chrism Posted November 8, 2006 Share #21 Posted November 8, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you, Sean. Do you have any idea why the IR filter would require a coded lens? In combination with a firmware update it sounds as if the colour response is going to be adjusted according to the focal length of the lens, and since the magenta problem occurs anywhere within the frame I don't quite understand. Maybe they will give us a filter for each lens as we send it in for coding, but sell it for ones we don't? I have to admit my interest here is academic, as I have only used B&W film in my M7, have a nice Epson K3 printer, and have all my B&W conversion tricks already in place as presets or recorded PS actions. My wife can take all the 'record of our life photos' with her Canon P&S; I like to make B&W pictures and probably won't bother to send the M8 back if it needs a hardware intervention. I'm lucky that I just do this for pleasure, not for income, and do appreciate the alarm of those who need more. Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Hi chrism, Take a look here Official Leica Statements. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted November 8, 2006 Share #22 Posted November 8, 2006 I should add I'm still prepared at the moment not to cancel my M8 order, but if this is still the solution to the problems in 2 weeks time or so I'm going to cancel. Thanks for passing on the information Sean, it may not be what many wanted to hear but you are to be congratulated for passing it on so quickly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osera Posted November 8, 2006 Share #23 Posted November 8, 2006 As I read these Leica statements, they seem so far off target from the concerns expressed here, that I wonder if they could possibly be made by someone who has listened at all to the complaints. So this guy is the head of Leica USA? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted November 8, 2006 Share #24 Posted November 8, 2006 I've posted a new thread suggesting that Leica Solms make a statement on the forum. Not to disrespect Sean in any way but the statements raise more questions than they answer, and they have not been made directly to the forum. A clear statement from the CEO should be in order. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted November 8, 2006 Share #25 Posted November 8, 2006 one issue that i dont clearly underswtand - the referance to the film plane distance from the lens in case of leica m and slr cameras?? i will take another example from medium format... alpa cameras. alpa uses exactly the same digital back (medium) that is used on reflex medium cameras. now, alpa puts on it a special digital wide angle lenses from schneider (and rodenstok also). those schneider wide lenses (35mm which is equiv to about 25 on leica film camera) are not like reflex camera wide lenses... schneider is very very close to the film/sensor plane. it seems that alpa has no problems at all... why??? cause the lenses are more optimized for digital? or the sensor and digi back is far better? or the fact that schneider lenses are far more moderate in their aperture (f5.6), unlike leica super fast lenses??? but schneider has huge image ciryle coverage from the other hand (and maybe need to use center filter in some cases to avoid vignating and light falloff)??? what is the differance regarding this issue of distance between the sensor and the lens ??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted November 8, 2006 Share #26 Posted November 8, 2006 one issue that i dont clearly underswtand - the referance to the film plane distance from the lens in case of leica m and slr cameras?? ... what is the differance regarding this issue of distance between the sensor and the lens ??? Because the Leica Ms are rangefinders, they do not have a mirror between the lens and "film". This allowed the camera/lens designers to create a "thinner" camera (distance between the bayonet and film). This also allowed them to create lens that did not have a constraint of being further from the film plane than were SLRs (which needed to clear the mirror). Anyway... The fact that the rear element of M lenses is much closer to the "film" means that the angle at which it touches the film is greater. Because digital requires glass in front of the sensor, this glass can disturb the light coming from the lens and trying to reach the sensor. The thicker the glass, the larger the disruption... I hope this explains it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted November 8, 2006 Share #27 Posted November 8, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) jr.. all this is very very well known to me... read my questions... i give example of another camera that uses lenses that are so close to the film/sensor plane.. this is alpa with schnider lenses that are extrimly close to the sensor. the point is that alpa uses digital medium backs that are exactly the same as on the reflex cameras like hassleblads v and h for example... but there seems to be no problem at all in that combination in case of alpa. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted November 8, 2006 Share #28 Posted November 8, 2006 I've just bought a B+W UV/IR blocking filter (486) which I guess is very similar to the one that Leica are going to sell (and probably at a fraction of the price). It's coming from Germany so may take a few days to get here. My M8 obviously won't have the benefit of the firmware update mentioned nor are my lenses 6-bit coded but I'll keep the list posted if the filter reduces the magenta cast problem. Now try ordering that in E60 size for a Nocti. I've been waiting 10 weeks for delivery of a ND filter from B+W in that size with no indication of when I will actually receive it. In my opinion, it hardly seem fair that WE need to solve this problem by spending several hundred more on 6 bit coding and special filters. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samir Jahjah Posted November 8, 2006 Share #29 Posted November 8, 2006 Christian Erhardt Statement 1: The filter is supplied as an accessory with a special firmware adjustment, which will be available shortly after the planned market launch of the camera at the end of November 2006. -------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted November 8, 2006 Share #30 Posted November 8, 2006 One word "speechless" I am going out and eat the biggest steak I can get and drink this away because in the morning someone will have to bend over and kiss there ass goodbye, and it won't be me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivek Iyer Posted November 8, 2006 Share #31 Posted November 8, 2006 Thanks for this thread and the information. I have been trying find something positive (quite the opposite of most folks) on the UV and IR sensitivity of the Kodak sensor as it is implemented in the M8. UV and IR can be easily taken care of as Leica suggests by using a proper UV/IR cut filter (Rodenstock, B+W, etc sell them in various sizes). I know the CCD in Epson R-D1(s) is quite useful for UV captures as well as for false color IR captures. It is welcome news to hear about the IR sensitivity of M8. I still have no clue about the UV sensitivity (See: http://filmlives.net/community//netscape6/viewtopic.php?t=261). I found a Leica M8 owner in the UK who is willing to experiment and I may send him a suitable visible blocking, UV transmitting filter plus an UV capable (most modern M lenses will not pass much UV) lens to figure it out. Any M8 owners in the Netherlands who would let me check for UV sensitivity? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted November 8, 2006 Share #32 Posted November 8, 2006 Sean, this is all very interesting. Thank you for posting. I haven't purchased the camera but I am following the discussion with interest. It appears that at this time their is no acceptable solution from Leica. Has anyone asked for a refund???? Cheers, Wilfredo+ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted November 8, 2006 Share #33 Posted November 8, 2006 jr.. all this is very very well known to me... read my questions... i give example of another camera that uses lenses that are so close to the film/sensor plane.. this is alpa with schnider lenses that are extrimly close to the sensor. the point is that alpa uses digital medium backs that are exactly the same as on the reflex cameras like hassleblads v and h for example... but there seems to be no problem at all in that combination in case of alpa. Reading comprehension was never my strong point... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
baloo Posted November 8, 2006 Share #34 Posted November 8, 2006 It doesn’t make any sense Buy a camera that is not ready and to make it work buy a filter and have the lenses coded and what after that... this make no sense and the worst part is that I’m going to take delivery of my m8 tomorrow I think I’m nuts help me.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted November 8, 2006 Share #35 Posted November 8, 2006 Now try ordering that in E60 size for a Nocti. I've been waiting 10 weeks for delivery of a ND filter from B+W in that size with no indication of when I will actually receive it. In my opinion, it hardly seem fair that WE need to solve this problem by spending several hundred more on 6 bit coding and special filters. I now it's not what anyone want to read... but the IR cut filter will solve the issue... I believe Adorama has the 60mm in stock: B + W 60mm UV/IR Blocking #486 Wide Angle Slim Mount Glass Filter for Blocking Ultra Violet and Infrared Radiation Maybe we can do a group buy and get a big discount from B+W Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 8, 2006 Share #36 Posted November 8, 2006 Now try ordering that in E60 size for a Nocti. I've been waiting 10 weeks for delivery of a ND filter from B+W in that size with no indication of when I will actually receive it. Strangely enough it seemed easier to get the larger sizes than the smaller ones. It took a while to find anybody stocking the filter in E46 size. In my opinion, it hardly seem fair that WE need to solve this problem by spending several hundred more on 6 bit coding and special filters. I don't disagree. I only mentioned that I was buying the UV/IR filter because it was inexpensive (30 quid plus postage) and worth giving a go as an interim solution. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucek Posted November 8, 2006 Share #37 Posted November 8, 2006 It is welcome news to hear about the IR sensitivity of M8. I still have no clue about the UV sensitivity I did some preliminary testing with my M8 using the UV pass filter that I use on my modified Sony and the M8 seemed to be as sensitive to UV as it is to IR. I believe it's supposed to be sunny here tomorrow (at some point). If it is I will try to make some (non-artistic) photos with the M8 using both the IR and UV filters and will post same. Bruce Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted November 8, 2006 Share #38 Posted November 8, 2006 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'Ate Posted November 8, 2006 Share #39 Posted November 8, 2006 grober, I just posted this on another thread, but this is painful: The consequence of this news is - - $5,000 for the body on order. - $3,000 for the 24mm lens I bought especially to retain 'moderate' wide angle - $400 for the coding of 4 lenses - $400 for the 4 IR filters Grand total $8,800 (Sorry, need a second body in the long run, for an alternative focal length lens & backup. Not peculiar to Leica by the way. New Grand total $13,800 ) If Mrs M'Ate asks why - to speed up my workflow 'after' using the beloved M3 and MP and edging the quality towards MF. I need a better reason, or business case, to stay at this table. All this is on top of an existing Leica M investment of $9,000. Doesn't it mount up ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share #40 Posted November 8, 2006 As a proposed fix I don't see this working, sorry. No need to apologize to me, I'm just reporting the news, not making it. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.