Well thank god for Voigtlander and such...

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean,

 

I sold my Epson RD-1 and purchased the M8 because having a company behind the product was important to me. I really liked the RD-1 and I was satisfied with the files but wanted better high ISO capability. I see M8 sales rapidly declining. Cameras stay for sale for far too long and prices are dropping. I have decided that it is time to cut my losses. Further, the high ISO capability I want and need isn't there and I really don't think Leica will be able to offer it. I wish the D700 capability were available in a D60 size body but the combined weight of the D700 and 3 primes or one zoom is still less than I carry in my M8 kit to cover the range from 35MM to 120MM (28, 40, 50 and 90).

 

P.S. Sean, I really like and appreciate your reviews and I think your photographic talents are really excellent. I try but alas don't achieve your skill level or ability to see a scene.

 

Hi John,

 

Thanks very much. I think that Leica DRFs have a future and that the company will support them. You're quite right about Epson with the R-D1 but, again, I like the camera itself a lot. The M8 is not perfect, to be sure, but I do see Leica supporting it now and in the future.

 

For the kinds of pictures I often make, the way in which an RF window allows me to see the subject is really important to me being able to make the pictures.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[offshore]

When I purchased my M8 I already had a 21 mm F2.8 pre asph. Elmarit, a pre asph. 35 mm Lux and a 90 Elmar that I was using on an M4P. I purchased the 28 mm F2.8 asph. and after two years of use the 21 and 28 have become my main lenses. I enjoy the results from the 21 so much that I thought it would have to be pried out of my cold dead hand to part with it and I can't afford the asph. version. Recently, the company I work for, has decided to take a look at the Zeiss lenses and I had an opportunity to take the Zeiss 21 and 50 mm F1.5 out to shoot with and found both lenses to be exceptional optics. The 21 is everything Erwin Puts says about it as it out performed my 21 Elmarit, in sharpness and color saturation. I have not had the opportunity to try a Leica 21 mm F2.8 Elmarit asph. version but at its price I would seriously consider the Zeiss 21 as a replacement for my Leica. The 50 mm F1.5 I thought was a much better performer wide open than Erwin gave it credit for. The build quality is superb on both lenses and although I don't use a 50 much I would consider it as a purchase just to have one available. Sean, I've been reading your posts here regarding cyan shift and am interested in reading more about this issue. Do you have any references on the internet that discuss it further, in particular how it affects B&W images taken with the M8? I'm curious because I've been experiencing off and on cyan problems with B&W and haven't been able to nail down a fix for the problem.

[delander †]

 

In any case, we may not all agree on this topic and I respect your opinion. Had the M8 not had a problem with IR sensitivity, I would not be arguing against Leica retaining the 6-bit system as a special feature associated with its lenses (and not all of them).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I respect your opinion too Sean, in fact very highly so. There is a problem with legacy Leica lenses which Leica have tried to mitigate with the coding service. Of course you have to pay for that and the lenses may be away for awhile. That situation should be easing now as they seem to have upgraded service outside of Germany. On top of paying for the coding the customer then has to get an ir cut filter. Perhaps Leica could have thrown that filter in with the coding. It would have cost them but at least reduced some of the resentment felt by those with existing lenses.

 

Jeff

[Vieri]

Exactly! And it was important to get you started as a customer for that all to happen.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Indeed - they surely did, both the M8 and the CV lenses, and I am very happy that it did happen. I used to do street photography with my D2x (!) and did so for more than two years, and while it did serve me well in the end, despite the bulk, weight and the extra diffidence that it created in my subjects (two exhibitions came out of that work) I am SO happy about the move to the M8 first and about going back to film with the MP later - a new (photographic) life, a better one at that, one that stimulated my vision (the RF process is a completely different beast) and therefore made my photography much better (this to those that insist that the gear doesn't matter - it does).

 

I forgot to mention the part that your reviews had in the whole thing - they are invaluable, thanks once more for all the work you put into them.

[sean_reid]

Hi Offshore,

 

It's not a cyan shift (which would occur across the frame) but rather a cyan drift. This is the visible consequence of red vignetting. The IR-cut filters are designed to cut IR but they also, unintentionally, reduce the color red (approximately red) when a lens' field of view is broader than a given number of degrees. At that point, the color in the outer areas of the file starts to drift towards cyan (blue-green) because the filter is blocking red. The further the eye moves off axis, the more intense this tends to be. So a CV 12, for example, shows intense cyan drift on an M8.

 

People sometimes refer to this as cyan vignetting but it's actually just the opposite. It's also sometimes called "cyan corners" but the effect acts on much more than just the corners.

 

Very roughly, the 67 mm EFOV of a 50 mm lens on an M8 is narrow enough that cyan drift in the outer zones is quite minimal. As the EFOV increases beyond that (with a 40 mm, 35 mm, etc.) the effect intensifies.

 

Virtually all of my writing about this is on my site. I've written extensively about filters, lens interactions, coding, coding effectiveness, hand-coding, adapters, etc, etc.

 

Sorry if that sounds like an ad for the site but that's simply where that info. is. There's also info. on the various forums.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I respect your opinion too Sean, in fact very highly so. There is a problem with legacy Leica lenses which Leica have tried to mitigate with the coding service. Of course you have to pay for that and the lenses may be away for awhile. That situation should be easing now as they seem to have upgraded service outside of Germany. On top of paying for the coding the customer then has to get an ir cut filter. Perhaps Leica could have thrown that filter in with the coding. It would have cost them but at least reduced some of the resentment felt by those with existing lenses.

 

Jeff

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Thanks. An additional problem, as I've mentioned many times before, is that many older Leica lenses cannot be coded. The lens menu would also help with that problem. I'm obviously a supporter of protecting IP but I see the lens menu as being a way for Leica to support the customers who buy the M8 (despite the IR problems) and wish to use it with a variety of RF lenses (which was the initial promise made by Leica) . Since the M8 creates the IR problem, the M8 should also fix that problem, to the degree possible, without a closed system.

 

I've also mentioned this before but recall that the Epson R-D1 generated a lot of new lens sales for Leica. Epson certainly didn't close that system. I think Hank is right that the DRF sector needs activity, variety, competition, etc. to be successful. The R-D1 works as well as it can with a wide range of RF lenses made by various companies. The M8 does not - unless the owner modifies certain lenses or uses adapters. Of course, the R-D1 is also sensitive to IR - albeit to a lesser degree.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...one that stimulated my vision (the RF process is a completely different beast) and therefore made my photography much better (this to those that insist that the gear doesn't matter - it does).

 

I forgot to mention the part that your reviews had in the whole thing - they are invaluable, thanks once more for all the work you put into them.

 

Hi Vieri,

 

It's very true about the difference an RF camera can make although not all photographers put that difference to use. I'm glad that you have done so and that these RF cameras have been good to you. Thanks for the latter comments as well.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[offshore]

Hi Offshore,

 

It's not a cyan shift (which would occur across the frame) but rather a cyan drift. This is the visible consequence of red vignetting. The IR-cut filters are designed to cut IR but they also, unintentionally, reduce the color red (approximately red) when a lens' field of view is broader than a given number of degrees. At that point, the color in the outer areas of the file starts to drift towards cyan (blue-green) because the filter is blocking red. The further the eye moves off axis, the more intense this tends to be. So a CV 12, for example, shows intense cyan drift on an M8.

 

People sometimes refer to this as cyan vignetting but it's actually just the opposite. It's also sometimes called "cyan corners" but the effect acts on much more than just the corners.

 

Very roughly, the 67 mm EFOV of a 50 mm lens on an M8 is narrow enough that cyan drift in the outer zones is quite minimal. As the EFOV increases beyond that (with a 40 mm, 35 mm, etc.) the effect intensifies.

 

Virtually all of my writing about this is on my site. I've written extensively about filters, lens interactions, coding, coding effectiveness, hand-coding, adapters, etc, etc.

 

Sorry if that sounds like an ad for the site but that's simply where that info. is. There's also info. on the various forums.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Hi Sean,

Thank you for the explanation re cyan drift it cleared up some things for me, however, I didn't post all of the information regarding what is an off and on issue for me. My work with the M8 is almost exclusively in B&W using IR filters to record the IR spectrum. One IR filter I use on the 28 Elmarit is an old Leitz 39 mm filter and the other, that I use on my 21 is a Hoya IR72. A few months ago I decided to purchase the Pantone Huey monitor calibrator and my screen went immediately to cyan when I used it. Pantone sent me a replacement that fixed the problem for a while. I know the obvious conclusion should be that it is still the calibration but it is intermittent and varies from file to file. Those files that were never cyan stay that way and some images that come directly from the camera, shot on the same day, are cyan and some aren't. Your explanation leads me to suspect that it could be differences in the lenses, which I haven't tracked yet. This is also not an edge issue, it is across the whole image and once I start seeing cyan it seems there is cyan in everything. A majority of my prints are true b&w but some come out with cyan cast and it is maddening to try to figure out why as even taking out the color data doesn't solve the problem. Thank you for any thoughts you may have and I will look at your site.

[sean_reid]

Hi Sean,

Thank you for the explanation re cyan drift it cleared up some things for me, however, I didn't post all of the information regarding what is an off and on issue for me. My work with the M8 is almost exclusively in B&W using IR filters to record the IR spectrum. One IR filter I use on the 28 Elmarit is an old Leitz 39 mm filter and the other, that I use on my 21 is a Hoya IR72. A few months ago I decided to purchase the Pantone Huey monitor calibrator and my screen went immediately to cyan when I used it. Pantone sent me a replacement that fixed the problem for a while. I know the obvious conclusion should be that it is still the calibration but it is intermittent and varies from file to file. Those files that were never cyan stay that way and some images that come directly from the camera, shot on the same day, are cyan and some aren't. Your explanation leads me to suspect that it could be differences in the lenses, which I haven't tracked yet. This is also not an edge issue, it is across the whole image and once I start seeing cyan it seems there is cyan in everything. A majority of my prints are true b&w but some come out with cyan cast and it is maddening to try to figure out why as even taking out the color data doesn't solve the problem. Thank you for any thoughts you may have and I will look at your site.

 

If the file is a true (by the RGB numbers) monochrome picture then I'd look at the monitor, monitor calibration and printer calibration. Cyan drift is not all across the frame and does show in the RGB numbers. For example, the center of a grey wall might be 181,181,181 while a corner may measure, for example, 165, 168, 175.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[thompsonkirk]

Just a far-out question:

 

I was surprised that Zeiss took the trouble so recdently to develop a new film camera. Looks like a nice one - but I don't happen to want another film camera.

 

If Zeiss is still working this hard in the 35mm area, is it possible they too will develop a digital rangefinder?

 

Kirk

[delander †]

I believe that anyone that understands technology and that digital cameras are all about technological capabilities and software development has to be worried about Leica's latest move to entrust its software abilities to Jenoptiks.

 

I read somewhere that Jenoptik were responsible for the latest FW 1.201 that sorted the AWB problem?

 

Jeff

[delander †]

For those interested I did a quick patent search which came up with two Leica Camera AG patents related to 'Method and Device for Identifying Interchangeable Lenses'.

 

I couldn't read the complete patent but the precis described Leica's 6-bit system but did not mention software corrections.

 

Jeff

[gdi]

Sander,

 

I have some understanding of how things work in Europe as I was an executive of a company that had a wholly owned subsidiary in Germany at one time. It really has nothing to so with whether the companies are friends or not. Each company has its own bottom line to worry about and software development is one of those areas in which costs can quickly get out of control. Further, when it is your own team and they are on the verge of making a difficult technological breakthrough you may chose to ignore the bottom line. It is very hard to do that when it is an outside company that is cost overrunning their development contract. Further, to manage that outside contract requires resources and every change to the specification is a new contract modification and cost. Often in bleeding edge areas of technology the specifications are vague and in spiral development may often be very minimal. This isn't practical when an outside company is doing the development. We do a great deal of spiral development in my organization. We may develop exactly what a customer says he wants but when the customer sees it he changes his mind and says Oh!, I really wanted X when I told you Y. This is part of many modern development efforts and very hard to do when outsourced. It lets us get product to market much faster and for a lower overall cost because we are concerned about cost but we also recognize the need to satisfy the customer.

 

There are multiple models for outsourcing software development. Doing it all in house is certainly one option, but often not the best.

 

In many cases it makes sense to focus on your own strengths and buy/rent the expertise you don't have or only have a need for in the nearer term. It really can make sense to take a somewhat "best of breed " approach. I know nothing of the capabilities of Jenoptiks, but it is possible they have much more software expertise and resource capacity than Leica. (One reason for the seemingly illogical opposition to the lens menu scheme was diverting the scare programming resources from fixing the many bugs in the code.) Also, there are many time and material contracts thats would not require a contract modification for each specification change. Spec changes are difficult no matter how the development organization is structured.

 

Just I wouldn't question Leica's decision (or Nikons, for that matter) to outsource sensor development and production, I wouldn't see the software side as a reason to turn away from the company. ( I can't really see groundbreaking software breakthroughs as a big thing to plan for with such a small company.)

 

In short, I'm not worried about the outsourcing. Here's hoping the relationship is a productive one for Leica and its customers.....

[SJP]

Outsourcing the M8 firmware/software development to the company that was involved with this aspect of the M8 from the start sounds like good business practice. In fact Leica should have involved Jenoptik (dragged them to the grinding stone) earlier. For instance to improve their version 0.001 software release.

 

Maybe a 'strained relationship' ???

[ljclark]

One of the concerns I hear voiced is that by keeping the lens ID system sort of a closed system, and not allowing menu lens selection, we will allow Leica to save itself.

 

So...Pulling up the drawbridge at Solms and filling the moat with broken optical glass is going to do the trick? I don't think so.

 

Making the decision that all that is is good will only come from Solms is, at best, a suspect concept. Yes, I know they've played with "offshore" manufacturing before, and have pulled back from that concept. But maybe it's time to look at a rational manufacturing outsource process again.

 

I'm not sure what the current balance is for Zeiss lens production, but when they launched their M series lenses, all but the top and bottom of the line (in terms of focal length) were manufactured by Cosina. Zeiss is now a player in areas they were not before and my local store has been ordering Zeiss MF lenses for DSLR users lately.

 

Maybe the camera bodies and the Summilux lenses should be made in the castle in Germany. And, also, maybe some of the other lenses -- series, or individually. But is the quality of the Cosina-built Zeiss lenses lower than the Summarits? Is everything so complex that Leica can't develop a specification that another manufacture can operate with?

 

Leica's mission should be to get good quality lenses and cameras out the factory doors (wherever those doors are), onto dealers' shelves, and into the hands of photographers. If they intend to do so in the future, I'm not seeing how that matches up with their current business model.

[ChrisC]

The phrase 'closed system' has been applied a few times to the M8. Unless I'm really missing something [a frequent occurrence alas] it is only a closed system in this sense:

 

a] For some older M fit lenses.

 

b] Because CV, and Zeiss are not providing 6 neat holes in the right place in their new lens flanges.

 

I understand the patent issue of Leica's coding, but surely 6 holes milled in a convenient place [which could possibly be filled with black or white nail varnish] is not a patent breach. Neither CV or Zeiss have helped M8 users in this regard so we can be thankful at least for John Milich providing a solution.

 

Aside from older M lenses which Leica are effectively excluding from the M8, the rest of the charge of 'closed system' should be aimed at CV and Zeiss for not wanting to be the M8's playmate.

 

Or have I missed something and had another 'alas' moment?

 

...................... Chris

[delander †]

 

I understand the patent issue of Leica's coding, but surely 6 holes milled in a convenient place [which could possibly be filled with black or white nail varnish] is not a patent breach. Neither CV or Zeiss have helped M8 users in this regard so we can be thankful at least for John Milich providing a solution.

 

Aside from older M lenses which Leica are effectively excluding from the M8, the rest of the charge of 'closed system' should be aimed at CV and Zeiss for not wanting to be the M8's playmate.

 

Or have I missed something and had another 'alas' moment?

 

...................... Chris

 

I suppose it could be seen as an encouragement to violate a patent(s). I dont know if that is illegal but I doubt that a Germany technology company such as Zeiss with its own patents preciously guarded, would do such a thing. The same goes for CV. If they wanted to do it I am sure that they would simply try and arrange a licensing deal. It is Leica proprietary technology employed in Leica's camera.

 

Jeff

[ChrisC]

.... It is Leica proprietary technology employed in Leica's camera...

 

Jeff - The dots yes, the holes no?

 

................. Chris

[sean_reid]

The phrase 'closed system' has been applied a few times to the M8. Unless I'm really missing something [a frequent occurrence alas] it is only a closed system in this sense:

 

a] For some older M fit lenses.

 

b] Because CV, and Zeiss are not providing 6 neat holes in the right place in their new lens flanges.

 

I understand the patent issue of Leica's coding, but surely 6 holes milled in a convenient place [which could possibly be filled with black or white nail varnish] is not a patent breach. Neither CV or Zeiss have helped M8 users in this regard so we can be thankful at least for John Milich providing a solution.

 

Aside from older M lenses which Leica are effectively excluding from the M8, the rest of the charge of 'closed system' should be aimed at CV and Zeiss for not wanting to be the M8's playmate.

 

Or have I missed something and had another 'alas' moment?

 

...................... Chris

 

Hi Chris,

 

Depending on a court's interpretation, those six holes could indeed be considered a patent infringement. Zeiss and CV simply cannot adopt Leica's coding system without Leica's blessing. And, of course, we still have the many older Leica lenses that cannot be factory coded.

 

Again, the coding is now needed primarily to correct for a problem with the M8, not with anyone's lenses, per se. I think that's a very important distinction.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

I suppose it could be seen as an encouragement to violate a patent(s). I dont know if that is illegal but I doubt that a Germany technology company such as Zeiss with its own patents preciously guarded, would do such a thing. The same goes for CV. If they wanted to do it I am sure that they would simply try and arrange a licensing deal. It is Leica proprietary technology employed in Leica's camera.

 

Jeff

 

Right...or in other words, the ball has always been in Leica's court for this aspect.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean