what is this cr*p

[LeicaMSeattle]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

These were taken yesterday with my CV12. I bought the Milich filter holder and tried the UV/IR cut filter but was only disappointed with the cyan vignette corners. I shot these with no filter with the M8 set to lens detection "OFF"

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!

[RSL]

I know how all the buttons on my DSLR work, but I almost always shoot in manual exposure mode, have 6 manual focus lenses (plus lots of AF lenses) and I generally know what exposure I need. (I never use a meter for interiors even with 10 strobe heads.) So I can relate. But I don't usually feel I have to think much about the process no matter what camera I use.

 

I've taken about 6 vacations throughout the world in the past 15 months and the only camera I brought was an automatic p&s. I probably did more thinking with that than with any camera I use.

 

I'm really not talking about what you or I or ten thousand users can do. This gear just has to evolve to keep the companies in business. Linhof has kept the basic Master Technika around for almost 40 years but at the same time made all kinds of other view cameras to fit different needs at different times.

 

Likewise, I don't see any reason why Leica can't find numerous ways to evolve the rangefinder design whether they keep something like an M8 in production or not. It won't necessarily have to be a more complicated camera either.

 

Alan, You're spinning your wheels. The question's been asked again and again on this forum: If Leica could come up with a rangefinder that looks different, feels different, and works differently, but gets rid of the need for IR filters, can hold up through a shoot without locking up, doesn't develop green lines in the images as the sensor ages, has a full-frame sensor, etc., etc., would you buy it? On balance, the answer's always been a very loud "NO!" The main thing is to keep the camera looking and feeling like a traditional M. I have to admit that even I buy into that feeling to a certain extent, but that's because I worked with film Ms for a long time back in the sixties and loved them. The problem is that this is a nostalgic group. If Leica actually came out with a digital rangefinder that worked properly but looked different, at a price comparable to what we used to pay for an M in the sixties (with its included 50mm Summicron) most of the people on this forum wouldn't even consider buying it. If you're looking for progress in equipment this isn't the place to find it.

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

If you're looking for progress in equipment this isn't the place to find it.

 

I'm sure you are right and I'm probably crazy.

[johnbuckley]

The novelty of the M8 for me has completely worn off. I hardly ever use it anymore.

 

It might be "simple" to use, but it has become just plain annoying - irritating in fact. The whole system is no longer classic but an out of date joke - bloated, with oversized lenses that put the whole system out of balance. I can't believe those guys who rushed out to buy the 21 and 24 1.4 lenses are really that happy with the balance and viewfinder compromises. The whole package just feels and looks so wrong now.

 

I completely get the M film cameras with the old classic lenses, a true classic camera that was beautifully balanced. But the M8 in its current form - heavy, outdated, sluggish, unbalanced, unreliable and extremely expensive - is just a fraud.

 

Leica are going to have to move real big with the digital M if it is to survive.

 

The only great thing about the M8 is that it has pushed me back to using my MP for fun, and the odd job when I want that Leica film look, and it is truly satisfying.

 

Dear John - You don't actually have to hang out at the M8 forum. Go brighten the day of others. JB

[adan]

The novelty of the M8 for me has completely worn off....I completely get the M film cameras with the old classic lenses, a true classic camera that was beautifully balanced. But the M8 in its current form - heavy, outdated, sluggish, unbalanced, unreliable and extremely expensive - is just a fraud.

 

John66: Actually, I agree with you as to the size of recent Leica LENSES (for the most part). I would really love to walk into a executive meeting at Solms (or Wetzlar, as may soon be), put down an M2 on the conference table with a 21 f/3.4, 35 f/2 (or f/1.4), and 90 f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit as they were in 1975, and say "C'mon. folks. THIS is your core business. A camera and three reasonably fast lenses that can fit in one sock."

 

Me, I just shoot the M8 with those "old classic lenses" - 35 f/2, 50 f/2, 90 f/2.8 TE, 135 TE (c. 1969) - plus the 15 c/v, and do not find the combo(s) any more "heavy, outdated, sluggish, unbalanced, unreliable or expensive" than an MP (checked out new MP prices recently? $4,395 vs. M8 $3,995 at B&H).

 

Jaapv: I've got those IR-only M8 shots with the 15 - will post them on this thread in an hour or so.

[Jamie Roberts]

I'm sure you are right and I'm probably crazy.

 

No you're not crazy Alan, but a lot of us are just silent on the hypotheticals. We need to wait and see what really happens.

 

I for one would buy an updated, full-frame, non-green-streak-producing, modified M rangefinder (with focus assist or at least some checking routines) tomorrow.

 

Look, it's really the glass I love in addition to using a rangefinder to "see", and I'm a rangefinder guy--I like them for all the reasons I should. I don't need to see through the lens for 99% of the stuff I do and the stuff I like to shoot doesn't need that kind of obsessive frame accuracy (especially since the print will likely be cropped anyway). Though I came from SLRs, I loved rangefinders from the moment I tried my first one

 

But there's a gazillion ways to improve the M8 (and I can think of plenty to improve on the D3 as well--it has some real functional and ergonomic blunders, IMO, so I'm not picking on the M8 or Leica in the slightest).

 

Anyway, I think they'll get it right with the M9 personally. I wouldn't be at all surprised to the see the body and workings tweaked for simplicity and accuracy.

 

If that means the shape of the body becomes more svelt, or a (very) little bit larger or smaller, so be it. The M8 doesn't really look like my M3 anyway up close, though there's a family resemblance.

 

And that's all I ask---something that lets me use the glass to full effect, that is absolutely artifact-free, that uses a rangefinder (I don't care how it's coupled though--it could be fly by wire for all I care ), that's quiet (very quiet) and that has the right ergonomic design.

[imported_reinierv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

C'mon...I'm raising a technical issue here, not a M8 system discussion. I do love the M way of working

 

But I can not understand that a wide angle with a 1/3 crop still gives this bad corners

[jaapv]

Without IR filter:

The photosites on a sensor have a limted angle of view. On a rangefinder the angle of light striking the sensor is steeper than on an SLR as the register distance of the lens to the sensor is shorter. That gets worse as the lens accepts a wider angle of view, ie. a wideangle lens. The M8 has offset microprisms which compensate, but this compensation cannot reach 100%.

 

Most Leica lenses are retrofocus designs, which means the exit angle is different from the entry angle, making the effect less. The CV is a simple symmetrical design, so the effect is there in full strength.

 

The IR filer is an interference filter. That means that the amount of filtering is influenced - again - by the angle of the light striking the filter. So the edges are filtered differently from the center - giving that beautiful Cyan drift. And, incidentally, is the reason the filter cannot be in front of the sensor (see point 1)

 

The M8 compensates for those two effects digitally by knowing which lens is on the camera through coding, and I suspect, by guessing the aperture as well.

 

So if you put an extreme wideangle on the camera without the camera having the appropriate algorithms for compensation, or indeed without the camera even knowing which lens or whether a filter is mounted or not things start going wrong, as shown in this thread.

[adan]

Hi, jaapv. Looks like you're right regarding hot spots with pure IR light - although I had to do a lot of image manipulation to bring them out. Pix were shot with 15 c/v original version, Leitz IR (deep deep red) filter, camera set to lens recognition but not UV/IR corrections. Colors and WB shifted around as needed to avoid blood-red everywhere:

 

The red shots are "as shot" and the hot spot is not very visible - the blue-violet shots involved playing with the calibration profile in ACR and then also shifting the colors via HSB in Photoshop to make the IR "magenta" (see the distant grass in the Miata shot center left is also magenta)

 

My finger shows up in most shots - holding the filter in place.

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!

Edited May 1, 2009 by adan

[adan]

One more - this time facing away from the sun.

 

BTW (and off-topic) I'd like to find a way to replicate the colors of Infrared Color Film. But I think that will require shooting on a tripod, and making two exposures, one in natural color and one pure IR, and then swapping around channels. Because that's how Kodak did it. IR light>red image, red light>green image, green light>blue image, blue light blocked with yellow filter.

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!

Edited May 1, 2009 by adan

[jaapv]

Thanks, Andy, interesting results. I have another little experiment in mind, but it will have to wait until Monday.

[Mauribix]

These were taken yesterday with my CV12. I bought the Milich filter holder and tried the UV/IR cut filter but was only disappointed with the cyan vignette corners. I shot these with no filter with the M8 set to lens detection "OFF"

 

try with a B+W 489 filter (not the usual 486 UV/IR), you'll be surprised.

[lct]

....If Leica could come up with a rangefinder that looks different, feels different, and works differently, but gets rid of the need for IR filters, can hold up through a shoot without locking up, doesn't develop green lines in the images as the sensor ages, has a full-frame sensor, etc., etc., would you buy it?...

Why would it need to look, feel and work differently? Simply remove its vices and it will be at last a Leica.

[carstenw]

C'mon...I'm raising a technical issue here, not a M8 system discussion. I do love the M way of working

 

But I can not understand that a wide angle with a 1/3 crop still gives this bad corners

 

Okay, my M8 has died and I am on holiday, and I have some time on my hands, so I will go through the details of this to atone for my fit of the other day. I still hold that the first reaction when something goes wrong should not be "what is this cr*p", but rather "what is this", but that is another story.

 

The Leica M8's sensor is more infrared sensitive than Kodak had been saying. I don't know why Leica didn't test it more before believing this, but they were relatively inexperienced, and Kodak was there since the start, so I chalk it down to Kodak not knowing at what severe angles the M lenses are capable of putting light onto the sensor, and Leica being too inexperienced to question Kodak's claim about IR sensitivity. Possibly Leica was also pushing Kodak to make the filter as thin as possible, to reduce its effect on the optical path.

 

Anyway, so the M8's sensor is quite IR sensitive, because the filter on the sensor wasn't strong enough. This leads to false colours and IR bleed. You will see this as reddish blacks most commonly, especially with artifical materials, as opposed to cotton, wool, etc. Skin tones were sometimes ruddish as well.

 

This was clearly not acceptable, and so Leica had to search for a solution posthaste. The only possible answer, short of replacing the sensor with an improved version (which did not exist), was to add an additional IR filter on the lens. Leica announced this and went about formulating the filters for the various lenses, and they were released after a few months, with two free filter in the size of your choice for those who had suffered through the bad colours, i.e. initial owners.

 

The filters used on the lenses are not IR absorbing, however, like the one on the sensor, but IR blocking. The blocking is accomplished by several thin coats of a specific thickness which blocks the light at certain wavelengths. However, light entering at an angle travels further through the layer, and so different wavelengths are blocked. The light in the corners of a wide-angle lens enters at such dramatic angles that we can actually perceive a colour shift. This can be seen by 35/1.4 lenses and wider. The M8's firmware was updated to correct for this colour shift, but it needs to know which lens was used, and so the lens coding was used as a key to correcting for the shift.

 

Only Leica lenses are coded, so only they could be properly corrected, until Mike Prevette discovered how to fake the code of Leica's lenses on non-Leica lenses here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/10494-proof-concept-regarding-self-coding-lenses.html

 

Then the hunt was on for figuring out which lenses had which codes, and how best to code other lenses. The Cosina-Voigtländer (hence CV, not VC) 15mm lens has no counter-part in the Leica lineup. The closest is the wide-angle Tri-Elmar at 16mm, but the match is not exact, and so some colour shift can still be seen. The best solution then is to use the CornerFix program from Sandy. You take a photo of a white or grey wall, or some similar object, and then let CornerFix analyze that to generate a profile for the lens. This can then be used to correct the colour cast in your images.

 

In my experience, it is really hard to get a really good profile. I have tried repeatedly (I also own the CV15, as well as the WATE), and not yet been totally happy. I need to get back to that, but keep falling back on the WATE, which I have wanted to sell. The WATE operates perfectly, but it is a very expensive lens to have kicking around for as little use as I give it, so I thought I would trade it for a Zeiss18mm and a CV12mm, and some money for other equipment I want.

 

All of this has been discussed at length, and the topic comes up regularly. I still find it hard to believe that someone could be a member here for so long, and buy the CV15, presumably on member recommendation, and still be unaware that there was an issue. It is a great little lens with a complicated workflow.

[jrc]

Alan,

 

You're wrong when you say the Leica site doesn't mention the IR filters...it does, but you were probably looking for some indication that they're regarded as a problem, rather than as a feature. If you look under the M8 lenses discussion, you'll find, "Compensation of color shifts through the use of UV/IR filters."

 

JC

[AlanG]

Alan,

 

You're wrong when you say the Leica site doesn't mention the IR filters...it does, but you were probably looking for some indication that they're regarded as a problem, rather than as a feature. If you look under the M8 lenses discussion, you'll find, "Compensation of color shifts through the use of UV/IR filters."

 

JC

 

Pretty funny. I failed to find the M8 lens discussion area. I did see something about the availability of a filter in the description of one of the new lenses - but I can't find that spot now.

 

Please keep in mind that when I said that I'd keep this thread in mind the next time someone said the M8 was simple... was just intended as a lighthearted remark considering all of the testing, questions, complaints, problems, angst, and issues that are constantly posted by M8 users on this forum. I'm not posting these statements. I'm just learning from them and what I've learned is that "simple" is not the word I'd use to describe the M8. My remark had nothing to do with the minimal number of controls on the camera or that using an IR filter was so difficult and complex.

 

That being said, I can't say I've read every page of the Leica web site.But I've looked at it fairly closely. I've seen a couple of notations about IR/UV filters that were a bit cryptic. Now maybe Lieutenant Columbo would have figured out that you needed filters for the M8 but I don't think the average reader would get it.

 

Note - The site does not have a notice in bold that you'll need to use IR filters to get accurate color. The photos of the M8.2 and lenses do not show IR filters on them. If you click on "Accessories" there is no mention of IR filters. If you then hit the drop down list and choose "filters" it shows UV and Polarizing filters only. If you click on "brochures' you can read about the M8 but I couldn't find a photo of it with a filter or any mention of IR.

 

I grant that I could miss something buried in fine print somewhere. But it is clear to me that on the website, Leica is simply doing everything possible to hide the fact that one needs to use an accessory filter in order to block IR radiation. I guess they are just keeping it simple.

Edited May 1, 2009 by AlanG

[epand56]

try with a B+W 489 filter (not the usual 486 UV/IR), you'll be surprised.

 

Maurizio is right, try it. You'll be much more than surprised...

[RSL]

I don't know why Leica didn't test it more before believing this, but they were relatively inexperienced, and Kodak was there since the start, so I chalk it down to Kodak not knowing at what severe angles the M lenses are capable of putting light onto the sensor, and Leica being too inexperienced to question Kodak's claim about IR sensitivity.

 

This was clearly not acceptable, and so Leica had to search for a solution posthaste. The only possible answer, short of replacing the sensor with an improved version (which did not exist), was to add an additional IR filter on the lens. Leica announced this and went about formulating the filters for the various lenses, and they were released after a few months, with two free filter in the size of your choice for those who had suffered through the bad colours, i.e. initial owners.

 

Right. Leica couldn't possibly have blown it. It must all have been Kodak's fault.

 

Come on, Carsten, if you put a camera on the market for roughly 5 grand U.S., which was the price of the body in the beginning, the buck stops with you. You mean to tell me you believe the Leica people just went ahead and put the Kodak sensor into the M8 body and didn't do any testing? They just took Kodak's word for it? If you were Leica, testifying under oath, you'd have two choices with that line of defense: (1) I was stupid and didn't know any better, or (2) I knew about it but decided we'd better get the camera out right now in spite of the problems. I figured we'd wing it and try to fix things later.

 

The fact is that Leica MUST have known full well that there were problems before they released the camera for sale. To think anything else is to accuse them of terminal stupidity. Evidently they just hoped their customers wouldn't notice. When their customers DID notice they fell back on the two IR filter ploy for people who'd already bought the camera, which didn't do much for later buyers and didn't solve the lockup and green line problems.

 

I keep reading these defenses for an indefensible failure and I have a hard time understanding why they're still being put forth. The camera simply is defective -- in a number of ways -- and has been defective since the day it was released. The M8.2 is nothing but the same junk with some cosmetic changes and a price increase.

 

I'd dearly love to see an M9 with the problems solved, but all we get is excuses and cosmetic changes. Yeah, I know I'll get flamed because I've written this, but it's time someone said what everyone knows is the truth. Canon has its problems, Nikon has its problems, but if you put all their problems with all their cameras together the total doesn't even begin to approach the problems with the M8. The longer we pretend everything is dandy in River City, the longer it's going to be before we see a reliable rangefinder from Leica. In fact, I've about come to the conclusion that we can forget it.

[SJP]

If you buy an M8 at a decent shop (i.e. not from the web) they will inform you at length about the fact that you need IR filters on your lenses and that you will get two "free" & the others are not cheap.

 

Regardless of the means of purchase, when you open the box you first get a small manual mentioning the two filters you are entitled to, then you get a similar booklet on the tri-elmar WATE and that is no good without using a filter, coding and a firmware update, then you get to the manual. What do you want them to do, send you a warning letter by registered post stating DO NOT BUY THIS CAMERA UNLESS YOU REALLY WANT TO??

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest John66]

 

I keep reading these defenses for an indefensible failure and I have a hard time understanding why they're still being put forth. The camera simply is defective -- in a number of ways -- and has been defective since the day it was released. The M8.2 is nothing but the same junk with some cosmetic changes and a price increase.

 

 

Thank god I'm not the only one fed up with the endless defense of a lame camera.

 

As much as we love rangefinders, the M8 is rubbish, we all know in out hearts it is rubbish. So just admit it - say it out loud. I know it's going to be tough to tell the wife (or husband) that it has been an expensive mistake, and that she/he could have had that great holiday had you not been conned into buying a defective camera. She/he will be pretty annoyed at first, but will love you for your honesty later - then feel all your troubles drain away

 

Now, I don't feel like I'm hiding a dirty secret any more.

 

"THE M8 IS CRAP" Man, that felt good

Edited May 1, 2009 by John66