what is this cr*p

[lxlim]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The frustration of the OP is understandable but because the big issues with the M8 centres around a few well publicised problems, its also understandable why he got such a reception.

 

Having used a pair of M8s for 16 - 18 months, I have this to say:

 

1. Its not the equal of a top end Canon / Nikon when it comes to robustness but I can pack a pair as backups and not pass out from fatigue.

 

2. Due diligence can only uncover a limited range of issues. I was flanked by the fact that my eyes need to be perfectly corrected for astimagtism or the 1.25X magnifier would be unuseable by some (aging) eyes without correction. Solvable, thankfully with a +0.5 diopter.

 

3. My brand new leica lenses actually have focus issues. Again thankfully, thru the forum I learnt how to calibrate the rangefinder but it leaves my 90f2.8 lens unuseable and required me to adjust my workflow.

 

4. Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlanders lenses kicks butts in buckets under the right conditions. The Nikon 24-70f2.8 (great lens!) is equal except for the corners in some conditions but I would have to be stretchered out sooner or later.

 

5. My M8s clocked 16,000 shots in the last 4 weeks without much issues thankfully compared to last year when one died but recovered 3 days later. Revival with courtesy via this forum.

 

All in all there are issues but so was there with my 1DmkIII. The M8 is a good tool delivering 99% of the time. By my measure, I fail to capture what I want (the moment) more often than my M8 failed me. Like Allan I would like something better as that would expand my usage of the M8 rather than limiting it to well defined jobs. The M8 fitted my scope of work very neatly while saving me tons of time, resources and money so I have to say that it is quite possibly my best ROI other than my Sinar C2. Having CVs and Summarits helped of course.

 

Regarding the UV/IR issue. Prior to the M8, I never considered the Leica seriously so my due diligence was considerably more comprehensive as I did not have any access to M rangefinders nor any convenient literature. My assumptions and presumptions are considerably less than if I had been an M user. Sean Reid's site is a blessing.

 

Alex

[sean_reid]

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?

 

 

OK, we're starting to find some common ground here. Standard Macbeth color charts don't reflect much IR and it can be missed with color chart testing of various kinds. Also...color, in general, is in flux during much of the beta testing of many digital cameras. It is usually one of the last things to get dialed in (again, speaking generally).

 

Ignorant might be a fair adjective, IMO, with respect to this. I believe they did not fully realize what the consequences would be of using such a weak IR filter in the M8. They really were caught by surprise when they realized what a problem they had on their hands. Frankly, I think it was very embarrassing for them as a company. They should have known but they didn't. I think this largely reflects their level of experience with digital camera design *at that time*. I don't think they would miss such a large problem now but they've gained a lot of digital experience in the past few years. The S2 design is certainly benefitting from what they learned with the DMR and the M8.

 

Had they fully realized what the implications of the weak IR filter were, a discussion of their design choices, the filters, camera corrections, would all have been part of the camera's introduction.

 

Why isn't there a stronger IR filter in the M8.2? I don't have the answer to that. On the one hand, RF lenses pose unique challenges for sensor design (including filters, microlenses, etc.) On the other hand, an optical engineer (not at Leica) whom I spoke with (and who was qualified to speak on this subject) thought that it should be possible to design a strong IR filter that could work well in a DRF. I don't know if that's the case or not. It certainly doesn't seem to be easy or straightforward. This current level of internal IR filtering may be the best that Leica can offer right now (without making other compromises to performance, lens compatibility, etc.).

 

Long-term, could the M9 have effective internal IR filtering? The only people who know that are not going to speak about it. I myself don't know.

 

And, yes, Leica does keep the M8's need for IR-cut filters fairly low profile. That said, anyone who does a little background research on the camera (before buying) will know that IR-cut filters are part of the package for now.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Edited May 2, 2009 by sean_reid

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

Sean Reid's site is a blessing.

 

Alex

 

Thank you.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[carstenw]

Why isn't there a stronger IR filter in the M8.2? I don't have the answer to that.

 

Two reasons: the thickness of the IR filter glass has an impact on the optical quality, since it deflects the light rays by a certain amount. Therefore Leica wanted to minimize the thickness. Secondly, the light from many of the M lenses impinges on the film/sensor at such a dramatic angle that an IR blocking filter was out of the question, so it had to be an IR absorbing filter, which are generally weaker than the IR blocking kind. The combination of the two led Kodak to add a too-weak filter to the sensor. The difficulty of the same problem is probably the primary reason why Leica has not yet developed a replacement filter, nor an M9. The vignetting is another, lesser, factor.

[AlanG]

Alan

 

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

 

I want to be clear that the images below were not made with an M8.

 

I used an M8 last weekend without the IR filter and all of the foliage shot in the sun looked too yellow to me. So given a choice, I would probably shoot with the filter most of the time. But this is one small reason why I haven't bought an M8. (I just borrowed one to try out and I think the images from it were very good.) The biggest reason is the attitude that says you'll have to wait 5 weeks for them to fix a defective sensor, or a similar time to get the rangefinder/lens adjusted. I learned all of that on this forum and I simply find it unacceptable to me. I'm waiting to see if that attitude changes.

 

I became aware of the IR issue (but didn't know it was from IR) 10 years ago on an Olympus 2 megapixel p&s. I think Olympus should have fixed this or had a warning. I shot some pictures with it at a friend's wedding and was a bit surprised by the results. I knew we needed hot metal filters on the DCS 460 and special filters for the Phase One scan back, but at the time, I wasn't clear if they were just for IR or had other qualities. In any case, I became sensitized to it a long time before the M8 came out. So I surely would have known what to test for. See these samples from around 1998: (The woman at the podium had just became a partner in an ad agency. This is her idea of business attire and it seems to work for her.) You can see why I'd be concerned about shooting jobs on an M8 without an IR filter. Consider that I primarily shoot interiors that have all kinds of fabrics and all kinds of lighting.

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 2, 2009 by AlanG

[pgk]

Hmmmm. So these examples are from an Olympus camera by the look of it?

 

Yellowish foliage doesn't sound too dramatic to me.

 

Personally I've only had one shoot where the clothing looked distinctly magenta - shortly after I bought my M8 and before the IR filters had arrived. The subject - a TV presenter - wasn't actually bothered because it was a grey outdoor jacket which had shifted and this wasn't something that worried him. I can understand that for some photographers the magenta shift of some materials could be an issue but IMHO it is a rather overblown problem to which there is in most cases a workable solution.

 

The original post here was about a 15mm none Leica lens and I personally don't see how or why Leica are to blame for this issue. Few if any camera manufacturers breif third party manufacturers about their equipment as far as I am aware (I know that a lot of reverse engineering takes place) and its up to those manufacturers to provide thier own work arounds for problem. Perhaps VC should provide a software solution?

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can understand that for some photographers the magenta shift of some materials could be an issue but IMHO it is a rather overblown problem to which there is in most cases a workable solution.

 

 

 

I agree it is a workable solution. I'm just asking them to make that solution clear to anyone who is considering purchase of the camera. As you can imagine, I wasn't too pleased to make this discovery for myself back in 1998. Yes and in the case of my foliage and other non critical color applications, the images looked very good and could easily be adjusted satisfactorily. I'm just telling you that by the time that the IR issue on the M8 came out, I already knew what a problem it could be if I didn't have the IR filtered in a lot of situations. My guess is that a lot of images shot with an M8 and no filter have various colors that are off but one doesn't notice. For instance maybe a shirt comes out slightly blue instead of gray. It isn't just the obvious magenta. Color is a tough enough issue without having to deal with non-visible illumination.

Edited May 2, 2009 by AlanG

[Nicoleica]

There have been some comments in this (,and other,) thread(s) that Leica are not very forthcoming about the need for UV/IR filters, and coding of wide lenses. (Despite the 'free filter' offer in the box when you buy a camera.)

 

Below is an extract from the M8.2 manual that seems pretty open about the need for, and reasons for, UV/IR filters and lens coding.

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!

[AlanG]

Yes it is in the manual, but I thought the simplicity of the camera meant that you did not have to read the manual.

 

I bet a lot of users made pictures with magenta clothes and other color issues before they realized they needed to do some research.

 

When you buy the camera and thoroughly read the manual you find out you need filters unless they told you at the store or you learned it somewhere else. Leica has absolutely no additional responsibility for more disclosure in your opinion but does in mine.

 

That is part of the attitude that I don't like but others feel is OK. I'm simply stating an opinion here. I figure you and others feel differently.

[sean_reid]

Two reasons: the thickness of the IR filter glass has an impact on the optical quality, since it deflects the light rays by a certain amount. Therefore Leica wanted to minimize the thickness. Secondly, the light from many of the M lenses impinges on the film/sensor at such a dramatic angle that an IR blocking filter was out of the question, so it had to be an IR absorbing filter, which are generally weaker than the IR blocking kind. The combination of the two led Kodak to add a too-weak filter to the sensor. The difficulty of the same problem is probably the primary reason why Leica has not yet developed a replacement filter, nor an M9. The vignetting is another, lesser, factor.

 

Hi Carsten,

 

Yes, of course. I published that same information in 2006 based on Leica's statements to me. That is indeed Leica's official position on the subject - to date.

 

But that doesn't definitely tell us if it is possible now or even it might have been possible then. We know Leica's official statements on this but I don't know, definitively, if it is possible or not. Again, I spoke at length with a very well qualified optical engineer (an expert in IR filtering in fact) who believes that it is possible. So, again, I couldn't say one way or another and, for me, its an open question.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Edited May 2, 2009 by sean_reid

[sean_reid]

There have been some comments in this (,and other,) thread(s) that Leica are not very forthcoming about the need for UV/IR filters, and coding of wide lenses. (Despite the 'free filter' offer in the box when you buy a camera.)

 

Below is an extract from the M8.2 manual that seems pretty open about the need for, and reasons for, UV/IR filters and lens coding.

 

Yes that is a clear statement although Leica now, I think, realizes that IR color shift aren't nearly as rare as they may have hoped at first (or as rare as is suggested in that manual).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Nicoleica]

Yes it is in the manual, but I thought the simplicity of the camera meant that you did not have to read the manual.

 

I bet a lot of users made pictures with magenta clothes and other color issues before they realized they needed to do some research.

 

When you buy the camera and thoroughly read the manual you find out you need filters unless they told you at the store or you learned it somewhere else. Leica has absolutely no additional responsibility for more disclosure in your opinion but does in mine.

 

That is part of the attitude that I don't like but others feel is OK. I'm simply stating an opinion here. I figure you and others feel differently.

 

Yes Alan, I agree that you are entitled to your opinion. But, in all fairness I think that Leica have been quite open and forthcoming about this issue since it was discovered. And in my opinion, I don't think that they could be reasonably expected to have done much more. The free filter offer is still in effect today, and any reputable dealer will inform a prospective purchaser of the need for filters and coding. As far as non-Leica lenses are concerned, surely that is the responsibility of the manufacturer concerned to advise on coding, filtration etc. and not down to Leica. But as you say, this is my opinion, and you are free to disagree if you wish. I'm just trying to be rational about the whole thing and look at the bigger picture. Be happy.

[Photoskeptic]

Alan

 

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

 

The only time I found it to be an issue was when I shot Barack Obama on the campaign trail and his suit came out purple! Out of all the people there he was the only one in a cheap polyester suit!

[Nicoleica]

Yes that is a clear statement although Leica now, I think, realizes that IR color shift aren't nearly as rare as they may have hoped at first (or as rare as is suggested in that manual).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I agree Sean. Perhaps they should try and put a positive spin on it by suggesting that the camera is ideally suited for detecting synthetic clothing? There could be a whole new market to exploit there?

[scott kirkpatrick]

Hi Carsten,

 

Yes, of course. I published that same information in 2006 based on Leica's statements to me. That is indeed Leica's official position on the subject - to date.

 

But that doesn't definitely tell us if it is possible now or even it might have been possible then. We know Leica's official statements on this but I don't know, definitively, if it is possible or not. Again, I spoke at length with a very well qualified optical engineer (an expert in IR filtering in fact) who believes that it is possible. So, again, I couldn't say one way or another and, for me, its an open question.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Leica's statements have always managed to confuse the issue about the thickness of their IR-reducing cover glass. They chose to go with absorptive, and kept it thin for optical quality reasons, which is understandable. Then they have always implied, but never stated outright, that any stronger filter would have to be thicker, which sounds incorrect, since an interference filter consists of about 20 evaporated layers of material, each layer about half the wavelength of the light to be reflected. 20 times 700 nm, divided by two, is 7 um (micrometers), while the glass on which it is deposited needs to be only a few tenths of a mm (hundreds of micrometers) thick. Thus a dichroic IR filter can be thinner than the absorptive filter.

 

I've always assumed that the internal reflections of IR light were felt to be a sufficiently nasty problem that an interference filter was not considered. The Epson RD-1 does use an interference filter, and I recently saw some examples of internal reflections in a post of shots taken with the RD-1. Joseph S. Wisnewski, an optical design engineer and photographer, posted quite a bit of information on this subject at DPReview during the time in which these issues were explored on the Internet, and made all these points.

 

At the time the S2 and M9 ship, the various problems that the sensor must solve will have changed in their relative importance, based on this experience, so I expect to see different solutions.

 

scott

Edited May 2, 2009 by scott kirkpatrick

[sean_reid]

I agree Sean. Perhaps they should try and put a positive spin on it by suggesting that the camera is ideally suited for detecting synthetic clothing? There could be a whole new market to exploit there?

 

That's the second very funny post I've read from you today. You've got perspective, Nicole.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest John66]

Alan

 

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

 

When I originally bought my M8, I was not aware of the issue, and used it on an indoor corporate job. Thank God I also took the Canon along! It's amazing how many suits are made from nylon or perhaps have nylon lapels.

[charlesphoto99]

So Alan, you haven't bought, and won't buy an M8, so why do you have your panties all in a bunch over it? There's lots of great cameras out there - just pick one or two and go out and use them.

 

The M8 has been a test of patience for many of us (esp myself) but in the end it's always worth it because of the image quality, the portability, and the ergonomics (it didn't hurt I had a whole slew of lenses from my film M days). It's really the only camera I care to shoot with anymore though the Nikon D3 is my go to for most commercial work.

 

No camera will fit everyone's needs - thank god. Obviously what you shoot and what your style is isn't M8 material. So what's your problem then?

[AlanG]

So Alan, you haven't bought, and won't buy an M8, so why do you have your panties all in a bunch over it? There's lots of great cameras out there - just pick one or two and go out and use them.

 

 

Right now I'm wearing a thong, so I'm pretty comfortable.

 

I own about 20 cameras at this point so I do have a choice.

 

I think the M8 as a camera is OK. My best friend (a very committed Leica user) who owns one is constantly debating about keeping it. (This is his second go around.) So that hasn't helped it. What I'm concerned about as a pro has more to do with how Leica as a company deals with its users and how it will impact my decision to buy an M9, S2 or any other camera that they come out with that may be more useful to me than the M8.

 

I've been following these threads to learn from reports from users and as time went on I got more and more concerned about buying anything from this company. After 2 1/2 years Leica really hasn't made an improved M8 that addresses various issues. I can't imagine buying a new lens and finding out I have to ship the camera and that lens (plus maybe others) to get them calibrated and this will take up to 6 weeks. And perchance it won't be right after all that time. Not updating the R line into an AF DSLR system kind of left people hanging.

 

So I've been following this stuff for some time and what I've learned has pretty much just left me shaking my head in wonder at what could have been. So I do think it is time for me to stop following the company and this forum. Should at some later date, I hear more positive feedback, I'll consider buying their products again.

 

I remember back in the late 60s when I worked at my cousin's camera store. One customer ordered a leather case for his M and it never came in. It was on back order for about a year until he just gave up on it.

Edited May 2, 2009 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[stunsworth]

...as time went on I got more and more concerned about buying anything from this company...

 

Then don't buy anything from them, buy something from someone else and stop beating yourself up. You'll feel better, we'll feel better, and the sun will still rise in the morning.