Official Leica Statements

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Whoa, Nellie!

 

After two years of planning and salting away the necessary bucks, I'm now being told that we must buy an IR filter for the four different diameters of my Leica lenses (39, 46, 49, 60) PLUS now the 6-bit coding becomes mandatory if I want to shoot with the M8 in every situation. That's easily another thousand dollars of investment with the renewed burden of more clumsy filters for every lens!

 

We'll ponder this overnight and maybe, just maybe, refuse the UPS delivery tomorrow.

 

Say it ain't so, Leica; say it ain't so.

 

-g

 

The following comment is *not* based on any official information but I suspect an IR cut filter will work fine whether a lens is coded or not. Earlier this afternoon, I ordered three B+W filters so that I'll have them to shoot a wedding this weekend. The test camera isn't due back until Monday so I'll actually shoot the wedding with two M8 bodies. I bought an M8 with my own cash like many here and there is no way I'm giving it up or sending it back. Never even crossed my mind in fact but that's partly a reflection of how long I've been waiting for a real digital M and how much I like this camera, flaws and all. If I need to mount filters then I'll mount them. I'd prefer a different solution but I'm still gonna use the M8. YMMV, to say the least. I will say again that despite the drawbacks, file quality has been very high for most of the work I've done.

 

The IR cut filters exist, BTW, because several other digital video and still cameras (some by Nikon for example) have had this high sensitivity to IR.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[humanized_form]

huh... are Leica saying that lenses need to be coded to fix this issue, along with a firmware fix and filters? riiiiight..... so.. all those who don't exclusively use Leica lenses(or legacy lenses Leica is not offering coding for) don't even get this "fix" to the M8 problems?

 

geez... this is bad.

[fonziewonzie]

Yes. It's impact will depend on the actual B&W conversion method you use (channel mixer, extracting the Luminance channel, etc.) For B&W photography, IMPO, it's not a critical issue or a deal breaker.

 

Well, that's true in a way, it's definitely less critical than in color photos as people wouldn't notice the difference, but it's still nevertheless annoying.

 

Even using channel mixers and other techniques, I would have to compensate for the magenta task on selective materials.

 

I have extensive experience in digital workflows as I kind of do that for a living, but the last thing I want to do when I do digital photography is having to rotoscope elements of the image to color correct those individually

[harmsr]

Sean, Thanks for publishing this news.

 

Now on the other hand, this news is completely unacceptable to me.

 

I now must use a filter on all of my M lenses, wait for new firmware, and code all my lenses.

 

I now must realize that auto WB is not going to work in the short term, and still wait to see if it will be fixed in the long term. Yes, I realize that I can adjust this in PP Raw. However, this does make jpegs fairly useless unless I set the WB for every changing light situation.

 

We don't have any answer on the banding and ghosting.

 

Even if I could live with the bad news on the first two items, the banding and ghosting MUST be fixed or the camera is useless to me.

 

I am going to contact my dealer and see what the time frame is to return the camera for a refund. If no better news is released before this timeframe, I'm out of the game and the camera is returned for a refund along with the 28 Cron ASPH (6-bit) that I bought for the M8. I may have to stick with my current M5 and spend the M8 money on a 5D or 1DsMKII.

 

Ray

[sean_reid]

I wonder if it's so that modern leica lenses don't pass much UV as we are seeing the UV sensitivity with the new lenses.

 

*That* is something I'm curious about myself. I'm wondering if some lenses relay more IR than others. Just a question for now but I'll be looking into it.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Hi sean,

 

 

1) The mesenger always get's shot no escape possible, you should know that.

 

2) Have you got any idea whether an on/off switchable high pass filter in the software could be anything like a solution. A filter is no option to me.

 

3) Although the changed angle of view the lux 35 asph will remain to be one of my most used lenses, and it produces ghost images with a filter attached.

 

4) Who knows if the highlight blowouts that have been suggested as a possible cause of the sensor to overload and produce the purple lines has to do with the same isseu.

No mention of the green blobs how ever.

 

 

Regards,

 

Fr.

 

Hi Fr.

 

1) If he gets shot in this case then will be the last official statement I publish here....no joke. Who would want that aggravation?

 

2) I have no idea.

 

3) New version Asph or previous?

 

4) I don't think so but I'll test with the IR cut filters.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So,

 

IR blocking filter?

 

Filter factor of 1.2 to ?

 

Noctilux now 1.2 Summilux now 1.68 Summicron now 2.4

 

Thank you no.

 

Bob Moore

 

No, actually, this part is good news. I'm told no filter factor at all, no loss of lens speed. F/1.0 will still be F/1.0. Same is supposed to be true of the B+W infrared cut filters I just ordered.

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Some of you have asked why the IR/UV filter would only work with the 6-bit coded lenses. Well, I'm no expert, I'm just a photographer and consultant to a few digital imaging firms, but the 6-bit coding could potentially be used to remove center hot spot sometimes created by the IR filter.

 

That's an interesting idea to consider.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Hi,

 

Been digesting all this info too, as I pre-ordered a Leica M8 but now I am re-thinking my decision.

 

I shoot primarily BW, but I'm wondering something. The magenta cast depends on materials and how they reflect the infrared light. I believe the raw/dng file captured, will then have the wrong data for these type of materials, namely some blacks becoming magenta.

 

Doesn't this mean that when converting the raw files to b/w images, you will have gray tonal values where you would expect a black value.

 

Am I wrong in assuming this? I don't understand how this situation is better for BW photographers at all.

 

Thanks,

.: a

 

It's easier for BW photogs. because there's no magenta possible in a truly B&W picture. <G> Will it change the tonal values? It might change them a bit if one doesn't use the filters. We'll see. I don't plan to use filters for B&W work with the M8.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

"What other possible solutions can you guys suggest?"

 

I still think that new color profiles can potentially improve the situation. The color expert I spoke with today suspects that profiles couldn't completely deal with the magenta cast (different materials, etc.) but they might be able to make a noticeable improvement.

 

Cheers,

 

sean

[robertwright]

Like I posted earlier, the filters are colorless or almost colorless because the coatings are there simply to introduce quantum wave effects in the IR range, which is invisible anyway. The filter itself is likely a sandwich of glass and crystal or glass with a coating applied. I would look just like an UV filter, although it might have a color if you held it at an angle to a light source. Again, more quantum effects. There was a sigma camera or maybe the Alpha that had the hot filter at the front of the mirror box, just behind the rear element-it came out recently.

 

I would like to think Leica took a look at digital and said, how can we do digital that it doesn't look like digital-the big problems being the softness, lack of micro-contrast, the purple fringing, the CA, etc. Their solution is agressive I would have to say. In the final outcome, print to print, the Leica approach may have it's benefits. But it is hard to swallow the pill and I think it could have been handled differently, say the way the microlenses and software have virtually eliminated vignetting, another wide angle problem. When they "manage" the solution, it seems they get it right. Had they said, look, here is the price for resolution, the IR filter goes on the front, we get software to manage moire so no AA filter, we get microlenses and software to manage vignetting, all lenses need coding, this is the price for the ultimate image quality, here is the proof, examples, then I think all of this would have been taken better. More testing was clearly needed, but you know, photokina, shareholders, etc...the script is written.

[sean_reid]

We don't have any answer on the banding and ghosting

 

Hi Ray,

 

Actually we have a response. Leica has not made a public statement about this, to my knowledge but I "knocked on a lot of Leica doors" <G> on Monday and have been told *on the record* that Leica is working hard to see if a firmware solution can be found for the light streaking.

 

my opinion: I suspect they will solve it and that Mark Norton's hunches about this could be right.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[robertwright]

I also speculate that the requirement for the coding to go with the IR filter is similar to the vignetting problem-mostly you don't need to get your lenses coded to solve the vignetting problems, the microlenses are doing their job, as Sean's testing revealed,. The coding just takes it the last nth step to even better performance than we had on film-my 3rd gen 35 cron had huge vignetting problems wide open, it bothered me so much I got the asph.

 

From the sheer physics of it, there will be light falloff towards the edges if we are adding another light/air/surface interface (actually double that, front/rear) but the effect will be small, and coding will give just that extra amount of correction.

 

Camera profiles will play very little in this fix imo. It's light we cannot see being recorded as false color and is most visible in areas of no exposure, like in black.

[clayh]

I returned my camera to the dealer today. Here is the sequence of events over the last four days:

 

I originally got it as an available-light quick and easy camera to use for my nightime shots. The banding killed me on the first shot I took.You just can't do nightime photography and avoid bright lights. I was bummed. And the cure was to adjust the ISO DOWN! Not a real solution. The only way to turn it into an acceptable available light camera was to crank down the ISO to the point it was no longer an available light camera.

 

So I slept on it, and I was close to keeping it as a color-only Kodachrome-64 proxy. It'll be nice to have a dependable easy-to-use camera to shoot color and not have the hassle of sending in film to Kansas, I thought. Then this IR issue pops up. And immediately all the struggling I was doing to get things white balanced made sense. I ran a few tests. Wow! This is really a non-trivial issue.

 

The next step was to put it back in the box and send it back.

 

I am really sad, because this camera has so much promise. If Leica will put the right sensor in it, they will have a real winner. But I just cannot justify having a camera this expensive that only works in a narrow set of conditions.

 

Strike up the band! :

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!

[innerimager]

Pondering what Leica has in mind when they talk about using a filter+firmware change+coded lens her's all I can come up with (that is make up).

1. Any IR cut filter will essentially fix the IR false colors but....

2. They will likely produce a subtle cast across the image that can be processed out with profiles or other methods but Leica.....

3. Is coming up with an internal process for this correction. They'll profile their own filter (thus they want to supply them rather than suggest 3rd party), and a firmware update will allow the user to say there is a filter on triggering the correction

4. The coding will let variables like aperture and distance that might come into play be accounted for.

Man, I must have something else to do but make up stories about the M8!

 

PS, Sean- In no small part thanks to your reviews, I got an RD-1 which arrived today. I thought it would be weeks or months ahead of the M8 I ordered. I love the RD-1 and file quality is blowing me away, I'm sure both from the camera and my first look at Leica glass.

 

But...my M8 also arrived today. And I haven't opened the box!! The RD-! is easily good enough to keep me going, and maybe the wise thing would be to wait for the M8 fixes....but then miss out on both getting to use the M8 and joining in on the problem solving. I think I'll sleep on it.....Peter

[llc]

In response to my requests, Leica USA's Christian Erhardt recently provided me with two official statements related to the M8.

 

Sean, thanks for posting the info--really helpful.

 

But if it's only "official" once Leica posts it on the Leica web site. This sort of thing belongs in a FAQ accessible from the same place as all the marketing hyperbole.

[dugby]

As this thread is quite long, I apologise if I have not picked up on the suggestion I am about to make.

 

I would hope that Leica Product Development have considered an EC, (engineering change) to the 0.5mm glass protector over the sensor to include the IR filtering that they have announced.

 

Leica could apply this EC to newly manufactured M8's.

 

How they handle the existing M8's in user-land is up to their marketing department.

[jrgeoffrion]

Like I posted earlier, the filters are colorless or almost colorless o no ...

 

Actually, at certain angles, it can look really cool like mirror sunglasses.

[R10dreamer]

I don't understand why Leica can't simply use a coating on the sensor to absorb the IR sensitivity?

[freecitizen]

Going back a few squares, and looking at this dispassionately .... sure, adding lens filters is not something a lot of people will want to do, and the idea comes as a bit of a shock at first. But for those already using UVs as protective filters ( like me ), it really doesn't make much difference.

 

IF it works in solving the problems, that is. Especially if, as I suspect, there is also a good chance these lens filters might also reduce the banding problem as suggested here :

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/8946-ir-sensitivity-causing-banding-too.html

 

You would get a camera working fine in colour, and with IR capabilities for B&W work which other cameras do not offer. The ability to do B&W IR really well on this camera is something I, personally, would welcome. I am not aware of any other camera offering the capacity for excellent IR and superb colour in the same package.

 

For people who can accept this solution the problem will be having to pay for these filters. It would be an extra cost coming out of the blue just to make the camera perform as many think it should and as per Leica's marketing

 

Leica might like to offer say, vouchers for 4 ( or 6 ) free filters of any size to M8 buyers to cover this. The filters would need to be of the highest optical quality and multicoated of course. No skimping allowed.

 

Yes, I know. But probably cheaper than a recall. And we don't know what thickening up the sensor cover glass might do to image quality. Leica have hinted in their publicity that the thinness of the sensor cover glass is a clever move which aids image quality with M lenses and their steeper incident angle of light on the sensor.

 

Maybe there will be two versions of the M8 soon : the current one, and a mark 2 version with thicker sensor cover glass. Best of both worlds ?

 

Just thinking out loud .............

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear