what is this cr*p

[Nicoleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At the risk of sounding like a scratched record (yet again!), I think that a lot of people are forgetting that an M8 is a tool. Like any tool, it is more suited to some jobs than others. For those applications where it is a suitable tool, it is superlative. For those applications where it is not the best tool, it can be a challenge at best.

Yes, it has it's faults, but, in my opinion, these are more than compensated for by it's virtues when it is used appropriately.

 

If I want to take photographs that involve fast moving action that need a long lens, or even when I wish to use my old mirror lens (I still love those doughnuts!), then I don't use an 'M'. But if I wish to blend into the background, photograph wide landscapes, use long exposure times handheld, or simply don't wish to carry half a ton of equipment with me, then I use my 'M'.

 

Nothing in life is perfect, and any tool is only as good as the capability of the person using it. In time, I'm sure that many of the 'faults' that people complain about here will be addressed, but I'm also sure that people will then find other 'faults' to complain about.

 

Enjoy life, we only get one shot at that.

[AlanG]

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??

 

I think I was being quite reasonable. But since you asked: On the M8.2 page of the web site, they should clearly state that the camera will require IR filters for accurate color. The photographs of the camera should show the IR filter on it at all times. Each lens should have a clear notation that states that the lens requires an IR filter if it is to be used on an M8 in order to get accurate color reproduction.

 

Is this too much to expect? Heck the technical data sheets for the 21 1.4 and 24 1.4 have several sentences explaining vignetting and distortion along with graphs but absolutely nothing about the IR filter.

Edited May 1, 2009 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

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...

 

No it isn't. Apart from a few p&s shots with a Panasonic, it's the only camera I've used in the last two and a half years, and I've loved every minute of using it.

 

Sorry if my irony filter wasn't working .

[jaapv]

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

This post is rubbish....

[jrc]

<snip>

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. <snip>

 

Leica has often been accused of terminal stupidity here, so that's no big problem.

 

I bought one of the first M8s, to go with my M7. The first problems were discovered within a day of the camera's release, with more problems following within the week. At the end of two weeks, I believe most of the problems had been found. Given the ease with which they were generated and found, you would have thought that Leica MUST (as you said) have known about them. And yet, I got the distinct impression that Leica was somewhat surprised, and especially surprised by the ubiquity of the magenta problem generated by black synthetic fabrics. Somebody (I believe on the Rangefinder Forum) posted a photo of a symphony orchestra in which all the members wore magenta tuxes. I *still* laugh when I remember that. 8-)

 

When you looked at M8 publicity and beta-testing shots, they seemed IIRC that they fell into two categories -- landscapes or outdoor-adventure shots, in which the actual color of fabrics may not have caught people's attentions, and in which the natural color was okay; and night shots, street shots, to demonstrate the famous Leica high-speed lenses when high-ISO sensors were somewhat limited, and in those shots, the IR was somewhat limited because, uh, the sun was down.

 

So, I think it's possible that the problems WERE missed, at least in their more extreme forms. The thing that really emphasized them was mass shooting. I don't want to seem to be reaching for a metaphor here, but the current financial crisis was in part caused by big-brain mathematicians who didn't understand that their models *tended to be exactly the same as other big brain models,* and so, when their models said to dump a stock, everybody was dumping. Just not part of the calculation, so what you got was a stock market that was cruising along and then suddenly would suffer a massive break...

 

Leica may very well have had beta testers testing under a similar set of circumstances -- well known landscape shooters, say, and well-known street shooters, and well-known portrait artists, shooting under conditions that were similar and which these problems simply didn't occur...and that it never occurred to Leica that the range of testing might not be what it should be.

 

I'm not trying to apologize for Leica here, I'm just trying to propose a non-paranoid answer as to how they might not be stupid AND might not have known about the problems, at least in their most severe forms (like, shooting a symphony orchestra with every musician garbed in black synthetic fabric under high IR lights.)

 

JC

Edited May 1, 2009 by jrc

[stunsworth]

Given the ease with which they were generated and found, you would have thought that Leica MUST (as you said) have known about them.

 

My opinion, and it's just an opinion, is that Leica must have known about the magenta problem - they knew the sensor specs and the camera would have ben tested extensively before release. I've thought for some time that the camera was released when it was due to pressure from the marketing dept and a necessity to keep the company solvent.

[RSL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This post is rubbish....

 

Come on, Jaap. I've never before seen you descend to an ad hominem response like that. You always seem to be the guy who takes the trouble to do his homework. I know you'll defend the M8 to the death no matter how many glaring problems it displays, but you've always used rational arguments to do that. I disagree with a lot of those arguments, but I disagree because I think you're wrong on the issues themselves, not because I think you're dishonest or stupid.

 

When did the M8 come out? It's been a long time now and people with M8s are still living with the camera's problems. Yes, they live with them and make excuses for them, but the problems are still there. Worse yet, Leica's still selling the same unreliable camera after all this time. Now we're calling it the M8.2, but it's the same camera with the same problems its predecessor had. I don't think pointing that out is rubbish.

[RSL]

I'm not trying to apologize for Leica here, I'm just trying to propose a non-paranoid answer as to how they might not be stupid AND might not have known about the problems...

JC

 

To suggest that selling a $5,000 camera without adequate testing, or selling a $5,000 camera knowing it's defective can hardly be described as "paranoid." Possibly Leica did, indeed, fail to test the camera under artificial light where people were wearing synthetic fabrics, though nowadays it would be pretty hard to find a place under artificial light where people aren't wearing synthetic fabrics -- they'd more or less have to be naked -- but that can't possibly excuse Leica. Artificial light, indoors, would be one of the most likely places for someone to use a quiet rangefinder. To believe Leica failed to test under those conditions would be to convict them of terminal stupidity.

[Mauribix]

Russ, I second Jaap's statement: that post is really rubbish.

Sometimes we don't need to argue, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

What is still strange for me it's why someone who doesn't like the M8, or think it's a faulty camera, should be always considered the one who's daring to say the truth, while we should often considered conservatives or leicahoolics when we say that the camera is ok?!

Matter of fact the M8 is good for amateur and for some professional uses too. It's a tool as it's been said before. It's THAT tool, for better or worse.

I use it for my works and my travels too, I can't say it's crap until it can make me earn some bucks. And I don't need to compare it to other cameras... I still prefer to compare my pictures FWIW...

[jrc]

To suggest that selling a $5,000 camera without adequate testing, or selling a $5,000 camera knowing it's defective can hardly be described as "paranoid." Possibly Leica did, indeed, fail to test the camera under artificial light where people were wearing synthetic fabrics, though nowadays it would be pretty hard to find a place under artificial light where people aren't wearing synthetic fabrics -- they'd more or less have to be naked -- but that can't possibly excuse Leica. Artificial light, indoors, would be one of the most likely places for someone to use a quiet rangefinder. To believe Leica failed to test under those conditions would be to convict them of terminal stupidity.

 

But it's not all fabrics, and not all indoor night lights. There were shots in bars in which everything was just as murky as it should have been; and you if you saw a woman in the corner of the shot and she's wearing a reddish dress...who was to know that it might have been black? Because it might have been reddish. And right next to it was a guy in a black cotton or wool shirt, that *was* black. If you weren't really expecting the problem, it wasn't all that easy to see...except in hindsight.

 

Like I said, I'm not apologizing for Leica, and, in fact, I've been a pretty harsh critic of Leica on this forum. But things are not always as simple and clear as hindsight makes them.

[RSL]

But it's not all fabrics, and not all indoor night lights. There were shots in bars in which everything was just as murky as it should have been; and you if you saw a woman in the corner of the shot and she's wearing a reddish dress...who was to know that it might have been black? Because it might have been reddish. And right next to it was a guy in a black cotton or wool shirt, that *was* black. If you weren't really expecting the problem, it wasn't all that easy to see...except in hindsight.

 

Like I said, I'm not apologizing for Leica, and, in fact, I've been a pretty harsh critic of Leica on this forum. But things are not always as simple and clear as hindsight makes them.

 

That's exactly why, when you do that kind of testing, you use controls. In this case you'd shoot the same, or close to the same shot with a couple other cameras -- maybe even one or two with film whose response you're familiar with -- as a cross-check. There's no way around the fact that Leica blew it. It all comes down to the two choices I mentioned earlier: either they were stupid or they were ignoring their test results, hoping for the best. In either case they screwed up.

[RSL]

Russ, I second Jaap's statement: that post is really rubbish.

Sometimes we don't need to argue, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

What is still strange for me it's why someone who doesn't like the M8, or think it's a faulty camera, should be always considered the one who's daring to say the truth, while we should often considered conservatives or leicahoolics when we say that the camera is ok?!

Matter of fact the M8 is good for amateur and for some professional uses too. It's a tool as it's been said before. It's THAT tool, for better or worse.

I use it for my works and my travels too, I can't say it's crap until it can make me earn some bucks. And I don't need to compare it to other cameras... I still prefer to compare my pictures FWIW...

 

Maurizio, I agree that the post was over the top, but Jaap usually stays calm in that kind of situation and deals with the issues. As far as not liking the M8, I like the idea of the M8, and, if the camera worked properly I'd love the M8. I keep hoping for an M9 that actually works. But it's now been too long, and considering the condition of the world economy I doubt Leica will come out with a successor to the M8. Oh, there may be another cosmetic change to the M8.3 or something like that, but I don't think Leica can afford to take another shot at a digital successor to the film Ms. They're going to have to try to put their eggs in the MF basket.

[sean_reid]

*Speaking generally*, when a camera is in beta, a common caution given to beta testers using it is to "ignore the color" because the firmware, etc. is still being tweaked. I hope that some will understand the significance of that generic comment.

 

Leica was very new to digital cameras when they were designing the M8 (their second "in house" digital camera) and, amazing though it may seem, I think they really didn't realize what a problem they had with IR. One look at the design of the WATE filter holder tells us that they were not expecting for filters to be a standard item on every M8 lens.

 

I missed the IR problem at first too (in the production camera) and it was actually discovered in a thread here on this forum where Pascal, RobSteve, myself and others were discussing this strange magenta cast in some of Pascal's pictures. RobSteve suggested IR sensitivity and Pascal helped us to see what was going on. It was one of the most useful threads to take place here.

 

I personally find the M8.2 to be the best digital camera, for my work, that I've ever used. I really like it. But creating it was, I believe, very much a learning experience for Leica. Despite their pedigree as a film camera maker, they've had a lot to learn as a digital camera maker. The S2 will, I think, reflect much of what they've learned in the past few years.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Edited May 2, 2009 by sean_reid

[AlanG]

We knew back in 1996 that we needed to use an IR filter with the Kodak DCS 460. And obviously Kodak knew it. So If I knew it how could Leica engineers not know it? How could they design a white balance system without considering the spectral response of the sensor? They chose a weak IR filter because that's all they could come up with and haven't come up with anything better since.

Edited May 2, 2009 by AlanG

[adan]

Debating "What did Leica know, and when did they know it?" is pretty old stuff.

 

If you REALLY want to see cr*p from a C/V 15mm lens on a digital sensor, try it out on an Epson R-D1, which had a Nikon D100 sensor with a nice thick - but not perfectly effective - IR filter. Internal reflections, heavy vignetting - and it STILL had color rendition problems as well.

 

Alan is right when he says "They chose a weak IR filter because that's all they could come up with" - to prevent these same problems from occuring in the M8, with its even larger sensor.

 

Optical quality was primary, color quality was secondary (and which color quality? Velvia? Kodachrome? Agfa?)

 

15 c/v on R-D1: samples - vignetting, details of reflections:

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!

[sean_reid]

Alan is right when he says "They chose a weak IR filter because that's all they could come up with" - to prevent these same problems from occuring in the M8, with its even larger sensor.

 

I wouldn't necessarily assume that Andy. Also...this may be an old topic for some of us here but some forum members weren't around the first time this was discussed. And it obviously still interests people because it keeps coming up.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Edited May 2, 2009 by sean_reid

[sean_reid]

We knew back in 1996 that we needed to use an IR filter with the Kodak DCS 460. And obviously Kodak knew it. So If I knew it how could Leica engineers not know it? How could they design a white balance system without considering the spectral response of the sensor? They chose a weak IR filter because that's all they could come up with and haven't come up with anything better since.

 

Clearly it is hard for you to believe that they didn't fully realize what they were getting into with the M8 and IR. That's your prerogative - to have trouble believing it even if it was the case. What I am trying to explain in these posts is not based simply on assumptions. That's as much as I can say but hopefully you can understand what I can't say. Leica didn't try to hide the IR problem with the M8. If you think about it, perhaps you'll realize that it wouldn't have made any sense to do that.

Edited May 2, 2009 by sean_reid

[norm_snyder]

Andy--you mean that horse was black?

[AlanG]

Clearly it is hard for you to believe that they didn't fully realize what they were getting into with the M8 and IR. That's your prerogative - to have trouble believing it even if it was the case. What I am trying to explain in these posts is not based simply on assumptions. That's as much as I can say but hopefully you can understand what I can't say. Leica didn't try to hide the IR problem with the M8. If you think about it, perhaps you'll realize that it wouldn't have made any sense to do that.

 

 

OK, I'll assume it was a surprise to Leica that their weak IR filter was too weak. Even though they purposely chose a weak filter. And when they tested the camera under all kinds of lights to calibrate the white balance they didn't use a test target that could shift under IR radiation. And maybe they didn't know there was a problem when the camera was released or perhaps they would have had the IR filters ready for distribution. I can't say if they were ignorant or deceptive. Let's go with ignorant then.

 

So why haven't they come up with a stronger IR filter by now? Is it impossible or does it cause other problems?

 

As for hiding the IR problem, I think they are still doing that on the website and in the brochures. (Sort of like if your mother in law has two heads, you don't keep her in the parlor to greet guests.) It's on a need to know basis. When you are about to buy an M8, they apparently tell you that you'll also need to buy an IR filter for each lens. So now they are being deceptive on their website. (IN MY OPINION.)

 

As for dealers informing customers (I know this isn't Leica's problem but they could insist that dealers inform.) I would figure that B&H sells a lot of Leicas. Yet on its site the listing for the M8 has no mention of the need for IR filters but does mention 6 bit coding. If you read the details about M8 lenses, most don't list an IR filter under "Accessories.")

 

I think the Summarits are the only ones where they show a filter as an accessory and even here they don't really say that the filters are necessary for good color....

 

"The Leica E46 UVA/Infrared filter is targeted for the M8 series camera. Although not a traditional infrared filter in the classic sense, i.e., helping with special effects images, this filter corrects for the magenta cast occasionally found on digital sensors."

 

And even here they minimized the information and make it sound like all cameras have the magenta cast issue.

 

For other lenses, you have to know you need the filters and do a search to find the filters.

 

When you finally find the filters, they say why they are needed but still minimize their importance. All I'm saying is if Leica wants its buyers to have the fewest issues with color, they have an obligation to list this type of information much more clearly. Unfortunately even this B&H site filter description states that the only problem is with photographing synthetic black material.

 

I wonder how many lenses are purchased without IR filters and are used on an M8 without them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Leica E67UVA/IR Glass Filter (Black) is specifically recommended for the Leica Digital M8 camera. In order to maintain maximum optical clarity, the M8---with its superior sensor---was not designed with a total IR protection filter system.

 

This filter is designed to eliminate the pinkish/purple/reddish tint that certain black synthetic items might be subjected to when shooting under certain lighting conditions, such as that of incandescent bulbs. This filter can also serve to help protect the glass in your lens.

 

Note! Leica recommends removing the attached UV/IR filters when using lenses from 16-50mm in analog photography

 

• Infrared filter for the M8 camera, which does not have a complete infrared system built in

 

• Helps minimize potential pinkish tint under cetain conditions; ensures neutral color

 

• No light loss

 

• Can also serve as protective filter

 

• Should only be used with 6-bit coded Leica lenses

Edited May 2, 2009 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

Alan

 

Just how many times have you used the M8 and found the IR/Magenta issue to be a problem?