robsteve Posted November 8, 2006 Share #21 Posted November 8, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) A little off topic, but the shots also illustrate that the DMR has more detail in the shadows than the EOS. It holds detail in the black velvet further behind the M7. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Hi robsteve, Take a look here Back into the box it goes ... : -(. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
alexr Posted November 8, 2006 Share #22 Posted November 8, 2006 Jesus, now i am truly worried. Those shots are totally unacceptable. How can Leica justify putting the camera on the market_? The street shot with the magenta raincoat is terrifying, as a street photographer with loads of leica glass i was so looking forward to receiving my M8, now i am beginning to think i should ask for my deposit back. Let's be honest here: we are being calm and ultra-positive about this problem only because we love the red dot. If those shots were made by a Nikon or a Canon we would just say this (5000$) camera is trash. Maybe we love the company too much. We fork out extra money for the system,we waited patiently for years for the M8 and now this: banding and purple blacks. I was so happy the Co. was back in the top drawer with the M8...not. Leica should do a total recall and come back to us when they have fixd everything. Or be honest and say what they actually said some years ago...a top-class digital RF is not possible. I was worried from the start, when it transpired the M8 had Kodak sensor. So many colleagues had nightmares in the past with kodak sensors. Now the confirmition of all fears. Hey Leica i am trying to make a living with your products. I don't want workarounds, my workflow is problematic as it is. I am happy to have the limitations of a RF system. Don't give me what Nikon or Canon can give me? Fine. Make me pay more? Fine. But what your product CAN do, it must do it properly! (actually, it should do it perfectly) Sooo disappointed. This is not a little IR filter problem. This is a disaster. And the response from Leica is a disaster too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 8, 2006 Share #23 Posted November 8, 2006 A little off topic, but the shots also illustrate that the DMR has more detail in the shadows than the EOS. It holds detail in the black velvet further behind the M7. Don't forget that the DMR shot has a little bit more exposure than the Canon (ISO 200 v. 160). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 8, 2006 Share #24 Posted November 8, 2006 Alex, I understand your position but my own is to cut Leica a lot of slack while they work through this. We know they are looking at this forum, we know they acknowledge more work is required and the best thing for us to do is first to be patient but also give more feedback on what we are finding. Like you, I very much want Leica to succeed with this camera - I've spent $20k on lenses alone this year on the strength of them doing so - and I want a high quality digital camera which provides the best possible performance. I've tried to summarise the issues I have with the camera in another thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_l Posted November 8, 2006 Share #25 Posted November 8, 2006 supposedly Leica has announced that this is an IR issue due to the thinness of the sensor cover glass, and will be fixed by adding an IR filter onto the front of the lens. They will supply ($?) filters "soon". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 8, 2006 Share #26 Posted November 8, 2006 I don't have a problem using a filter as a short term solution but if Leica plan this to be the permanent fix they will look very stupid indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted November 8, 2006 Share #27 Posted November 8, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) What this boils down to is the Kodak sensor needs another iteration. Give them a month to do a new chip with new circuits and a new cover glass filter and a month to test it, and in about 3 months our cameras may go back for a side-grade. This story is not going to do any good to Kodak's reputatiion as a chip vendor. What is infuriating is that all of this was not caught during the test phase of the camera, which by all accounts has lasted months. Maybe the media-control strategy of not allowing the public to make shots with the prototypes was wrong - next time round the public at large should be invited to stress-test the engineering prototypes until they fall apart. Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 8, 2006 Share #28 Posted November 8, 2006 Do you remember the shot of the cars parked outside the Italian restaurant in Los Gatos? There were comments at the time about purple fringing around the gas flap. I expect this was the IR issue coming into our consciousness for the first time... Leica M8 Experience Ian, I agree that a filter for the IR is, at best, a temporary solution. They've emphasised that reducing the thickness of the cover glass had been done to enhance image quality, but I'm wondering if it's just one of a 3 way solution to handling the light fall off issue - micro-lenses, cover glass, lens coding. If it turned out that lens coding became more important in return for a thicker cover glass with full IR filtering, that to my mind would be preferable than buying IR filters for each of my lenses. I'm feeling slightly foolish in having rushed in to get 9 lenses coded, holding back on 3 more and I'm not about to buy a set of filters to fit to them.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 8, 2006 Share #29 Posted November 8, 2006 Edmund I agree with you. What's really required is a new sensor cover glass and if the cameras are going back to be fixed, they can fix the ghost images (which I believe is hardware, not firmware related) and think about some of the order hardware nice-to-haves (power switch, shutter release, top LCD display, white balance sensor). I'd even be prepared to pay a bit more to get the camera the way I'd like it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted November 8, 2006 Share #30 Posted November 8, 2006 Let's not just blame this on Kodak and there sensors. i sit here with a DMR and nothing in 35mm can touch it so let's not generalize about Kodak sensors. The 14n was not even Kodaks the Phase One backs are, and the M8 sensor is like the kissing cousin to the DMR. Now the real question is why the IR filter had to be different than the one on the DMR or is it the same and is not working. There is something down deep to be the reason and none of us know that answer. Why are we having a IR issue from a engineering point of view that relates to that sensor , could it have been a stronger or weaker one which ever is needed to begin with, were did the ball drop and what is the logical move to make. Send everyone IR cutoff filters for free, don't think so. Can it be done in firmware and cutoff the IR transmission? or does it have to be the IR glass needs replacing. I don't know the answers but leica will and better, we just have to wait for the answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted November 8, 2006 Share #31 Posted November 8, 2006 I'm afraid this does it for me. I've been dying to get my hands on the M8 for months and was one of the first people to get on a list for one, but I'm telling my dealer to hold off the delivery until these concerns are addressed. I can't describe how disappointed I am about this, but there is no way I can take the current M8 to a shoot someone is paying me for and feel confident of the results. This is a serious departure from all of my past experience using Leicas. With my film Ms, I always felt that the mechanical reliability and lens quality combined to increase my confidence over other camera systems. I do a considerable amount of performing arts photography where black velvel curtains and black costumes are commonplace. What would I tell my clients when showing work that portrayed the blacks as magenta? And how would I explain the streaks? Or the fact that my camera suddenly stopped working? In my opinion, these issues are major deterents. The current M8 is in no way ready for prime time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogopix Posted November 8, 2006 Share #32 Posted November 8, 2006 It may be the IR filteringis too weak. For visible light it looks black, but with the extended M8 gamut, that is getting the sensors in trouble. Even black bodies have BBradiation esp IR that will show up in the redchannel. Maybe what you see is that residual IR. Unfortunatlycant take out in FW because cant tell the difference real red from IR Maybe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted November 8, 2006 Share #33 Posted November 8, 2006 It may be the IR filteringis too weak. For visible light it looks black, but with the extended M8 gamut, that is getting the sensors in trouble. Even black bodies have BBradiation esp IR that will show up in the redchannel. Maybe what you see is that residual IR. Unfortunatlycant take out in FW because cant tell the difference real red from IR Maybe? This is almost certainly what is going on. I suspect it will take placing a stronger IR blocking cover/coating on the sensor.... or a IR blocking (hot mirror) filter on the lens, which of course is not acceptable. I predict a call back for this problem.....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexr Posted November 8, 2006 Share #34 Posted November 8, 2006 Mark, i know what you mean, but i just cannot help feeling gutted. I waited for so long, and refrained from buying into other systems. now this. What makes me mad is how can they (leica) not have noticed? They have streets in germany, no? People wear black coats there too (in fact they were the black coats specialists once...), don't they? It took Marc (first poster) five sec.s down his street to find out the problem. What were their tester photographing with the beta versions of the camera? Lens filters? That is hardly a solution imo. Leica glass is superb straight against the light. Put a filter on the lens and you get reflections. I dont want filters on my lenses. I think they need a new sensor, with a new glass. Apart from the infuriating further delay, could a thicker IR glass interfere with IQ? My dread is a situation where you end up with either magenta coats or balck coats but indifferent image quality. And it was the "different" leica image quality that makes the system worth the money. In any case, the response from the co. is unacceptable. WE are saying that a a new sensor might be a solution. Not them. Faced with this gigantic cock-up they shoud go into crisis-management and pull out all the stops. Be honest with us for once and inform us on what their strategy is to get out of this mess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted November 8, 2006 Share #35 Posted November 8, 2006 Don't forget that the DMR shot has a little bit more exposure than the Canon (ISO 200 v. 160). I assume he either used a different f stop or dialed down the pack a third of a stop. Both images seem to be exposed properly for the chrome camera, which would show the difference if it got 1/3 more light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 8, 2006 Share #36 Posted November 8, 2006 The final shot using the M8 ( you can only up-load 5 files at once). My most heart felt hope Leica makes this right quickly ... or those cameras I've pictured here will become collector's items. Keeping the faith ... cautiously. This is obviously pretty awful. I certainly don't want to put another peice of glass in front of the M lenses. Sigh. I'm as disappointed as anyone here. I can live with high ISO streaking; I can live with crummy (early) C1 profiles. But I can't live with synthetic blacks being magenta. Sean--did you shoot your wedding with this yet? Finally, is there a way to post the DNGs for these shots? I'd like to try some different converters...not that I really think that's going to cure the problem. But it might help significantly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexr Posted November 8, 2006 Share #37 Posted November 8, 2006 I'm afraid this does it for me. I've been dying to get my hands on the M8 for months and was one of the first people to get on a list for one, but I'm telling my dealer to hold off the delivery until these concerns are addressed. I am in the same boat as you Brent. Will call Classic Camera in London tomorrow. Why should we accept a not-sorted product when we do not even know for sure how the manufacturer intends to sort it? Let's hope they do fix it one day, and that day does not come too late. Dammn it i wished all possible success for this comapany... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayh Posted November 8, 2006 Share #38 Posted November 8, 2006 I'm returning my camera to the dealer for a refund. After sleeping on it, I realized that I am paying a HUGE premium to have a camera that is unusable in many situations now, might possibly be useable in three to six months, but meanwhile my money is tied up in a pretty conversation piece. My feeling is that this is not a tool for a working photographer at this time. The IR thing is totally messed up, the sensor banding and ghosting is a very major issue for me, and the results are not as good as a camera that I already own that cost half of what the M8 costs. I can't believe they released this to the public. It's like the M5 debacle all over again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 8, 2006 Share #39 Posted November 8, 2006 I assume he either used a different f stop or dialed down the pack a third of a stop. Both images seem to be exposed properly for the chrome camera, which would show the difference if it got 1/3 more light. Yes, you're right - I'd rather stupidly not thought of changing the aperture (I'd assumed that Marc wouldn't have adjusted the pack ouput to avoid varying the light in any way). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexr Posted November 8, 2006 Share #40 Posted November 8, 2006 I can't believe they released this to the public. It's like the M5 debacle all over again. After the M5 came the M6TTl, and that was a winner. If the company does not fold, that is the only hope we have right now... By the way, your logic is impeccable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.