and professionals who really spend their personal time and money researching the questions... It is only fair that the latter can charge for they research. Think of that group as a value added asset...

 

You are perfectly right, Albert. The problem is that what one learns through readings of articles and technical books becomes part of what he knows. Another main source of learning, of course, is experience. Doing it. Then, it's only natural for him to share what he knows with others, without having to acknowledge the source each and every time. Let alone refrain from sharing because he didn't find it on his ownd and needed the help of an author, maybe years ago.

 

I keep learning photography by doing it, shooting, in the street, in the studio, on vacation, with family... processing b&w, scanning, shooting digital, working on my workflow, retouching, printing... and by reading articles and books. This becomes a sum of knowledge, and after a while, I can't tell what comes from personal experience from what comes from teachings by others. For instance, a few years ago, I read on an Internet b&w processing forum that processing APX 100 in Rodinal would yield such and such wonderful results. I tried it, I loved it, and now I do it all the time. It's now part of my experience. And I will share it very often without quoting the first time I read about it every time.

 

Also, I think a distinctiom must be made between a purely artistic and creative endeavor, where imagination plays the main part, and a technical research. Hard cold facts, like MTF charts, can't be copyrighted. Opinions on how to interpret them and how one feels about the quality, or lack of, of such and such lens are beginning to belong in the copyright world. The line is thin. If Sean says that the Heliopan IR-cut filter gives a more yellowish cast than the B+W, that's a fact, and I don't think you can copyright that. You can, and should, ackowledge the help of Sean's findings, but that the moral issue. If, however, he says that he thinks that the Heliopan gives a more natural look, or a warmer feeling to a portrait, or what not, then this is a personal opinion, and I don't think you can freely quote it without mentioning his name.

 

What protects the integrity of RR's articles is that no one will give advice and share technical knowledge with the same degree of in-depth and serious analysis that Sean puts into his research. To the best, it will be a brief summary of his findings, which should give one the desire to learn more, but this time «from the horse"s mouth.» A teaser, so to speak

[Guest magyarman]

Cyan drift is more pronounced with the Heliopan filters and the color rendering is not quite the same as the 486 filters. So the corrections in 1.10 that are designed for the 486 filters are likely to not completely match the Heliopans. Examples, etc. are of course in the articles.

 

My advice is this: If one already owns a Heliopan digital filter, try it with 1.10 (when that is available) and see how it does. It may be just fine or "close enough". If one is buying filters, I'd recommend the 486 models because the Leica corrections will be designed to match them

 

Than is so, if you doesn't have 6bit lenses (this mean also from old ora not Leica lenses what cannot 6bit) than is makes no differents. I hear people tell what B+W 486 come to easy scrach it, Heliopan got stronger coated bofe side.