Filter issues, E. Puts

[michael_b_elmer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The photographic world seems to be divided in those that love filters and use them always, also in order to protect their front lenses. The IR problems raised by some members of this Forum in November-January have given these people a new reason to use filters before their lenses and to believe that they are doing the right thing. This group of people just love Leica's UV/IR solution and some of them are even so convinced of their own merits that they take the liberty to claim that people like Erwin Puts that say IR/UV filters should not be used in all situations, have no understanding of digital photography.

 

And then we have all others - those people that do not love filters in all situations but only where they are of advantage and where they do not only present a disadvantage because of their obvious negative side effects, such as ghost reflections, vignetting, etc. This group of photographers believe that they can take good care of their Leica lenses without having to protect them with filters, and that Leica has already produced lenses that are optimized. They understand that in some situations IR/UV filters may be useful with the M8, but in other situations they prefer to use the M8 and Leica's fabulous lenses without external filters.

 

It is not enough for Leica to satisfy only one of the two parts of the photographic world that I described above. Leica will have to provide a solution that is open for both approaches to the use of external filters. So Firmware 1.10 or above should provide the possibility to work with uncoded AND coded lenses both with AND without IR/UV filters.

 

This is the more necessary since a number of wonderful older lenses cannot be given 6 bit coding, for instance the 35/1.4 non-asph and the 35/1.4 ASPHERICAL.

 

Let us hope that the problem will solved on the long run by Leica incorporating the necessary IR/UV filters into the M-lenses (since it cannot be done inside the M8, for technical reasons).

 

To me, Erwin Puts' arguments and considerations are convincing, but then I belong to the part of the photographic community that takes a selective approach to filters.

 

However, the attacks against Mr. Puts make me beg everybody on this Forum to abstain from verbal attacks on other persons that contribute to our discussion and to Leica Photography and that have no possibility of defending themselves against such personal attacks.

[rosuna]

Not quite. There *is* an IR filter on the M8, IIRC.

 

Yes, I know, but we can consider it a "half-filter". The basic argument is not affected.

[Bob Ross]

- holly leaves for instance seem to emit huge amounts of IR - and come out almost purple.

 

(sometimes).

Hi Jono,

Speak for your own holly:D

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!

The kind that I have doesn't like filters;)

Bob

[sdai]

There's no doubt that IR will reduce the camera's perceived sharpness, that's exactly why the digital cameras are having the IR cut filter in front of the sensors.

 

Question is ... Leica has repetitively said that the adoption of an ultra weak filter in front of the sensor is to achieve the best compromise in image quality ... giving up the camera's perceived sharpness for what?

[eronald]

Not quite. There *is* an IR filter on the M8, IIRC. It's just not strong enough to filter ALL the IR late in the higher red spectrum. Hence the need for a filter.

 

If they had gone for a stronger (thicker) filter, the sharpness we all love in the M8 would have been compromised.

 

I've seen all kinds of differences now with filter or without, but sharpness just isn't one of them (caveats on heat lamps, christmas tree closeups, and other torture tests)

 

Actually, I don't find the M8 is that sharp in the sense that it needs considerably more USM than some DB images I have looked at. I think the microlenses act as anti-alias filter in fact.

 

Edmund

[Peter Branch]

I, and it seems Leica, take the view that that the IR sensitivity of the M8 is a significant problem which merits the major efforts being made to ameliorate its effects. There are others, including reviewers and beta testers, who accept that the M8 has high IR sensitivity but stand fast in the conviction that this is a minor issue experienced by the typical photographer in typical conditions taking typical subject matter only rarely, if at all. Expanding further from this point of view they argue that Leica’s solution of using filters is far from ideal and should be adopted only if strictly necessary and even then with great caution. In support of this argument we have pictures being published “demonstrating” the horrors that can befall the unwary filter user.

 

Mixed up with this debate are secondary issues such as: why was the M8 released without there being a solution to this problem and why was there apparently little or no comment about the issue in the initial reviews? (I will ignore the issue of what the beta testers did or did not report because there is no reliable evidence available.)

 

How can this difference arise, can the arguments of either side be substantiated and are the secondary issues of any relevance to the current situation?

 

My position is based on decades working in the photographic industry and having detailed experience of IR sensitive films together with the problems associated with their use. I have also just spent four weeks in South Africa with my unfiltered M8 photographing under all sorts of conditions and at least 20% of the images are significantly affected in one way or another, almost always adversely, by the IR sensitivity. I’m highly sensitive to image defects and others may not be so critical but it would, I suggest, be most unwise of Leica to assume that customers won’t eventually become very aware of this problem. In theory it is a significant problem; in practice the problems are sufficiently evident as to cause difficulty and irritation.

 

The evidence from the dissenters is that they have yet to see many examples of defects caused by the IR sensitivity – which is precisely why it did not feature prominently in the initial reviews. They have only occasionally experienced it and therefore it must be rare. In a few cases it is argued that it is a benefit which improves B/W photographs. To deal with the last point first to my certain knowledge none of the major photographic materials manufacturers was being asked to increase IR sensitivity in their B/W films to improve the images. Indeed where IR sensitivity was high, e.g. Tech Pan., the literature had specific warnings and recommendations. Why has this changed in the digital domain? As regards the first point it is instructive to look back at this forum in the very first days after the camera was released. It took the typical photographer etc. a few hours to start a torrent of complaint. If any problems were so rare how can this be explained?

 

It may be that I am being unduly harsh but professional reviewers need to manage their reputations and the current wave of denial and self justification around this topic serves them ill.

[Guest sirvine]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"the horrors that can befall the unwary filter user"

 

In all seriousness, can someone explain what these "horrors" are? (OK, I know it's hyperbole).

 

I can imagine cyan shift for wide-angles. Maybe some kind of added flare, but how realistic is this, and how often is this likely to be an issue where the lens would not flare otherwise? What else is the down-side to using a cut filter?

 

I'm not talking theories about reducing the number of surfaces, blah blah -- I'm asking about real world impact that hurts performance of the M8 in a demonstrable way.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Well i was not a early beta tester and came in much later but whatever that argument is , it really is meaningless because the issue is there and that is all i will deal with. But if Leica highly recommends the use of filters than that says something, I personally say glue them on and forget about them being there and i will stick to that recommendation and have had them on since November. I just am NOT going to play the on /off game. But if folks don't want to use them than that is there choice but i still say IR contamination is in all visable light. Folks can deal with it as they wish or ignore it and that is fine too. At least you know about it and it has been talked about and here are your options. Plan and simple

 

Some types of lighting has more IR than others as well , so in some cases it maybe very obvious and some lighting you may not notice it.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Sol what many are forgetting here is a normal Canon DSLR has the correct amount of IR filtering on the sensor as does the DMR , the M8 itself does not the filters simply get it to the same level that a canon or DMR has. That is all the filters are truly doing is getting it back to normal levels because they could not do it inside on the sensor because it would affect performance on the M system because the lenses are so close to the sensor it would have caused abberations and ghosting . A DSLR does not have this issue the rear element there is distance to do this .

[AlanJW]

I have a very practical approach to the issue of the filters. It is driven by the fact that I still have not received the ones ordered from Leica, and my desire to see how they affect images before I run off to buy additional ones to fit all my lenses. So I have been using my M8 since mid-January and without any filters, simply loving the images it can create. To me the issue of the filters is not one of some objective measure as there appears none to be had. The issue is an image, which is after all an individual perception of what gets printed or otherwise rendered in some medium. If some of us are satisfied with the images without filters, recognizing that more PP is entailed, then this opinion is as valid as the opinion of those who swear by the filters and could not imagine shooting without one. Its just a matter of different human perceptions. The image in my signature block is one of Central Park NY, full of foliage, which is supposed to result in degradation without a filter. The image was enlarged to 36 x 24 and everyone who sees it has a very positive reaction. Would it have been better with a filter? Maybe. But I didn't have one, I still don't have one, and I am still using the camera and making images people like. I guess I just don't know any better.

[Guest sirvine]

Guy,

 

I hear you--that makes sense. I guess when you consider that the M8 and the R-D1 are the only digital bodies that accept M-mount lenses, I can't see any reason not to attach IR cut filters 100% of the time.

 

Exceptions would be: (1) you use the same M lenses for film bodies on a regular basis, (2) the diminished contrast, added flare, cyan corners really kills your specific application for the camera, (3) you don't have access to any cut filters, or (4) you're shooting in IR.

 

Have I missed any important exceptions?

[Jamie Roberts]

Actually, I don't find the M8 is that sharp in the sense that it needs considerably more USM than some DB images I have looked at. I think the microlenses act as anti-alias filter in fact.

 

Edmund

 

Hmm. Not sure what DB means--you mean digital backs? I would expect the M8 to be a little less sharp if only because of pixel size and diffraction.

 

But the M8 is by far the sharpest 35mm form factor camera I've ever used. Sharper than the DMR. Wayyy sharper than Canon.

 

Scott--it's not a question that IR is there. But it is a question of how much. IIRC, the weak IR filter was a tradeoff for edge sharpness, given the distance of the lens to the sensor. EDIT--Guy probably has it right--ghosting and lens abberations. But those would affect sharpness too!

 

I'm happy to be wrong. For prints, I certainly dial back the sharpening routines for the M8.

[wlaidlaw]

Too many hypothesis' for my liking. Speaking practically, ie from a user's POV, I have had problems when NOT using filters. NEVER had a problem when using (IR) filters. That is not to say I never will, but I'm a numbers man so I go with the probability theory.

 

I don't have the time or inclination to "measure" for rampant IR. I just cut it out. My results have never been better.After all, my time is cut out just capturing the image without trying to analyze it!

 

Now if I spent the energy that Puts does on his theories (God bless him), on my actual shooting, I reckon I might get somewhere with my photography.

 

Well I for one am getting very green JPEG's with the filter. They are still a touch green without but liveable with. Please see examples shot in Barcelona last week. It will be interesting to see if the official Leica filters have the same effect if and when they ever arrive. I suspect they might come after 1.10 and that of course will hopefully solve the problems with the M8, world peace, ozone layer, global warming etc :+}}

 

Wilson

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!

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped}

 

Some types of lighting has more IR than others as well , so in some cases it maybe very obvious and some lighting you may not notice it.

 

Exactly right Guy, but the reverse is also true. Some types of light are extremely IR heavy, and so you *will* notice it without filters.

[lct]

...Exceptions would be: (1) you use the same M lenses for film bodies on a regular basis, (2) the diminished contrast, added flare, cyan corners really kills your specific application for the camera, (3) you don't have access to any cut filters, or (4) you're shooting in IR....

(2) Didn't see diminished contrast so far;

(5) You need to be unobtrusive; then better use a good shade which can hide some of the reddish reflections; easy with small lenses (E39) but more difficult with larger ones.

[Jamie Roberts]

Well I for one am getting very green JPEG's with the filter. They are still a touch green without but liveable with. Please see examples shot in Barcelona last week. It will be interesting to see if the official Leica filters have the same effect if and when they ever arrive. I suspect they might come after 1.10 and that of course will hopefully solve the problems with the M8, world peace, ozone layer, global warming etc :+}}

 

Wilson

 

Wilson--how are you white balancing? Just curious Hope it's not AWB, which a guy at one seminar we attended lately (a Canon shooter, too) said stood for "average wrong balance"

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I have seen no effect on contrast or even flare unless the filter actually causes it which is somewhat rare but can happen. Folks you bought a M8 it's a manual camera , meaning YOU have to work it. You want it to be automatic than you bought the wrong system. LOL

[paul chiu]

Well I for one am getting very green JPEG's with the filter. They are still a touch green without but liveable with. Please see examples shot in Barcelona last week. It will be interesting to see if the official Leica filters have the same effect if and when they ever arrive. I suspect they might come after 1.10 and that of course will hopefully solve the problems with the M8, world peace, ozone layer, global warming etc :+}}

 

Wilson

 

 

wilson,

beautiful old country!

the 1st picture seems sharper than the 2nd.

the color of the 1st look more natural and dramatic

imo

paul

[lct]

Well I for one am getting very green JPEG's with the filter...

Didn't get any green cast with the R-D1.

FWIW, i mainly see WB problems on your pics.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ck1]

I'm finding it quite easy to correct the effect of IR filters on 35mm lenses and above.

 

However, I'm finding that correcting the cyan shift on the CV 15mm is very difficult (not difficult to get an approximate job done, but very difficult to correct it completely). I've tried ptcorrect, inversion masks (as described on other threads), gradient fills etc and have still not really cracked it...

 

Before I got an IR filter for the CV 15mm I spent 2 weeks in America shooting daily with it and the colour quality was lovely. Maybe 1 picture was off due to synthetic materials. Mainly city and snow, so not much green...

 

Recently spent an intensive 2 days of shooting with the IR filter on and Grrrrrr.....snow again, which really shows the cyan up.

 

I really hope that Leica have a SW solution for the wide lenses which works to completely eradicate the cyan drift....if not, I fear the filter will come off the 15mm...it's the lesser of 2 evils...