adan Posted February 4, 2008 Share #61 Posted February 4, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lie No. 1: "The M8 sensor's sensitivity to IR is a design mistake" - No, it is not. It was a conscious engineering decision to avoid reflections and other optical effects in the corners of the image by using a very thin piece of glass for filtering. (If Leica's engineers had specced a thicker filter, and the manufacturing guys installed the wrong thing - THAT would have been a mistake. Or if Leica's engineer's misread the specs of the filter they ordered - THAT would have been a mistake. Neither is true) The picture below shows what the Epson R-D1 produced with 15-21mm lenses and its thicker IR filter covering the sensor. Big globs of reflections from specular highlights. This is also what the M8 would have produced (or even more so, given the wider sensor) if Leica had decided to do the conventional thing, rather than go for the thinner (and limited) internal sensor filtering. I don't like the IR filters on the front of my lenses - but I dislike them a whole lot less than I would this kind of crappy imaging - which would have been the REAL mistake. If you are willing to stand up, put your hand over your heart, and say "I would prefer getting those reflections to using IR filters on the front of my lenses" - well, go ahead. At least we'll have an idea of your quality standards in evaluating future posts. If you (the generalized "you") did not realize how bad the reflections would have been without a very thin IR filter - then your optical engineering knowledge is a bit too limited for your opinions to matter. Lie No. 2: "Leica is making us pay for the shutter that should have been included in the first place" - Nope - Leica is MAKING no one do anything. You can buy a different shutter if you prefer - or you can skip it - or you can opt in later. And whether the retrofit shutter should have been the default is a matter of opinion - I challenge anyone to PROVE factually that it is a better shutter. I don't claim Leica has been flawless in the creation and introduction of the M8 - but these specific two statements are frankly falsehoods, and anyone who continues to repeat them is either intentionally dishonest, or too ignorant of the engineering to hold a qualified opinion. Edit: The small scenic shot has to do with R-D1 vignetting with the 15mm - can be ignored in this context. 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/44331-another-pros-view-on-the-upgrade/?do=findComment&comment=473466'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 4, 2008 Posted February 4, 2008 Hi adan, Take a look here Another pros view on the upgrade. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted February 4, 2008 Share #62 Posted February 4, 2008 Andy, thank you. This should be required reading for the nay-sayers. Clear, concise and to the point. Much appreciated. Regards, Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted February 4, 2008 Share #63 Posted February 4, 2008 Andy, thank you. This should be required reading for the nay-sayers. Clear, concise and to the point. Much appreciated. Regards, Bill Hear Hear!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dseelig Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share #64 Posted February 4, 2008 At the price of the uv ir filters I figure for everyone you buy you paid for maybe the 2 free ones if you buy a 55 or larger. I own 7 lenses they are making a lot of profit on this . David Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyedeebee Posted February 4, 2008 Share #65 Posted February 4, 2008 Hear Hear!! What he said! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted February 4, 2008 Share #66 Posted February 4, 2008 At the price of the uv ir filters I figure for everyone you buy you paid for maybe the 2 free ones if you buy a 55 or larger. I own 7 lenses they are making a lot of profit on this . David Then don't buy them, David. Nobody is making you. Regards, Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwalker649 Posted February 4, 2008 Share #67 Posted February 4, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) At the price of the uv ir filters I figure for everyone you buy you paid for maybe the 2 free ones if you buy a 55 or larger. I own 7 lenses they are making a lot of profit on this . David Your clearly tortured about this....add some years to your life and sell your gear...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted February 4, 2008 Share #68 Posted February 4, 2008 Heaven Help us! Leica makes a profit (unlike the previous 15 years)! But Sony, Nikon, Canon, and Pentax are, of course, charitable organizations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dseelig Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share #69 Posted February 4, 2008 Let me say this one last time,no one should tell another what to own or sell it is quite rude. Leica also told me my original aspherical would not work on an m8 I sold it then found out they were wrong. Then I bought what they said would work how ,many people have given up on the 35 lux asph . Guy and Jack will not recomend a 35 lux asph . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 4, 2008 Share #70 Posted February 4, 2008 {snipped} Guy and Jack will not recomend a 35 lux asph . Yeah and I still don't know why Actually, I do--it's more about contrast than any deficiency in the lens itself. Not wanting to speak for either of them, of course, but we have talked about this (on and off this forum) quite a bit. For me, it's the 35 Lux ASPH because I like it's cuts like a razor focus and fast speed. I use it all the time, from 1.4 through to f8. It rocks. Guy and Jack both own 35 'cron pre-ASPH (version IVs) IIRC because they like the contrast characteristics (which I understand, it's why I like the Nocti and the 90 Cron Pre-Asph too). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted February 4, 2008 Share #71 Posted February 4, 2008 So Steve you're predicting that a full-frame sensor won't be met with overwhelming desire...that people will still want to buy an M8 with the current chip if a ff 24-mp is available, and that they won't be aggravated to have to buy the old chip first and then wait and pay for an upgrade in order to get the ff chip. Let's see how well that prediction works out for you Using your logic, noone would have ever stuck with 35mm film when they could have been using 4x5 or 8x10. You seem to think everyone is dying to fill up their hard drives with files twice the size of what we now are quite content with, and to have their applications run at half speed. Thanks, but no thanks. The image quality for the kind of work I do is quite sufficient with the current 10mp sensor in the M8. I can safely say I'll feel the same two years from now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted February 5, 2008 Share #72 Posted February 5, 2008 Andy, while I have no axe to grind with you or my M8, I'm curious to know why or how you know or how you can state.....Lie No. 1: "The M8 sensor's sensitivity to IR is a design mistake" - No, it is not. It was a conscious engineering decision to avoid reflections and other optical effects in the corners of the image by using a very thin piece of glass for filtering. I know this is all water under the bridge at this stage but some things come to mind... 1. In the original printed manual there is no reference to the need to use UV/IR filters. 2. Leica had to be pushed into designing UV/IR filters after the release of the M8 3. There were no Leica UV/IR filters available for at least 4 months after the release of the M8 and these seem to come as they came off the production line. Leica had problems with the 55mm filters for which there was an extended delay while the filtration was adjusted. 4. There was talk about Leica being genuinely surprised at customers reaction to the colour casts IIRC from those who were supposed to have the ear and talking to Leica. 5. During the announcement of the impending release of the M8 reviewers were not allowed to show sample files taken with the M8. 6. One reviewer we know about was asked to withhold comments from a review regarding this IR contamination 7. At no time during the first month of release did Leica publicly inform users of the need to use such filters or that it was a requirement let alone have any that one could buy. Now while it may have been intentional to use a thin piece of filtration glass, I do believe Leica put corporate spin on the problem after they were caught with their pants down due to a design flaw that was not identified earlier in the design process. Needless to say this has like many other problems with the M8 been successfully overcome with the not so subtle use of filters. Time has made me more mellow with the M8 and if I were to really think about it I'd possibly be using UV filters anyway. I can't see the colour when I use the camera so it doesn't really bother me. But please don't say this was all in the design plan for the M8, clearly Leica were not ready for it even if they knew about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 5, 2008 Share #73 Posted February 5, 2008 I've said this before, but I think Leica _did_ identify the IR problem in the design stage but hoped to find a hardware solution before the camera was launched. I can't believe that knowing the specs of the sensor and after extensive internal testing they failed to notice the IR issue. Again my guess is that the marketing people forced the release of the camera, partly to save the company from going to the wall. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dseelig Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share #74 Posted February 5, 2008 Guy a as I recall has also talked about the focus shift problem. My asph was so unbelivable soft at f1.4 as is a friend of mine , DAG said my friends was not useful at f1.4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Campbell Posted February 5, 2008 Share #75 Posted February 5, 2008 Yeah and I still don't know why Actually, I do--it's more about contrast than any deficiency in the lens itself. Not wanting to speak for either of them, of course, but we have talked about this (on and off this forum) quite a bit. For me, it's the 35 Lux ASPH because I like it's cuts like a razor focus and fast speed. I use it all the time, from 1.4 through to f8. It rocks. Guy and Jack both own 35 'cron pre-ASPH (version IVs) IIRC because they like the contrast characteristics (which I understand, it's why I like the Nocti and the 90 Cron Pre-Asph too). 35 Lux and 28 Chron are my most used lenses. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted February 5, 2008 Share #76 Posted February 5, 2008 Cameron's getting angry now as I said he was pissed off with m8 problems .....get one of those self help books from your mate David still pissed off generally Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dseelig Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share #77 Posted February 5, 2008 Actually I am not angry and refuse to live in anger. I am amazed that people accept leica for every mistake they make . I am tired of paying for there mistakes. I do get upset for people telling me to get rid of my equipment. I make no personal attacks on anyone yet I get them, for saying a company is irresponsible . David Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted February 5, 2008 Share #78 Posted February 5, 2008 Yup David's pissed off ... some of these guys are happy to pay for the dramas and problems . I reckon they are a sheep short of a sheep station but, that's what their choice....... all be it one that we would not accept in the squirrel house Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 5, 2008 Share #79 Posted February 5, 2008 Guy a as I recall has also talked about the focus shift problem. My asph was so unbelivable soft at f1.4 as is a friend of mine , DAG said my friends was not useful at f1.4 Did DAG fix the problem? Seriously, my 35 Lux is sharp wide open and sharp stopped down. Yes, the focal field shifts; no the point of focus does not. Can't say the same for the Nocti Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dseelig Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share #80 Posted February 5, 2008 Actually there was nothing he could do my friend is quite bummed his lens was great with film. Me I lucked out and got a good titanuim 35 asph that works and has no noticeable focus shift in my prelimary tests. But I spent the last year with a lens I could not use wide open. David Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.